Committee hears broad opposition to MOUs linking Hawaii Police Department with federal agencies; forwards resolution to full council with unfavorable note

The Hawaii County Council Committee on Government Operations and External Affairs met March 18 to consider Resolution 74-25, which would authorize memorandums of understanding (MOUs) between the Hawaii Police Department (HPD) and federal partners, including Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation(Honolulu Safe Streets Task Force). After extensive public testimony and questioning of HPD and county legal staff, the committee did not adopt the resolution and will forward it to the full council without a favorable recommendation.

Why it matters: The MOUs would refresh and formalize HPD relationships with federal task forces that assist on cases such as large-scale drug trafficking and other federal crimes. Opponents said the agreements risk blurring lines between local policing and federal immigration enforcement at a time of heightened federal immigration activity.

Public testimony centered on fear the MOUs could enable local involvement in immigration enforcement. Armando Rodriguez, a Kona coffee farmer and member of community planning groups, described personal family history with immigration enforcement and said, “I just don't want it to become like that here.”

Several immigration advocates urged the committee to defer or amend the agreements. Sandy Ma of a legal clinic told the committee, “For the community to see that HSI special agents ICE agents have a space within the police department, really erodes community trust, at this particular time, and it's very concerning.” Liza Rangel, who identified herself as executive director of the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, said the group opposes the current MOU text but urged continued dialogue with federal and local agencies.

HPD Chief Moskowitz described the MOUs as mechanisms to enable limited task-force cooperation, not to create local immigration-enforcement authority. “We're not trained for that. We don't have staff for that. That's not our role,” the chief said, adding the MOUs explicitly exclude authority to conduct administrative immigration enforcement. He said HSI agents have had workspace in HPD facilities for several years and that the agreements on the table mainly update points of contact and clarify body-camera and office-space arrangements for the existing task-force partnerships.

Committee members and counsel pressed for specifics. Council members asked how many HPD officers are designated as task-force officers (the chief said four officers were designated and more were being onboarded), how long HSI agents have had office space in the Hilo station (the chief said at least five years), and whether the MOUs could be amended to add clearer restrictions (corporation counsel said federal partners have declined substantive edits to their standard boilerplate language).

The committee also debated the difference between the MOUs before it and a separate statutory program under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which deputizes local officers to perform federal immigration functions. Chief Moskowitz and deputy corporation counsel said the county has not entered into any 287(g) agreement and that the MOUs before the committee do not convey Title 8 (immigration) enforcement authority to HPD. The chief stated, “We're not gonna entertain a 287(g) relationship. We're not interested in it.”

Votes and next steps: The committee considered a motion to postpone the matter to its April 1 meeting; that postponement motion failed. On the main motion to recommend adoption of Resolution 74-25 the committee did not approve a favorable recommendation; the clerk recorded counts reported in the hearing transcript and the resolution will go to the full council with an unfavorable recommendation. The committee record and testimony will be part of the council packet at the next full-council meeting.

What remains uncertain: Advocates and council members sought clearer written limits about office space for federal agents, the exact authorities that may be exercised by any HPD task-force officers, and a guarantee that no future 287(g)-style deputation would be entered without explicit council approval. Corporation counsel said substantive changes to the federal MOUs are unlikely because those agencies use standard language; council members discussed using a council resolution to set local constraints if the MOUs proceed.

The committee also received background information provided by HPD and corporation counsel, including references in the MOUs to federal statutes such as the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and federal titles cited by HSI, which county counsel said describe federal authorities generally rather than grant new powers to HPD under the MOUs.

The next scheduled appearance of the resolution will be at full council; the committee's transcript and the submitted written testimony will be available in the council packet.