Fisher MSJ Decesion

7/27/2019 Fisher MSJ Decesion

1/63

- 1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

KIRK C. FISHER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LOUIS KEALOHA, as an individual

and in his official capacity as

Honolulu Chief of Police, PAUL

PUTZULU, as an individual and in

his official capacity as former

acting Honolulu Chief of Police,

and CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civ. No. 11-00589 ACK-BMK

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR

PERMANENT INJUNCTION

On Sept ember 28, 2011, Pl ai nt i f f Ki r k C. Fi sher

( Pl ai nt i f f ) f i l ed hi s Compl ai nt agai nst Def endant s Loui s

Keal oha, Paul Put zul u, t he Ci t y and Count y of Honol ul u ( Ci t y) ,

t he Honol ul u Pol i ce Depar t ment ( HPD) , and Doe Def endant s 1- 50.

Pl ai nt i f f asser t ed t wo cl ai ms agai nst Def endant s f or al l eged

vi ol at i ons of hi s Second, Fi f t h, and Four t eent h Amendment r i ght s

r egar di ng hi s f i r ear ms and at t empt s t o obt ai n a f i r ear ms per mi t .

Compl . 47- 57, ECF No. 1.

The Ci t y and Keal oha f i l ed mot i ons f or par t i al

di smi ssal of Pl ai nt i f f s Compl ai nt . ECF Nos. 6 & 16- 1. Af t er

Case 1:11-cv-00589-ACK-BMK Document 111 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 63 PageID #:1593


2/63

1/ The record i ndi cat es t hat Def endant Put zul u has not beenser ved wi t h the Amended Compl ai nt or appear ed i n t hi s act i on.See ECF No. 31- 2 and ECF Nos. 31- 108. At t he hear i ng onSept ember 17, 2013, Pl ai nt i f f s counsel vol unt ar i l y di smi ssedDef endant Put zul u f r om t hi s l awsui t .

2/ The Compl ai nt al so r ef er ences t he Fi f t h Amendment i n i t sJ ur i sdi ct i on st at ement . Am. Compl . at 5 11, ECF No. 31. TheCour t pr evi ousl y di smi ssed Pl ai nt i f f s Fi f t h Amendment cl ai mswi t h pr ej udi ce i n i t s Or der r e Def endant s Mot i ons t o Di smi ss.ECF No. 25 at 40 (di smi ss i ng Fi f t h Amendment cl ai ms on t he basi st hat t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause of t he Fi f t h Amendment onl y appl i es

( cont i nued. . . )

- 2-

r ecei vi ng t he br i ef s and conduct i ng a hear i ng, t hi s Cour t i ssued

an or der t hat ( 1) di smi ssed t he cl ai ms agai nst t he Ci t y wi t hout

pr ej udi ce, ( 2) di smi ssed par t of Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms agai nst

Keal oha wi t hout pr ej udi ce, ( 3) di smi ssed al l cl ai ms agai nst t he

HPD wi t h pr ej udi ce, and ( 4) di smi ssed Pl ai nt i f f s Fi f t h Amendment

cl ai ms wi t h pr ej udi ce ( Or der r e Def endant s Mot i ons t o

Di smi ss) . ECF No. 25.

Pl ai nt i f f subsequent l y f i l ed an Amended Compl ai nt

agai nst Loui s Keal oha as an i ndi vi dual and i n hi s of f i ci al

capaci t y, Paul Put zul u as an i ndi vi dual and i n hi s of f i ci al

capaci t y, and t he Ci t y ( col l ect i vel y, Def endant s) . 1/ ECF No.

31. The Amended Compl ai nt cont ai ns t he f ol l owi ng t wo count s:

Count I - The Second and Four t eenth Amendment s t o t he Uni t ed

St at es Const i t ut i on and 42 U. S. C. 1983 Agai nst Al l Def endant s,

and Count I I - The Four t eent h Amendment s [ si c] t o t he Uni t ed

St at es Const i t ut i on and 42 U. S. C. 1983 Agai nst Al l

Def endant s. 2/ I d.



3/63

2/ ( . . . cont i nued)t o t he act i ons of t he f eder al gover nment , not st at e or l ocalgovernment s) . At t he hear i ng hel d on August 12, 2013,Pl ai nt i f f s counsel cl ar i f i ed t hat Pl ai nt i f f i s not al l egi ng aFi f t h Amendment cl ai m i n t he Amended Compl ai nt ; t he ref erence t ot he Fi f t h Amendment i n t he J ur i sdi ct i on st at ement was at ypogr aphi cal er r or .

- 3-

On Mar ch 19, 2012, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a Mot i on f or

Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on. ECF No. 18. Af t er r ecei vi ng t he br i ef s

and hol di ng a hear i ng, t he Cour t i ssued i t s Or der Gr ant i ng

Pl ai nt i f f Ki r k C. Fi sher s Mot i on f or a Pr el i mi nar y I nj uncti on

on J une 29, 2012 ( 2012 Prel i mi nar y I nj unct i on Or der ) . ECF No.

35. The Cour t i ssued an i nj unct i on t o Def endant Keal oha t o

resci nd t he pr i or deni al of Pl ai nt i f f s per mi t t o acqui r e

f i r ear ms and t o i ssue a per mi t aut hor i zi ng Pl ai nt i f f t o acqui r e

f i r ear ms. I d. at 36. Keal oha and t he Ci t y ( col l ect i vel y, Ci t y

Def endant s) f i l ed a Mot i on f or Reconsi der at i on of t he 2012

Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on Or der ( ECF No. 39) , whi ch t he Cour t

subsequent l y deni ed i n i t s Or der Denyi ng Def endant s Mot i on f or

Reconsi der at i on ( Reconsi der at i on Or der r e Pl ai nt i f f s

Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on) . ECF No. 50.

On Febr uar y 25, 2013, Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a Mot i on f or

Summary J udgment ( MSJ ) and a Mot i on f or Per manent I nj unct i on

( MPI ) . ECF Nos. 75 & 77. Pl ai nt i f f al so f i l ed a Conci se

St at ement of Fact s i n suppor t of hi s MSJ . ECF No. 78. The Ci t y

Def endant s f i l ed thei r Memor andum i n Opposi t i on and Conci se

St atement of Fact s on J ul y 22, 2013. ECF Nos. 89 & 90. I ncl uded



4/63

3/ A st at us conf er ence was hel d wi t h t he magi st r at e j udgeon J anuar y 25, 2013; t he par t i es appar ent l y agr eed t hat t hehear i ng dat e f or Pl ai nt i f f s MSJ and MPI woul d be hel d over f i ve

mont hs l ater on J ul y 8, 2013. ECF No. 72. However , t heundersi gned was unavai l abl e on t he day chosen by t he magi st r atej udge and t he par t i es, r equi r i ng a move of t he hear i ng dat e t oAugust 12, 2013. ECF No. 80.

4/ Hawai i Def ense Foundat i on f i l ed amended mot i ons whi chwere consol i dated and gr ant ed i n t he same order . ECF No. 72.

- 4-

on page t hr ee of t he Ci t y Def endant s Opposi t i on i s a br i ef

r equest t hat t he Cour t gr ant summary j udgment i n f avor of t he

Ci t y Def endant s under Local Rul e 56. 1( i ) . ECF No. 89. Pl ai nt i f f

f i l ed hi s Repl y on J ul y 29, 2013. ECF No. 97. The Cour t set a

hear i ng date f or August 12, 2013. ECF No. 80. 3/

Ther e ar e al so t wo ami ci who r equest ed t o f i l e br i ef s

and to appear at t he August 12, 2013 hear i ng regardi ng

Pl ai nt i f f s MSJ and MPI . On December 20, 2012, t he Hawai i

Def ense Foundat i on ( HDF) f i l ed a Mot i on f or Leave t o Fi l e

Ami cus Cur i ae Br i ef , whi ch was subsequent l y gr ant ed by the Cour t .

ECF Nos. 67, 69, 70, 72. 4/ On J ul y 12, 2013, t he Br ady Cent er t o

Pr event Gun Vi ol ence ( Br ady Cent er ) f i l ed a Mot i on f or Leave t o

Fi l e Ami cus Cur i ae Br i ef , whi ch was al so gr ant ed by t he Cour t .

ECF Nos. 87 & 91.

HDF f i l ed i t s br i ef on Febr uar y 1, 2013. ECF No. 73.

The Br ady Cent er f i l ed a br i ef on J ul y 23, 2013. ECF No. 93.

HDF al so f i l ed a Not i ce of Suppl ement al Aut hor i t y on J ul y 23,

2013. ECF No. 92.



5/63

- 5-

On August 8, 2013, t wo busi ness days bef ore the

hear i ng, t he Ci t y Def endant s f i l ed a Mot i on f or Leave t o Fi l e

Document Consi st i ng of an Addi t i onal Exhi bi t . ECF No. 99. The

Exhi bi t submi t t ed by t he Ci t y Def endant s was Pl ai nt i f f s

deposi t i on t r anscri pt f r om hi s Apr i l 17, 2013 deposi t i on. I d.

Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed an Opposi t i on t o t he Ci t y Def endant s Mot i on f or

Leave on August 9, 2013. ECF No. 100.

On August 12, 2013, t he Cour t hel d a hear i ng r egardi ng

Pl ai nt i f f s Mot i on f or Summar y J udgment , Mot i on f or Per manent

I nj unct i on, and t he Ci t y Def endant s Mot i on f or Leave t o Fi l e

Document Consi st i ng of an Addi t i onal Exhi bi t . ECF No. 101.

Because al l par t i es f ai l ed i n t hei r br i ef s t o addr ess Descamps v.

Uni t ed St ates, 133 S. Ct . 2276 ( 2013) , a Supr eme Cour t case the

Cour t f ound t o be cont r ol l i ng r egar di ng Pl ai nt i f f s mot i ons, t he

Cour t or der ed t he par t i es t o submi t suppl ement al br i ef i ng. ECF

No. 102. As a r esul t , t he Cour t moved t he hear i ng r egar di ng

Pl ai nt i f f s mot i ons t o Sept ember 17, 2013. I d. The Cour t al so

gr ant ed t he Ci t y Def endant s Mot i on f or Leave t o Fi l e and al l owed

t hem t o submi t Pl ai nt i f f s deposi t i on af t er f i ndi ng t hat ( 1) t he

document addr essed several i mpor t ant mat t ers bef ore t he Cour t and

( 2) Pl ai nt i f f woul d have a chance to respond and suf f er ed no

pr ej udi ce. I d. The Cour t deni ed t he Ci t y Def endant s r equest

t hat t he Cour t gr ant summary j udgment i n t hei r f avor under Local

Rul e 56. 1( i ) because t he r equest had been made onl y t hr ee weeks



6/63

5/ Bot h par t i es r ef er ence exhi bi t s f i l ed wi t h pr evi ousmot i ons t hat ar e par t of t he r ecor d i n t hi s case. The Cour tl i kewi se r ef er s t o t hese pr i or exhi bi t s submi t t ed by t he par t i es.

- 6-

bef or e t he hear i ng and had not been suf f i ci ent l y br i ef ed, and

Pl ai nt i f f di d not have suf f i ci ent not i ce t o oppose t he mot i on.

I d.

I n compl i ance wi t h t hi s Cour t s August 12, 2013 mi nut e

or der , Pl ai nt i f f , Ci t y Def endant s, t he Br ady Cent er , and HDF

f i l ed suppl ement al br i ef s. ECF Nos. 105, 106, 104, and 103. The

Cour t hel d anot her hear i ng r egar di ng Pl ai nt i f f s Mot i on f or

Summar y J udgment and Mot i on f or Permanent I nj unct i on on September

17, 2013. ECF No. 109.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On November 5, 1997, Pl ai nt i f f was ar r est ed f or t wo

count s of har assment i n vi ol at i on of Hawai #i Revi sed St at ut es

( H. R. S. ) 711- 1106( 1) ( a) . Def s. Mt n. f or Recon. Ex. B, ECF

No. 39- 5. 5/ The st at ut e st at es, i n r el evant par t :

711-1106 Harassment.

