Court Opinion

ID: 9377396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 19:03:22.75443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:13.912796
License: Public Domain

***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

                                                                Electronically Filed
                                                                Supreme Court
                                                                SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                                07-MAR-2023
                                                                08:28 AM
                                                                Dkt. 21 OP

             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

                            ---o0o---
________________________________________________________________

        CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, by the DEPARTMENT OF THE
        CORPORATION COUNSEL, Petitioner/Appellant-Appellant,

                                      vs.

   HONOLULU POLICE COMMISSION, Respondent/Appellee-Appellee,
                               and
                   LOUIS M. KEALOHA, Appellee.
________________________________________________________________

                              SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX

           CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
              (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; Civil No. 1CC191000907)

                                MARCH 7, 2023

       RECKTENWALD, C.J., McKENNA, WILSON, AND EDDINS, JJ., AND
       CIRCUIT JUDGE KAWANO, IN PLACE OF NAKAYAMA, J., RECUSED

                  OPINION OF THE COURT BY McKENNA, J.

                              I. Introduction

       This opinion addresses whether Chief Louis Kealoha

(“Kealoha”) was entitled to a city-paid attorney to defend him

against federal criminal charges.           Kealoha was Chief of Police

for the Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”).            In 2017 and 2018,
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

indictments were filed in the United States District Court for

the District of Hawaiʻi against Kealoha, his wife Katherine

Kealoha (together, “the Kealohas”), and additional HPD officers.

Kealoha asked the City and County of Honolulu (“the City”) to

provide him with a defense attorney.          The Department of the

Corporation Counsel of the City and County of Honolulu (“Corp

Counsel”) recommended that the Honolulu Police Commission (“the

Commission”) deny the request.         After a contested case hearing,

the Commission ruled Kealoha was entitled to representation.

       The Commission decided Kealoha met the requirements for

representation under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 52D-8

(2012) and Rules of the Honolulu Police Commission (“RHPC”) Rule

11-1(e) (2018).      The Commission concluded four acts alleged in

the first superseding indictment entitled Kealoha to

representation because they were done in the performance of

Kealoha’s duty as a police officer, even if unlawful and

regardless of motive.

       The City appealed.     The Commission’s decision was affirmed

by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (“circuit court”) and

the Intermediate Court of Appeals (“ICA”).           The ICA concluded

Kealoha’s actions were done in the performance of his duty as a

police officer because they are the kinds of tasks a police

chief generally performs.

                                       2
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

       Preliminarily, we agree with the ICA’s conclusions that the

“complaint allegation” rule governing the duty to defend by

insurance companies and the “scope of employment” test are

inapplicable to HRS § 52D-8 determinations.            We also agree with

the ICA that Kealoha was not required to testify at the

contested case hearing.

       We disagree, however, with the analytical approaches and

conclusions below regarding Kealoha’s entitlement to

representation.      We instead hold as follows: (1) pursuant to the

plain language of HRS § 52D-8, a police officer is entitled to

representation only “for acts done in the performance of the

officer’s duty as a police officer”; (2) RHPC Rule 11-1(e)

cannot expand rights of representation conferred by HRS § 52D-8;

(3) the officer has the burden of establishing entitlement to

representation; (4) the Commission should examine the entire

record to determine whether an officer is being prosecuted for

acts done in the performance of the officer’s duty as a police

officer; and (5) based on the record before the Commission,

Kealoha did not meet his burden of establishing entitlement to

representation.

       We therefore reverse the Commission’s May 10, 2019,

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order

(“decision”), the circuit court’s December 2, 2020 final

judgment, and the ICA’s April 21, 2022 judgment on appeal.

                                       3
    ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

                                  II. Background

A.        Federal indictments

          On October 19, 2017, a federal grand jury returned a 20-

count criminal indictment against the Kealohas, HPD Captain

Derek Wayne Hahn, HPD Officer Minh-Hung Nguyen, HPD Major Gordon

Shiraishi, and HPD Detective Daniel Sellers.                 On March 22, 2018,

a federal grand jury returned a 23-count first superseding

indictment.

          In summary, the first superseding indictment alleged (1)

Katherine Kealoha, an attorney, was appointed by a court to

serve as guardian of the property for two minor children, but

misappropriated trust funds to pay the Kealohas’ personal

expenses; (2) Katherine Kealoha purported to invest her uncle

“G.K.P.”’s1 money on his behalf, but actually held the money in a

bank account to pay the Kealohas’ expenses; (3) Katherine

Kealoha misappropriated the funds of her grandmother, “F.P.,”2

after convincing F.P. to take out a “reverse mortgage” on her

house; (4) in order to conceal their actions, the Kealohas

conspired to discredit and intimidate G.K.P. by bringing false

claims of criminal conduct against him; and (5) the Kealohas and

the other police officers conspired to frame G.K.P. for stealing

1         Gerard K. Puana, Katherine Kealoha’s uncle.

2         Florence Puana, Katherine Kealoha’s grandmother.

                                          4
    ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

the mailbox in front of the Kealohas’ house.               The first

superseding indictment also alleged the defendants provided

false testimony in G.K.P.’s federal criminal trial and provided

false information to the grand jury and the FBI.

