Don't Destroy Police Disciplinary Files Just Yet, Hawaii Lawmakers Say


By Nick Grube  

Nick Grube/Honolulu Civil Beat
A Honolulu police cruiser on the corner of 10th and Waialae avenues.
Hawaii lawmakers want the chance to research police misconduct without being told an officer’s disciplinary file has already been destroyed.
On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee passed a bill that seeks to increase transparency about bad behavior inside Hawaii’s county police departments by forcing agencies to include more information in annual misconduct reports to the Legislature.
But the committee also amended the measure to force county departments to hold on to fired officers’ disciplinary files for at least 18 months after those annual reports are submitted.
The original version of the bill — introduced by Rep. Karl Rhaods, who chairs the Judiciary Committee — only called on departments to keep a fired cop’s file for six months.
“We wanted to extend it to 18 months,” Rhoads said. “We were concerned that if it were only six months long that when the reports come to us we would not be able to review anything.”
House Bill 1812 seeks to shed more light on the misconduct that takes place inside Hawaii’s four county police departments for forcing those agencies to disclose more information about bad cops.
Each year county police chiefs are required to submit a report the Legislature that provides a brief summary of misconduct incidents and whether an officer was suspended or discharged.
No names are provided, and the reader is often left guessing as to what actually transpired. There’s also no way to tell if a disciplinary action has been overturned as a result of a union grievance procedure.
But HB 1812 propose to increase the amount of information given to lawmakers in the annual reports. Not only would the bill require better descriptions of the misconduct, but it would also note which incidents constituted criminal conduct and whether an officer was prosecuted.
The bill would also require county police departments to describe whether an officer has appealed a disciplinary action and whether it was still proceeding through a union grievance process.
HB 1812 has a companion bill in the Senate that also passed another legislative hurdle Tuesday. Senate Bill 2591 — introduced by Sen. WIll Espero — was approved by the Sen. Clayton Hee’s Judiciary Committee after first passing out of the Senate Public Safety Committee.
The State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers (SHOPO) is the only group to oppose the bills so far.
In written testimony, SHOPO President Tenari Ma’afala said that providing more details about misconduct could lead to the identification of police officers.
He also said the bills contradict Hawaii’s public records law, the Uniform Information Practices Act, that states that only the details on discharged officers can be made public.
SHOPO did not oppose the provisions that would force county police departments to identify which incidents were committed by the same officer.
The union also did not oppose saying in the reports whether an officer has fully exhausted the grievance process.
Support for the bill comes from the Society of Professional Journalists Hawaii Chapter and the Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest.
In written testimony SPJ President Stirling Morita blamed the Legislature for making police officers’ names secret.
He recounted the story of how the Legislature in 1995 exempted suspended cops from having to reveal details about their misconduct at the behest of SHOPO.
At that time, the union was on the losing end of a legal battle with a group of University of Hawaii journalism students who wanted police disciplinary records.
Morita noted that the Legislature in 1995 required the annual misconduct reports to be submitted as a way to measure whether the secrecy was warranted.
“But we wonder how the public and the Legislature can gauge whether the law is having bad results because the summaries of offenses are so bereft of details,” Morita said. “How can anyone get a picture of offenses within a police department with such inadequate descriptions as hindering a federal investigation?”
He added that giving the public more detail about the various incidents of misconduct would identify individual officers. Rather he said it would give the public a better handle on whether the police department, its administration and the police commission were providing adequate oversight.
“This bill does not violate any privacy rights of the individual police officers,” Morita said. “Please pass this bill.”
Both HB 1812 and SB 2591 were drafted in response to Civil Beat’s series, In The Name of the Law, that examined police misconduct and the secrecy surrounding it.
Should the bills become law, it would help reverse what has been a decades long trend to cover up police misconduct in the Hawaiian isles.
Civil Beat also recently won a lawsuit that challenged the confidentiality surrounding suspended police officers.
Should that ruling stand it could mean that all suspended and discharged police officers’ disciplinary files will be publicly available and the records haven't been destroyed.