( 1) A per son commi t s t he of f ense of har assment i f , wi t h

i nt ent t o har ass, annoy, or al ar m any ot her per son, t hat

person:

( a) St r i kes, shoves, ki cks, or ot her wi se t ouches

anot her per son i n an of f ensi ve manner or subj ect s t he

ot her per son t o of f ensi ve physi cal cont act . . . .



7/63

6/ The Comment ary regardi ng H. R. S. 711- 1106( a) st atest hat Subsect i on ( 1) ( a) i s a r est at ement of t he common- l aw cr i meof bat t er y, whi ch was commi t t ed by any sl i ght t ouchi ng of anot herperson i n a manner whi ch i s known to be of f ensi ve to t hat

per son.

7/ As not ed i n t he 2012 Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on Or der , t heCour t t akes j udi ci al not i ce of t he December 3, 1997 j udgment i nStat e of Hawai #i v. Ki r k C. Fi sher , FC- CR No. 97- 3233, whi chconf i r ms t hat Pl ai nt i f f was convi ct ed under H. R. S. 711-


- 7-

H. R. S. 711- 1106( 1) ( a) . 6/

The st at e cour t compl ai nt agai nst Pl ai nt i f f al l eges

t hat , on or about November 5, 1997, [ Pl ai nt i f f ] , wi t h i nt ent t o

har ass, annoy, or al ar m Col et t e Fi sher , di d st r i ke, shove, ki ck,

or ot her wi se t ouch Col et t e Fi sher i n an of f ensi ve manner , or

subj ect her t o of f ensi ve physi cal cont act , t her eby commi t t i ng t he

pet t y mi sdemeanor of f ense of har assment i n vi ol at i on of Sect i on

711- 1106( 1) ( a) of t he Hawai i Revi sed St at ut es. St at e of

Hawai i #i v. Ki r k C. Fi sher , FC- CR No. 97- 3233, Compl . p. 1. At

t he t i me of t he 1997 i nci dent t o t he pr esent , Col et t e Fi sher has

been Pl ai nt i f f s wi f e. Am. Compl . at 8, 24, ECF No. 31;

Deposi t i on of Ki r k C. Fi sher at 9- 10, ECF No. 99- 2. A second

count i n t he compl ai nt cont ai ns t he same al l egat i ons wi t h r espect

t o Ni col e Fi sher , Pl ai nt i f f s daught er . I d.

On December 3, 1997, Pl ai nt i f f pl ed gui l t y t o t wo

count s of har assment i n t he Fami l y Cour t of t he Fi r st Ci r cui t ,

Stat e of Hawai #i and was sent enced t o si x mont hs of pr obat i on.

Decl . of Ki r k C. Fi sher , 3, ECF No. 78- 1. 7/ As par t of t he



8/63

7/ ( . . . cont i nued)1106( 1) ( a) . ECF No. 35 at 6, n. 4.

8/ The r ecor d does not expl i ci t l y st at e t he r easonPl ai nt i f f was requi r ed t o undergo a subst ance abuse assessmentt hat i nvol ved counsel i ng or t r eat ment . Pl ai nt i f f i n hi sdeposi t i on admi t s t hat he had been dr i nki ng al cohol ( speci f i cal l ya si x- pack of beer ) on t he day of t he al l eged domest i c vi ol encei nci dent wi t h hi s wi f e. Deposi t i on of Ki r k C. Fi sher at 26,l i nes 14- 21, ECF No. 99- 2. Hawai #i st atut es and case l aw appeart o i ndi cat e t hat subst ance abuse may ref er t o, i nt er al i a, t heabuse of al cohol or drugs. See H. R. S. 291E- 61( a) - ( b)( mandat i ng t hat a per son convi ct ed of dr i vi ng a vehi cl e whi l eunder t he i nf l uence of al cohol or dr ugs must at t end a subst ance

abuse rehabi l i t at i on pr ogr am) , 321- 191 ( Subst ance meansal cohol , any dr ug on schedul es I t hr ough I V of chapt er 329, orany subst ance whi ch i ncl udes i n i t s composi t i on vol at i l e or gani csol vent s. ) , 329B- 2 ( st at i ng t hat subst ance abuse test r ef er st o t est i ng pr ocedur es r egar di ng, i nt er al i a, dr ugs and al cohol ) ,and St ate v. Marshal l , 114 Haw. 396, 402- 03, 163 P. 3d 199, 205- 06( Haw. App. 2007) .

- 8-

t er ms of hi s pr obat i on, t he j udge or der ed Pl ai nt i f f t o at t end

subst ance abuse assessment and . . . par t i ci pat e i n counsel i ng

and/ or t r eat ment unt i l cl i ni cal l y di schar ged or as di r ect ed by

t he pr obat i on of f i cer . Def s. Mt n. f or Recon. Ex. C, ECF No.

39- 6. Pl ai nt i f f evi dent l y r ecei ved a cer t i f i cat e of compl et i on

st at i ng that he compl eted a Twel ve Hour Dr ug and Al cohol

Educat i on Cour se. 8/ I d. at Ex. E, ECF No. 39- 8.

I n connect i on wi t h hi s convi ct i on, Pl ai nt i f f was al so

or der ed t o sur r ender al l f i r ear ms, ammuni t i on, per mi t s, and

l i censes t o HPD. Def s. Mt n. f or Recon. Ex. D, ECF No. 39- 7. On

November 4, 1998, st at e j udge Dan Kochi i ssued an Or der

Per mi t t i ng Ret ur n of Fi r ear ms, Ammuni t i on, Per mi t s and Li censes,

Wi t h Condi t i on. Pl nt f . s CSF Ex. 2, ECF No. 78- 4. The or der



9/63

9/ The Ci t y Def endant s l et t er dat ed Oct ober 1, 2009 doesnot st at e whi ch sect i on of H. R. S. 134- 7 f or med t he basi s f ort he deni al of Pl ai nt i f f s f i r ear ms per mi t . Pl nt f . s CSF Ex. 3.I n Mr . Wi l ker son s l et t er t o Def endant Keal oha, he i ndi cat es t hatof f i cer s f r om t he HPD st at ed t hat t he appl i cat i on was deni edbecause Pl ai nt i f f had been convi ct ed of a cr i me of vi ol ence,whi ch woul d f al l under H. R. S. 134- 7( b) .

- 9-

st at ed, i n r el evant par t , t hat t he HPD shoul d r et ur n Pl ai nt i f f s

f i r ear ms and ammuni t i on provi ded t hat t he pr ovi si ons of H. R. S.

Chapt er 134 ar e sat i sf i ed and t hat t her e ar e no . . .

pr ohi bi t i ons under H. R. S. Sect i on 134- 7 . . . or a convi ct i on of

a mi sdemeanor cr i me of vi ol ence under 18 U. S. C. sect i on

922( g) ( 9) . I d. The HPD pr ompt l y r et ur ned Pl ai nt i f f s f i r ear ms

as a r esul t of t hi s or der . Def s. Answer at 1, ECF No. 40, Am.

Compl . at 7, 19, ECF No. 31.

Pr i or t o Oct ober of 2009, Pl ai nt i f f owned and possessed

f i r ear ms. Decl . of Ki r k C. Fi sher , 8, ECF No. 78- 1. I n t he

f al l of 2009, Pl ai nt i f f submi t t ed an appl i cat i on t o HPD i n or der

t o obt ai n a per mi t f or addi t i onal f i r ear ms. I d. On Oct ober 1,

2009, Act i ng Chi ef of Pol i ce Paul Put zul u, t hr ough subor di nat e

Maj or Kur t B. Kendr o, deni ed Pl ai nt i f f s appl i cat i on vi a l et t er

on t he gr ounds t hat Pl ai nt i f f was di squal i f i ed under H. R. S.

134- 7. 9/ Decl . of Ki r k C. Fi sher , 9, ECF No. 78- 1; Pl nt f . s

CSF Ex. 3. HPD t hen or der ed Pl ai nt i f f t o sur r ender t o t he pol i ce

or ot her wi se l awf ul l y di spose of hi s f i r ear ms and ammuni t i on

wi t hi n 30 days of Oct ober 1, 2009. Pl nt f . s CSF Ex. 3, ECF No.

78- 5. Accor di ng t o t he Oct ober 1, 2009 l et t er , HPD i ndi cat ed



10/63

- 10-

t hat t he chi ef of pol i ce woul d t ake act i on t o sei ze Pl ai nt i f f s

f i r ear ms i f he di d not l awf ul l y di spose of hi s f i r ear ms and

ammuni t i on. I d. However , Pl ai nt i f f st at es t hat HPD t ol d hi m t hat

he woul d be ar r est ed i f he di d not di spose of hi s f i r ear ms.

Decl . of Ki r k C. Fi sher , 10, ECF No. 78- 1. The par t i es do not

di sput e t hat Pl ai nt i f f l awf ul l y di sposed of hi s f i r ear ms and

ammuni t i on. I d. at 11, Def s. CSF at 3, 8, ECF No. 90.

Pl ai nt i f f al l eges t hat HPD t ol d hi m he was di squal i f i ed

f r om owni ng f i r ear ms because of hi s har assment convi ct i ons and

t hat i t was t hei r cust om, pr act i ce and pol i cy t o r evi ew pol i ce

r epor t s t o det er mi ne whet her or not a def endant s al l eged cr i me

was a cr i me of vi ol ence. Decl . of Ki r k C. Fi sher , 12, ECF No.

78- 1. Pl ai nt i f f al so al l eges that HPD t ol d hi m t hat Put zul u s

deci si on was f i nal and t hat appel l at e remedi es di d not exi st .

I d.

The Ci t y Def endant s di sput e t hese al l eged f act s and

ar gue t hat HPD t ol d Pl ai nt i f f t hat he was di squal i f ed based upon

H. R. S. 134- 7, not sol el y based upon t he har assment convi ct i ons.

Def s. CSF at 3, 10, Pl nt f . s CSF Ex. 3, ECF No. 78- 5. The

Ci t y Def endant s al so di sput e whet her a HPD of f i cer t ol d Pl ai nt i f f

about a cust om, pr act i ce and pol i cy of r evi ewi ng pol i ce r epor t s

because Pl ai nt i f f di d not ment i on a speci f i c per son who t ol d hi m

t he al l eged i nf or mat i on. Def s. CSF at 3, 11. Fur t her mor e,

t he Ci t y Def endant s argue t hat per mi t appl i cant s are abl e t o seek



11/63

10/ By t he t i me Pl ai nt i f f appl i ed f or a per mi t i n 2009, t het r anscri pt s/ audi o r ecor di ngs of Pl ai nt i f f s gui l t y pl ea had beendest r oyed. Pl nt f . s CSF Ex. 4 at 2, ECF No. 78- 6.

- 11-

r econsi der at i on of a deni al of t hei r per mi t appl i cat i on. Decl .

of Ni t t a at 4, 13- 14, ECF No. 90- 1.

Accordi ng t o t he Ci t y Def endant s, HPD r uns a backgr ound

check on i ndi vi dual s who appl y f or a f i r ear ms per mi t . Decl . of

Ni t t a at 3, 9, ECF No. 90- 1. I f t he appl i cant was convi ct ed of

a cr i me of vi ol ence, t hen HPD deni es t he appl i cat i on. I d.

However , i f t he appl i cant was convi ct ed f or har assment , HPD

at t empt s t o det er mi ne i f t he par t i cul ar convi ct i on i nvol ved

vi ol ent behavi or , speci f i cal l y, t he use of physi cal f or ce, and

whet her t he vi ol ence occur r ed wi t hi n a domest i c r el at i onshi p.

I d. I f HPD det er mi nes t hat an appl i cant s convi ct i on f or

har assment i ncl udes physi cal f or ce agai nst t he vi ct i m or vi ol ent

behavi or i n a domest i c rel at i onshi p, HPD deni es t he appl i cat i on.

