Depa. tment of the Prosecuting Attorney City and COlmty of Honolulu Final Report Information Charging Submitted to the Twenty-Fourth Legislature, 2008 Pursuant to Act 62, Section 4 Session Laws of Hawaii, 2004
Final Report of the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney City and COlmty of Honolulu on Information Charging Submitted to the Twenty-Fourth Legislature, 2008 Pursuant to Act 62, Section 4, Session Laws of Hawaii 2004 Peter B. Carlisle Prosecuting Attorney City and County of Honolulu Department of the Prosecuting Attorney 1060 Richards Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. BACKGROUND... 1 RESULTS A. REDUCTION IN PRELIMINARY HEARINGS AND RELATED COST SAVINGS B. REDUCTION IN GRAND URY PROCEEDINGS AND RELATED COST SAVINGS C. MINIMAL NUMBERS OF CHALLENGES TO PROBABLE CAUSE FINDINGS D. CONCLUSION III. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION. STATISTICAL INFORMATION A. GRAND TOTALS from May 10,2004, to and including November 30, 2007... 7 B. Statistics By Type............................. 8 C. Statistics By Year 1. 2004...,...... 9 2. 2005...,......................... 10 3. 2006... 11 4. 2007 (anuary 1,2007 to and including November 30, 2007)... 12
I. BACKGROUND The implementation of Act 62, Session Laws of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2004, has successfully and significantly improved the way criminal cases are charged in Hawaii by simplifying and making criminal charging more efficient without impairing the rights of defendants. Prior to the implementation of Information Charging, criminal felony cases were initiated one of two ways depending on the suspect's status. If the suspect was in custody and met certain criteria, the suspect was charged outright via complaint. A Preliminary Hearing was later held to determine whether there was probable cause to believe the charges alleged had been committed and that the suspect was the one who committed the crimes. If the suspect was not in custody, an indictment was presented to the Grand ury to determine if probable cause existed. Information Charging now provides a third option to law enforcement. Information Charging enables cases to be charged via the filing of an Information rather than a complaint or indictment. A declaration by the investigating detective that demonstrates probable cause that the crime alleged in the Information has been committed and that the suspect is the one who committed the crime is attached as an exhibit along with any and all written statements by witnesses cited in the declaration. It is upon these documents that a judge bases his/her decision when determining whether probable cause exists. The judge's standard for finding probable cause in Information Charging cases is the same standard employed at a Preliminary Hearing and Grand ury thus affording a suspect the same privileges while continuing to protect and preserve hislher rights. The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, has implemented procedures to afford for two types of Information Charging cases, both dependant upon the suspect's status akin
to the complaint and indictment processes. If a suspect is in custody and meets certain criteria, the suspect may be charged outright via Information Charging - Custody procedures (ICC). If a suspect is not in custody, the suspect may be charged via Information Charging - Non-Custody procedures (ICNC). There is no significant difference between the two procedures except that paperwork is completed in an expedited manner in ICC cases to accommodate the suspect in custody. II. RESULTS A. REDUCTION IN PRELIMARY HEARINGS AND RELATED COST SAVINGS As a result of Information Charging, our entire judicial system has seen a dramatic change in the number of Preliminary Hearings held each day as well as in the number of Grand ury cases being presented. For example, from une thru December 2004, prior to the implementation of Information Charging - Custody procedures, our office handled 916 Preliminary Hearings. During that same period in 2006, after the implementation of Information Charging - Custody cases, that number dropped to 319. Considering the cost of a courtroom, judge, and court staff, not to mention the witness fees, mileage, and possible overtime HPD officers, this number translates into a significant financial savings for the State. This number, however, pales in comparison to the emotional and financial savings enjoyed by the civilian victims/witnesses who did not have to come to court to testify. For example, in a Preliminary Hearing situation, a single working mom whose car has been stolen and trashed, who is trying to find transportation for her kids to get to school and for herself to get to work, is told to come to court to testify that her car was stolen, that she didn't know the defendant, and that she didn't give the defendant permission to operate her car. She is given only a few days notice to make arrangements to come to court, and, since 2
Preliminary Hearings are held in the afternoon, she now must make plans for childcare while she is at court waiting for her case to be heard. She also risks having to return to court a second day if the Preliminary Hearing is continued for a myriad of reasons. With Information Charging, that single mom can now concentrate on caring for her kids and working to replace her car rather than missing work and catching a ride into town to go to court. For witnesses like her, the emotional savings that Information Charging provides is immeasurable. B. REDUCTION IN GRAND URY PROCEEDINGS AND RELATED COST SAVINGS Grand ury has also been dramatically affected as a result of Information Charging. In 2005, this office presented 513 cases to the Oahu Grand ury. That number dropped to 160 cases in 2006 with the full implementation of Information Charging - Non-Custody procedures. The significance of that difference is clear when one considers that it takes a minimum of 12 State funded personnel for a Grand ury