Date of Offense
Official Statement
The officers involved in the alleged wrongful DUI arrests conducted by the Honolulu Police Department—identified in the recent ACLU of Hawaiʻi class-action lawsuit—should be formally added to the Brady List based on multiple actions and omissions that constitute Brady Offenses under established constitutional and ethical standards. Their conduct calls into question their credibility, honesty, and professional integrity—each of which is central to their role as witnesses in any future prosecution.
Legal and Ethical Justification for Brady Inclusion
1. False Arrest and Fabrication of Evidence
The officers arrested multiple individuals—including plaintiffs Ammon Fepuleai, Sarah Poppinga, and Tanner Pangan—for driving under the influence despite those individuals blowing 0.000% on breathalyzer tests and, in many cases, passing field sobriety tests. These arrests appear to have been made without probable cause and were unsupported by objective evidence.
Such conduct violates the constitutional rights of the individuals under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and constitutes fabrication of evidence and false arrest, both of which are Brady material under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and its progeny. This information must be disclosed to defense counsel in any proceeding where these officers are called to testify.
2. Pattern of Misrepresentation
A systemic pattern has emerged in which officers—working allegedly under a quota system—routinely arrested sober individuals. This reflects not isolated error but a deliberate practice of misrepresentation and abuse of authority. Officers involved in such practices have demonstrated a willingness to falsify reports or exaggerate facts, undermining their trustworthiness as witnesses. Such conduct is material to impeachment and is required to be disclosed under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
3. Character for Dishonesty
Federal and state courts have held that an officer’s character for untruthfulness, dishonesty, or bias must be disclosed under Brady. The behavior described in the lawsuit—arresting individuals without probable cause, documenting intoxication contrary to objective results, and contributing to wrongful incarceration—demonstrates a disregard for truth and judicial integrity. This is especially critical in light of Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), which emphasizes the cumulative impact of credibility-related evidence.
4. Ongoing Risk of Judicial Taint
If these officers are permitted to testify in future proceedings without disclosure of their prior misconduct, it would present a clear and continuing danger of prosecutorial misconduct, judicial error, and potential reversal. Their names must be listed in any Brady disclosure database to prevent future violations and wrongful convictions stemming from the concealment of this known character evidence.
Conclusion
The actions of these officers not only undermine individual cases but also erode public trust in law enforcement and the judicial system. Their inclusion on the Brady List is legally required and ethically mandated. Prosecutors have an affirmative, ongoing duty to disclose this misconduct to all defendants in any matter in which these officers are involved, whether past, present, or future. Failure to do so risks further violation of due process rights and exposes prosecutors to potential disciplinary actions.
