In an ironic twist in an investigation to determine whether former police chief K.C. Lum altered government evidence by omission, an affidavit showing cause to search his property had omissions of its own. A 43-page affidavit that was supposed to
In an ironic twist in an investigation to determine whether former police chief K.C. Lum altered government evidence by omission, an affidavit showing cause to search his property had omissions of its own.
A 43-page affidavit that was supposed to state the probable cause of the search and seizure of Lum’s property in September 2006 was missing its second page, which Deputy Prosecutor Albert Cook called an “oversight.”
Cook faxed the affidavit Monday to Lum’s attorney, Alfred Castillo Jr., after an inquiry into its whereabouts from The Garden Island.
Cook said yesterday he would re-send the second page to Castillo.
Investigators with Cook’s office alleged the reason for the search and seizure of Lum’s property in September was to find out if Lum had tampered with government documents when he forwarded incomplete county statements regarding his employment contract in June 2006.
One of Lum’s attorneys, Clayton Ikei, had said to investigators that administrators in his office were responsible for the omission of one page from the forwarded documents, noting that the omission was nothing more than an administrative error.
Investigators with the state were then tasked with determining the validity of that statement for themselves.
Under Cook’s direction, Lum was then served with two search warrants for his home and business, in which three computer hard drives were seized.
According to section “D” on page 13 of the incomplete affidavit, the probable cause that investigators cited as reason to believe Lum was behind the omission was deduced after a three-page termination of employment contract was received as a two-page letter by the Kaua‘i Prosecutors Office for review.
After a comparison of the two versions, it appeared the two-page version might have been modified, the affidavit states, citing that on the second page the font appeared altered and that in the last two paragraphs of the third page, which discussed the reinstatement of K.C. Lum to his original rank as lieutenant, was missing. It also stated that the signature line appeared on the second page rather than the third.
The document continues, “That Special Agent Ho went to the office of Ikei and was informed that the termination of employment contract letter was scanned and e-mailed to Lum on two occasions.”
After nearly eight months of possessing Lum’s property, the Department of the Attorney General decided against pursuing the investigation. Cook’s office administrators returned Lum’s belongings to him in May.
Fifth Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Watanabe ordered the state to produce its supporting evidence in April for the search after Lum’s attorney Alfred Castillo filed a motion to do so.
With that order, the case — on the motion to provide support for the search warrant — was closed.
In a cover sheet faxed to Castillo Monday, Cook wrote that the original affidavit for the search was filed with the Kaua‘i District Court July 3.
However, a records search with the court and a review of the file demonstrated such documents were missing.
Citing Hawai‘i Revised Statutes 92F-14, Cook said he could not provide the documents directly to The Garden Island.
The statute relates to the privacy rights of an individual, and states that “disclosure of a government record shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interest of the individual.”
The definition can be extended to protect information relating to medical history, receipt of welfare benefits or information relating to employment misconduct that results in an employee’s suspension or discharge.
Lum can waive those rights and have the document open for public perusal, Cook said, but would have to grant permission in writing that extends beyond the motion filed by Castillo requesting the document.
“If he wants things related to this case (to be given to the media), he can sign a written request,” Cook said. “In my experience, I’ve never had this type of request. Most cases aren’t high publicity and once there is no action by prosecutors, that’s the end of it. The defendants don’t care.”
Lum signed a letter to that effect yesterday.
Lum said he just wants his name cleared, reiterating that when the state began its investigation he was running for a position with the County Council. Stating that the highly-publicized seizure of property incriminated him, Lum said his approval ratings dropped beyond recovery in the wake of the incident.