          A second superseding indictment returned on May 24, 2018

charged the Kealohas or Katherine Kealoha only with bank fraud,

identity theft, and obstruction of official proceeding.

B.        Administrative proceedings

          On March 21, 2018, Kealoha requested that the County retain

an attorney to defend him against the first and second

superseding indictments.

          On January 16, 2019, Corp Counsel sent a memorandum to the

Commission recommending denial of Kealoha’s request for

representation as to both indictments.3             Corp Counsel opined that

the conduct alleged in the indictments was neither done in the

performance of Kealoha’s duty as a police officer nor in the

course and scope of his employment.

3         HRS § 52D-9 (2012) provides in relevant part:

               The determination of whether an act, for which the police
               officer is being prosecuted or sued, was done in the
               performance of the police officer’s duty, so as to entitle
               the police officer to be represented by counsel provided by
               the county, shall be made by the police commission of the
               county. Before making a determination, the police
               commission shall consult the county attorney or the
               corporation counsel, who may make a recommendation to the
               police commission with respect thereto if the county
               attorney or corporation counsel so desires. . . .

                                          5
    ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

          The Commission scheduled a contested case hearing on

Kealoha’s request for March 6, 2019.             Before the hearing,

Kealoha’s attorney, Kevin Sumida (“Sumida”), submitted a written

argument asserting the Commission should use the “complaint

allegation” rule4 applicable to insurance companies in civil

lawsuits to determine whether Kealoha was entitled to

representation.

          Kealoha did not appear at the hearing, but was represented

by Sumida.        The Commission received in evidence the indictments

and documents from the administrative record.5               Sumida did not

present any additional evidence and indicated Kealoha did not

wish to testify.

          Corp Counsel and Sumida then presented arguments against

and for application of the “complaint allegation” rule.

Discussions ensued between various commissioners and Sumida

regarding which factual allegations in the indictments indicated

4     In the insurance context, the “complaint allegation” rule imposes a
duty to defend where pleadings allege claims covered under an insurance
policy. Pancakes of Haw., Inc. v. Pomare Props. Corp., 85 Hawaiʻi 286, 291,
944 P.2d 83, 88 (App. 1997). And “where a suit raises a potential for
indemnification liability of the insurer to the insured, the insurer has a
duty to accept the defense of the entire suit even though other claims of the
complaint fall outside the policy’s coverage.” Hawaiian Holiday Macadamia
Nut Co. v. Indus. Indem. Co., 76 Hawaiʻi 166, 169, 872 P.2d 230, 233 (1994)
(citation omitted).

5     Included was correspondence leading up to the hearing, such as Sumida’s
letter to the Commission requesting representation for Kealoha, the
Commission’s letters to Corp Counsel about the matter, Corp Counsel’s
recommendations to the Commission, and letters scheduling the contested case
hearing. Also included were numerous documents relating to a February 14,
2019 letter from Sumida to the Commission renewing Kealoha’s request for
disqualification of Commissioner Loretta Sheehan (“Sheehan”).

                                          6
    ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

Kealoha was being prosecuted for acts done in the performance of

his duty as a police officer.

          On May 10, 2019, the Commission issued its decision.6              It

focused on four overt acts by Kealoha alleged in the first

superseding indictment: (1) causing law enforcement officers to

surveil G.K.P.; (2) creating a false police report identifying

G.K.P. as the suspect of an alleged burglary of the Kealohas’

mailbox; (3) directing HPD officers to arrest G.K.P. for the

fabricated mailbox theft; and (4) calling certain HPD officers

on the phone.

          The Commission ruled the four acts fell within RHPC Rule

11-1(e) “even if unlawful and regardless of motive[.]”7                 For

example, with respect to the first overt act, the Commission

stated as follows:

                     The Commission finds that the factual allegations in
               Paragraph 37a of the First Superseding Indictment,
               appearing on page 211 of the record, which provide []in
               relevant part that [“i]n or about June 2011, L. KEALOHA
               . . . caused CIU officers to conduct physical surveillance
               of G.K.P., and to continue such surveillance from time to
               time through June 2013” allege acts done in the performance
               of Kealoha’s duty as a police officer because the alleged
               acts, even if unlawful and regardless of motive, were
               incident to: (a) “a required or authorized work-related
               activity”; (b) “a course of conduct taking place at a time
               that the officer was required to engage in the course of
               conduct by the nature of the officer’s responsibilities as

6     In a separate findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and
order dated May 10, 2019, the Commission denied Kealoha’s request as to the
second superseding indictment.

