Posts

Showing posts with the label counties

HSC examines when county ordinances are (and aren't) preempted by state statutes

  State v. Pickell (HSC December 26, 2023) Background. Michael Pickell was charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. He filed a motion to suppress evidence challenging the basis for the traffic stop.   At the hearing, Officer Raul Mehra testified that he was on duty in Kihei one night when he saw Pickell in the left-turn-only lane with his left-turn signal on at the intersection of Pi‘ilani Highway and Ohukai Road. In Pickell’s lane was a left-turn-only sign and a left directional arrow. Next to the traffic light there was a gin that indicated left-turn only. When Pickell’s light turned green, he made a U-turn instead of turning left onto Ohukai Road. The turn required Pickell to drive across double solid yellow lines and a dashed white line. Officer Mehra initiated a traffic stop. Pickell said he was going home but later said he was going to Safeway. He also said he thought he could make a lawful U-turn because he was from California ...

ICA Upholds Authorization of Maui and HNL Officers Deployed to Big Island TMT Protest

  Flores v. Ballard (ICA January 27, 2021) Background. In 2017, the Board of Land and Natural Resources approved of the building of a thirty-meter telescope near the summit of Mauna Kea on the Big Island. Construction was delayed for several years due to protests and objections. In 2019, protestors assembled at the road near the summit. They blocked access to physically prevent construction of the telescope. The size of the protest strained resources for the Hawai'i County Police Department. The chief of police on the Big Island asked the Honolulu police chief Susan Ballard and Maui Police Department chief Tivoli Faaumu to support operations in dealing with the protestors.   Officers from Maui County and the City and County of Honolulu went to the Big Island. The next day, Kalani Flores filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief challenging the authority to use police officers from other counties. Chief Ballard and Chief Faaumu filed a motion to dismiss the complaint....

Pretext Defense may Exist, but Tough to Prove

County of Hawai'i v. C & J Coupe Family Ltd. Partnership (HSC November 10, 2010) Background. A development company wanted to build a large housing subdivision straddling North and South Kona on the Big Island. The company and the County entered into a Development Agreement requiring the company to build a bypass highway between Keauhou and Captain Cook. The County would exercise eminent domain to condemn the land of property owners who refused to sell. The company tried to buy out all of the landowners necessary to construct the highway, but the Coupe family refused to sell. Pursuant to the Development Agreement, the County Council authorized the condemnation of the 2.9 acres of Coupe land, and brought the appropriate lawsuit. The Coupes argued that the condemnation was not for public use. While that was pending, the County condemned another 3.348 acres of Coupe land on the grounds that the bypass would provide "a regional benefit for the public purpose an...

HSC Strikes down Concept of Perpetual EIS

Unite Here! v. City and County of Honolulu (HSC April 8, 2010) Background. In the 1980s Kuilima proposed to expand its 487-room hotel and 18-hole golf course by constructing three additional hotels, renovating the existing golf course, building another golf course, erecting a condominium unit, a commercial complex, clubhouse, tennis courts, and equestrian center on the North Shore of Oahu. The project called for a new wastewater treatment plant, water wells, reservoirs, water lines, highway improvements, a wildlife preserve, and public and private parks. In 1985, Kuilima prepared and filed an environmental impact statement with the Office of Environmental Quality Center. After public commentary and revisions, the 1985 EIS studied changes and projections going up to the year 2000. No major construction for the project occurred for more than 20 years. In 2005, Kuilima applied at the City and County's Department of Planning and Permitting for a subdivision of 744 acres ...

When Plain Language Becomes Ambiguous

Stop Rail Now v. De Costa (ICA December 30, 2009) Background. A group of concerned citizens submitted to the Clerk of the City and County of Honolulu a petition purportedly signed by over 49,000 registered voters. The petition proposed an ordinance by initiative stating that Honolulu mass transit "shall not include trains or rail transit." The Clerk rejected the petition for a special initiative election because the City and County Charter did not allow initiative special elections within 180 days of a general election. The petition was withdrawn. Stop Rail Now brought a lawsuit and a motion in the circuit court seeking a preliminary injunction that directed the Clerk to file and process a special initiative election and, if there were sufficient signatures, place the proposed ordinance on the general election ballot. The circuit court granted the motion and ordered the Clerk to accept the petition and determine whether there was sufficient signatures. The circuit...

Liquor Commission Subject to Judicial Review

E & J Operating Co. v. Liquor Comm'n of HNL (HSC July 29, 2008) Background. E & J Lounge applied for a liquor license with the Liquor Commission in HNL. The Commission held a preliminary hearing and determined to schedule a public hearing for the application. Three of the five commissioners appeared at the first public hearing, where it received testimony and evidence from neighbors. All five were at the continued hearing, but a different three presided over the third and final hearing. The Commission denied the application. E & J sought appealed to the circuit court pursuant to the Hawai'i Administrative Procedures Act (HRS chapter 91) on the grounds that the Commission violated various provisions of HAPA, including HRS § 91-11, which requires members who did not preside over all of the contested case to review the record before rendering a decision. The circuit court ruled that the public hearing was a "contested case" and that it had judicial r...

Contesting Contested Case on grounds that it's not a Contested Case.

E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. City and County of HNL (ICA December 24, 2007) Overruled by HSC. Background. E & J Lounge applied for a liquor license w/ the HNL Liquor Commission. After holding a public hearing where neighbors of the lounge opposed the granting of a license, the LC denied the application. E & J Lounge appealed to the circuit ct. on the grounds that the public hearing was a “contested case” and that the other requirements of the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act (HRS Ch. 91). The circuit court agreed and reversed the denial based on violations in HRS Ch. 91. Specific Agency Statutes v. the HAPA. HRS Ch. 281 regulates the proceedings of the liquor commission and requires the commission to hold a public hearing to determine the merits of the application for a license. The public hearing comes with procedural requirements like notice to neighbors w/in a proscribed time. The more rigorous procedural requirements under HRS Ch. 91, on the other hand, apply onl...

County Ordinance Among the Facially-Challenged.

State v. Beltran (HSC November 16, 2007) Background. Beltran and her friends, Keawemauhili and Lucas, were cited for Camping w/o a permit in violation of Revised Ordinances of HNL, Ord. 10-1-3(a)(2). They appeared in district court and moved to dismiss on the grounds that the ord. was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The motions were denied and the parties pleaded no contest w/ the right to appeal the denial of their motions. The ICA vacated on the grounds that it was unclear whether the ord. was prosecuted as a strict liability offense and remanded. The HSC then took it up. Standing Schmanding. Beltran first argued that the overbroad definition of “camping” infringed on her DP right to privacy and freedom of movement. When alleging that a statute is overbroad, the challenger must be “directly affected by the claimed overbroad aspects” unless the statute affects the freedom of expression. As her expressive conduct is not at issue, she would have no standing to challenge the o...