Category Archives: Police

Another police shooting that should have been avoided

It happened again last week. Honolulu police officers shot and killed a man who was trying to drive away after the officers attempted to serve a warrant. The man was identified as 45-year old Caillen Gentzler.

According to news accounts, two officers were attempting to serve a warrant at a public housing project in Ahuimanu, near Kaneohe. Gentzler ran, then got in his vehicle and tried to leave the scene. Officers were standing near the vehicle, and had to jump aside as when it reversed and then tried to leave. When Gentzler accelerated towards the officers, they fired. He was pronounced dead at Queen’s Medical Center.

Honolulu police have been involved in a string of similar shootings over the past five years or more, each following the same pattern. Suspect is in car, attempts to drive away, and is killed by officers who say their lives were threatened by the vehicle.

This has been a very controversial police tactic for a long time. In many jurisdictions, police are prohibited from using deadly force by shooting at a moving vehicle unless there is some threat other than the vehicle itself. If the driver is shooting at them, officers can shoot back. But positioning themselves in front of a vehicle to block it from leaving the scene, and then saying they were forced to deadly force to protect themselves, is prohibited.

Critics of such policies say shooting at moving vehicles is “a particularly dangerous and ineffective tactic.”

New York changed its police procedures nearly five decades ago.

…it banned shooting at moving vehicles altogether as long as the only physical threat was from the car, not another weapon. This means police would be justified in shooting at a moving car if the driver was firing a gun at them, but not if the car itself was the only danger to police or others.

The Police Executive Research Forum, which studies and advocates for policing policies, summarized the results: “That NYPD policy, adopted in 1972, resulted in an immediate, sharp reduction in uses of lethal force in New York City. Police shooting incidents declined from nearly 1,000 a year in 1972 to 665 the following year, and have fallen steadily ever since, to fewer than 100 per year today.” [“Police have known for 45 years they shouldn’t shoot at moving cars. But they still do it.,” VOX.com, May 8, 2017]

A report by the Guardian newspaper found widespread agreement that police should not shoot at moving vehicles, citing the US Department of Justice, policing experts, and “most major police departments across the U.S.”

In cases examined by the Guardian:

In all cases, officers said the vehicle posed a threat either to their own lives, to those of police colleagues, or to bystanders. In almost all incidents, however, their decisions to shoot appeared to run counter to federal guidance instructing officers to open fire only if a driver presents a separate deadly threat, such as a gun. None of those killed were accused of pointing firearms at police, and in only three cases did police appear to be aware of a gun being inside the vehicle.

The Police Executive Research Foundation recommends police departments “should adopt a prohibition against shooting at or from a moving vehicle unless someone in the vehicle is using or threatening deadly force by means other than the vehicle itself.” This is one of the group’s 30 Guiding Principles on Use of Force.

PERF reports:

The prohibition on shooting at moving vehicles is already in place in many agencies. It has been part of PERF’s use-of-force recommendations to indi- vidual agencies for years, and is included in the model use-of-force policy from the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Agencies with this policy cur- rently in effect include the following:

• New York Police Department (enacted in 1972)
• Boston Police Department
• Chicago Police Department
• Cincinnati Police Department
• Denver Police Department
• Philadelphia Police Department
• Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department

It’s past time for Honolulu’s Police Commission to direct the department to revise its policies to generally prohibit this kind of deadly encounter. Officers should be trained not to step in front of a suspect’s vehicle, which can lead to the officer feeling they have to use deadly force to defend themselves.

See:

“Could Honolulu police have avoided recent shootings?” iLind.net, October 14, 2014.

Latest HPD shooting again raises familiar questions,” December 4, 2016.

Shoplifting is not a capital offense,” iLind.net, February 28, 2019.

Hawaii should follow California in restricting HPD use of force,” iLind.net, August 25, 2019.

Was somebody “on the take” as Bob Jones suggests?

Longtime journalist Bob Jones, writing today on his own “Bob Jones Report” blog, raises questions about how the alleged Mike Miske gang operated for so many years with apparent impunity (“Something Was Rotten In Honolulu“).

He wrote:

Here’s what bothers me as more and more detail about the Michael Miske, Jr., “crime gang” goes public:

How is it possible that all this not-so-hidden criminal activity never came to the attention off police chief Louis Kealoha’s special intelligence unit?

Or did it, and was ignored? Or was somebody in on the “take”?

Jones implies the latter explanation is most likely.

I would note several things to be considered before drawing that conclusion.

First, local law enforcement is not funded or equipped to conduct the kind of long-term complex investigation that was needed to bring charges against Miske and his organization. That’s not because any problems within HPD. It’s the nature of local law enforcement.