7     The Commission similarly analyzed the second and third acts. For the
fourth act, the Commission retained the phrase “regardless of motive” and
left out “even if unlawful.”

                                          7
    ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

               a police officer;” and (c) “a course of conduct engaged in
               at a place that the officer was authorized to engage in it
               by the nature of the officer’s responsibilities as a police
               officer.” See Rules 11-1(e)(i), 11-l(e)(ii), 11-l(e)(iii).

(Cleaned up.)

C.        Circuit court proceedings

          After hearing arguments, on November 19, 2020, the circuit

court affirmed the Commission’s decision.8              In relevant part, the

circuit court determined: (1) RHPC Rule 11-1(e) is consistent

with HRS § 52D-8; (2) the City’s proffered “scope of employment”

framework “would render HRS § 52D-8 essentially meaningless,

unenforceable and inapplicable”; (3) “the tripartite

relationship among the officer, the county, and the officer’s

appointed attorney is analogous to the relationship among an

insurer, defense counsel, and the insured, and, as such, the

obligation to defend is determined by the complaint allegation

rule”; and (4) the Commission did not err regarding the four

overt acts because the four overt acts “allege typical police

activity[.]”        The circuit court’s final judgment was entered on

December 2, 2020.

D.        ICA proceedings

          The ICA issued a published opinion, City & County of

Honolulu v. Honolulu Police Commission, 151 Hawaiʻi 56, 508 P.3d

8         The Honorable James H. Ashford presided.

                                          8
    ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

851 (App. 2022), on March 16, 2022, affirming the Commission’s

decision and the circuit court’s final judgment.

          The ICA first determined judicial review was permitted

notwithstanding HRS § 52D-9’s reference to the “conclusiveness”

of a police commission’s determination.9              151 Hawaiʻi at 63–64,

508 P.3d at 858–59.

          The ICA then held the “complaint allegation” rule

inapplicable because the obligation to defend under HRS § 52D-8

is statutory, not contractual, and because application of the

rule would require the Commission to assume the truth of

indictment allegations.           151 Hawaiʻi at 64–65, 508 P.3d at 859–

60.

          The ICA also deemed the “scope of employment” test

inapplicable, reasoning:

9         HRS § 52D-9 (2012) provides in relevant part:

                The determination of whether an act, for which the police
                officer is being prosecuted or sued, was done in the
                performance of the police officer’s duty, so as to entitle
                the police officer to be represented by counsel provided by
                the county, shall be made by the police commission of the
                county . . . . The determination of the police commission
                shall be conclusive for the purpose of this section and
                section 52D-8.

(Emphasis added.)

      As held in Alejado v. City & County of Honolulu, 89 Hawaiʻi 221, 971
P.2d 310 (App. 1998), “HRS § 52D-9’s reference to the ‘conclusiveness’ of the
Commission’s scope of duty determination refers to its ‘conclusiveness’ for
purposes of the City’s review and does not serve to preclude judicial
review.” 89 Hawaiʻi at 231, 971 P.2d at 320.

                                          9
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

                  Nothing in HRS §§ 52D-8 or 52D-9, or in RHPC Rule 11-
            1, implicates a police officer’s “purpose to serve” HPD (or
            lack thereof), or whether HPD derived any benefit from the
            police officer’s alleged acts. . . . It is hard to think of
            any crime committed by a police officer that could have
            been intended by the officer to serve the police
            department, or from which the department could derive any
            benefit.

151 Hawaiʻi at 65–66, 508 P.3d at 860–61.

       The ICA further concluded Kealoha was not required to

testify at the contested case hearing.10          151 Hawaiʻi at 66–67,

508 P.3d at 861–62.       The ICA noted Kealoha had a

constitutionally protected property right to representation for

acts done in the performance of his duty as a police officer,

but that he also had a constitutional right against self-

incrimination; it was impermissible to make Kealoha choose

between these rights.       Id.

        The ICA also held HRS § 52D-8 requires that the Commission

consider the police officer’s alleged act, but not the officer’s

alleged motive.      151 Hawaiʻi at 67–68, 508 P.3d at 862–63.            The

ICA analogized concepts from criminal law to this situation,

stating:

            HRS § 52D–8 requires that a police commission determine
            whether the act allegedly committed by the police officer
            was within “the performance of the officer’s duty as a
            police officer[.]” In making that determination, a police
            commission must consider the allegations made in the

10    The ICA stated: “The City also argues that Kealoha failed to sustain
his burdens of proof, production, and persuasion by failing to testify during
his contested case hearing that he intended the acts for which he was being
prosecuted to benefit the City.” 151 Hawaiʻi at 66, 508 P.3d at 861 (footnote
omitted). As asserted by the City in its motion for reconsideration, the
City never argued Kealoha needed to testify.