I d. at 10.

Regar di ng t he speci f i c pr ocedur e used f or Pl ai nt i f f ,

HPD r an a backgr ound check and r evi ewed pol i ce report s r el ated t o

t he convi ct i on. 10/ I d. at 11. Based upon t he pol i ce r epor t s,

HPD concl uded t hat Pl ai nt i f f engaged i n conduct whi ch i ncl uded

vi ol ent behavi or i nvol vi ng t he use of physi cal f or ce agai nst hi s

wi f e and daught er . I d. As a r esul t , HPD deni ed Pl ai nt i f f s

appl i cat i on. I d. at 12.



12/63

- 12-

On August 31, 2010, Pl ai nt i f f t hr ough hi s counsel sent

a l et t er t o HPD and r equest ed t hat ( 1) HPD gr ant hi s appl i cat i on

f or a per mi t t o acqui r e f i r ear ms and ( 2) HPD r esci nd t he pr i or

or der i nst r uct i ng Pl ai nt i f f t o sur r ender or di spose of hi s

f i r ear ms. Pl nt f . s CSF Ex. 4, ECF No. 78- 6. Def endant Keal oha

r esponded t o Pl ai nt i f f s r equest on Sept ember 29, 2010 and

af f i r med HPD s pr i or deni al of Pl ai nt i f f s per mi t appl i cat i on.

Pl nt f . s CSF Ex. 5, ECF No. 78- 7. Pl ai nt i f f subsequent l y

t r ansf er r ed owner shi p and possessi on of al l of hi s f i r ear ms t o

hi s wi f e, Col et t e Fi sher , af t er she obt ai ned t he pr oper per mi t s.

Am. Compl . at 8, 24, ECF No. 31.

STANDARD

I. Motion for Summary Judgment Under FRCP 56

A par t y may move f or summar y j udgment on any cl ai m or

def ense - or par t of a cl ai m or def ense - under Feder al Rul e of

Ci vi l Procedur e ( Rul e) 56. Summary j udgment shoul d be gr ant ed

i f t he movant shows t hat t here i s no genui ne di sput e as t o any

mat er i al f act and t he movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er

of l aw. Maxwel l v. Cnt y. of San Di ego, 697 F. 3d 941, 947 ( 9t h

Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56( a) ) . Under Rul e 56, a

par t y assert i ng t hat a f act cannot be or i s genui nel y di sput ed

must suppor t t he asser t i on, ei t her by ci t i ng t o par t i cul ar

par t s of mat er i al s i n t he r ecor d or by showi ng t hat t he

mat er i al s ci t ed do not est abl i sh t he absence or pr esence of a



13/63

- 13-

genui ne di sput e, or t hat an adver se par t y cannot pr oduce

admi ssi bl e evi dence t o suppor t t he f act . Fed. R. Ci v. P.

56(c)(1).

The subst ant i ve l aw det er mi nes whi ch f act s ar e

mat er i al ; onl y di sput es over f act s t hat mi ght af f ect t he out come

of t he sui t under t he gover ni ng l aw pr oper l y pr ecl ude the ent r y

of summar y j udgment . Nat l Ass n of Opt omet r i st s & Opt i ci ans v.

Har r i s, 682 F. 3d 1144, 1147 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012) . The mer e exi st ence

of some al l eged f act ual di sput e bet ween t he par t i es wi l l not

def eat an otherwi se proper l y support ed mot i on f or summary

j udgment ; t he r equi r ement i s t hat t her e be no genui ne i ssue of

mat er i al f act . Scot t v. Har r i s, 550 U. S. 372, 380 ( 2007)

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

A genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act exi st s i f a

r easonabl e j ur y coul d r et ur n a ver di ct f or t he nonmovi ng par t y.

Uni t ed St at es v. Ar ango, 670 F. 3d 988, 992 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012)

( quot i ng Ander son v. Li ber t y Lobby, I nc. , 477 U. S. 242, 247

( 1986) ) . Conver sel y, [ w] her e t he r ecor d t aken as a whol e coul d

not l ead a r at i onal t r i er of f act t o f i nd f or t he nonmovi ng

par t y, t her e i s no genui ne i ssue f or t r i al . Scot t , 550 U. S. at

380.

The movi ng par t y has t he bur den of persuadi ng t he cour t

as t o t he absence of a genui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act . Aval os v.



14/63


15/63

12/ Nonet hel ess, a concl usor y, sel f - ser vi ng af f i davi t t hatl acks det ai l ed f act s and suppor t i ng evi dence may not cr eat e agenui ne i ssue of mat er i al f act . F. T. C. v. Neovi , I nc. , 604 F. 3d1150, 1159 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) . Mor eover , [ w] hen opposi ng par t i est el l t wo di f f er ent st or i es, one of whi ch i s bl at ant l ycont r adi ct ed by t he r ecor d, so that no r easonabl e j ur y coul dbel i eve i t , a cour t shoul d not adopt t hat ver si on of t he f act sf or pur poses of r ul i ng on a mot i on f or summary j udgment . Scot t ,550 U. S. at 380. The gener al r ul e i n t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t i s t hat apar t y cannot cr eat e an i ssue of f act by an af f i davi t

cont r adi ct i ng hi s pr i or deposi t i on t est i mony. Yeager v. Bowl i n,693 F. 3d 1076, 1080 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012) .

13/ Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f obt ai ned a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on vi at hi s Cour t s order dat ed J une 29, 2012 ( 2012 Pr el i mi nar yI nj unct i on Or der ) ; t he Supr eme Cour t has i ndi cat ed t hat a


- 15-

credi bi l i t y. I n r e Bar boza, 545 F. 3d 702, 707 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008) . 12/

Accor di ngl y, i f r easonabl e mi nds coul d di f f er as t o t he i mpor t

of t he evi dence, summary j udgment wi l l be deni ed. Anderson, 477

U. S. at 25051.

II. Permanent Injunction

I n or der t o obt ai n a per manent i nj unct i on, a pl ai nt i f f

must sat i sf y a f our - f act or t est by demonst r at i ng t he f ol l owi ng:

( 1) t he pl ai nt i f f has suf f er ed an i r r epar abl e i nj ur y; ( 2)

r emedi es avai l abl e at l aw, such as monetary damages, are

i nadequat e t o compensate f or t hat i nj ur y; ( 3) consi der i ng t he

bal ance of har dshi ps bet ween t he pl ai nt i f f and def endant , a

r emedy i n equi t y i s war r ant ed; and ( 4) t hat t he publ i c i nt er est

woul d not be di sserved by a per manent i nj unct i on. Monsanto Co.

v. Geer t son Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct . 2743, 2756, 177 L. Ed. 2d 461

( 2010) . 13/



16/63

13/ ( . . . cont i nued)

permanent i nj unct i on shoul d not be i ssued merel y because apl ai nt i f f obt ai ned a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on. Wi nt er v. Nat ur alRes. Def . Counci l , I nc. , 555 U. S. 7, 32, 129 S. Ct . 365, 381, 172L. Ed. 2d 249 ( 2008) . For a per manent i nj unct i on, Pl ai nt i f f mustdemonst r ate act ual success on t he mer i t s of hi s cl ai m, and eveni f he does, t he Cour t must exami ne the bal ance of equi t i es andconsi der at i on of t he publ i c i nt er est . I d.

- 16-

A pl ai nt i f f seeki ng a per manent i nj unct i on must pr ove

by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence . . . t he condi t i ons and

ci r cumst ances upon whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f bases the r i ght t o and

necessi t y f or i nj unct i ve r el i ef . Wal t er s v. Reno, 145 F. 3d

1032, 1048 ( 9t h Ci r . 1998) . A cour t must bal ance t he compet i ng

cl ai ms of i nj ur y and must consi der t he ef f ect on each par t y of

t he gr ant i ng or wi t hhol di ng of t he r equest ed r el i ef . Nor t her n

Cheyenne Tr i be v. Nort on, 503 F. 3d 836, 843 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007)

( ci t i ng Amoco Pr od. Co. v. Vi l l . of Gambel l , 480 U. S. 531, 542,

107 S. Ct . 1396, 94 L. Ed. 2d 542 ( 1987) ) .

A di st r i ct cour t has br oad l at i t ude i n f ashi oni ng

equi t abl e rel i ef when necessary t o remedy an est abl i shed wr ong.

Nort hern Cheyenne Tr i be v. Nor t on, 503 F. 3d 836, 843 ( 9t h Ci r .

2007) . Accor di ngl y, a cour t has di scret i on t o i ssue a par t i al

i nj unct i on dependi ng on t he equi t i es i n a case. I d.

DISCUSSION

The Cour t det er mi nes t hat Pl ai nt i f f s MSJ shoul d be

consi der ed bef or e hi s MPI because Pl ai nt i f f must f i r st act ual l y



17/63

- 17-

succeed on t he mer i t s bef or e obt ai ni ng an i nj unct i on. See

Wi nt er , 555 U. S. at 32, 129 S. Ct . at 381.

I. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment

A. The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment provi des: A wel l r egul at ed

Mi l i t i a, bei ng necessar y t o t he secur i t y of a f r ee St at e, t he

r i ght of t he peopl e t o keep and bear Ar ms, shal l not be

i nf r i nged. U. S. CONST. amend. I I . I n Hel l er , t he Supr eme Cour t

r ecogni zed t hat t he Second Amendment pr otect s t he r i ght s of

i ndi vi dual s t o keep and bear ar ms f or sel f - def ense. 554 U. S. 570

( 2008) . The Supr eme Cour t al so suggest ed t hat t he core pur pose

of t he r i ght conf er r ed by t he Second Amendment was t o permi t

l aw- abi di ng, r esponsi bl e ci t i zens t o use ar ms i n def ense of

hear t h and home. I d. at 635. As a r esul t of t hese concl usi ons,

t he Supr eme Cour t st r uck down a l aw i n t he Di st r i ct of Col umbi a

t hat banned t he possessi on of handguns i n t he home. I d. at 629-

30. However , t he Supr eme Cour t al so observed t hat i t s hol di ng

shoul d not be const r ued t o cast doubt on l ongst andi ng

pr ohi bi t i ons on t he possessi on of f i r ear ms by f el ons and t he

ment al l y i l l . I d. at 626.

Two years l at er , t he Supreme Cour t i n McDonal d v. Ci t y

of Chi cago hel d that t he Second Amendment r i ght t o keep and bear

arms appl i es t o t he st ates by way of t he Four t eenth Amendment .

130 S. Ct . 3020 ( 2010) . I n McDonal d, t he Supr eme Cour t af f i r med



18/63

14/ At t he hear i ng, Pl ai nt i f f s counsel ar gued t hat

Pl ai nt i f f i s stat ut or i l y qual i f i ed under bot h f eder al and st at el aw t o obt ai n a per mi t f or a f i r ear m; Pl ai nt i f f di d not ar guet hat t he st at ut es t hemsel ves vi ol at ed t he Const i t ut i on. Ami cusHawai i Def ense Foundat i on r ai ses a Fourt eenth Amendment equalpr ot ect i on chal l enge and var i ous f aci al chal l enges t o Hawai #i sf i r ear ms per mi t st at ut es. HDF Br i ef at 5- 9, ECF No. 73.However , t he Cour t observes t hat Pl ai nt i f f has not al l eged anequal pr ot ect i on or f aci al chal l enge i n hi s Compl ai nt orot her wi se ar gued t hese t heor i es i n t he br i ef s or at t he hear i ng.See general l y, Am. Compl . , ECF No. 31. The Cour t decl i nes t oconsi der HDF s ar gument s because they were rai sed by an ami cus,not an act ual par t y t o t he case. See U. S. v. Gement er a, 379 F. 3d

596, 607- 08 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) ( 9t h Ci r cui t decl i ned t o consi deri ssues r ai sed onl y by ami cus and not an act ual part y) andI nt er mount ai n Fai r Housi ng Counci l v. Boi se Rescue Mi ssi onMi ni st r i es, 657 F. 3d 988, 996 n. 6 ( 9t h Ci r . 2011) ( decl i ni ng t oconsi der ami ci s est abl i shment cl ause chal l enge t o a pr ogr ambecause t he pl ai nt i f f s di d not r ai se, adopt , or endor se t hear gument ) .