Alexander Silvert, the federal defender who represented Katherine Kealoha’s uncle and whose investigation broke open the whole Kealoha corruption scandal, described the difference between local and federal law enforcement and court systems during a recent Civil Beat online discussion.

The local systems are primary reactive, Silvert said. A crime is reported, police respond, they find a suspect and charge them, and prosecutors take over, going to court if they can make a case.

Federal investigators have the luxury of looking at a potential case, taking the time necessary to develop evidence, then picking and choosing who to prosecute. Federal criminal cases are much more thorough because the system allows investigations time and resources to address complex cases. Silvert pointed out it is much harder to get an acquittal in federal court. Most federal charges end in a plea deal, or conviction.

The federal investigation that targeted Mike Miske stretched on for at least five years, and probably more.

Records show there was specific federal interest in Miske before November 2015. That was the month when an HPD officer tried to cite Miske for driving while using his cell phone, and instead of pulling over, Miske drove away. As the officer and his sergeant tried to serve the citation, they were threatened by Miske, and mired in administrative complaints. And when several weeks later then-HPD Sergeant Albert Lee was tipped off to Miske’s location and went to arrest him, he coordinated with federal counterparts, according to Lee’s sworn declaration filed in court. This certainly makes it appear there was an active federal investigation of Miske underway well before that time.

In the course of the federal investigation, the FBI, IRS, and other agencies gathered a mountain of evidence, recently estimated at more than 450 gigabytes of data containing some 160,000 files, as well as 32 disks of recordings and other data.

That’s the kind of effort even a large local police department like HPD can’t sustain.

The second thing to note is that we don’t know what information was developed by HPD and passed on to the FBI or other federal agencies. HPD’s Intelligence Enforcement Unit, formerly known as the Criminal Intelligence Unit (CIU), the same unit that was caught up in the Kealoha corruption scandal, works closely with federal agencies and does cooperate with them, sharing information as appropriate. And we don’t know at this point what information was gathered and shared concerning Mike Miske’s alleged criminal organization. I think Bob’s assumption that nothing was done along the way is questionable.

Third, federal and state court records show that many people associated in one way or another with Miske have been arrested, charged, convicted, and imprisoned over the years for drug and weapons offenses, assault, auto theft, and so on. These appear to have been piecemeal cases that involved players in Miske’s organization, but did not target the larger organization, most likely for the reasons described above. So to say HPD and prosecutors were oblivious to the whole thing is, again, an overstatement at best.

And, fourth, as a lawyer Jones knows that “knowing” something is going on and having the evidence to make a case that will stand up in court are two quite different things. Grifters and con artists often get away with their craft because catching them in the act with courtroom-safe evidence is complicated, tricky, and expensive, quite simply beyond the routine capabilities of local police and prosecutors. Organized crime is the same way.

For a number of years I served on the board of a condominium on the edge of Waikiki that became notorious for its many “massage” businesses that were thinly disguised prostitution operations. But “knowing” and proving are different things, as we repeatedly learned when discussing the problems with HPD over the years. A difficult problem from our end, but understandable when seen from the perspective of preventing an arbitrary system that allows arrests without evidence.

At the same time, there are good reasons to question whether there were links between Miske and Katherine Kealoha, as well as HPD officers. First, there are the street rumors that there had been a personal relationship between Miske and Kealoha at some point in time. Despite Katherine Kealoha’s explicit denials, those unsubstantiated rumors have been remarkably persistent.

Then there are the possible drug connections. Katherine Kealoha pleaded guilty to charges that she tried to cover up her brother’s involvement in a drug case. In that connection, she disclosed her own use of cocaine as well as abuse of prescription pain meds. At least one other former prosecutor was also caught in recordings related to the Kealoha drug case.

And it was alleged that pain meds provided by her brother were traded for cocaine for recreational use. What hasn’t been laid out is evidence of whose hands those drugs passed through along the way, and whether any of those people involved were connected to Miske’s drug operations, which allegedly distributed marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, and prescription drugs. Any such connections would certainly suggest a more serious problem.

I’ve even heard suggestions (without any corroborating evidence) Mike Miske had been a confidential federal informant at some point when the feds were focused on preventing the notorious MS-13 gang from gaining a foothold in the islands, and that this was an impediment in the early stages of the investigation.

The bottom line is that there are lots of tales out in the wild, but few at this point are backed by any solid evidence.

Police appear to contradict city policy on park access

Excuse me if I complain about policy whiplash. City officials have repeatedly assured the public that although parks are closed, people are free to walk through a park to get to the ocean. But out on the streets, Honolulu police officers are threatening people with citations for doing so.

Over the past week, several people we regularly see on our early morning walks have reported being confronted by HPD officers while walking across Waialae Beach Park to get from Kahala Avenue to the beach, or back again.