case (a minimum of 8 grand jurors is needed for a quorum, judge, clerk, grand jury counsel, and a bailiff), two courtrooms (the grand jury hearing room and the grand jury returns courtroom), and funds to pay for witness fees, mileage, overtime, and grand jury counsel fees. In an Information Charging case, the number of persons involved is whittled down to three (a detective, a prosecutor, and a judge).l In 2006, over 500 HPD officers and personnel would have been called to testify at Grand ury proceedings had Information Charging not been in existence. Instead, these officers, detectives, criminalists, fingerprint experts, firearms records custodians, and the The cited number of personnel required for both Grand ury and Information Charging cases accounts for the probable cause finding phase only. The number of court personnel required to process the paperwork after the finding of probable cause for both Grand ury and Information Charging processes is the same. 3
like, were able to remain on the job investigating other crimes, patrolling our city streets, and protecting our citizens. C. MINIMAL NUMBERS OF CHALLENGES TO PROBABLE CAUSE FINDINGS Despite early assertions from the usual suspects, our courts have not been flooded with motions challenging probable cause findings in Information Charging cases. In fact, to date, no such motion has been filed with the courts. Several motions to dismiss Informations have been filed (less than 20), all of which involved procedural questions and not substantive, evidentiary, or constitutional issues. To date, not one such motion to dismiss an Information charge has ever been granted. D. CONCLUSION As previously stated, the most significant and profound effect Information Charging has had is upon the victims/witnesses of crimes. Almost 3,000 of victims/witnesses would have been called to testify at either a Grand ury or Preliminary Hearing had their cases not proceeded via Information Charging. The twenty dollars ($20.00) each victim/witness would have received in witness fees in addition to mileage fees paid for by the State could not possibly make up for the time lost at work and the emotional toll on their personal lives if ~ I 1 1 each had been called to testify in court. The elderly retired couple whose checks were stolen, forged, and presented at a bank; the sole proprietor whose goods were shoplifted; the middleclass working father whose car was broken into and stripped; and the family of four whose home was burglarized - all of whom would have been called to testify that they did not give anyone permission to steal from them if Information Charging had not been enacted. ~j 4
III. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION. The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney recommends the following four (4) offenses be added to the list of criminal offenses that are eligible for processing via Information Charging: 1) Failure To Comply With Covered Offender Registration Requirements (C felony) under Section 846E-9, Hawaii Revised Statutes; 2) -1 Methamphetamine Trafficking in the Second Degree (B felony) under Section 712-1240.8, Hawaii Revised Statutes; 3) Unauthorized Possession of Confidential Personal Information (C felony) under Section 708-839.55; and 4) Unlawful Entry in a Dwelling (C felony) under Section 708-812.6, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Except for Failure To Comply With Covered Offender Registration Requirements 2, the other three charges were not in existence when Act 62: Information Charging was passed in 2004 and, hence, were not included in the original list of enumerated covered offenses. This Department processed 64 Methamphetamine Trafficking cases from anuary 1,2007, to and including November 30, 2007. All 64 cases required at least one HPD officer and an HPD criminalist to testify taking them off the road, out of the crime laboratory, and away from their duties (civilian witnesses are rarely involved in these types of offenses). Unauthorized Possession of Confidential Personal Information.1.1. (UPCPI) is often charged along with Forgery, Theft, and Identity Theft offenses, all of which are covered under Information Charging. From anuary 1,2007, to and including November 30,2007, this office handled 96 cases which could have proceeded via Information Charging had UPCPI been an Information Charging eligible offense. Considering the number of civilian witnesses needed to present a forgery/theft case, the inclusion of UPCPI would translate into a huge savings both in and out of the courtroom. 2 Failure to comply with covered offender registration requirements was originally included in the list of covered offenses, however, the section number was s.ubsequentiy amended for the charge but not under Section 806-83 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. 5
,- -] With the inclusion of the above four charges, Information Charging will become an even greater asset to the criminal justice system in Hawaii in the years to come. More victims and witnesses will be spared from coming to court to testify at probable cause hearings, more officers will be able to stay on the job protecting and serving the community, and the State will continue to enjoy a financial savings while still protecting and preserving a suspect's rights. 1 6
Department of the Prosecuting Attorney City and County of Honolulu GRAND TOTALS May 10, 2004 to and including November 30, 2007 2188 cases conferred/received as Information Charging 1995 cases were processed via Information Charging (sent to District Court for review) 1993 cases were approved by District Court 2 were rejected 33 37 3 6 1 proceeded via O proceeded via Complaint (PVC) referred to Drug Court reclassified to Misdmeanor conflicted out to AOs 3932 HPD officers would have been called to testify at O or Prelim 998 HPD Personnel (criminalists, fingerprint experts, etc) would have been called at O/Prelim 2972 Civilian victims/witnesses would have been called to testify at O/Prelim 7