- 18-

t he cent r al hol di ngs i n Hel l er , i ncl udi ng Hel l er s di scussi on of

t he l i mi t at i ons on Second Amendment r i ght s. I d. at 3047.

Pl ai nt i f f s mai n cont ent i on i n t hi s case i s t hat t he

Ci t y Def endant s vi ol ated hi s Second Amendment r i ght t o bear arms

f or sel f - def ense i n t he home when t hey deni ed hi m a f i r ear ms

per mi t . However , t he Cour t observes t hat Pl ai nt i f f does not

pr esent a f aci al chal l enge t o t he Hawai #i restr i ct i ons at i ssue

i n t hi s l awsui t , namel y Haw. Rev. St at . 134- 7 or Haw. Rev.

St at . 134- 2. 14/ See Repl y at 8 ( acknowl edgi ng t hat t he Cour t s

gr ant of an i nj unct i on woul d not extend t o any appl i cant s ot her

t han Pl ai nt i f f ) . I nst ead, Pl ai nt i f f s mai n ar gument i s t hat he

qual i f i es under t he st at ut e t o r ecei ve a f i r ear ms per mi t , and t he

Ci t y Def endant s f ai l ur e t o f ol l ow t he st at ut es const i t ut es a



19/63

- 19-

deni al of Pl ai nt i f f s Second Amendment r i ght s. Am. Compl . at 10-

17, ECF No. 31. The Ci t y Def endant s mai n argument i n r esponse

i s that Pl ai nt i f f i s i n f act di squal i f i ed f r om f i r ear ms owner shi p

because of hi s pr evi ous convi ct i ons f or har assment and t he

exi st ence of evi dence of Pl ai nt i f f s counsel i ng f or subst ance

abuse. Def s. Opp. at 3, 13- 14, ECF No. 89.

Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t wi l l not addr ess t he

const i t ut i onal i t y of t he per mi t t i ng st at ut es under t he Second

Amendment because bot h par t i es appear t o agree t hat t he

const i t ut i onal l egi t i macy of t he st at ut es t hemsel ves do not f or m

t he basi s f or Pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m. See Hel l er , 554 U. S. at 631

( decl i ni ng t o addr ess t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t he l i censi ng

r equi r ement because t he r espondent conceded t hat t he l i censi ng

l aw was per mi ssi bl e as l ong as i t was not enf or ced i n an

ar bi t r ar y and capr i ci ous manner ) . I nst ead, t he Cour t l i mi t s i t s

exami nat i on t o t he cl ai ms pr esent ed by Pl ai nt i f f - namel y whet her

he qual i f i es under Hawai #i l aw and Hel l er t o exer ci se Second

Amendment r i ght s. The Cour t al so exami nes i f Pl ai nt i f f s

Four t eent h Amendment due pr ocess cl ai ms were vi ol ated i n

connect i on wi t h hi s al l eged Second Amendment r i ghts.

Because Pl ai nt i f f s Four t eent h Amendment cl ai ms ar e

r el at ed t o hi s Second Amendment cl ai ms, t hi s Cour t wi l l f i r st

exami ne Pl ai nt i f f s Second Amendment r i ght s bef or e addr essi ng hi s

Four t eenth Amendment procedural due pr ocess cl ai m.



20/63

15/ Haw. Rev. St at . 134- 7( a) al l ows t he chi ef of pol i ce t odeny a f i r ear ms per mi t t o per sons who ar e prohi bi t ed f r ompossessi ng f i r ear ms or ammuni t i on under f ederal l aw. The Cour tnot es t hat Haw. Rev. St at . 134- 7( a) s pr ohi bi t i on based onf ederal l aw was added t o t he st atut ory scheme i n 2006. 2006 Haw.Sess. Laws 29. Nei t her par t y di scusses whet her t he pol i ce chi efwas ent i t l ed t o r et r oacti vel y appl y t hi s secti on t o Pl ai nt i f f sconvi ct i ons i n 1997 f or t wo count s of har assment ; bot h par t i esar gument s assume that t he chi ef coul d appl y t he f eder al l aw

pr ohi bi t i on. Def s. Opp. at 4- 5, ECF No. 89; Pl nt f . s Repl y at4, ECF No. 97. The Cour t not es t hat t he appl i cat i on of H. R. S. 134- 7( a) does not appear t o have an i mper mi ssi bl e ret r oact i veef f ect because the st at e l aw does not t ake away or i mpai r r i ght sPl ai nt i f f had bef or e t he l aw was enact ed. See Landgr af v. USIFi l m Pr oduct s, 511 U. S. 244, 269- 270 ( 1994) ( hol di ng t hat a cour texami ni ng i f a l aw shoul d be appl i ed r et r oact i vel y shoul dconsi der whether t he new pr ovi si on at t aches new l egalconsequences t o event s compl eted bef ore i t s enact ment ) . Thef ederal Lautenber g Amendment was enact ed i n 1996 and t her ef oredef i ned gun r i ght s at t he t i me Pl ai nt i f f was convi ct ed i n 1997.Gun Ban f or I ndi vi dual s Convi ct ed of a Mi sdemeanor Cr i me of

Domest i c Vi ol ence, P. L. 104- 208, 110 St at . 3009 ( 1996) ( codi f i edat 18 U. S. C. 921( a) ( 33) and 922( g) ( 9) ) . I n any event ,because t he Cour t concl udes t hat f ederal l aw does not barPl ai nt i f f f r om obt ai ni ng a f i r ear ms per mi t ( see Sect i on I . A. 1,infra at 32- 33) , t he Cour t need not det er mi ne whet her i t i si mpr oper f or t he pol i ce chi ef t o appl y 134- 7( a) t o Pl ai nt i f f sconvi ct i ons.

- 20-

1. Whether Federal Law Precludes Plaintiff From

Obtaining a Firearms Permit

The Ci t y Def endant s ar gue t hat Pl ai nt i f f i s prohi bi t ed

f r om possessi ng f i r ear ms under f eder al l aw because of t he

Laut enberg Amendment . Def . s Opp. at 4- 6, ECF No. 89. 15/

The Laut enber g Amendment prohi bi t s f i r earm owner shi p by

any per son who has been convi ct ed i n any cour t of a mi sdemeanor

cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence. 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 9) ( 2012) . A

mi sdemeanor cr i me of vi ol ence i s def i ned as a cr i me that ( 1)



21/63

- 21-

const i t ut es a mi sdemeanor under Feder al , St at e, or Tr i bal l aw,

and ( 2) has, as an el ement , t he use or at t empt ed use of physi cal

f orce, or t he t hr eat ened use of a deadl y weapon, commi t t ed by a

cur r ent or f or mer spouse, par ent , or guar di an of t he vi ct i m, by a

per son wi t h whom t he vi ct i m shar es a chi l d i n common, by a per son

who i s cohabi t i ng wi t h or has cohabi t ed wi t h t he vi ct i m as a

spouse, par ent , or guar di an, or by a per son si mi l ar l y si t uat ed t o

a spouse, par ent , or guar di an of t he vi ct i m. 18 U. S. C.

921( a) ( 33) ( A) ( i ) ( emphasi s added) .

The Supreme Cour t has hel d t hat st at e cr i mes do not

need t o i ncl ude the el ement of a domest i c r el at i onshi p i n or der

t o f al l wi t hi n Laut enber g s f i r ear ms pr ohi bi t i on. Uni t ed St at es

v. Hayes, 555 U. S. 415 ( 2009) ( af f i r mi ng a convi ct i on under

922( g) ( 9) where t he pr edi cat e of f ense was a mi sdemeanor assaul t

t hat di d not i ncl ude a domest i c r el at i onshi p as an el ement , but

di d i nvol ve such a r el at i onshi p f act ual l y) . The Supr eme Cour t

r easoned t hat t he domest i c r el at i onshi p was not act ual l y an

el ement r equi r ed by t he st at ut e. I d. at 426. Thus, t he Supr eme

Cour t concl uded t hat t he def i ni t i on of mi sdemeanor cr i me of

domest i c vi ol ence has t wo requi r ement s - ( 1) t he cr i me must

have, as an el ement t he use or at t empt ed use of physi cal f or ce,

or t he threat ened use of a deadl y weapon and ( 2) t he cr i me must

be commi t t ed by a person who has a speci f i ed domest i c

r el at i onshi p wi t h t he vi ct i m. 555 U. S. at 415. Regar di ng t he



22/63

- 22-

second r equi r ement of t he exi st ence of a domest i c r el at i onshi p,

Pl ai nt i f f admi t s i n t he Compl ai nt and hi s deposi t i on t hat Col et t e

Fi sher i s cur r ent l y hi s wi f e and t hat t hey wer e mar r i ed at t he

t i me of t he 1997 i nci dent . Am. Compl . at 8, 24, ECF No. 31;

Deposi t i on of Ki r k C. Fi sher at 9- 10, ECF No. 99- 2.

However , wi t h r espect t o t he f i r st r equi r ement ,

Pl ai nt i f f s convi ct i ons f or har assment do not qual i f y as a

mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence under f ederal l aw. I n

or der t o det er mi ne whet her a convi ct i on f or a st at e cr i me f al l s

wi t hi n t he f eder al def i ni t i on of a par t i cul ar act or cri me, t he

cour t s use t he cat egor i cal appr oach. Descamps v. U. S. , 133 S.

Ct . 2276, 2281 ( 2013) . I n t hi s case, i f t he st at e cr i me of

har assment proscr i bes t he same conduct as t he mi sdemeanor cr i me

of domest i c vi ol ence def i ned i n t he Laut enberg Amendment , t hen

f eder al l aw woul d bar Pl ai nt i f f f r om obt ai ni ng f i r ear ms. See i d.

at 2283. The r esul t woul d al so be t he same i f t he st at e st at ut e

def i nes t he cr i me more nar r owl y, because anyone convi ct ed under

t hat l aw i s necessar i l y . . . gui l t y of al l t he [ f eder al

cr i me s] el ement s. I d. However , i f t he st at e st at ut e pr ohi bi t s

mor e conduct t han t he f eder al st at ut e, t hen t he convi ct i on under

st at e l aw does not qual i f y under f eder al l aw, even i f t he st at e

of f ender act ual l y commi t t ed t he f eder al of f ense. I d. The

Supr eme Cour t emphasi zes t hat [ t ] he key . . . i s el ement s, not

f act s . I d.



23/63

16/ The Cour t s of Appeal s f or t he Four t h, Si xth, Sevent h,and Tent h Ci r cui t s have concl uded t hat t he t ouchi ng el ement ofcommon l aw bat t er y does not const i t ut e physi cal f or ce ascont empl at ed i n 18 U. S. C. 921( a) ( 33) ( A) . See Uni t ed St at es v.Whi t e, 606 F. 3d 144 ( 4t h Ci r . 2010) , U. S. v. Cast l eman, 695 F. 3d582 ( 6t h Ci r . 2012) , Fl or es v. Ashcr of t , 350 F. 3d 666 ( 7t h Ci r .2003) , Uni t ed St at es v. Hays, 526 F. 3d 674 ( 10t h Ci r . 2008) . I n

cont r ast , t he Cour t s of Appeal s f or t he Fi r st , Ei ght h, andEl event h Ci r cui t s have concl uded t hat t he t ouchi ng el ement ofcommon l aw bat t er y f al l s wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he t er m physi calf orce i n t he Laut enberg Amendment . See Uni t ed St ates v. Nason,269 F. 3d 10 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) , Uni t ed St at es v. Smi t h, 171 F. 3d 617( 8t h Ci r . 1999) , and Uni t ed St at es v. Gr i f f i t h, 455 F. 3d 1339( 11t h Ci r . 2006) .

