Court Opinion

ID: 9931332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 19:05:09.26487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:43.007864
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                  Electronically Filed
                                                  Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                  CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                  08-FEB-2024
                                                  07:46 AM
                                                  Dkt. 66 SO

                           NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                         OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

         STATE OF HAWAIʻI ORGANIZATION OF POLICE OFFICERS,
                      Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
         CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, Defendant–Appellee,
     and STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Intervenor/Defendant-Appellee, and
    HONOLULU CIVIL BEAT, INC., Intervenor/Defendant-Appellee.

         APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                     (CIVIL NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

                      SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
 (By:    Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)

            Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawai‘i Organization of

Police Officers (SHOPO) appeals from the Circuit Court of the

First Circuit's September 30, 2021 Final Judgment and April 14,

2021 order denying SHOPO's motion for preliminary injunction. 1

On appeal, SHOPO raises six points of error, contending Act 47

     1   The Honorable Dean E. Ochiai presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(2020)'s amendments violate its members' right to:       (1) privacy;

(2) organize; (3) procedural due process; (4) substantive due

process; (5) equal protection; and (6) prohibition against

impairment of contracts.

           Defendant-Appellee City and County of Honolulu,

Intervenor/Defendant-Appellee State of Hawai‘i, and

Intervenor/Defendant-Appellee Honolulu Civil Beat filed

answering briefs countering SHOPO's contentions, and the

American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai‘i Foundation submitted an

amicus brief supporting the defendants.

           Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve the

points of error as discussed below, and affirm.

           (1)   In its first point of error, SHOPO contends the

circuit court "erred in finding that Act 47's amendments did not

violate a county police officer's right to privacy by mandating

disclosure of disciplinary records before the highest

nonjudicial grievance adjustment procedure timely invoked by the

employee or the employee's representative has concluded."

           SHOPO argues that "officers have a constitutional

right to privacy in their employment records in general,

                                   2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

including pending discipline matters."      However, the Hawai‘i

Supreme Court has ruled "information regarding a police

officer's misconduct in the course of his or her duties as a

police officer is not within the protection of Hawai‘i's

constitutional right to privacy . . . ."      State of Hawai‘i Org.

of Police Officers v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 149 Hawai‘i 492,

511, 494 P.3d 1225, 1244 (2021) (explaining that this holding

"remains good law") (quoting State of Hawai‘i Org. of Police

Officers v. Soc'y of Pro. Journalists-Univ. of Hawai‘i Chapter

(SHOPO v. SPJ), 83 Hawai‘i 378, 397, 927 P.3d 386, 405 (1996),

superseded by statute, 1995 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 242 § 1 at 641-

42, as recognized in Peer News LLC v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

138 Hawai‘i 53, 63-65, 376 P.3d 1, 11-13 (2016)).

           SHOPO also argues Act 47's amendments created an

"internal inconsistency" between Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS)

§§ 92F-14(b)(4)(B) (Supp. 2021) and 52D-3.5 (Supp. 2021).       Based

on the amendment to HRS § 52D-3.5, each police department must

report to the legislature "the identity of the police officer

upon the police officer's suspension or discharge."       Under HRS

§ 92F-14(a) (2012) and (b)(4)(B), a government agency must

disclose the name of an employee whose misconduct resulted in

suspension or discharge when, among other things, "the highest

                                   3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

nonjudicial grievance adjustment procedure timely invoked by the

employee or the employee's representative has concluded . . ."

or "public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interest

of the individual."    Because both statutes detail the

circumstances under which the officer's name must be provided,

and neither statute provides a right to nondisclosure, there is

no "internal inconsistency."     See SHOPO v. City & Cnty. of

Honolulu, 149 Hawai‘i at 497, 507, 494 P.3d at 1230, 1240

(explaining that HRS chapter 92F, the Uniform Information

Practices Act (UIPA), "simply provides no right of

nondisclosure").