l ~l Statistics by Type Information Charging Non-Custody Cases: l 908 cases conferred/received as Information Charging 715 cases were processed via Information Charging (sent to District Court for review) 715 cases were approved by District Court 2 were rejected 33 proceeded via G 37 proceeded via Complaint (PVC) 3 referred to Drug Court 6 reclassified to Misdmeanor 1 conflicted out to AGs 113 pending receipt of reports/briefing/processing Witnesses Saved by Information Charging Non-Custody Cases: ] ] 1270 HPD officers would have been called to testify at G 339 HPD Personnel (criminalists, fingerprint experts, etc) would have been called at G 1317 Civilian victims/witnesses would have been called to testify at G Information Charging Custody Cases: 1280 cases conferred/received as Information Charging 1280 cases were processed via Information Charging (sent to District Court for review) 1280 cases were approved by District Court o were rejected Witnesses Saved by Information Charging Custody Cases: 2662 HPD officers would have been called to testify at Prelim 659 HPD Personnel (criminalists, fingerprint experts, etc) would have been called at Prelim 1655 Civilian victims/witnesses would have been called to testify at Prelim 8
Statistics By Year GRAND TOTAL: 7 cases conferred/received as Information Charging Information Charging Non-Custody Cases: Specific Breakdown 7 cases conferred/received as Information Charging o cases were processed via Information Charging (sent to District Court for review) N/A Information Charging Custody Cases Note: ICC cases did not begin until une 29, 2005 N/A 9
Grand Totals: 326 cases conferred/received as Information Charging 198 cases were processed via Information Charging (sent to District Court for review) 197 cases were approved by District Court 1 was rej ected Witnesses Saved by Information Charging in 2005: 349 HPD officers would have been called to testify at G or Prelim 75 HPD Personnel (criminalists, fingerprint experts, etc) would have been called at G/Prelim 320 Civilian victims/witnesses would have been called to testify at G/Prelim Information Charging Non-Custody Cases: Specific Breakdown 309 cases conferred/received as Information Charging 181 cases were processed via Information Charging (sent to District Court for review) 180 cases were approved by District Court 1 was rejected 307 HPD officers would have been called to testify at G 58 HPD Personnel (criminalists, fingerprint experts, etc) would have been called at G 319 Civilian victims/witnesses would have been called to testify at G -I ~ 1 Information Charging Custody Cases: Note: ICC cases did not begin until une 29, 2005 17 cases conferred/received as Information Charging 17 cases were processed via Information Charging (sent to District Court for review) 17 cases were approved by District Court o were rejected 42 17 1 HPD officers would have been called to testify at Prelim HPD Personnel (criminalists, fingerprint experts, etc) would have been called at Prelim Civilian victims/witnesses would have been called to testify at Prelim 10
~1 I Grand Totals: 861 cases conferred/received as Information Charging 811 cases were processed via Information Charging (sent to District Court for review) 811 cases were approved by District Court o were rej ected Witnesses Saved by Information Charging in 2006: 1640 HPD officers would have been called to testify at O or Prelim 381 HPD Personnel (criminalists, fingerprint experts, etc) would have been called at O/Prelim 1229 Civilian victims/witnesses would have been called to testify at O/Prelim Information Charging Non-Custody Cases: Specific Breakdown 327 cases conferred/received as Information Charging 277 cases were processed via Information Charging (sent to District Court for review) 277 cases were approved by District Court o were rejected 508 HPD officers would have been called to testify at O 86 HPD Personnel (criminalists, fingerprint experts, etc) would have been called at O 550 Civilian victims/witnesses would have been called to testify at O ' I Information Charging Custody Cases: 534 cases conferred/received as Information Charging 534 cases were processed via Information Charging (sent to District Court for review) 534 cases were approved by District Court o were rejected 1132 HPD officers would have been called to testify at Prelim 295 HPD Personnel (criminalists, fingerprint experts, etc) would have been called at Prelim 679 Civilian victims/witnesses would have been called to testify at Prelim 11
" 'I I " I ~l 1 anuary 1,2007 to and including November 30,2007 Grand Totals: 994 cases conferred/received as Information Charging 986 cases were processed via Information Charging (sent to District Court for review) 985 cases were approved by District Court 1 case was rej ected ~l " 1943 HPD officers would have been called to testify at G or Prelim 542 HPD Personnel (criminalists, fingerprint experts, etc) would have been called at G/Prelim 1423 Civilian victims/witnesses would have been called to testify at G/Prelim Information Charging Non-Custody Cases: Specific Breakdown 265 cases conferred/received as Information Charging 257 cases were processed via Information Charging (sent to District Court for review) 256 cases were approved by District Court 1 was rejected 455 HPD officers would have been called to testify at G 195 HPD Personnel (criminalists, fingerprint experts, etc) would have been called at G 448 Civilian victims/witnesses would have been called to testify at G Information Charging Custody Cases: 729 cases conferred/received as Information Charging 729 cases were processed via Information Charging (sent to District Court for review) 729 cases were approved by District Court o were rej ected 1488 347 975 HPD officers would have been called to testify at Prelim HPD Personnel (criminalists, fingerprint experts, etc) would have been called at Prelim Civilian victims/witnesses would have been called to testify at Prelim 12