Opinion ID: 2812091
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preemption under the Second Richardson Prong

Text: First, the Plaintiffs argue that “there is no conflict between the Ordinance and Hawaii Revised Statutes. . . .” We disagree and affirm the ICA’s clear holding that “the LLEP conflicts with, and is thus preempted by state law governing the investigation and prosecution of alleged violations of the Hawaii Penal Code concerning the adult personal use of cannabis,” namely HRS Chapter 329 (the Hawaii Uniform Controlled Substances Act) and HRS §§ 712-1247(1)(e) (1993) (promoting a detrimental drug in the first degree); -1248(1)(c) (1993) (promoting a detrimental drug in the second degree); and 14  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  -1249(1) (1993) (promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree). 132 Hawaii at 515-16, 323 P.3d at 159-60. Expanding on the ICA’s analysis, the LLEP also conflicts with state law requiring the state attorney general and county prosecuting attorney to investigate and prosecute violations of the statewide Penal Code. HRS § 28-2.5(b) (2009) delineates the investigative powers of the attorney general and county prosecuting attorneys when conducting criminal investigations. Pursuant to HRS § 28-2 (2009), the attorney general “shall be vigilant and active in detecting offenders against the laws of the State, and shall prosecute the same with diligence.” HRS § 26-7 (2009) does state that “unless otherwise provided by law, [the department of the attorney general shall] prosecute cases involving violations of state laws. . . .” The phrase as “otherwise provided by law” does not, however, countenance laws such as the LLEP. Rather, it recognizes that, although “the attorney general, as the chief legal officer for the State,” has “the ultimate responsibility for enforcing penal laws of statewide application,” “[t]he public prosecutor . . . has been delegated the primary authority and responsibility for initiating and conducting criminal prosecutions within his county jurisdiction.” Amemiya v. Sapienza, 63 Haw. 424, 427, 629 P.2d 1126, 1129 (1981). Thus, although the county prosecutor has been delegated primary prosecutorial duties, 15  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  under Hawaii County Charter § 9-3(a)(2) (2010), the duties of the prosecuting attorney for the County of Hawaii include “[p]rosecut[ing] offenses against the laws of the State under the authority of the attorney general of the State.” Therefore, county laws such as the LLEP cannot usurp the attorney general’s duty, delegated to the prosecuting attorney, to prosecute violations of the statewide penal code. Therefore, the ICA correctly ruled that the LLEP conflicts with, and is thus preempted by, state law governing the investigation and prosecution of alleged violations of the Hawaii Penal Code.