           (2)   Next, in its second, third, fourth, and sixth

points of error, SHOPO contends Act 47's amendments violated its

members' right to:    organize for the purpose of collective

bargaining; procedural due process; substantive due process; and

prohibition against impairment of contract.      For these points,

SHOPO relies on its collective bargaining agreement (or CBA)

asserting that a conflict exists between the requirement to

disclose the identity of the police officer under HRS § 52D-3.5

and the grievance procedures under its collective bargaining

agreement.

                                   4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

           Curiously, in challenging UIPA disclosures in SHOPO v.

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, SHOPO proffered that "the disclosures

required by HRS § 52D-3.5 . . . would suffice to meet Civil

Beat's request without violating the CBA."      149 Hawai‘i at 520,

494 P.3d at 1253 (emphasis added).     Nonetheless, assuming

arguendo a conflict exists between HRS § 52D-3.5 and the

collective bargaining agreement, the county police departments

cannot bargain away their duties under HRS § 52D-3.5.       See id.

(explaining that "an agency may not collectively bargain away

its duties under UIPA – compliance with the statute is 'non-

negotiable'") (quoting SHOPO v. SPJ, 83 Hawai‘i at 404-05, 927

P.2d at 412-13).   HRS § 52D-3.5 requires each county police

department to report certain information to the legislature,

such as disclosing the officer's identity upon suspension or

discharge.   And the police departments must comply.      See 149

Hawai‘i at 520, 494 P.3d at 1253 (explaining that an "agency must

comply with UIPA, and if the CBA would prevent that, it is

unenforceable") (citing SHOPO v. SPJ, 83 Hawai‘i at 404-05, 927

P.2d at 412-13).

           (3)   Finally, in its fifth point of error, SHOPO

contends the circuit court erred by finding "Act 47's amendments

did not violate the equal protection rights of SHOPO and its

members . . . ."   SHOPO argues "Act 47 deprives county police

officers of the same due process rights enjoyed by other public

                                   5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

employees" and treating "county police officers differently than

other law enforcement officers with the same 'police powers'

does not have a fair and substantial relation to the objective

of Act 4 [sic] nor is it supported by a rational basis."

(Emphasis omitted.)

           Contrary to SHOPO's contention, the legislature

provided a rational basis for disclosing the identity of a

police officer upon suspension or discharge.      Nagle v. Bd. of

Educ., 63 Haw. 389, 393, 629 P.2d 109, 112 (1981) (explaining

"[w]here 'suspect' classifications or fundamental rights are not

at issue, this court has traditionally employed the rational

basis test").   The legislature explained the purpose of Act 47

was to "enhance the public's trust in law enforcement," and

found "public trust in law enforcement is critical to ensuring

justice" and "the difficult and often dangerous job of law

enforcement is safer, easier, and more effectively executed when

citizens trust those empowered to serve and protect them."           2020

Haw. Sess. Laws Act 47, § 1 at 364.     Thus, "requiring disclosure

of the identities of suspended or discharged county police

officers to the Legislature will improve oversight of police

departments in cases of severe misconduct."      Conf. Comm. Rep.

No. 3-20, in 2020 House Journal, at 909-10, 2020 Senate Journal,

at 577-78 (2020).

                                   6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

           Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's

September 30, 2021 Final Judgment and April 14, 2021 order

denying SHOPO's motion for preliminary injunction.

           DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai‘i, February 8, 2024.

On the briefs:                         /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
                                       Acting Chief Judge
Keani Alapa,
Vladimir Devens,                       /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
for Plaintiff-Appellant.               Associate Judge

Duane W.H. Pang,                       /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Haley E. Chee,                         Associate Judge
Deputies Corporation Counsel,
City and County of Honolulu,
for Defendant-Appellee.

Kalikoʻonālani D. Fernandes,
Solicitor General,
Department of the Attorney
General,
for Intervenor/Defendant-
Appellee State of Hawaiʻi.

Robert Brian Black,
Stephanie Frisinger,
for Intervenor/Defendant-
Appellee Honolulu Civil Beat
Inc.

Jongwook Kim,
for amicus curiae
American Civil Liberties
Union of Hawaiʻi Foundation.

                                   7