Opinion ID: 6499452
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: ICA’s Published Opinion

Text: The ICA published its opinion on January 27, 2021. Flores v. Ballard, 149 Hawaiʻi 81, 482 P.3d 544 (App. 2021). The ICA affirmed the circuit court’s judgment on other grounds.18 Id. at 92, 482 P.3d at 555. As relevant here, the ICA considered whether HRS § 52D-5 was implicated by HPD and MPD officers assisting Chief Ferreira on Mauna Kea. Id. at 88-89, 482 P.3d at 551-52. The ICA reasoned that HRS § 52D-5 applies when a sending police department seeks permission to exercise police authority in 18 The ICA cited Tauese v. State, Dep’t of Labor & Indus. Relations, 113 Hawaiʻi 1, 15 n.6, 147 P.3d 785, 799 n.6 (2006), for the proposition that “the result will not be disturbed on the ground that the circuit court gave the wrong reason for its ruling.” Flores v. Ballard, 149 Hawaiʻi 81, 88, 482 P.3d 544, 551 (App. 2021). The ICA noted that “[i]n our de novo review we ‘may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any ground appearing in the record, even if the circuit court did not rely on it.’” Id. (citation omitted). 18  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  another county “in the pursuit of any investigation commenced within” the sending agency’s home county. Id. at 89, 482 P.3d at 552. But here, the ICA noted, it was Chief Ferreira who requested officers from HPD and MPD “to assist HCPD in handling matters on Hawaiʻi Island that strained HCPD’s resources.” Id. According to the ICA, “[n]either Chief Ballard nor Chief Faaumu purported to exercise police authority in the County of Hawaiʻi ‘in the pursuit of any investigation commenced within’ the City and County of Honolulu or the County of Maui.” Id. (quoting HRS § 52D-5). Thus, the ICA concluded that HRS § 52D-5 was neither implicated nor violated19 and “[i]t was thus appropriate for the circuit court to dismiss Flores’s complaint based upon the alleged violation of HRS § 52D-5 by the Chiefs of Police.” Id. Second, the ICA considered whether there was other statutory authority for HPD and MPD to support HCPD’s TMT-related operations. Id. at 89-91, 482 P.3d at 552-54. Specifically, the ICA considered whether the Inter-Departmental Agreements were authorized by HRS § 78-27, as Chief Ballard argued. Id. The ICA pointed out that HRS § 78-27(d) provides parameters for the type of agreement: An agreement consistent with this section and policies of the employer shall be made between the sending and receiving agencies on matters relating to the assignment or 19 The ICA did not reach the issue of whether HRS § 52D-5 creates a private right of action because it concluded that the statute was not violated. Id. at 89, 482 P.3d at 552. 19  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  exchange, including but not limited to supervision of duties, costs of salary and benefits, and travel and transportation expenses; provided that the agreement shall not diminish any rights or benefits to which an employee of a governmental unit of this State is entitled under this section. Id. at 90, 482 P.3d at 553. The ICA noted that HRS § 78-27 contemplates that county police departments could be both “sending” and “receiving” agencies, because “Act 253 of the 2000 legislative session, which resulted in the enactment of HRS § 78-27, mentions ‘police’ three times.”20 Id. The ICA reasoned that HRS § 78-27 “protects the temporarily assigned police officers’ civil service, collective bargaining, workers’ compensation, and other employment rights and benefits during the temporary assignment.”21 Id. Thus, the ICA concluded that 20 The ICA pointed out that “[s]ection 74 refers to workers compensation benefits for police officers. Section 96 refers to a collective bargaining unit for police officers. Section 100 refers to resolution of labor grievances involving the police officers’ collective bargaining unit. 2000 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 253.” Id. at 90 n.8, 482 P.3d at 553 n.8. 21 The ICA also noted that the Inter-Departmental Agreements contained the following provisions consistent with HRS § 78-27(d): 3. It is the understanding of the parties that the State Attorney General’s Office has agreed to pay for and/or reimburse the Sending Agency for the costs, any portion of the costs, overtime, benefits, and travel and transportation expenses on behalf of the Receiving Agency. However, HCPD shall ultimately be responsible for said costs and expenses should the State Attorney General’s Office fail to pay for and/or reimburse the Sending Agency for any expenditures related to the TMT Project and any other assignment as deemed necessary by the HCPD Chief of Police or his designee with the approval of [HPD/MPD]. Such expenses may be paid for or reimbursed to the [HPD/MPD]. 