- 23-

The Ni nth Ci r cui t has hel d t hat t he physi cal f or ce

el ement i n t he Lautenber g Amendment means t he vi ol ent use of

f or ce agai nst t he body of anot her i ndi vi dual . U. S. v. Bel l ess,

338 F. 3d 1063, 1068 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) . The Ni nt h Ci r cui t al so

i ndi cat ed t hat t he t er m physi cal f or ce di d not i ncl ude any

t ouchi ng i n t he sense of Newt oni an mechani cs and al so hel d

t hat de mi ni mus t ouchi ng does not qual i f y under t he st at ut e.

I d. at 1067- 68. 16/

Pl ai nt i f f was convi ct ed under H. R. S. 711- 1106( 1) ( a) ,

whi ch st ates t hat a per son commi t s t he of f ense of har assment i f ,

wi t h i nt ent t o har ass, annoy, or al ar m any ot her per son, t hat

per son . . . [ s] t r i kes, shoves, ki cks, or ot her wi se t ouches

anot her per son i n an of f ensi ve manner or subj ect s t he ot her

person t o of f ensi ve physi cal cont act . The Comment ary on 711-

1106 st at es t hat Sect i on ( 1) ( a) i s a r est at ement of t he common-

l aw cr i me of bat t er y, whi ch was commi t t ed by any sl i ght t ouchi ng



24/63

- 24-

of another person i n a manner whi ch i s known t o be of f ensi ve t o

t hat per son. Comment ary on 711- 1106, H. R. S. 711- 1106( 1) ( a) .

Accordi ngl y, t he Hawai #i def i ni t i on of har assment i n H. R. S.

711- 1106( 1) ( a) pr ohi bi t s de mi ni mus or sl i ght t ouchi ng, whi l e

t he f ederal mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence does not

pr ohi bi t such conduct .

The Ni nth Ci r cui t i n Bel l ess provi des an i l l ust r at i on

of how t he f eder al def i ni t i on of mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c

vi ol ence covers l ess conduct t han t he Hawai #i har assment

st at ut e. I n Bel l ess, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t gave t he exampl e of Vi ce

Pr esi dent Ni xon angr i l y conf r ont i ng t he Sovi et Pr emi er and poki ng

t he Pr emi er i n t he chest wi t h hi s f i nger whi l e expost ul at [ i ng]

wi t h hi s f ace i nches away. Bel l ess, 338 F. 3d at 1068. The

Cour t of Appeal s not ed t hat Ni xon s conduct coul d cer t ai nl y be

char act er i zed as r ude ( or of f ensi ve, as st at ed i n t he Hawai #i

st at ut e) , but t he conduct woul d not f al l wi t hi n t he Laut enber g

Amendment s r equi r ement of t he vi ol ent use of f orce agai nst t he

body of anot her i ndi vi dual . I d. However , based upon t he

wordi ng i n t he Hawai #i st at ut e, Pr esi dent Ni xon s r ude poki ng

coul d meet t he t ouchi ng r equi r ement f or harassment under H. R. S.

711- 1106( 1) ( a) . Thus, t he Hawai #i cr i me of har assment i s def i ned

mor e br oadl y t han t he f eder al cr i me and does not cat egor i cal l y

qual i f y as a mi sdemeanor cr i me of domest i c vi ol ence.



25/63

17/ The wi t ness st atement f orms cont ai n si gned st atement sf rom Col et t e Fi sher ( Pl ai nt i f f s wi f e) , Ni col e Fi sher( Pl ai nt i f f s daught er ) , and Val er i e Cl ough and Li sa Demar est , whoappear t o have been nei ghbor s of t he Fi sher s at t he t i me of t he

1997 i nci dent . Def s. CSF Ex. A, B, C, D, ECF No. 90.

18/ The qui nt essent i al exampl e used by t he Supr eme Cour t t oi l l ust r at e t he appl i cat i on of t he cat egor i cal and modi f i edcat egor i cal appr oaches i s the cr i me of bur gl ar y. Descamps, 133S. Ct . at 2283. One of t he basi c el ement s of gener i c bur gl ar y


- 25-

The Ci t y Def endant s ar gue t hat t he Court shoul d appl y

t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach t o exami ne the f act s of t he

under l yi ng pr i or convi ct i on t o det er mi ne whet her i t was a cr i me

of vi ol ence. Def s. Opp. at 8, ECF No. 89. To suppor t t hei r

ar gument , t he Ci t y Def endant s r ef er t o st at e cour t document s i n

t he r ecor d and al so at t ach as exhi bi t s t he j udi ci al det er mi nat i on

of pr obabl e cause, of f i cer af f i davi t s, and wi t ness st at ement

f or ms t hat ar e par t of pol i ce r epor t s. 17/ I d. ; Def s. CSF Ex. A,

B, C, D, ECF No. 90. The Ci t y Def endant s al so submi t a

deposi t i on of Pl ai nt i f f t aken on Apr i l 17, 2013, i n whi ch

Pl ai nt i f f admi t s t hat he pushed hi s wi f e and she f el l backwar ds

on t he gr ound. Deposi t i on of Ki r k C. Fi sher at 33, l i nes 19- 25,

and 34, l i nes 1- 9, ECF No. 99- 2.

The Supreme Cour t r ecent l y cl ar i f i ed t he use of t he

modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach, st at i ng t hat i t hel ps ef f ect uat e

t he cat egor i cal anal ysi s when a di vi si bl e st at ut e, l i st i ng

pot ent i al of f ense el ement s i n t he al t er nat i ve, r ender s opaque

whi ch el ement pl ayed a par t i n t he of f ender s convi ct i on. 18/



26/63

18/ ( . . . cont i nued)( f or f eder al st at ut es) i nvol ves t he unl awf ul ent r y i nt o abui l di ng or st r uct ur e. I d. However , a st at e st at ut e may def i nebur gl ar y as, i nt er al i a, t he unl awf ul ent r y i nt o a bui l di ng oranaut omobi l e. I d. at 2284. Thus, t he st at e st at ut e i nt r oduces anal t er nat i ve ver si on of t he cr i me t hat i ncl udes an el ement notpr esent i n t he f eder al cr i me - unl awf ul ent r y i nt o an aut omobi l e.I d. A per son who i s char ged f or unl awf ul ent r y i nt o a bui l di ngoran aut omobi l e may be convi ct ed f or unl awf ul ent r y i nt o abui l di ng, or unl awf ul ent r y i nt o an aut omobi l e. I d. at 2284. I f

he i s convi ct ed f or unl awf ul ent r y i nt o a bui l di ng, t hen he hasal so commi t t ed a gener i c bur gl ar y as def i ned by f eder al l aw.However , i f he i s convi ct ed f or unl awf ul ent r y i nt o anaut omobi l e, such a cr i me woul d not const i t ut e gener i c bur gl ar y.Accor di ngl y, t he cour t s use t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach t odet er mi ne whi ch ver si on of t he cr i me pr ovi ded t he basi s f or t heconvi cti on. I d.

- 26-

Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at 2283. Accor di ng t o t he Supr eme Cour t ,

t he key . . . i s el ement s, not f act s. I d. Thus, t o det er mi ne

t he el ement s under l yi ng t he convi ct i on, t he Supr eme Cour t hel d

t hat cour t s coul d exami ne reliable document s such as an

i ndi ctment or i nf or mat i on, j ur y i nst r uct i ons, a t r anscri pt of t he

pl ea col l oquy or wr i t t en pl ea agr eement , or a r ecor d of f i ndi ngs

of f act adopt ed by t he of f ender upon ent er i ng t he pl ea. See

Tayl or v. Uni t ed Stat es, 495 U. S. 575, 602, 110 S. Ct . 2143,

2160, 109 L. Ed. 2d 607 (1990) and Shepard v. Uni t ed St ates, 544

U. S. 13, 16, 125 S. Ct . 1254, 1257, 161 L. Ed. 2d 205 ( 2005) .

However , t he cour t s are not al l owed t o exami ne f act s t o determi ne

whether t he of f ender actually committedt he gener i c cr i me, but

whet her an of f ender was convictedof t he gener i c cr i me.

Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at 2285- 86.



27/63

- 27-

The el ement s of H. R. S. 711- 1106( 1) ( a) ar e l i st ed i n

t he di sj unct i ve: A per son may be convi ct ed i f he or she

[ s] t r i kes, shoves, ki cks, or ot her wi se t ouches anot her per son i n

an of f ensi ve manner or subj ect s t he ot her per son t o of f ensi ve

physi cal cont act . Accor di ngl y, t he Cour t may appl y t he modi f i ed

cat egor i cal appr oach t o det er mi ne whi ch el ement pl ayed a par t i n

[ Pl ai nt i f f s] convi ct i on. See Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at 2283.

However , even i f t he Cour t appl i es t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal

appr oach, Pl ai nt i f f s convi cti on does not f al l wi t hi n t he

Laut enber g Amendment .

Wi t h r espect t o t he st at e cour t document s, Pl ai nt i f f s

char gi ng document i ncl udes t he f ul l def i ni t i on f ound i n H. R. S.

711- 1106( 1) ( a) : Ki r k C. Fi sher , wi t h i nt ent t o har ass, annoy,

or al ar m Col et t e Fi sher , di d st r i ke, shove, ki ck, or ot her wi se

t ouch Col et t e Fi sher i n an of f ensi ve manner , or subj ect her t o

of f ensi ve physi cal cont act , t her eby commi t t i ng t he pet t y

mi sdemeanor of f ense of har assment i n vi ol at i on of Sect i on 711-

1106( 1) ( a) of t he Hawai i Revi sed St at ut es. St at e of Hawai i #i v.

Ki r k C. Fi sher , FC- CR No. 97- 3233, Compl . p. 1 (emphasi s added) .

The el ements of har assment ar e st at ed i n t he di sj unct i ve -

Pl ai nt i f f coul d have been convi ct ed of har assment i f he di d any

one of t he act s l i st ed above. I d. The j udgment of t he st at e

cour t al so f ai l s t o i ndi cat e whi ch el ement of H. R. S. 711-

1106( 1) ( a) f or med t he basi s f or Pl ai nt i f f s gui l t y pl ea. Def s.



28/63

- 28-

Mt n. f or Recon. Ex. C, ECF No. 39- 6. I nst ead, t he j udgment

mer el y st at es t hat Def endant ent er ed a pl ea of gui l t y as

charged. I d. Because t he chargi ng document and t he j udgment

i ncl ude t he el ement s of har assment t hat al l ow f or convi ct i on on

t he basi s of de mi ni mus t ouchi ng, t he modi f i ed categor i cal

appr oach r equi r es a concl usi on t hat Pl ai nt i f f s convi ct i on i s not

cover ed by t he Laut enber g Amendment . See Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at

2283.

Regar di ng t he pol i ce r epor t s submi t t ed by t he Ci t y

Def endant s, t he Cour t i s l i mi t ed t o exami ni ng r el i abl e document s

t hat demonst r ate t he elements composi ng Pl ai nt i f f s convi ct i on.

The Supreme Cour t has speci f i cal l y hel d t hat t he cour t s ar e not

al l owed t o consi der pol i ce repor t s when det er mi ni ng t he el ement s

of t he cr i me unl ess t he of f ender i n some way admi t s t he t r ut h of

t he i nf or mat i on cont ai ned i n t he r epor t as par t of hi s pl ea.

Shepar d v. U. S. , 544 U. S. 13, 17- 19, 125 S. Ct . 1254, 1258- 59

( 2005) . I n t hi s case, t he r ecor d does not i ndi cat e t hat

Pl ai nt i f f s gui l t y pl eas i nt egr at ed t he al l eged f acts f r om t he

pol i ce r epor t s. As ment i oned i n t hi s Cour t s Reconsi der at i on

Or der r e Pl ai nt i f f s Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on, t he Ci t y Def endant s

have not pr esent ed t he Cour t wi t h a t r anscr i pt of t he pl ea

col l oquy t o demonst r at e t he speci f i c f act s t hat Pl ai nt i f f

st i pul at ed t o i n connect i on wi t h hi s pl eas. Reconsi der at i on

Or der r e Pl ai nt i f f s Pr el i mi nar y I nj unct i on at 13, ECF No. 50.



