Hawai‘i County fights subpoena from state Attorney General for investigative files on 4 disciplined police officers

Two years ago, four Hawaiʻi Island police officers were investigated internally for misconduct and received suspensions ranging from six days to 50 days. The officers all served their suspensions, and returned to active duty with the department, according to court records and a disciplinary report.

The officers — Noah Serrao, Blane Kenolio, Andrew Springer and Sheldon Adviento — all appear on the Hawai‘i County Police Department’s 2024 Legislature Disciplinary Report for a myriad of offenses that occurred in May of 2023, including alleged evidence tampering.

But now, two years later, the cases are in the middle of a court battle between the Hawaiʻi State Department of the Attorney General, and Hawaiʻi County and its police department.

In June, state Attorney General Anne Lopez’s Office subpoenaed the Hawai‘i County Police Department to produce administrative investigative files compiled by the department into the alleged misconduct of the four officers. This information is for the state’s criminal investigation of the officers.

The subpoena, filed in 3rd Circuit Court on June 20, also demanded that the officers appear in person in July at the Department of the Attorney General in Honolulu to be examined under oath.

On July 7, the Hawai‘i County Corporation Counsel filed a motion to quash the subpoena, stating the reports requested contain compelled administrative investigation statements, which are protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Attorney General has since filed a motion opposing the county’s motion to cancel the subpoena. It said the statements by potential witnesses and records of findings by investigators are relevant and material to its criminal investigation.

“Shielding possible police misconduct is not in the public interest and the County’s motion to quash, therefore, should be denied in full,” the motion said.

Third Circuit Court Judge Peter Kubota will address the motions during a 9 a.m. hearing on Aug. 19 in Hilo.

While the internal investigation was made final in 2023, the Hawaiʻi Police Department also forwarded the four cases as protocol to Hawai‘i County Prosecuting Attorney Kelden Waltjen in June of 2023. Waltjen said on Wednesday that in turn, he forwarded the cases to the state Attorneyʻs Office by the end of the month to avoid any appearance of impropriety due to the involvement of law enforcement.

The cases of Serrao, Kenolio, Springer and Adviento were assigned to the state’s Special Investigations Division in early July 2023, Waltjen said.

In court documents, the state Attorney Generalʻs office said its investigation “revealed that HPD conducted its own internal administrative investigation into the same conduct shortly after the events transpired.”

According to the 2024 disciplinary report that is published on the Hawaiʻi Police Departmentʻs website, Serrao, Kenolio, Springer and Adviento were among 21 officers who had disciplinary action taken against them that year. Two officers were discharged.

It has not been made public what exactly the officers were accused of doing. Big Island Now requested on Tuesday the police department’s complete finalized disciplinary reports on the four officers. As of Thursday, the reports were not released.

All that is publicly known comes from the legislative disciplinary report that provides only a paragraph about each case.

According to the report, Serrao was disciplined for tampering with evidence, conducting a search on a bag without consent or a search warrant, tampering with government records, falsifying records, and being untruthful. He was suspended for 50 days.

Two years earlier, Serrao was recognized by the Aloha Exchange Club of East Hawai‘i as Officer of the Month for September for capturing two escaped inmates from Hawai‘i Community Correctional Center.

Kenolio was disciplined for tampering with evidence and conducting a search on a bag without consent or a search warrant, committing a criminal act and violating standard of conduct polices. He was suspended for 24 days.

Serrao and Kenolio were both graduates from the Hawaiʻi Police Department’s 91st Recruit Class in 2020.

Springer was disciplined for tampering with evidence, conducting a search on a bag without consent or a search warrant and violating standard of conduct and performance of duty polices. He was suspended for 16 days.

Springer, an 11-year veteran on the force, was honored as Officer of the Month twice in 2019.

Adviento was disciplined for tampering with evidence, conducting a search on a bag without consent or a search warrant and violating standard of conduct and performance of duty polices. He was suspended for six days.

Adviento, a 10-year veteran on the force, was honored in 2024 by the Aloha Exchange Club as Officer of Month for his work on a financial investigation that disrupted criminal activity.

The Hawai’i Police Department declined to comment about the case. It also did not make the officers available for comment, as requested by Big Island Now.

On Wednesday, Hawai‘i County spokesperson Tom Callis said the county does not comment on pending litigation.

But in defense against the subpoena, Corporation Counsel’s filing cites a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court case, Garrity v. New Jersey, as the basis for not complying with the subpoena. The motion states that public employees cannot be forced to choose between self-incrimination and job loss.

Compliance with the subpoena would compel the police department to violate its contractual obligations, exposing Hawaiʻi County and the Hawaiʻi Police Department to potential liability, according to Corporation Counsel’s motion.

Corporation Counsel goes on to state that the subpoena lacks specificity, seeks entire administrative investigative files, and fails to limit the scope to materials that are not privileged or constitutionally protected.

“It places the (Hawaiʻi Police) Department in a position of having to breach either constitutional rights or contractual duties,” the court filing states.

The Attorney General Office states the county’s objections are baseless and would not violate the U.S. Supreme Court Case, Garrity vs. New Jersey.

In the Attorney General’s Office motion opposing the quash, it states that the subpoena specified the documents requested and the internal investigation report numbers for easy production by the Hawaiʻi Police Department, which is a governmental entity that holds no privilege.

Accordingly, the subpoena “is neither unreasonable, nor oppressive, nor violative of any privilege,” the motion said.

Toni Schwartz, spokesperson for the state Attorney General’s Office, provided the following comment: “The Department of the Attorney General will not make statements on the existence or status of specific investigations or about pending litigation.”

If the court does not quash the subpoena in full, Corporation Counsel states the court should issue a protective order for restricting the disclosure to non-privileged, non-Garrity-protected materials; require redaction of compelled statements; limit use to the pending AG investigation; and require notice and opportunity for the affected officers to object before production to any other agency/entity.