Honolulu Prosecutor Peter Carlisle got a decent amount of news coverage last week when he publicly criticized a Hawaii Supreme Court decision striking down a conviction in a case involving alleged excessive speeding.
Both the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin ran stories quoting Carlisle, who called the decision “another example of the law of rules rather than the rule of law.”
What neither newspaper mentioned directly is that Carlisle is an announced candidate for mayor, and the decision called into question the way deputy prosecutors under his direction have handled these cases, a finding that could hurt Carlisle the candidate.
The court found prosecutors failed to present evidence to establish that the radar guns used by police have been properly calibrated and tested according to factory guidelines.
Instead, they relied on testimony by police officers that they had tested the devices and everything was working fine.
It’s would have been a simple thing to introduce the factory manual, or test procedures, and ask the police officer whether he was familiar with these procedures and whether they were followed. That wasn’t done. Carlisle, the prosecutor, didn’t see the problem.
Reading through the court’s decision, I actually have to applaud the ruling. It rests on the relatively simple point that an official “belief” or “assumption” that rules are being followed isn’t enough without evidence about the rule and whether practice followed the rule.
Then there’s the question of Carlisle’s criticism of the court. It’s considered bad form to publicly criticize judges, as it can undermine public confidence in the whole judicial system.
The Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct, a part of the rules governing the practice of law, provide in part:
4] A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.
I’m obviously not a lawyer, but Carlisle, in charging that the court’s ruling was not an example of “the rule of law”, appears to test the boundaries of this rule. And in the context of his run for mayor, he leaves an appearance that the open criticism may have been made for political reasons.
I’m sure there are Honolulu attorneys and court officials who privately entertain similar questions about Carlisle’s behavior. Perhaps they need more public airing before the mayor’s race really heats up.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That ‘tough on crime’ shtick only goes so far anyway. It will be interesting to see if Carlisle has any actual ideas.
Most likely the deputy prosecutor was aware, after speaking with police officers, that they had not followed the calibration procedures.
I really don’t think that we need another Prosecutor in higher office……..I am tired of their political graspings – and chants of law & order. And – as I recall – Carlisle has had the dubious distinction of having more blanks than votes to be elected, running unchallenged.
I’m sorry to say that Carlisle’s “Shtick” plays well with the simple-minded “lawyers are crooks, judges are wimps” crowd that makes up the majority of those who post comments on “law and order” articles in the two dailies. Hopefully, they are a minority of voters.
Of greater concern is Carlisle’s dismissive attitude toward dissent and delegation. Anyone who disagrees with him is demonized and marginalized, which doesn’t make for much frank talk in the office. That attitude also led to his famous rant on Hawaii juries as being “sun-baked and brain-dead.”
He also can’t be bothered with actually running his office; it’s just so, well, uninteresting! His former First Deputy, Iwalani White, did alot of the heavy lifting but wasn’t registered to vote and illegally sublet her City parking space. Tsk, tsk, slap on the wrist. His Administrative Assistant, Jean Patterson, used office time, facilities, and equipment for campaign work and got a two week suspension. OOPS!! He hired Patterson’s unqualified son as an investigator, only to have him later charged with felony offenses for selling stolen law enforcement equipment (including ammo!) from his garage. He took worker’s comp stress leave and pled out.
Carlisle likes to say that he is the only candidate with City-wide executive experience. If this is the experience to which he is referring, we don’t need him. Can you imagine him applying this dismissive, hands-off approach to building rail? Or even fixing potholes? YIKES!! He also likes to say that he is beholden to no one (e.g. unions, etc.). That may be but it’s another way of saying that he is accountable to no one, either. He has gotten multiple passes from the voters; let’s hope that’s because it was because he was “only” running for prosecutor and that he will receive the scrutiny he richly deserves as a mayoral candidate.
Carlisle needs to spend more time with the Constitution and the Canons of Ethics and less time in front of a camera and no time in public office. He is unqualified because is ignorant, incurious and aggressive. He’s like George W. Bush in possessing these three characteristics.