Opinion ID: 2812091
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Severability Clause

Text: Third, the Plaintiffs point out that Section 14-105 contains a severability clause, which reads In the event, and only in the event, that a court of competent jurisdiction should find one or more of the sections, or parts of the sections of this article illegal, or any provision of this article or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the article and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. Plaintiffs argue, “Neither the circuit court nor the intermediate court of appeals have addressed any section of the 19  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Ordinance, other than the following subsections: HCC § 14-99(c); HCC § 14-99(d); and HCC § 101(a).” Section 14-99(c) prohibits county prosecuting attorneys and law enforcement from being deputized or commissioned by a federal law enforcement agency for investigating cannabis offenses. Sections 14-99(d) and -101(a) prohibit the Hawaii County Council, county prosecuting attorneys, or law enforcement from using public funds for the investigation and prosecution of cannabis offenses. Presumably, the Plaintiffs intend for only these provisions to be severed from the LLEP and invalidated. In this case, however, the LLEP’s overarching mandate is the decriminalization of the adult personal use of marijuana. Section 14-96(5) states that the purpose of the LLEP is to “[r]educe the fear of prosecution and the stigma of criminality from non-violent citizens who harmlessly cultivate and/or use cannabis for personal, medicinal, religious, and recreational purposes.” This purpose is supported by the following finding: “Law abiding adults are being arrested and imprisoned for nonviolent cannabis offenses, clogging our court dockets, overcrowding our prisons, tying up valuable law enforcement resources and costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in Hawaiʻi County alone each year.” Section 14-97(f). Section 14-98 defines “Lowest Law Enforcement Priority” in a way that calls for law enforcement officials to prioritize the 20  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  possession and cultivation of 24 or fewer marijuana plants (or the possession of 24 or fewer ounces of usable cannabis) by persons over 21 years of age on private property at the absolute lowest level. In service of decriminalizing adult personal use of cannabis, the following emphasized provisions directly prohibit the police and prosecutors from investigating and prosecuting adult personal use of cannabis, as defined under Section 14-98. The following emphasized provisions also prohibit the county, police, and prosecutors from engaging in indirect activities (such as using public funds and seeking federal deputization) related to the investigation and prosecution of adult personal use of cannabis, as defined under Section 14-98: Section 14-99. Lowest law enforcement priority policy relating to the adult personal use of cannabis. (a) The cultivation, possession and use for adult personal use of cannabis shall be the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority for law enforcement agencies in the county. (b) The council, the police commissioner, the chief of police and all associated law enforcement staff, deputies, officers and any attorney prosecuting on behalf of the county shall make law enforcement activity relating to cannabis offenses, where the cannabis was intended for adult personal use, their Lowest Law Enforcement Priority. Law enforcement activities relating to cannabis offenses include but are not limited to the prosecution of cannabis offenses involving only the adult personal use of cannabis. (c) Neither the chief of police, the police commissioner, nor any attorney prosecuting on behalf of the county, nor any associated law enforcement staff, deputies, nor officers shall seek, accept or renew any formal or informal deputization or commission by a federal law enforcement agency for the purpose of investigating, citing, or arresting adults, nor for searching or seizing property from adults for cannabis offenses subject to the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of cannabis where such activities would be in violation of that policy, nor shall such authorities exercise such powers that may be ancillary to deputization or commissioning for another purpose. 21  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  (d) The council shall not authorize the acceptance or the issuing of any funding that is intended to be used to investigate, cite, arrest, prosecute, search or seize property from adults for cannabis offenses in a manner inconsistent with the county’s Lowest Law Enforcement Priority policy. Section 14-100. County prosecuting attorneys. To the full extent allowed by the Constitution of the State of Hawaiʻi, the people, through their county government, request that neither the county prosecuting attorney nor any attorney prosecuting on behalf of the county shall prosecute any violations of the sections of chapter 712-1240 of the Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes regarding possession or cultivation of cannabis in a manner inconsistent with the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority, as described in section 14-98 and 14-99 of this article; in cases where the amount possessed or grown is less than twenty four plants or the dried equivalent, possession for adult personal use shall be presumed. Section 14-101. Expenditure of funds for cannabis enforcement. (a) Neither the council, nor the police commissioner, nor the chief of police, nor any attorneys prosecuting on behalf of the county, nor any associated law enforcement staff, deputies, or officers shall spend or authorize the expenditure of any public funds for the investigation, arrest, or prosecution of any person, nor for the search or seizure of any property in a manner inconsistent with the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority as defined in section 14-98 and 14-99 of this article. (b) The council shall not support the acceptance of any funds for the marijuana eradication program. Also of note, miscellaneous provisions in the LLEP direct further action premised upon the validity of the Lowest Law Enforcement Policy. First, Section 14-102, entitled “Community oversight,” directs the Hawaiʻi County Council to provide “procedures to receive grievances from individuals who believe that they were subjected to law enforcement activity contrary to the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of cannabis,” and to “[p]ublish a report semi-annually on the implementation of this chapter. . . .” Second, Section 14-103, entitled “Notification 22  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  of local, state, and federal officials,” requires the county clerk to send an annual letter to local, state, and federal government officials, requesting “that Cannabis policies here within the county of Hawaiʻi be dealt with from our local law enforcement only.” In short, every section of the LLEP (with the exception of non-substantive Section 14-104, entitled “Statutory and constitutional interpretation,” and non-substantive Section 14-105, entitled “Severability”) directs the county, county officials, police, and/or prosecutors to cease investigating and prosecuting violations of HRS 329, which lists marijuana as a controlled substance under Schedule I, and HRS §§ 712-1247(1)(e), -1248(1)(c), and -1249(1), which criminalize knowing possession of marijuana, in amounts ranging from “any amount” to “one pound or more.” Therefore, invalidation of all of the LLEP was necessary. Every substantive section of the LLEP conflicts with, and is therefore preempted by, state law.