Maui Council committee unanimously backs one-year MOU to process Kauai drug evidence

The Disaster Recovery, International Affairs and Planning Committee of the Maui County Council voted unanimously to recommend first‑reading passage of Bill 158 (2024), authorizing the mayor to enter an intergovernmental agreement with the County of Kauai for forensic drug testing services.

The bill, moved and substituted with a CD1 version, passed on a 9‑0 voice/hand vote after committee members questioned staffing, costs, chain‑of‑custody procedures and the agreement’s term.

The MOU, as described during the committee meeting, allows the Maui Police Department’s forensic drug laboratory to accept and analyze evidence submitted by the Kauai Police Department. "They reached out to our lab to assist them with forensic analysis for court proceedings and for narcotics investigation," said Brandy Kownie, criminalist with the Maui Police Department’s forensic lab. "We're fully capable of meeting their request, and we hope we can do so and continue to prioritize the work for Maui County, and assist KPD and Kauai when necessary."

Why it matters

Maui’s lab is currently the only fully staffed, fully trained forensic drug laboratory in the state that can provide this level of service, the lab told the committee. With that capacity comes tradeoffs: committee members pressed staff on whether providing services to Kauai would delay testing or court preparation for Maui cases, and on who pays for extra costs tied to Kauai cases.

Key details from the meeting

- Term: Deputy Corporation Counsel Michael Hopper read terms from the agreement and said the MOU "shall remain enforced for 1 calendar year" from the date of last signature; extensions would require council action.

- Staffing: Kownie told the committee the lab currently has two analysts and the plan is to dedicate one analyst to Kauai cases while keeping at least one analyst focused on Maui caseloads. "By keeping one analyst on KPD cases, we ensure that we have one full time analyst to do any Maui rushes or any other testing cases," she said. Kownie also cautioned that case volume can fluctuate and that complex or novel items can take longer to process.

- Evidence handling and costs: Evidence will be mailed to Maui at Kauai’s expense and included in the chain of custody. The agreement specifies that Kauai will bear the cost of a secondary technical review performed by a third party, Solutions for Quality Management. KPD also will reimburse Maui for any purchased controlled reference standards required to identify novel drugs. Kownie said the lab will try to avoid billing Kauai for MPD overtime but that Maui work sometimes requires overtime regardless of KPD cases.

- Court testimony and travel: The agreement makes Kauai responsible for costs if Maui analysts are subpoenaed to testify in Kauai, including travel; Kownie told the committee that forensic testimony can require multiple days of court time and that analysts typically plan three days for trial preparation and testimony.

- Prioritization and enforceability: Several council members asked whether the MOU guarantees priority for Maui cases if staff shortfalls occur. Kownie said the department's internal practice is to prioritize Maui investigations and that the lab communicated that practice to Kauai. Deputy Corporation Counsel Michael Hopper cautioned that the written agreement does not explicitly prioritize Maui cases and that such an oral understanding would not override the written terms. "You really need to have something like that in the agreement if you want to be specific as to those terms," Hopper said.

Committee action and vote

The committee moved to substitute the posted Bill 158 with a proposed CD1 that the amendment summary stated was "approved as to form and legality" by the Department of the Corporation Counsel and made technical, non‑substantive revisions including the MOU start date and term. The substitution motion was moved by Committee Vice Chair Noheilani'u'u Hodgins and seconded by Member Tom Cook. The committee then voted to pass the main motion as amended. The clerk recorded the result as 9 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Discussion vs. decision

The committee’s decision was limited to recommending first‑reading passage and substituting the CD1 bill; council action will be required for any extension beyond the one‑year term. The committee record shows deliberation on operational impacts (staffing and trial obligations), logistical arrangements (mailing of evidence and chain of custody), and cost allocation (third‑party review and reference standards). Committee counsel noted that binding prioritization language would need to be included in the agreement itself to be enforceable.

What’s next

The committee recommended first reading with the proposed CD1; the bill will proceed through council rules for first reading and additional council consideration. If Kauai and Maui wish to extend the arrangement beyond the one‑year term, an amendment to the agreement or a new agreement would be required and would need council approval.

Speakers quoted or referenced in this article were identified during the meeting and are listed in the article’s speaker section.