Editorial: Police officer disclosure

Two Hawaii cases in the news this week involving fired police officers underscored the public-safety aspect of a new law change: to publicly identify police officers who have been suspended, not just fired, for misconduct.

Act 47 was signed into law on Sept. 15, requiring the disclosure of police officers’ suspension information — the same as for all other government employees. In 1995, under police-union lobbying, a legal exemption for police was carved out; since then, good-government groups had pressed to revoke the disclosure shield, rightly saying that more transparency serves the public interest against misconduct and corruption.

Among other things, today’s amended Hawaii Revised Statutes section 92F-14(b) removes the disclosure exception for police officers. Noted the state Office of Information Practices: “Now, county police officers are treated like all other state and county government employees whose misconduct information is publicly disclosable after the grievance adjustment period has run for suspensions and not just for discharges. “

As for the recent cases of the two discharged police officers: The public nature of their cases remind that even amid mostly solid police forces, bad acts must be revealed to discourage others:

>> On Tuesday, former Honolulu officer Kramer Aoki was sentenced to 14 days in jail for fondling a teenage girl he had stopped for speeding in 2014. In the fourth-degree sexual assault case, Aoki was granted a deferral of a no-contest plea. If Aoki complies with the deferral terms, the lenient sentence allows him to wipe his conviction from the record and to stay off the sex offender registry.

>> Brandon Saffeels, fired from the Maui Police Department in November, was charged earlier this year with Honest Services Wire Fraud, a federal crime that carries up to 20 years in prison. The charge stemmed from allegations of inappropriate behavior lodged against Saffeels by four women, separately, for inappropriate texts and solicitation.

As with any misconduct, going undetected enables bad behavior; being publicly identified upon suspension should be a deterrent against worse behavior. At least, the public now has more information about suspended police officers who remain in the ranks and retain authority, which unchecked, could lead to further abuse of power.

Most police officers are community assets, risking much for the public. But disclosure of suspension-level misconduct is a needed warning light, and certainly is in the interest of public safety.