Lawsuit says Honolulu police arrest sober drivers in focus on arrests for impaired driving
HONOLULU (AP) — The Honolulu Police Department said it will review all impaired driving arrests after the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii filed a lawsuit Thursday alleging officers are arresting sober drivers in an overzealous focus on making drunk-driving arrests.
In recent years Honolulu officers have arrested 'scores' of drivers who show no outward signs of impairment, perform well on field sobriety tests and whose breath tests often show no alcohol, the lawsuit said.
The department is driven by a 'singular focus' on getting arrests for driving under the influence, even if they don't result in convictions, in an attempt to show that officers are protecting the public, to use the arrest numbers to secure federal funding and to meet quotas, the ACLU said.
In response, the department said in a statement that it 'takes these allegations very seriously,' and officials have 'initiated a comprehensive review of all impaired driving arrests dating back to 2021.'
The ACLU said they became aware of the issue thanks to an investigation by Hawaii News Now reporter Lynn Kawano.
Police are motivated with incentives such as supervisors telling night enforcement officers they can go home and still get paid for an entire shift if they make a DUI arrest, which results in officers taking investigative shortcuts or making arrests without probable cause, the ACLU said.
The class-action lawsuit is on behalf of three plaintiffs who were arrested and represents hundreds of other drivers. The lawsuit is asking a judge to declare that the Honolulu police's practices are unconstitutional and unlawful. It doesn't seek monetary damages.
In addition to the ongoing review, the cases of the three plaintiffs will be internally investigated, police said: 'We are dedicated to upholding public trust and will take appropriate action should any misconduct be found.'
From 2002 through 2024, Honolulu police arrested 127 people who had a blood-alcohol content level of 0.000 after a breath or blood test for driving under the influence, according to the lawsuit. Only 15 people were given a traffic ticket, and only three people were charged with driving under the influence of drugs, the lawsuit said.
Honolulu police's 'pattern' has been to stop drivers either without any problematic driving at a sobriety checkpoint or for minor traffic infractions, the lawsuit said.
Tanner Pangan was a high school senior when an officer pulled him over last year after his truck swerved on a rain-slicked road. 'When I got pulled over and accused of drinking and driving ... I was kind of stunned because I don't drink, I don't do drugs, nothing,' he told reporters during a virtual news conference.
It was his first time being arrested or pulled over.
'Each of our clients blew a 0.000. None of them were intoxicated. Yet they endured lasting damage to their records, their reputation, traumatic arrests, and unlawful detention," said Jeremy O'Steen, an attorney with a firm that is working on the lawsuit with ACLU Hawaii. 'What we are demanding today is simple: Stop arresting innocent people. Stop manipulating the system.'
ACLU Hawaii is concerned there are quotas that officers are trying to meet. In looking at arrest statistics, the ACLU found a cluster of arrests at the end of the month. On Aug. 31, 2024, there were arrests where a breath test showed 0.000 in the same location about 20 minutes of each other, the ACLU said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Utah judge rules a convicted killer with dementia is competent to be executed
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A convicted killer in Utah who developed dementia while on death row for 37 years is competent enough to be executed, a state judge ruled late Friday. Ralph Leroy Menzies, 67, was sentenced to die in 1988 for killing Utah mother of three Maurine Hunsaker. Despite his recent cognitive decline, Menzies 'consistently and rationally understands" what is happening and why he is facing execution, Judge Matthew Bates wrote in a court order. 'Menzies has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his understanding of his specific crime and punishment has fluctuated or declined in a way that offends the Eighth Amendment,' which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, Bates said. Menzies had previously selected a firing squad as his method of execution. He would become only the sixth U.S. prisoner executed by firing squad since 1977. The Utah Attorney General's Office is expected to file a death warrant soon. Menzies' lawyers, who had argued his dementia was so severe that he could not understand why he was being put to death, said they plan to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court. 'Ralph Menzies is a severely brain-damaged, wheelchair-bound, 67-year-old man with dementia and significant memory problems,' his attorney, Lindsey Layer, said in a statement. 'It is deeply troubling that Utah plans to remove Mr. Menzies from his wheelchair and oxygen tank to strap him into an execution chair and shoot him to death.' The U.S. Supreme Court has spared others prisoners with dementia from execution, including an Alabama man in 2019 who had killed a police officer. Over nearly four decades, attorneys for Menzies filed multiple appeals that delayed his death sentence, which had been scheduled at least twice before it was pushed back. Hunsaker, a 26-year-old married mother of three, was abducted by Menzies from the convenience store where she worked. She was later found strangled and her throat cut at a picnic area in the Wasatch Mountains of northern Utah. Menzies had Hunsaker's wallet and several other belongings when he was jailed on unrelated matters. He was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes. Matt Hunsaker, who was 10 years old when his mother was killed, said Friday that the family was overwhelmed with emotion to know that justice would finally be served.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Government drones used in 'runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says
