So, the defense attorney representing the Chief and his wife expects an indictment. If that happens, will Kealoha be stripped of his police powers (ROPA) and his ability to have firearms?

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/31952309/attorney-for-honolulu-police-chief-expects-indictment-at-some-point

§134-7  Ownership or possession prohibited, when; penalty.  (a)  No person who is a fugitive from justice or is a person prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition therefor.
     (b)  No person who is under indictment for, or has waived indictment for, or has been bound over to the circuit court for, or has been convicted in this State or elsewhere of having committed a felony, or any crime of violence, or an illegal sale of any drug shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition therefor.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0007.htm

I heard this morning that the C&C will protect his position until the time that there is a verdict of any type. So I don't think he will lose his power. But based on what you quoted here he could lose his firearm.

 

I heard this morning that the C&C will protect his position until the time that there is a verdict of any type. So I don't think he will lose his power. But based on what you quoted here he could lose his firearm.

...
Wow

"Attorney David Simons specializes in employment law and worker rights. He said the city charter protects the police chief’s employment, even when it comes to a federal grand jury indictment."

It would only be correct.  The agency could also come under Federal oversight.  Not likely but not out of the realm of possibility.  There are factors that would make this determination, but that is all the more I will go with this.

May be he and killery can run their respective offices from a prison cell? 

"Attorney David Simons specializes in employment law and worker rights. He said the city charter protects the police chief’s employment, even when it comes to a federal grand jury indictment."

It protects his employment, it does not, and cannot provide immunity from the law. Many police officers have remained employed while ROPA'ed.

It protects his employment, it does not, and cannot provide immunity from the law. Many police officers have remained employed while ROPA'ed.

See my previous post:

"I heard this morning that the C&C will protect his position until the time that there is a verdict of any type...."

I heard this morning that the C&C will protect his position until the time that there is a verdict of any type. So I don't think he will lose his power. But based on what you quoted here he could lose his firearm.

Just get a big dog

Just get a big dog

If you get a little dog with long fur it can double as a mop when you clean the house. 

But seriously, I put that comment on the same level as Joe Biden's "just get a shotgun".

Being Relieved of Police Authority does not mean that you lose employment.  You remain employed but your police powers are suspended pending outcome.  The agency can however move for termination under administrative rules.  Also regular officers who are not administrative fall under SHOPO and a different bargaining agreement than administration.  So even though I mentioned above that it would only be correct, maybe I should have said, should only be fair, but this does not mean this situation will fall under a ROPA situation or even similar.

Does this mean he must surrender all his firearm(s)?

Does this mean he must surrender all his firearm(s)?

That is the question. Regardless of whether or not he is officially "ROPA'ed" or not, regardless of whether or not they "hold his position" until a verdict, regardless of what bargaining unit may represent administration versus "street" officers, and regardless of his employment status, if he's indicted he cannot 'own, possess, or control firearms or ammunition."

Let's see if the law really does apply equally.....

Oooohh the plot thickens!

§134-11  Exemptions.  (a)  Sections 134-7 to 134-9 and 134-21 to 134-27, except section 134-7(f), shall not apply:
     (1)  To state and county law enforcement officers; provided that such persons are not convicted of an offense involving abuse of a family or household member under section 709-906;



Section F is in regards to TRO'

 

 I'm more concerned about all those concealed carry permits that he's approved might now be questioned.

I'm more concerned about all those concealed carry permits that he's approved might now be questioned.

LOL!   Good one!