They report being told by police officers that they cannot walk through the park, and could be cited for violating the emergency park closures.

“The park is closed,” an officer told one of our friends this week, pointing at a “Park Closed” sign. She described his manner as “aggressive.”

But according to the city’s website, people are free to walk through a park to get to the beach.

From the Department of Parks and Recreation official website:

March 27 – Community Gardens and stand alone comfort stations are open for public use. Community Gardens are open daily from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. (except for special hours at Foster Community Garden) and comfort stations will follow their regular nightly closure schedule (you can view that schedule by clicking here) Parks Permit Office is no longer providing in-person customer service. A reminder, you may traverse a City park to access the ocean, open comfort stations or your designated Community Garden plot, but you may not remain in the park. Click here for more information.

And if you click the link for more information there’s an additional paragraph about park closures.

It provides this clear statement of policy: “To clarify, members of the public should only traverse parks to access the comfort stations, their assigned community garden plots, or the ocean. After that you should go home.

It’s seems like it’s time to remind HPD of this clear city policy.

Also see:

Honolulu Star-Advertiser, “City pulls lifeguards from Oahu beaches,” March 20, 2020.

Under Hawaii law, people are allowed to traverse a park, even when closed, to access the beach. Additionally, the sandy area of beaches between the water and the “high water mark” of the sand is state jurisdiction, making it problematic for police or lifeguards to tell people they cannot go onto the sand and into the ocean.”

Honolulu Star-Advertiser, “As popular Hawaii hiking trails close amid coronavirus outbreak, several remain open,” March 25, 2020.

To clear up one more possible point of confusion: While the city previously announced the closure of restrooms in city parks, restrooms will be open starting today, but the parks themselves will remain closed, Serota said.

The public will be able to traverse city parks to access the ocean or to get from one point in a neighborhood to another, but stopping within a city park — apart from a restroom pit stop — will remain forbidden, according to a staffer on DPR’s information hotline, 768-CITY.

Hawaii should follow California in restricting HPD use of force

NPR had an informative take yesterday on California’s new law changing the way in which authorities review and evaluate the circumstances of police use of deadly force.

It came in a segment of the program “All Things Considered.” I heard in broadcast late Saturday afternoon on Hawaii Public Radio.

A story in the Sacremento Bee summarized the new law.

Prior to the new law, California police officers could use deadly force if their actions were considered “reasonable.” It’s a standard that dates to 1872, and it has frustrated activists who wanted to see prosecutions of cops after shootings of unarmed people.

The new standard restricts lethal force to when it is “necessary in defense of human life” as perceived by a “reasonable” officer and based on the “totality of circumstances.” It also emphasizes deescalation as an effective alternative to lethal force.

If questioned, officers will have to prove there is an “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury,” and they’ll be evaluated based on the facts they knew leading up to the deadly action.

“The bottom line is that deadly force should only be used when absolutely necessary,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a written statement after he signed the law.

The NPR segment featured an interview with Seth Stoughton, a law professor at the University of South Carolina and a former police officer, who reportedly consulted on the new law as it was being debated in California’s legislature.

SETH STOUGHTON: One of the big changes in this law is it directs reviewers, courts, juries, judges to look at all of the actions leading up to a use of force, including the officer’s actions, not just the subject’s actions. That’s a really important change because it can address a problem called officer-created jeopardy. Officers take risks. The job requires them to expose themselves to a certain amount of danger. But at the same time, we don’t want them to put themselves into danger, recklessly, when it’s not justified by the situation. So if an officer does that, if they put themselves into a dangerous situation in a way that’s not justified, then that action prior to the use of force can affect the ultimate determination of whether the officer’s use of force was appropriate.

Let me offer a little more specific example. If an officer steps in front of a car and then shoots the driver because the car starts moving toward them, under this new law, the jury, the judge, the prosecutor will analyze the propriety, the appropriateness of the officer’s actions not just at the moment that the shots were fired but also the officer’s actions leading up to the moment that the shots were fired. And one of the questions there is whether the officer put themselves into an unnecessarily dangerous situation and then used force to address the danger that they should’ve avoided in the first place. [Emphasis added]

Honolulu police officers use precisely the tactic Stoughton labels “officer-created jeopardy.” And in a series of cases in recent years, theses incidents have resulted in police fatally shooting suspects.

According to the NPR host, “many are saying the new law could influence policing standards nationwide.”

I certainly hope so. And, based on our track record, Hawaii really needs to follow the California example. And sooner rather than later.

See also:

Latest HPD shooting again raises familiar questions,” iLind.net, Dec. 4, 2016.

Could Honolulu police have avoided recent shootings?” iLind.net, Oct. 14, 2014.