4. The [HPD/MPD] personnel are to carry out and observe all lawful instructions and orders issued by the 20  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  HRS § 78-27 authorized the Inter-Departmental Agreements for the temporary assignment of HPD and MPD officers to support HCPD. Id. at 91, 482 P.3d at 554. Third, the ICA considered whether HPD and MPD officers were authorized to exercise police powers within the County of Hawaiʻi — which was the conduct specifically challenged by Flores in his lawsuit. Id. at 91-92, 482 P.3d at 554-55. The Delegations signed by Chief Ferreira and attached to each of the Inter-Departmental Agreements state: Under the authority of the Chief of Police, of Hawaiʻi County Police Department, the following officers of the [HPD/MPD] (please see attached list), are granted full police officer power, privilege and authority, under HRS [§] 52D-5. The purpose of this delegation of authority, while assigned to Hawaiʻi [C]ounty will be to support and manage police operations in conjunction with the Thirty Meter Telescope project and any other assignment as deemed necessary by the Hawaiʻi County Police Chief or his designee. This delegation of Police authority shall be effective from July 16, 2019 until the end of police appointing authority or designee relative to employment. 5. The [HPD/MPD] personnel shall perform all of the work under the supervision of an immediate supervisor in the Sending Agency or any other person in the Receiving Agency who has the authority to supervise the activities. . . . . 9. This employment will be subject to all laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations having the effect of law governing employment of public employees; and 10. Any and all collective bargaining agreements pertinent to [HPD/MPD] personnel’s regular positions with the [HPD/MPD] shall apply, including but not limited to salary. Id. at 90-91, 482 P.3d at 553-54. 21  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  operations for this project as deemed necessary by the Hawaiʻi County Chief of Police. Id. at 91, 482 P.3d at 554 (emphasis added). The ICA described the Delegations’ citation to HRS § 52D-5 as “inapt,” because that statute “does not apply to the circumstances described by the Delegations.” Id. However, the ICA surmised that Chief Ferreira was authorized to delegate police powers to HPD and MPD officers by other statutes: HRS §§ 52D-3,22 52D-6,23 and Article VII, Chapter 224 of the CCH (CCH Article VII). Id. at 91-92, 482 P.3d at 554- 22 HRS § 52D-3 (2012) provides: “The chief of police shall have the powers and duties as prescribed by law, the respective county charter, and as provided by this chapter.” 23 HRS § 52D-6 (2012) provides: “The chief of police may appoint officers and other employees under such rules and at such salaries as are authorized by law. Probationary appointment, suspension, and dismissal of officers and employees of the police department shall be as authorized by law.” (Emphasis added.) 24 Article VII, Chapter 2 of the CCH (2018) provides, in relevant part: Section 7-2.1. Organization. There shall be a police department consisting of a police commission, a chief of police, a deputy chief of police, and the necessary staff. . . . . Section 7-2.4. Powers, Duties, and Functions of the Chief of Police. The chief of police shall be the administrative head of the police department and shall:
public peace, prevention of crime, detection and arrest of offenders against the law, protection of the rights of persons and property, and enforcement and prevention of violations of all laws of the state and 22  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  55. Specifically, the ICA reasoned that (1) HRS § 52D-3 grants each chief of police “the powers and duties as prescribed by law, the respective county charter, and as provided by this chapter[;]” (2) CCH Article VII § 7-2.4(b) empowers the chief of HCPD to “[t]rain, equip, maintain, and supervise the force of police officers[;]” and (3) HRS § 52D-6 allows the chief of police to “appoint officers . . . under such rules . . . as are authorized by law.” Id. The ICA described the relationship between HRS § 78-27 and the statutes authorizing Chief Ferreira’s delegation of authority as follows: HRS § 78-27 is a law that authorizes Chief Ferreira to temporarily receive police officers from another county’s police department to support HCPD operations on Hawaiʻi Island. HRS § 78-27 also authorizes Chief Ballard and Chief Faaumu to temporarily assign police officers from their respective departments to another county’s police department. The Hawaiʻi County Charter and HRS Chapter 52D authorize Chief Ferreira to appoint and supervise police officers in the County of Hawaiʻi, including those temporarily assigned to Hawaiʻi Island from Honolulu and Maui counties. ordinances of the county and all regulations made in accordance therewith. (b) Train, equip, maintain, and supervise the force of police officers and employees. . . . . (e) Have such other powers, duties, and functions as may be required by the police commission or provided by law. (Emphasis added.) 23  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  Id. at 92, 482 P.3d at 555. Thus, the ICA held that “[a]pplying the plain language of HRS §§ 52D-3, 52D-6, and 78-27, and Chapter 2 of the Hawaiʻi County Charter, in pari materia . . . execution and performance of the Agreements and the Delegations by the Chiefs of Police in this case was authorized by law.” Id. Accordingly, the ICA affirmed the circuit court’s November 12, 2019 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss and Judgment in favor of the Chiefs of Police. Id. The ICA entered its corresponding Judgment on Appeal on February 24, 2021. Flores filed an application for writ of certiorari on April 22, 2021.