29/63

19/ The Ci t y Def endant s ci t at i on t o Uni t ed St at es v.Ser r ao, 301 F. Supp. 2d 1142 ( D. Haw. 2004) and Uni t ed St ates v.Sweet en, 933 F. 2d 765 (9t h Ci r . 1991) do not convi nce t he Cour tt hat i t woul d be appr opr i at e t o consi der t he pol i ce r epor t s,pol i ce of f i cer decl ar at i ons, or t he pr obabl e cause st at ement .The cour t s i n t hose cases st at ed t hat t he documents wer e used t odet er mi ne t he el ement s of t he convi ct i on; bot h cour t s

acknowl edged t hat i t woul d be i mpr oper t o i nqui r e i nt o t he f act sunder l yi ng t he convi ct i ons of t he of f ender s. See Sweet en, 933F. 2d at 769 ( we agr ee that i t woul d have been er r or f or t hedi st r i ct cour t t o i nqui r e i nt o t he f act s under l yi ng Sweet en sTexas convi ct i on) and Ser r ao, 301 F. Supp. 2d at 1146 ( Thi scour t s i nqui r y i s l i mi t ed t o what Ser r ao pl ed gui l t y t o, notwhat act s he commi t t ed. ) .

- 29-

The same anal ysi s i s appl i cabl e t o t he of f i cer

decl ar at i ons and t he pr obabl e cause st at ement - nei t her of t hese

sour ces i sol at e t he el ement s or f act s t hat Pl ai nt i f f admi t t ed i n

hi s pl ea. 19/ Accor di ngl y, t he document s di scussed above f ai l t o

i ndi cat e t hat Pl ai nt i f f s convi ct i on was based on t he el ement s of

har assment t hat mi ght const i t ut e t he vi ol ent use of f or ce

agai nst t he body of anot her i ndi vi dual . Bel l ess, 338 F. 3d at

1068. As a r esul t , t he Cour t cannot use t hese document s t o

concl ude t hat t he el ement s f or mi ng t he basi s f or Pl ai nt i f f s

convi ct i on ar e l i mi t ed t o t he har assment el ement s i nvol vi ng a

vi ol ent use of f or ce.

The Ci t y Def endant s al so submi t wi t ness st at ement s f r om

Col et t e Fi sher , Ni col e Fi sher , Val er i e Cl ough, and Li sa Demar est

r egar di ng t he i nci dent i n 1997. These wi t ness st at ement s appear

t o be par t of t he pol i ce r eport s, whi ch may not be consi der ed f or

t he r easons di scussed above. Def s. CSF Ex. A, Ex. B, Ex. C, and



30/63

- 30-

Ex. D, ECF No. 90. Mor eover , t hese vi ct i m or wi t ness st at ement s

al so do not f al l wi t hi n t he cat egor y of r el i abl e document s t o

det er mi ne t he f act s f or mi ng t he basi s of Pl ai nt i f f s gui l t y pl ea.

See Shepar d v. U. S. , 544 U. S. 13, 20- 21, 125 S. Ct . 1254, 1259- 60

( 2005) ; see al so Cheuk Fung S- Yong v. Hol der , 600 F. 3d 1028, 1036

( 9t h Ci r . 2010) ( not i ng t hat consi der at i on of a vi ct i m s

t est i mony i nvol ves t he t ype of f act - f i ndi ng t hat t he modi f i ed

cat egor i cal appr oach at t empt s t o avoi d) and Uni t ed St at es v.

Vent ur a- Per ez, 666 F. 3d 670, 677 ( 10t h Ci r . 2012) ( not i ng t hat a

vi ct i m s st at ement cannot be used under t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal

appr oach) .

The Ci t y Def endant s al so submi t a deposi t i on of

Pl ai nt i f f t aken on Apr i l 17, 2013, i n whi ch Pl ai nt i f f descri bes

t he November 1997 i nci dent and admi t s t hat he pushed hi s wi f e and

she f el l backwar ds on t he gr ound. Deposi t i on of Ki r k C. Fi sher

at 33, l i nes 19- 25, and 34, l i nes 1- 9, ECF No. 99- 2. However ,

t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t has hel d t hat st at ement s or admi ssi ons by an

of f ender may not be used under t he modi f i ed categor i cal appr oach

i f t hey mer el y pr ovi de bar e f act s i nst ead of i ndi cat i ng t hat an

of f ender s gui l t y pl ea was based on t hat conduct . Huer t a- Guevar a

v. Ashcr of t , 321 F. 3d 883, 888 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) ( hol di ng t hat

of f ender s st at ement s i n her br i ef and j udi ci al admi ssi ons coul d

not be used because t he st at ement s di d not i ndi cate i f she had

act ual l y pl ed gui l t y t o the el ement s suppor t ed by t hose f act s) ,



31/63

- 31-

see al so Per ez- Mej i a v. Hol der , 663 F. 3d 403, 410 ( 9t h Ci r . 2011)

( hol di ng that admi ss i ons and st atement s made dur i ng i mmi gr at i on

r emovabi l i t y pr oceedi ngs may not be used i n t he modi f i ed

cat egor i cal appr oach t o det er mi ne i f al i en s st at e cr i me

convi ct i on qual i f i ed under f eder al st at ut e) , U. S. v. Rodr i guez-

Guzman, 506 F. 3d 738, 747 n. 9 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) ( not i ng t hat

admi ssi ons of f act s under l yi ng a cr i me made by an of f ender s

counsel bef or e a cour t t hat i s not t he convi ct i ng cour t may not

be used f or t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach because t he

admi ssi ons ar e not a r ecor d of t he convi ct i ng cour t ) .

Based on Ni nt h Ci r cui t l aw, Pl ai nt i f f s admi ssi ons i n

hi s deposi t i on do not qual i f y as a document t hat may be

consi der ed under t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach. Pl ai nt i f f s

admi ssi ons ar e a r ecol l ect i on f r om hi s poi nt of vi ew as t o t he

f act ual event s t hat happened dur i ng t he i nci dent r esul t i ng i n hi s

ar r est . Deposi t i on of Ki r k C. Fi sher at 33, l i nes 19- 25, and 34,

l i nes 1- 9, ECF No. 99- 2. Hi s st at ement s do not ment i on t he

cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs or i ndi cat e t hat hi s gui l t y pl eas wer e based

upon t he el ement s of harassment t hat const i t ut e a cr i me of

vi ol ence. Even i f Pl ai nt i f f f actual l y pushed Col et t e Fi sher and

admi t s t o doi ng so now, such an admi ss i on more t han t en years

af t er t he st at e cour t pr oceedi ngs does not i ndi cat e that he pl ed

gui l t y t o st r i ki ng, shovi ng, or ki cki ng Col et t e Fi sher as

opposed t o t he t ouchi ng el ement of t he cr i me of harassment . As



32/63

- 32-

i ndi cat ed by t he Supr eme Cour t i n Descamps, of f enders may pl ead

gui l t y t o a l ess ser i ous ver si on of a cr i me even i f t he admi t t ed

f act s woul d suppor t convi ct i on f or a mor e ser i ous cr i me because

of negot i at ed pl ea deal s. 133 S. Ct . at 2289. The Cour t

speci f i cal l y not ed t hat i t woul d be unf ai r f or a subsequent cour t

t o r ewr i t e an of f ender s pl ea bar gai n. I d. Accor di ngl y, t he

Cour t may not consi der t he admi ssi ons i n t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal

approach.

The Ci t y Def endant s ar gue t hat var i ous cour t s of appeal

cases suppor t t hei r cont ent i on t hat t hi s Cour t shoul d exami ne

t he f act s of t he under l yi ng pr i or convi ct i on. Def s. Opp. at 8-

9, ECF No. 89 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Hays, 526 F. 3d 674 ( 10t h

Ci r . 2008) and Uni t ed St at es v. Nobr i ga, 474 F. 3d 561, 564 ( 9t h

Ci r . 2006) ) . However , t hese cases do not suppor t t he Ci t y

Def endant s pr oposi t i on because t he cour t s conduct ed an el ement s-

based anal ysi s; t he cour t s di d not conduct a f act ual i nqui r y.

Mor eover , t he Supr eme Cour t s deci si on i n Descamps speci f i cal l y

bar s t hi s Cour t f r om conduct i ng t he f act ual i nqui r y r equest ed by

t he Ci t y Def endant s. Descamps, 133 S. Ct . at 2283 ( hol di ng t hat

t he f ocus of t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach i s on t he

el ement s, not t he f act s of a cr i me) . As a r esul t of t he above

anal ysi s, t he Cour t concl udes t hat , under bot h t he cat egor i cal

and modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oaches, Pl ai nt i f f s convi ct i ons f or



33/63

20/ Ti t l e 37 consi st s of Hawai #i s Penal Code.

- 33-

har assment do not di squal i f y hi m under 18 U. S. C. 922( g) ( 9) f r om

possessi ng f i r ear ms.

2. Whether Hawai#i Law Precludes Plaintiff from

Obtaining a Firearms Permit

a. H.R.S. 134-7(b)

The Ci t y Def endant s al so ar gue t hat Pl ai nt i f f i s bar r ed

f r om r ecei vi ng a f i r ear ms per mi t under H. R. S. 134- 7( b) , whi ch

st at es as f ol l ows:

( b) No per son who i s under i ndi ct ment f or , or has

wai ved i ndi ct ment f or , or has been bound over t o t he

ci r cui t cour t f or , or has been convi ct ed i n t hi s St at e

or el sewhere of havi ng commi t t ed a f el ony, or any cr i me

of vi ol ence, or an i l l egal sal e of any dr ug shal l own,

possess, or cont r ol any f i r ear m or ammuni t i on t her ef or .

The st at ut or y scheme def i nes a cr i me of vi ol ence as any

of f ense, as def i ned i n t i t l e 37, 20/ t hat i nvol ves i nj ur y or t hr eat

of i nj ur y t o t he per son of anot her . H. R. S. 134- 1. The

quest i on, t her ef or e, i s whet her Pl ai nt i f f s convi cti ons f or

har assment qual i f y as a cr i me of vi ol ence.

The Hawai #i Supr eme Cour t has st ated t hat , when

conduct i ng a st at ut or y i nt er pr et at i on anal ysi s, t he cour t s

f or emost obl i gat i on i s t o ascer t ai n and gi ve ef f ect t o t he

i nt ent i on of t he l egi sl at ur e, whi ch i s t o be obt ai ned pr i mar i l y



34/63

- 34-

f r om t he l anguage cont ai ned i n t he st at ut e i t sel f . St at e v.

Cul l en, 86 Haw. 1, 8- 9, 946 P. 2d 955, 962- 63 ( 1997) .

Addi t i onal l y, t he cour t s may l ook at ext r i nsi c sour ces such as

l egi sl at i ve hi st or y i n or der t o ascer t ai n t he l egi sl at ur e s t r ue

meani ng. I d. The Cour t may al so consi der t he r eason and spi r i t

of t he l aw, and t he cause whi ch i nduced t he l egi sl at ur e t o enact

i t . I d.

I n t he suppl ement al br i ef i ng submi t t ed t o thi s Cour t ,

t he Br ady Cent er ar gues t hat t he pl ai n l anguage of H. R. S.

134- 7 and 134- 1 r equi r es an exami nat i on of t he under l yi ng f act s

t o det er mi ne whet her t he of f ense act ual l y i nvol ved i nj ur y or

t hr eat of i nj ur y t o t he per son of anot her . Br ady Cent er Supp.

Br i ef at 1, ECF No. 104. The Br ady Cent er ar gues t hat t he

i nt er pr et at i on of a Hawai #i st atut e shoul d be conduct ed under

st at e- l aw pr i nci pl es, and t hat t he Hawai #i st at e cour t s have

never appl i ed t he cat egor i cal or modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oaches

i n Hawai #i l aw. Br ady Cent er Supp. Br i ef at 1- 2, ECF No. 104.