Three residents filed a lawsuit this week against Sonoma County seeking to block code enforcement from using drones to take aerial images of their homes in what the American Civil Liberties Union is calling a "runaway spying operation." The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday on behalf of the three residents, alleges that the county began using drones with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses in 2019 to track illegal cannabis cultivation, but in the years since, officials have used the devices more than 700 times to find other code violations on private property without first seeking a warrant. "For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drones to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media," Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Sonoma County said the county is reviewing the complaint and takes "the allegations very seriously." Read more: Will these drones 'revolutionize' 911 response? L.A. suburb will be first to test The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the use of drones by government agencies who have increasingly relied on the unmanned aircraft during disasters and for environmental monitoring and responding to emergency calls. More recently, some agencies in California and in other states have explored using drones to investigate code enforcement violations. In 2024, nearly half of Sonoma County's drone flights involved non-cannabis violations, including construction without a permit, junkyard conditions and zoning violations, according to data included in the complaint. "The use of drones over someone's private space raises a question of what is considered private," said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law at UC Irvine. Waldman said if law enforcement on the ground wants to see on the other side of a tall fence or trees into someone's property they have to get the person's consent or they need probable cause for a warrant. "Why shouldn't that apply above ground too?" he said. California doesn't have a law that regulates the use of drones by code enforcement agents. In 2015, lawmakers in the state Assembly approved a measure that would have restricted the use of drones over private property without the owner's permission. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill saying at the time that it could expose hobbyists or commercial users to "burdensome litigation." The ACLU argues that the county's use of drones as an investigative tool violates the California Constitution which provides people the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures. "I think that our expectations of privacy are based on social norms and people don't normally expect that someone is going to have a super high powered, detailed ability to capture extraordinary detail with a camera that's just buzzing over their property," Waldman said. "We shouldn't have to walk around life expecting that just because this technology exists that we have no privacy from anything anymore, from any direction." The lawsuit also alleges that the county's drone policy has loosened in the past several years. In 2019, the policy required inspectors to receive a complaint about a property before deploying a drone. Now, officials have no such requirement, allowing them instead to launch "discretionary proactive investigations," the complaint states. Residents named in the lawsuit say that the drones hovering above their homes have resulted in ongoing privacy concerns and a loss of enjoyment of their property. One plaintiff, Benjamin Verdusco, decided to sell his home after he learned that the county had been taking pictures of his backyard with a drone in 2021, according to the complaint. Read more: Police drones could soon crisscross the skies. Cities need to be ready, ACLU warns Another plaintiff, Nichola Schmitz, who is deaf, wasn't able to hear the buzz of the drone hovering above her property on Oct.10, 2023. When a worker on her property pointed it out she "became confused and worried," the complaint states. She rushed to her bedroom and closed the curtains, concerned about how long the drone had been there and whether it had seen her naked on her property earlier that day. She alleges the drone made two big loops around her property and, shortly after, a red tag appeared on her gate alleging two violations of the county code — one for illegal grading and another for having on her property an unpermitted dwelling, a small cabin that her father had built on the land in 1981. She spent $25,000 for a contractor to fix the alleged grading issue but still faces $10,000 in fines. ACLU attorneys allege the evidence obtained by the drone was done so unlawfully because officials did not have a search warrant. "This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security," Schmitz said in a statement. "I'm afraid to open my blinds or go outside to use my hot tub because who knows when the county's drone could be spying on me." A third plaintiff, Suzanne Brock, confronted county officials after she learned that they had taken detailed aerial photos of her outdoor bathtub and shower that she and her daughter used daily. She expressed concern to inspectors that they might have seen her naked in the bathtub. Code Enforcement Inspector Ryan Sharp told her that "when we see something like that, we turn around," according to the complaint. When Brock asked if county officials see people during the flights, Sharp told her yes, according to the complaint, but added that "we don't put that in the camera footage." Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump boasts of ‘big win' over AP as court allows WH to ban access after ‘Gulf of America' spat
President Trump celebrated a 'big win' Friday after a court ruled that his administration can ban the Associated Press from entering the Oval Office and other restricted areas. 'Big WIN over AP today,' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' Advertisement The 2-1 ruling in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia comes months after the White House barred an Associated Press reporter from the Oval Office in protest of the outlet's style guidance on the Gulf of America. The outlet manages the 'Associated Press Stylebook,' which is widely used by media publications across the country for guidance on abbreviations, spelling, references and more. The AP has refrained from updating its style guide to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, as mandated by Trump's executive order, arguing that the body of water has been called the Gulf of Mexico for 'more than 400 years' and other international groups have not acknowledged the change. Advertisement 'VICTORY! As we've said all along, the Associated Press is not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in other sensitive locations,' White House press secretary Karoline Levitt posted to X following the ruling. 'Thousands of other journalists have never been afforded the opportunity to cover the President in these privileged spaces. Moving forward, we will continue to expand access to new media so that more people can cover the most transparent President in American history rather than just the failing legacy media. 'And by the way @AP, it's still the Gulf of America.' 'We are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options,' a spokesperson for AP told CNN.
