Opinion ID: 6499452
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Amicus Curiae Brief

Text: The International Municipal Lawyers Association, Inc. (the IMLA)15 filed a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the Chiefs of Police, which the ICA granted. The IMLA explained that mutual aid by law enforcement is an essential form of intergovernmental cooperation that is common both in Hawaiʻi16 and throughout the United States. According to the IMLA, mutual aid “enables jurisdictions to access additional resources when the need arises . . . [and] to effectively utilize all available resources, coordinate planning, and minimize conflict in order to ensure a timely and efficient response.” The IMLA noted that the sharing of resources within Hawaiʻi is especially important because people and resources are not evenly distributed throughout the state17 15 The IMLA described itself and its interest in this case as follows: The [IMLA] is a non-profit, professional organization that has been an advocate and resource for local government lawyers since 1935. IMLA serves as an international clearinghouse of legal information and cooperation on municipal legal matters. IMLA has a significant interest in the issue presented here, which is the validity of mutual aid agreements between and among local and municipal governments, including agreements relating to the sharing of law enforcement resources. 16 The IMLA cited as recent examples of mutual aid in Hawaiʻi the disaster responses after Hurricane Iniki in 1992 and after the eruption of Kilauea in 2018. 17 One example of this uneven distribution of resources is that Honolulu County covers approximately 600 square miles, but has four times the number 16  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  and help from neighboring states cannot arrive in a timely fashion. Second, the IMLA argued that mutual aid is authorized by HRS § 78-27, which provides for temporary assignment of personnel between state agencies, and by HRS § 127A, which provides for rendering of mutual aid during an emergency. The IMLA noted that the Legislature enacted HRS chapter 127A to “ensure that the preparations of this State will be adequate” to address the “existing and increasing possibility of the occurrence of disasters or emergencies.” Specifically, HRS § 127A-12(c)(2) permits county mayors to “‘[s]ponsor and develop mutual aid plans and agreements for emergency management between one or more counties’ for the provision of various services, including ‘police services’ and ‘personnel necessary to provide or conduct those services.’” (Alteration in original.) The IMLA observed that even absent specific statutory authority, courts in other jurisdictions have upheld intergovernmental agreements for mutual aid under general principles of contract law. Third, the IMLA maintained that HRS § 52D-5, Hawaiʻi’s hot- or fresh-pursuit statute, does not limit the ability of of police officers as the County of Hawaiʻi, which covers more than 4,000 square miles. 17  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  municipalities to enter into law enforcement mutual aid agreements. The IMLA suggested distinguishing between a mutualaid statute, which benefits the receiving agency, and a hotpursuit statute which benefits the sending agency. According to the IMLA, “one is not a substitute for the other, nor does one preclude the other.” Thus, the IMLA urged the ICA to affirm the circuit court and send a “clear signal . . . that mutual aid agreements like the one at issue here are broadly authorized under HRS § 78-27.”