Whi l e t he Cour t acknowl edges t hat Hawai #i has not used

t he cat egor i cal or modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oaches t o i nt er pr et

t he cr i me of vi ol ence pr ovi si on i n H. R. S. 134- 7; t he Cour t i s

not convi nced that t he Hawai #i l egi sl at ur e i nt ended a f act - based,

ci r cumst ant i al i nqui r y i nst ead of an i nqui r y based on t he

el ement s under l yi ng a convi ct i on or gui l t y pl ea.



35/63

21/ At t he hear i ng, Br ady Cent er argued t hat t he words asdef i ned i n Ti t l e 37" are t he l egi sl at ur e s at t empt t o l i mi t t hecr i mes cover ed t o a cl ass of of f enses i nvol vi ng cr i mes agai nstt he per son or pr oper t y as opposed t o t r af f i c of f enses l i ker unni ng a r ed l i ght and causi ng an i nj ur y. Besi des the f actt hat t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y does not i ndi cat e such i nt ent , t he

Cour t not es t hat Ti t l e 37 cover s a br oad r ange of cr i mes beyondcr i mes agai nst t he per son or pr oper t y, i ncl udi ng i nj ur y caused bya per son s negl i gent oper at i on of a mot or vehi cl e ( see H. R. S. 707- 706) , comput er cr i mes, of f enses agai nst t he publ i cadmi ni st r at i on, et c. I n l i ght of Ti t l e 37' s br oad cover age, t heCour t does not adopt Br ady s i nt er pr et at i on of H. R. S. 134- 1' sr ef er ence t o Ti t l e 37.

- 35-

Fi r st , t he pl ai n l anguage of t he st at ut e st at es as

f ol l ows: Cr i me of vi ol ence means any of f ense, as def i ned i n

t i t l e 37, t hat i nvol ves i nj ur y or t hr eat of i nj ur y t o t he per son

of anot her . H. R. S. 137- 1 ( emphasi s added) . Ti t l e 37 l i st s

t he speci f i c el ement s const i t ut i ng i ndi vi dual cr i mi nal of f enses.

Thus, t he pl ai n l anguage of H. R. S. 134- 1 i ndi cat es t hat t he

of f ense i s def i ned by the el ement s i n t he penal code. 21/

Because t he t er m of f ense i s r ef er r ed t o i n t er ms of i t s

el ements under t he Hawai #i penal code, i t appear s t hat t he

l egi sl at ur e i nt ended an el ement s- based anal ysi s as opposed t o a

f actual i nqui r y.

Second, t he Cour t obser ves t hat , f r om i t s i ncept i on i n

1927 unt i l 1968, H. R. S. 134- 1 def i ned cr i me of vi ol ence i n

t er ms of speci f i c cr i mes under t he penal code, f or exampl e,

mur der , mansl aught er , r ape, r obber y, bur gl ar y, et c. I n t he 1968

ver si on of t he st at ut e, t he l egi sl at ur e r ef er enced speci f i c



36/63

- 36-

sect i ons of t he penal code i n def i ni ng cr i me of vi ol ence. Haw.

Rev. St at . 134- 1 ( 1968) .

I n 1975, t he Hawai #i l egi sl at ur e el i mi nat ed t he

r ef er ence t o cr i me of vi ol ence i n Sect i ons 134- 1 and 134- 7 and

subst i t ut ed t he wor d f el ony. H. R. 8- 723, Reg. Sess. , at 1309

( Haw. 1975) . I n t he House r epor t , t he l egi sl at ur e i ndi cat ed t hat

t he bi l l woul d expand t he pr ohi bi t i on i n 134- 7 t o a br oader

cat egor y of per sons t hat i s, f r om per sons convi ct ed of t he

f or egoi ng cr i mes of vi ol ence t o f el ons gener al l y. I d.

I n 1981, t he l egi sl at ur e added cr i me of vi ol ence t o

H. R. S. 134- 7 whi l e keepi ng t he f el ony pr ohi bi t i on;

addi t i onal l y, t he def i ni t i on of cr i me of vi ol ence was changed

t o t he f or m seen i n t he cur r ent ver si on of t he st at ut e. 1981

Haw. Sess. 462. I d. The l egi sl at ur e di d not i ndi cat e t hat t he

new f or m of t he def i ni t i on was i nt ended t o be a subst ant i ve

change f r om t he el ement s- based def i ni t i on used i n pr i or year s.

See H. R. 11- 49, Reg. Sess. , at 922 ( Haw. 1981) ; S. 11- 49, Reg.

Sess. , at 929 ( Haw. 1981) . By usi ng t he phr ase as def i ned by

Ti t l e 37" i n t he moder n def i ni t i on, i t appear s t hat t he

l egi sl at ur e i nt ended t he t er m cr i me of vi ol ence t o be def i ned

accor di ng t o t he el ement s of t he penal code i nst ead of cr eat i ng a

br oad f act ual i nqui r y.

Addi t i onal l y, t he 1981 Senat e and House r epor t s

r egar di ng H. R. S. 134- 7 st at es t hat a per son i ndi ct ed or



37/63

- 37-

convi ct ed of a cr i me of vi ol ence i s pr ohi bi t ed f r om owni ng or

possessi ng a f i r ear m. H. R. 11- 49, Reg. Sess. , at 922 ( Haw.

1981) ; S. 11- 49, Reg. Sess. , at 929 ( Haw. 1981) . As Pl ai nt i f f

ar gues i n hi s suppl ement al br i ef , t he st at ut e cover s i ndi ct ment

or convi ct i on, not t he ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng an ar r est .

Pl nt f . s Supp. Br i ef at 7. I n t he absence of any i nt ent t o t he

cont r ar y, t he Cour t concl udes t hat i t i s appr opr i at e t o f ocus on

t he convi ct i on i t sel f i nst ead of t he under l yi ng conduct r esul t i ng

i n ar r est .

Because H. R. S. 134- 1 and 134- 7 f ocus on whether t he

el ement s of t he cr i me i nvol ve i nj ur y or t hr eat of i nj ur y, t he

Cour t s use of f eder al l aw as per suasi ve aut hor i t y i n empl oyi ng

t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach appear s t o be appr opr i at e. I n

St ate v. Auwae, t he I nt ermedi ate Cour t of Appeal s exami ned

f eder al l aw i nt er pr et i ng 18 U. S. C. 922( g) when r esol vi ng an

ambi gui t y wi t h H. R. S. 134- 7( b) . 89 Hawai #i 59, 66, 968 P. 2d

1070, 1077 ( Haw. App. 1998) ( over r ul ed on other grounds by St ate

v. J enki ns, 93 Haw. 87, 997 P. 2d 13 ( 2000) ) . The cour t of

appeal s not ed t hat t he obj ect i ve and l anguage [of 18 U. S. C.

922( g) ] ar e si mi l ar t o t hat of H. R. S. 134- 7( b) . I d. Whi l e

Auwe deal t wi t h an ent i r el y di f f er ent i ssue t han t he i ssues

bef ore t he Cour t , t he Hawai #i Cour t of Appeal s deci si on t o use

f eder al gun cont r ol l aw as per suasi ve aut hor i t y l ends suppor t t o



38/63

22/ The Cour t al so not es t hat Uni t ed St at es v. Nobr i ga, 474

F. 3d 561 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) and Uni t ed St at es v. Spencer , 724 F. 3d1133 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) i nvol ved f eder al cour t s usi ng t hecat egor i cal appr oach t o det er mi ne whet her a st at e cr i me qual i f i edunder a f eder al st at ut e f or sent enci ng enhancement s. Whi l e t hesecases i nvol ved f eder al sent enci ng cases, t he Cour t observes t hatHawai #i cr i mi nal st at ut es have been exami ned usi ng t hecat egor i cal appr oach.

- 38-

t hi s Cour t s deci si on t o use t he cat egor i cal appr oach i n t hi s

case. 22/

The Cour t al so obser ves t hat ot her st at e cour t s have

adopt ed t he f eder al cat egor i cal appr oach i n si t uat i ons r equi r i ng

a det er mi nat i on of whet her a past convi ct i on qual i f i es as a

cer t ai n t ype of cr i me under an ambi guous st at e st at ut e. See

Redeker v. Ei ght h J udi ci al Di st r i ct Cour t of t he St at e of Nevada,

122 Nev. 164, 127 P. 3d 520 ( 2006) ( usi ng t he cat egor i cal appr oach

t o det er mi ne whet her a def endant s previ ous cr i me qual i f i ed as an

aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance under a sent enci ng st at ut e) ; St at e v.

Ll oyd, 132 Ohi o St . 3d 135, 970 N. E. 2d 870 ( 2012) ( usi ng a

ver si on of t he f eder al cat egor i cal appr oach t o deter mi ne whet her

a Texas convi ct i on was equi val ent t o a convi ct i on under Ohi o

l aw) . Thus, whi l e t he Cour t acknowl edges t he Br ady Cent er s

ar gument t hat st at e l aw det er mi nes t he i nt er pr et at i on of st at e

st at ut es, st at es may use f eder al l aw as per suasi ve aut hor i t y i n

det er mi ni ng how t o i nt er pr et a st at e st at ut e. Based on t he

anal ysi s of Hawai #i l aw as expl ai ned above, t he Cour t f i nds i t



39/63

- 39-

appr opr i ate t o use t he cat egor i cal appr oach t o deter mi ne whet her

Pl ai nt i f f s convi cti on qual i f i es as a cri me of vi ol ence.

I n suppor t of i t s ar gument , t he Br ady Cent er ar gues

t hat t he Hawai #i Cour t of Appeal s has i nt er pr et ed t he wor d

i nvol vi ng t o r equi r e a ci r cumst ance- speci f i c, f act - based

appr oach t o det er mi ne whet her an i nf r act i on t r i gger s cer t ai n

consequences under a st atut e. See Br ady Cent er Supp. Br i ef at 2.

The case ci t ed by t he Br ady Cent er , Stat e v. Her bert , r evol ved

ar ound t he i nt er pr et at i on of H. R. S. 706- 625( 7) ( Supp. 2003) ,

whi ch al l ows a cour t t o cont i nue a nonvi ol ent subst ance abuser s

pr obat i on i nst ead of sendi ng t he subst ance abuser t o j ai l f or

vi ol at i ng a pr obat i on t erm. 112 Haw. 208, 145 P. 3d 751 ( Haw.

App. 2006) . H. R. S. 706- 625( 7) st at es t hat a nonvi ol ent

subst ance abuser may cont i nue on pr obat i on even af t er a f i r st

vi ol at i on of t he t er ms and condi t i ons of pr obat i on i nvol vi ng

possessi on or use . . . of any danger ous dr ug. The par t i es i n

Her ber t di sagr eed over what t er ms const i t ut ed dr ug- r el at ed

pr obat i on t er ms as opposed t o non- dr ug- r el at ed pr obat i on ter ms.

112 Haw. at 212.

The pl ai nt i f f i n Her ber t had ent er ed no cont est pl eas

t o dr ug- r el at ed of f enses i n 2003. I d. at 210. The st at e l at er

cl ai med t hat Her ber t had vi ol at ed cer t ai n condi t i ons of hi s

pr obat i on, namel y f ai l i ng t o r epor t t o hi s pr obat i on of f i cer as

di r ected, f ai l i ng t o not i f y hi s pr obat i on of f i cer of any change



40/63

23/ The Cal i f or ni a cases r el i ed upon by t he Hawai #i Cour t ofAppeal s i n Her ber t i nt er pr et ed a Cal i f or ni a st at ut e st at i ng t hatt he cour t s shoul d conduct hear i ngs t o determi ne whether anof f ender s probat i on shoul d be revoked and r equi r ed pr oof of t heal l eged pr obat i on vi ol at i on. See Cal . Penal Code 1210. 1

( West ) . The r equi r ement of pr oof of t he al l eged pr obat i onvi ol at i on suppor t s a ci r cumst ant i al i nqui r y, but t he Cal i f or ni ast at ut e i s not si mi l ar t o Hawai #i s st at ut or y dr ug- r el at edpr obat i on l anguage. Compare i d. t o Haw. Rev. St at . 706- 625.Thus, i t appear s t hat Her ber t s use of a f act - based i nqui r y st emsf r om t he Cal i f or ni a cour t s appl i cat i on of t hei r st at ut e, notf r om an i nt er pr et at i on of t he wor d i nvol vi ng.