                                      10
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

            charging document concerning the police officer’s acts —
            the conduct element — and disregard allegations about the
            officer’s motive for committing the alleged acts.

151 Hawaiʻi at 67, 508 P.3d at 862.

        The ICA then reviewed the Commission’s analyses regarding

each of the four overt acts and upheld the Commission’s

decision.     151 Hawaiʻi at 68–71, 508 P.3d at 863–66.

Essentially, the ICA concluded “[i]t was within the scope of

Kealoha’s duty as chief to cause HPD officers to surveil a

suspect” or “to cause HPD officers to prepare reports” or “to

cause HPD officers to arrest persons suspected of committing a

crime.”     Id.

        The ICA also stated that the City did not contend that

RHPC Rule 11-1(e) is ambiguous or that it is legally

inconsistent with HRS § 52D-8.11         151 Hawaiʻi at 71, 508 P.3d at

866.

        Finally, the ICA took judicial notice that a federal jury

eventually found Kealoha guilty on Counts 1, 2, 6, and 8 in the

first superseding indictment.         151 Hawaiʻi at 72, 508 P.3d at

867.   The ICA noted, however, that it “would have been contrary

11    As discussed in Section IV.C, this contradicts the record. In
addition, the ICA appears to have adopted the Commission’s position that its
interpretation of RHPC Rule 11 is entitled to deference. It appears,
however, that the Commission’s position is an interpretation of law, not
derived from any specialized expertise. See Camara v. Agsalud, 67 Haw. 212,
216, 685 P.2d 794, 797 (1984) (“[I]n deference to the administrative agency’s
expertise and experience in its particular field, the courts should not
substitute their own judgment for that of the administrative agency . . . .”
(emphasis added)).

                                      11
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

to the plain language of, and legislative intent behind, HRS §

52D-8 to require that the . . . Commission engage in fact-

finding and decide the merits of the criminal charge to

determine whether Kealoha was entitled to a defense under HRS §

52D-8.”12    Id.

E.     Certiorari proceedings

       The City argues the Commission did apply the “complaint

allegation” rule, in practice, if not by name.            It also contends

the ICA erred by rejecting the “scope of employment” test and

failing to consider why Kealoha allegedly directed the

surveillance and arrest of G.K.P. (for personal gain, not public

benefit).     The City also asserts the ICA should have considered

the constitutional concerns raised by the City, because it did

12    The City filed a motion for reconsideration on March 28, 2022. The
City argued: (1) because the ICA rejected the “complaint allegation” rule,
the ICA should have vacated the decisions of the Commission and the circuit
court, which relied on the “complaint allegation” rule; (2) the relevant
limiting language in HRS § 52D-8 is “performance of duty” not “acts”; (3) the
ICA overlooked the constitutional implications of its decision, as taxpayer
funds may only be used for public purposes; and (4) there are many instances
where HRS § 52D-8 could still apply even if the statute required an officer
to have acted, at least in part, to benefit the City — for instance, HRS §
52D-8 could potentially apply to the officers charged in the death of
Iremamber Sykap.

      The ICA denied the motion for reconsideration. The ICA noted the
Commission’s order did not mention the “complaint allegation” rule, and,
although the circuit court improperly adopted the “complaint allegation”
rule, the ICA could still affirm the circuit court’s judgment, but not the
order, as correct. The ICA also declined to address the City’s argument
about constitutional concerns because the City did not raise an
“unconstitutional as applied” argument before the Commission or in its appeal
to the circuit court.

                                      12
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

not waive the issue.       Finally, the City maintains it did and

does challenge the validity of RHPC Rule 11.13

                         III. Standards of Review

A.     Statutory interpretation
            First, the fundamental starting point for statutory
            interpretation is the language of the statute itself.
            Second, where the statutory language is plain and
            unambiguous, our sole duty is to give effect to its plain
            and obvious meaning. Third, implicit in the task of
            statutory construction is our foremost obligation to
            ascertain and give effect to the intention of the
            legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the
            language contained in the statute itself. Fourth, when
            there is doubt, doubleness of meaning, or indistinctiveness
            or uncertainty of an expression used in a statute, an
            ambiguity exists. And fifth, in construing an ambiguous
            statute, the meaning of the ambiguous words may be sought
            by examining the context, with which the ambiguous words,
            phrases, and sentences may be compared, in order to
            ascertain their true meaning.

