Suspended police officers might be named

The names of police officers who are suspended for a year or more could be disclosed to state lawmakers under a measure moving through the Legislature.

Senate and House lawmakers are considering companion bills that would amend police misconduct disclosure laws by requiring inclusion of more details in annual reports submitted to the Legislature by county police chiefs.

Rep. Karl Rhoads, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he added a provision in the House version before the crossover deadline, and in the Senate bill on Friday, that amends the Uniform Information Practices Act to allow for the disclosure of officers’ names; the nature of the misconduct; a summary of the allegations, facts and legal conclusions; and any disciplinary action taken regarding suspended county police department officers.

The bill, however, stipulates that disclosure will occur only when the highest nonjudicial grievance adjustment procedure is concluded, a written decision is issued following the conclusion of the grievance process, and 30 days have passed since the decision was handed down.

Current law, which applies to all other public employees, exempts suspended police officers — but not discharged officers — from having that information disclosed under any circumstances.

Rhoads (D, Chinatown-Iwilei-Kalihi) said he amended the Senate bill to allow for the names of suspended officers to be disclosed only when the suspension is a year or longer because of the high number of one-, two- and three-day suspensions in the report. "It didn’t seem like it was really necessary to reveal those names," he said.

Sen. Will Espero, who introduced one of the bills, said he approves of Rhoads’ amendments.

"I think they make the bill more in line with other government workers in terms of notification," he said Monday.

Espero, chairman of the Senate Public Safety, Intergovernmental and Military Affairs Committee, is set to hear the House bill Tuesday afternoon.

"The good news is that both bills are still alive," said Espero (D, Ewa Beach-Iroquois Point). "Both bills still have support in each house, and hopefully we’ll be able to get one of them to pass."

According to the current drafts of Senate Bill 2591 and House Bill 1812, county police chiefs would be required to submit a list to the Legislature by Jan. 31 of police misconduct that occurred from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 of the previous year and resulted in suspension or discharge.

As dictated by the Legislature, annual reports would have to identify incidents that were committed by the same officer. Currently, the reports are required to include only a summary of the facts and nature of the misconduct and disciplinary action taken.

The State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers has submitted testimony throughout the session opposing both bills.

SHOPO said in its written testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Friday that "the wheel is not broken and doesn’t need fixing."

It continued, "The chiefs of police of the county police departments already have internal policies in place to investigate police misconduct and to impose discipline. The chiefs are accountable to their respective Police Commissions for handling misconduct. These commissions are made up of citizens from our community."

SHOPO contends that the annual reports already include sufficient information, and including details regarding particular incidents could inadvertently reveal officers’ identities.

The nonprofit Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest, however, disagrees.

Executive Director Brian Black explained in written testimony that reports reveal cases in which unidentified officers have lied to other law enforcement personnel, hindered investigations, assaulted others and committed hit-and-runs, among other infractions, with suspensions ranging from one to 626 days, but that vague wording, such as "Hindered a federal investigation … 626 days" or "Pled guilty to criminal charges … one day" appear in the annual report.

Rhoades too said there is room for the reports to be more detailed while keeping certain identities confidential.

The Senate bill now faces two rounds of voting before the full House, while the House bill faces the Senate Judiciary and Labor Committee if it moves out of Espero’s committee Tuesday.