- 40-

i n addr ess, f ai l i ng t o submi t t o a dr ug/ al cohol assessment as

di r ect ed, and f ai l i ng t o pay t he cr i me vi ct i m compensat i on and

pr obat i on ser vi ce f ees. I d. at 215. The cour t of appeal s

det er mi ned t hat t he quest i on bef or e us i s whet her Her ber t ' s

vi ol at i on of hi s t er ms and condi t i ons of pr obat i on i nvol ved

possessi on or use of dr ugs as meant under HRS 706625( 7) . I d.

The cour t t hen proceeded t o exami ne Cal i f or ni a l aw as per suasi ve

aut hor i t y on whet her each pr obat i on t er m was drug- r el at ed or non-

dr ug- r el at ed. I d. at 217- 218. Af t er exami ni ng Cal i f or ni a l aw,

t he cour t det er mi ned t hat cer t ai n pr obat i on t er ms wer e dr ug-

r el at ed whi l e ot her s wer e not . I d. at 218.

Whi l e t he Br ady Cent er asser t s t hat t hi s case used a

ci r cumst ance- speci f i c appr oach, t he Hawai #i Cour t of Appeal s

di d not act ual l y i nt er pr et t he wor d i nvol vi ng t o r equi r e a

ci r cumst ance- speci f i c i nqui r y. I nst ead, t he Hawai #i cour t used

Cal i f or ni a pr ecedent on dr ug- r el at ed pr obat i on t er ms i n or der t o

r each i t s concl usi on. 23/ Herbert , 112 Haw. at 217- 218. As a



41/63

24/ The Supr eme Cour t has i nt erpr eted t he phr ase i nvol veconduct t hat pr esent s a ser i ous pot ent i al r i sk of physi cal i nj ur yt o anot her t o r equi r e a cat egor i cal anal ysi s of whet her t hest at e cr i me cont ai ns el ement s of r i sk of physi cal i nj ur y t oanot her . J ames v. U. S. , 550 U. S. 192, 202 ( 2007) . However , t hel anguage anal yzed by t he Supr eme Cour t i n J ames i s f r omt hef eder al Ar med Car eer Cr i mi nal Act .

- 41-

r esul t , Her ber t does not appear t o suppor t t he Br ady Cent er s

anal ysi s t hat i nvol vi ng r equi r es a f act - based i nqui r y. 24/

The Br ady Cent er al so makes t he ar gument t hat , i f t he

l egi sl at ur e i nt ended t o l i mi t t he f i r ear ms ban t o i ndi vi dual s

convi ct ed of speci f i c pr edi cat e of f ense statutes, Sect i on 134

woul d have st at ed t hat t he pr edi cat e of f ense must cont ai n

speci f i c elements. Br ady Cent er Br i ef at 7, ECF No. 93. The

Br ady Cent er argues t hat t he l ack of t he word el ement s

i ndi cat es t hat t he l egi sl at ur e must have meant t hat t he f act s of

t he act ual cr i me shoul d be eval uat ed. I d. However , t he Cour t

observes t hat t he cat egor i cal appr oach has been appl i ed t o

st atut es t hat do not cont ai n t he word el ement . See J ames v.

Uni t ed St at es, 550 U. S. 192, 201- 02, 127 S. Ct . 1586, 1593, 167

L. Ed. 2d 532 ( 2007) . I n J ames, t he Supr eme Cour t used t he

cat egor i cal appr oach f or a st at ut e t hat def i ned vi ol ent f el ony

as, i nt er al i a, a cri me t hat i s bur gl ar y, ar son, or ext or t i on,

i nvol ves use of expl osi ves, or ot her wi se involves conduct t hat

pr esent s a ser i ous pot ent i al r i sk of physi cal i nj ur y to anot her .

J ames, 550 U. S. at 201- 02 ( ci t i ng U. S. C. 924(e) ( 2) ( B) ( i i ) ) .



42/63

- 42-

Accordi ngl y, t he absence of t he word el ement does not bar t he

use of t he cat egor i cal appr oach.

The Br ady Cent er ar gues t hat Hayes provi des a f r amewor k

of exami ni ng t he f actual ci r cumst ances of whether a cr i me meet s

t he def i ni t i on of a cr i me of vi ol ence. Br ady Cent er Br i ef at

5- 6, ECF No. 93 ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Hayes, 555 U. S. 415

( 2009) ) . The Cour t notes that t he Supr eme Cour t i n Hayes di d not

abandon t he cat egor i cal or modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oaches, but

i nst ead concl uded t hat t he t er m domest i c r el at i onshi p was not

an el ement f or pur poses of determi ni ng whether a st ate cr i me

qual i f i ed. The Supr eme Cour t exami ned t he exact wordi ng i n t he

st at ut e and concl uded, i nt er al i a, t hat t he t er m el ement was

l i st ed i n t he si ngul ar and t her ef or e onl y appl i ed t o t he use of

f or ce r equi r ement , not t he domest i c r el at i onshi p cl ause. Hayes,

555 U. S. at 421- 22. The cour t observed t hat t he use of f or ce

r equi r ement and t he domest i c r el at i onshi p r equi r ement were t wo

di st i nct concept s, so i t was unl i kel y t hat Congr ess i nt ended t he

si ngul ar wor d el ement t o r ef er t o bot h concept s. I d. at 425-

26. The Hayes case i s di st i ngui shabl e because t he wor di ng of t he

f eder al st at ut e, whi ch i s di f f er ent f r om H. R. S. 134- 1,

suppor t ed an i nt er pr et at i on f or a f act - based appr oach f or t he

domest i c r el at i onshi p r equi r ement . For t he r easons di scussed

above, t he Cour t concl udes t hat t he wor di ng of H. R. S. 134- 1

suppor t s a concl usi on t hat t he i nj ur y or t hr eat of i nj ur y



43/63

- 43-

r equi r ement was i nt ended t o be exami ned i n t erms of t he el ement s

of a convi ct i on as opposed t o a f act ual - based appr oach. See

supra at 35- 37.

The Br ady Cent er al so ar gues t hat Ni j hawan v. Hol der ,

557 U. S. 29 ( 2009) uses a ci r cumst ance- speci f i c appr oach t o

det er mi ne whet her a f r aud of f ense qual i f i ed a non- ci t i zen f or

depor t at i on. Br ady Cent er Supp. Br i ef at 1 n. 2. The Ni j hawan

case exami ned a st at ut e r egar di ng an of f ense t hat . . . i nvol ves

f r aud or decei t i n whi ch t he l oss t o t he vi ct i m or vi ct i ms

exceeds $10, 000. " Ni j hawan v. Hol der , 557 U. S. 29, 38, 129 S.

Ct . 2294, 2301, 174 L. Ed. 2d 22 ( 2009) . The Supreme Cour t noted

t hat t he st at ut or y l anguage i n whi ch t he l oss t o t he vi ct i m or

vi ct i ms exceeds $10, 000" r ef er r ed to speci f i c ci r cumst ances,

not gener i c cr i mes. 557 U. S. at 37. The cour t f ound t hat t he

wor ds i n whi ch coul d r ef er t o t he conduct i nvol ved i n t he

commi ssi on of t he of f ense of convi ct i on, r at her t han t o t he

el ement s of t he of f ense. I d. at 39. I n t hi s case, t her e i s no

i n whi ch l anguage i n H. R. S. 134- 1 t hat r ef er s t o speci f i c

ci r cumst ances. I nst ead, t he l anguage i n H. R. S. 134- 1 r ef er s

t o gener i c cr i mes by def i ni ng of f ense accor di ng to t he gener al

pr ovi si ons of t he Hawai #i penal code. See supra at 35.

Accor di ngl y, Ni j hawan does not suppor t usi ng a ci r cumst ant i al

appr oach f or H. R. S. 134- 1.



44/63

- 44-

The Br ady Cent er present s anot her ar gument t hat t he

modi f i ed categor i cal appr oach shoul d not be used because t he

r at i onal es behi nd t he appr oach do not appl y t o Haw. Rev. St at .

137 and 134- 1. The Br ady Cent er argues t hat t he Supreme Cour t

st at ed i n Descamps t hat t he use of t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal

appr oach was appr opr i ate because ( 1) t he ACCA s t ext and hi st ory

support ed usi ng t he appr oach, ( 2) t he appr oach woul d avoi d t he

Si xt h Amendment concerns t hat coul d ar i se f r omcour t s maki ng

f i ndi ngs of f act t hat pr oper l y bel ong t o j ur i es, and ( 3) t hat

t he appr oach woul d aver t t he pr act i cal di f f i cul t i es and

pot ent i al unf ai r ness of a f act ual appr oach. Br ady Cent er Supp.

Br i ef at 2 ( ci t i ng Descamps v. U. S. , 133 S. Ct . 2276, 2287

( 2013) ) . The Br ady Cent er ar gues t hat t hese r at i onal es behi nd

t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach do not appl y t o t he pr esent

case because thi s case i s a ci vi l case i nvol vi ng a Hawai #i

st at ut e i nst ead of t he ACCA. I d.

The Cour t f i r st obser ves t hat t he modi f i ed cat egor i cal

appr oach has not been r est r i ct ed onl y t o cases i nvol vi ng t he ACCA

or t he Si xt h Amendment . The f ederal cour t s have appl i ed t he

modi f i ed cat egor i cal appr oach t o ci vi l pr oceedi ngs, namel y

depor t at i on pr oceedi ngs t hat do not i nvol ve t he ACCA. See

Moncr i ef f e v. Hol der , 133 S. Ct . 1678 ( 2013) ( usi ng t he modi f i ed

cat egor i cal appr oach t o det er mi ne whet her a st at e cr i me qual i f i ed



45/63

25/ The Supr eme Cour t

Fisher MSJ Decesion

Text of Fisher MSJ Decesion

Fisher Handbook.pdf

Msj guia de negocios rd, república dominicana msj

71 - Govt's MSJ

Comins v. Van Voorhis MSJ

INDICE - msj.com.ar MSJ marca Renault/content/Catalogo MSJ... · MEGANE TURBO mot.F9K-EXPRESS-KANGOO diesel. . . . . . . . . . 3831 ... ----- para manguera 6mm ... CLIO ll/MEGANE

145-1 - Gingras Aff. ISO MSJ

Compte rendu msj

Dyson v. SharkNinja - Order Denying MSJ

Enyhart v. Ncbe Title III Msj

Anova Fisher

MSJ MaterMacc, Self-propelled single row, vacuum planter

CIA Lutz Decl MSJ

11.09.02 Df MSJ

MSJ Wealth Workbook

Tacos fisher

Lucas v. Silva 1983 MSJ

Vsj - Paseo Lineal Permiso Msj 2015-02-20 Impu.jpg

MSJ New Edit 28 Nov

Diseño Dialogo, Menu Msj

Catalogo MSJ Marca Renault

Toldy MSJ Decision

SSUF FNMA-JPM MSJ

MSJ Handbook 18 Nov

Pisano MSJ 112 Cordis

Prestige v. BK - MSJ Order

Pom v. Organic Juice - MSJ

Samsung MSJ

SV v. Kratz - Order Denying Def's MTD/MSJ

Omnibus MSJ Exhibit 2 Seroquel v Haldol BPRS

Lecture 5 MSJ

Documents

Fisher MSJ Decesion

Text of Fisher MSJ Decesion