Ito v. Invs. Equity Life Holding Co., 135 Hawaiʻi 49, 61, 346

P.3d 118, 130 (2015) (citation omitted).

B.     Review of agency decisions

       HRS § 91-14(g) provides:

            (g) Upon review of the record, the court may affirm the
            decision of the agency or remand the case with instructions
            for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the
            decision and order if the substantial rights of the
            petitioners may have been prejudiced because the
            administrative findings, conclusions, decisions, or orders
            are:

            (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

            (2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of
            the agency;

            (3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

13    The City argues the Commission refused to consider any factors other
than the three factors set out in the rule, as if the rule confined, rather
than aided, its analysis.

                                      13
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

            (4) Affected by other error of law;

            (5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative,
            and substantial evidence on the whole record; or

            (6) Arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of
            discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

(Supp. 2016).
            Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, pursuant to
            subsections (1), (2) and (4); questions regarding
            procedural defects are reviewable under subsection (3);
            findings of fact (FOF) are reviewable under the clearly
            erroneous standard, pursuant to subsection (5), and an
            agency’s exercise of discretion is reviewed under the
            arbitrary and capricious standard, pursuant to subsection
            (6). Mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed under
            the clearly erroneous standard because the conclusion is
            dependent upon the facts and circumstances of the
            particular case.

            A court reviewing the decision of an agency should ensure
            that the agency make its findings reasonably clear. The
            parties and the court should not be left to guess the
            precise finding of the agency.

In re Haw. Elec. Light Co., 145 Hawaiʻi 1, 10-11, 445 P.3d

673, 682-83 (2019) (cleaned up).

C.     Agency rule interpretation

                  General principles of statutory construction apply in
            interpreting administrative rules. As in statutory
            construction, courts look first at an administrative rule’s
            language. If an administrative rule’s language is
            unambiguous, and its literal application is neither
            inconsistent with the policies of the statute the rule
            implements nor produces an absurd or unjust result, courts
            enforce the rule’s plain meaning. While an agency’s
            interpretation of its own rules is generally entitled to
            deference, this court does not defer to agency
            interpretations that are plainly erroneous or inconsistent
            with the underlying legislative purpose.

Panado v. Bd. of Trs., Emp.’s Ret. Sys., 134 Hawaiʻi 1, 11, 332

P.3d 144, 154 (2014) (citation omitted).

                                      14
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

                               IV. Discussion

A.     The ICA correctly held the “complaint allegation” rule and
       “scope of employment” test inapplicable and that Kealoha
       was not required to testify at the contested case hearing

       Preliminarily, we agree with the ICA’s conclusions that the

“complaint allegation” rule governing the duty to defend by

insurance companies and the “scope of employment” test are

inapplicable to HRS § 52D-8 determinations, and that Kealoha was

not required to testify at the contested case hearing.

       For the reasons discussed below, however, we disagree with

the analytical approaches and conclusions below regarding

Kealoha’s entitlement to representation.

B.     Pursuant to the plain language of HRS § 52D-8, a police
       officer is entitled to representation only for acts done in
       the performance of the officer’s duty as a police officer

       HRS § 52D-8 provides:

            Whenever a police officer is prosecuted for a crime or sued
            in a civil action for acts done in the performance of the
            officer’s duty as a police officer, the police officer
            shall be represented and defended:

                  (1) In criminal proceedings by an attorney to be
                  employed and paid by the county in which the officer
                  is serving; and

                  (2) In civil cases by the corporation counsel or
                  county attorney of the county in which the police
                  officer is serving.

(Emphasis added.)

       Under the plain language of this statute, police officers

are entitled to representation only “for acts done in the

performance of the officer’s duty as a police officer[.]”

                                      15
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

Id.    Contrary to the rulings below, HRS § 52D-8 does not merely

require a determination of whether the acts performed by the

officer seeking representation are acts generally performed by

police officers.

       HRS § 52D-8 does not provide for representation for “acts

that police officers generally perform.”           If that were the

standard, police officers who effectuate arrests without

probable cause for personal, non-law-enforcement-related

vendettas, or who fabricate and submit false police reports for

personal purposes, would be entitled to representation because

arrests and preparation of police reports are “acts that police

officers generally perform.”        Conversely, HRS § 52D-8 also does

not limit representation to “acts that police officers generally

perform.”     For example, police officers do not generally perform

maritime rescues.      But if an on-duty police officer attempts a

maritime rescue due to unavailability of other rescue personnel,

but causes an injury or death and is sued, the “acts that police

officers generally perform” test could unnecessarily restrict

representation under HRS § 52D-8.

       Furthermore, the word “motive” does not appear in the

statute, and it is also not an appropriate inquiry.             Rather, the

plain language of the statute requires that the Commission make

an overall determination of whether acts of a police officer

                                      16
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER    ***

were done in the performance of the officer’s duty as a police

officer.

C.     RHPC Rule 11-1(e) cannot expand rights of representation
       provided by the statute

       The Commission and the ICA also relied on RHPC Rule 11-1(e)

in ruling that Kealoha was entitled to representation.              RHPC

Rule 11-1(e) (2018) provides:

            For purposes of this Rule 11, the following shall be
            considered by the Commission in determining whether “an
            act, for which the police officer is being prosecuted or
            sued, was done in the performance of the officer’s duty”:

            (i) whether the act was incident to required or authorized
            work-related activity;

            (ii) whether the act was incident to a course of conduct
            taking place at a time that the officer was required to
            engage in the course of conduct by the nature of the
            officer’s responsibilities as a police officer; and

            (iii) whether the act was incident to a course of conduct
            engaged in at a place that the officer was authorized to
            engage in it by the nature of the officer’s
            responsibilities as a police officer.

(Emphases added.)

       As the City argues, although this rule can aid an HRS §

52D-8 analysis, the statute does not parse out and focus just on

whether acts are generally performed by police officers.                In

this regard, the ICA erroneously stated that “[t]he City does

not contend that RHPC Rule 11-1(e) is ambiguous or that it is

legally inconsistent with HRS § 52D-8.”           Honolulu Police Comm’n,

151 Hawaiʻi at 71, 508 P.3d at 866.         The City’s opening brief

argued that the Commission’s Rule 11-1(e), upon which it also

                                      17
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

relied, is inconsistent with the statutory provisions it

purported to implement.       The City also asserted that

            The Rule on its face is thus contrary to the statutory
            provision it purports to implement, HRS § 52D-8, which does
            not permit representation for conduct “incident to” acts
            done in the performance of the officer’s duty as a police
            officer, but rather, only for the acts themselves. . . .
            The Rule is thus invalid.

       We need not invalidate the rule, however, as proposed by

the City, because “[i]t is axiomatic that an administrative rule

cannot contradict or conflict with the statute it attempts to

implement.”     Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii, LLC v. Rainbow Dialysis,

LLC, 130 Hawaiʻi 95, 107, 306 P.3d 140, 152 (2013) (citations

omitted).     Thus, we hold that although the rule can aid an HRS §

52D-8 analysis, it cannot expand rights of representation

provided by the statute.

D.     The officer has the burden of establishing entitlement to
       representation

       HRS § 52D-8 provides for representation “[w]henever a

police officer is prosecuted for a crime or sued in a civil

action for acts done in the performance of the officer’s duty as

a police officer[.]”       The statute does not create any

presumptions.14     HRS § 91-10(5) (2012) and RHPC Rule 11-4(c)

(2018) then provide that the police officer requesting

representation has “the burden of proof[,] including the burden

14    See generally Hawaiʻi Rules of Evidence Rules 303 (2016) and 304 (2016)
regarding presumptions. Adoption of the “complaint allegation” rule might
improperly create such a presumption.

                                      18
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

of producing evidence” and “the burden of persuasion” by “a

preponderance of the evidence.”

       Thus, the officer seeking representation has the burden of

establishing the threshold question of whether the officer was

acting in the performance of the officer’s duty as a police

officer.

E.     The Commission should examine the entire record to
       determine whether an officer is being prosecuted for acts
       done in the performance of the officer’s duty as a police
       officer

       Pursuant to RHPC Rule 11-4(b), and as provided in HRS § 91-

10, the rules of evidence apply in contested case hearings

before the Commission regarding representation requests.

Alejado, 89 Hawaiʻi 221, 971 P.2d 310, indicates the Commission

can and should examine the entire record before it to determine

whether an officer is entitled to representation:

            In reaching their decision, the Commission reviewed the
            police reports regarding [the alleged victim’s] arrest,
            various sections of the [HPD] Standards of Conduct, HPD’s
            General Order No. 82–1 on arrests, pertinent case law, the
            indictment, the civil complaint, and a statement from a
            witness who observed [the officer’s] alleged beating of
            [the alleged victim] and the alleged attempts of witness
            tampering.

89 Hawaiʻi at 223, 971 P.2d at 312.

       In contested case hearings regarding representation

requests, documents other than criminal charges or civil

complaints, including police reports and witness statements,

might be available.       Sworn testimony from people other than the

                                      19
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

officer seeking representation can be presented.             The Commission

can also consider internal investigation reports, if any exist.15

As indicated in Alejado, the Commission can also consider

testimony or documents establishing police officer standards of

conduct and duties.16      And as provided by HRS § 91-10(4), the

Commission is also able to take judicial notice of similar or

other documents that have not been received in evidence.17

F.     Based on the record before the Commission, Kealoha did not
       meet his burden of establishing entitlement to
       representation

       The Commission examined the record before it to determine

whether Kealoha was entitled to representation.            But that record

consisted only of the indictments and certain correspondence

from the administrative record received in evidence by the

Commission.

15    For example, the Maui Police Commission rules provide: “Upon receipt of
the police officer’s written request, the commission shall request that the
chief or the chief’s authorized designee prepare and submit a written report
to the commission informing the commission of the current status of the
department’s investigation of the matter with regard to which the police
officer is seeking legal representation from the County.” Rules of the
Police Commission for the Maui County Department of Police § 13-101-53(a)
(2000). Honolulu does not appear to have a similar provision.

16    Pursuant to RHPC Rule 11-4(b), “[t]he rules of evidence as provided in
HRS § 91-10 shall apply [in contested case hearings regarding representation]
except that cross examination will only be provided to the extent that oral
testimony is heard by the Commission.” Pursuant to the rules of evidence and
as specifically provided by HRS § 91-10(4), the Commission is able to take
judicial notice of such documents.

17    Thus, the Commission should be able to address the threshold question
by evidence other than the officer’s own testimony.

                                      20
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

       Article VI, Chapter 16 of the Revised Charter of the City

and County of Honolulu 1973 (Amended 2017 Edition), concerning

the City’s Police Department, outlined Kealoha’s duties as Chief

of Police.18    Section 6-1601 provides that the Chief of Police

serves as the administrative head of the Police Department.

Section 6-1602 is a statement of policy regarding Chapter 16,

which includes a general statement that the City’s system of law

enforcement “shall promote the highest possible degree of mutual

respect between law enforcement officers and the people of the

city and which shall provide for the expeditious apprehension of

those who violate the law.”        Section 6-1603, in summary, sets

out minimum qualifications for the position of Chief of Police,

provides for a five-year term, and also provides that the Chief

of Police serves at the pleasure of the Commission.

       Section 6-1604 then sets out powers, duties, and functions

of the Chief of Police:

            Section 6-1604. Powers, Duties and Functions —
            The chief of police shall:
            (a) Be responsible for the preservation of the public
            peace; the protection of the rights of persons and
            property; the prevention of crime; the detection and arrest
            of offenders against the law and the enforcement and
            prevention of violations of all laws of the state and city
            ordinances and all rules and regulations made in accordance
            therewith.
            (b) Train, equip, maintain and supervise the force of
            police officers.
            (c) Serve process and notices both in civil and criminal
            proceedings.

18    Relevant provisions remain unchanged in the Amended 2021 Edition. An
appellate court can choose to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts.
State v. Kwong, 149 Hawaiʻi 106, 116-17, 482 P.3d 1067, 1077-78 (2021).

                                      21
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

            (d) Promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the
            organization and internal administration of the department.
            (e) Prepare and, when deemed necessary, update a five-year
            plan of goals and objectives for the police department.
            The chief shall submit the plan and each update to the
            commission for review and recommendations.
            (f) Appoint the deputy chiefs of police. A deputy chief
            shall have the right of reinstatement to a previously
            occupied civil service position in the police department
            when (1) the deputy chief had held a permanent appointment
            to the position immediately before appointment to the
            office of deputy chief; and (2) the deputy chief’s tenure
            in the office has not been terminated for cause. If
            exercising the right, the deputy chief shall be reinstated,
            without necessity of examination, to the former civil
            service position immediately following termination of
            tenure as deputy chief.
            (g) Perform such other duties as may be required by this
            charter or by law.

Also, under the HPD standards of conduct, officers must enforce

the law and be truthful at all times, and shall not falsify

records or commit any criminal act.          See Honolulu Police Dep’t,

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, Pol’y No. 2.21, Standards of Conduct

of the Honolulu Police Department, art. VII, § C(16)–(17), (19)

(2016).

       The Commission and the ICA focused on four acts performed

by Kealoha in ruling he was entitled to representation: (1)

causing law enforcement officers to conduct surveillance of

G.K.P.; (2) creating a false police report identifying G.K.P. as

the suspect of an alleged burglary at the Kealohas’ residence;

(3) directing HPD officers to arrest G.K.P. for the fabricated

mailbox theft; and (4) calling certain HPD officers on the

phone.

       Kealoha had the burden of establishing entitlement to

representation, but presented no evidence in addition to the
                                      22
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

indictments and administrative record letters received in

evidence by the Commission.19        He relied solely on the “complaint

allegation” rule, which does not apply.           Although the

Commission, the circuit court, and the ICA applied different

analytical approaches, they all focused on whether four overt

acts were the kinds of acts that fall within Kealoha’s duties,

without focusing on whether he met his burden of establishing

that he performed them in performance of his duties.

       The record before the Commission did not establish that any

of the four acts were acts done in the performance of Kealoha’s

duties as Chief of Police.        On its face, the second act of

creating a false police report was not part of Kealoha’s duties

as Chief of Police.       With respect to the first, third, and

fourth acts, although ordering surveillance, directing officers

to effectuate an arrest, and exchanging phone calls might be

part of the Chief of Police’s duties, here, the first

superseding indictment alleged these actions were taken “in

furtherance of the conspiracy” to frame G.K.P.            The first

superseding indictment charged Kealoha and his co-conspirators

19    The exhibits before the Commission did include a September 7, 2016
letter from Katherine Kealoha to the Commission, in which Katherine Kealoha
defended herself and Kealoha regarding the alleged “mailbox” conspiracy.
However, Sumida submitted this letter as part of his request for
disqualification of Sheehan, not as part of his argument about why Kealoha
was entitled to representation. In any event, the Commission did not cite
the letter, or any other source apart from the indictments, in its decision,
and the letter did not establish that Kealoha met his burden.

                                      23
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

with “improperly us[ing] their authority to prevent the

discovery and disclosure of [the Kealohas’] precarious financial

condition and prior malfeasance”; “misusing the resources of

CIU, by executing unconstitutional searches and seizures, and by

abusing their official positions and law enforcement authority”;

and attempting to “fabricate, alter, and conceal evidence in

order to support false claims of criminal conduct by G.K.P.

. . . .”

       Kealoha’s duties did not include overseeing a criminal

conspiracy to hide his and his wife’s misappropriation of funds

belonging to others.       His duties did not include conspiring to

frame his wife’s uncle for a crime he did not commit.              Kealoha

failed to meet his burden of establishing that he was being

prosecuted for acts done in the performance of his duties as

Chief of Police.20      Hence, the Commission’s decision was clearly

erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial

evidence on the whole record.

                                V. Conclusion

       This case involves a highly unusual representation request

made by the Chief of Police.        The criminal charges against

Kealoha were extraordinary.

20    We also note that with respect to the “mailbox conspiracy,” Kealoha was
reporting a purported but false “crime” as an alleged “victim,” not as a
police officer.

                                      24
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

       We note that the stated purpose of HRS § 52D-8 is to

maintain “the morale of the force[.]”          See S. Stand. Comm. Rep.

No. 376, in 1941 Senate Journal, at 860–61.            Consistent with

this purpose, both HRS § 52D-8 and RHPC Rule 11-1(e) contain

broad language entitling police officers to representation in

most circumstances.       Even if acts purportedly exceeding a police

officer’s duty as a police officer are alleged, such as use of

unreasonable force or driving at excessive speeds to effectuate

a legitimate arrest, representation should be available because

the officer was initially acting to perform the officer’s duty

as a police officer.

       But nothing in this record indicated that Kealoha was

acting in any way to perform his duties as Chief of Police.

       Finally, we also note that HRS § 52D-8 is also for the

benefit of the public:

                  The duties of a [police officer] are performed for
            the benefit of the public. . . . [I]t is for the public
            good that these officers, as instruments through which the
            city performs its functions, shall be shielded from the
            personal hazards which attend the discharge of their
            official duties. With such protection afforded, the public
            can expect that its laws will be zealously enforced without
            any hesitation occasioned by considerations of possible
            personal involvement in defending resulting litigation.

Sinclair v. Arnebergh, 36 Cal. Rptr. 810, 813 (Ct. App. 1964)

(cleaned up).     Taxpayer-funded representation for officers whose

acts are in the performance of their duties as police officers

benefit the public.       Taxpayer-funded representation for officers

                                      25
 ***   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND THE PACIFIC REPORTER   ***

whose acts are not in the performance of their duties as police

officers do not.21

       In conclusion, for the reasons discussed in Section IV, we

reverse the Commission’s May 10, 2019, findings of fact,

conclusions of law, and decision and order, the circuit court’s

December 2, 2020, final judgment, and the ICA’s April 21, 2022

judgment on appeal.22

Donna H. Kalama                            /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
for petitioner
                                           /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

Duane W.H. Pang                            /s/ Michael D. Wilson
for respondent
                                           /s/ Todd W. Eddins

                                           /s/ Kelsey T. Kawano

21    We do not address the constitutional grounds alleged by the City based
on article VII, section 4 of the Hawai‘i Constitution, which provides, “[n]o
tax shall be levied or appropriation of public money or property made, . . .
directly or indirectly, except for a public purpose.”

22    The record does not reflect whether the City did actually retain an
attorney to defend Kealoha with respect to the first superseding indictment;
we do not address whether there are any possible financial consequences of
this opinion.

                                      26