Attorney Bill Harrison’s Lucid Defense: The Facts Behind the DUI Controversy

The Principle Above the Person: Why the Honolulu Police Commission Must Provide Defense Counsel for Sgt. Darren Cachola

*All Images Were Created on FLOW, Google’s Artificial Intelligence Image Creator

In high-profile or controversial cases, it is easy for public discourse to lose its way in optics and personal reputation. However, the law provides a deliberate sanctuary from public sentiment. When the Honolulu Police Commission reviews the request for county-funded representation for Sergeant Darren K. Cachola, it must look past any external controversy and focus solely on the objective framework of the law.

I get it, Sgt. Cachola is a controversial figure.  Follow me on a quick side quest, before we return to the subject at hand.

Back in 2014 Officer Cachola was accused of abuse of a household member and the video evidence polarizing.  However, he was never charged, which in and of itself, is another jail mail issue I could write, explaining exactly why the charging procedure made it impossible for him to be indicted.  Any interest in that article? If so, reply to this email and if there’s enough interest, I’ll put pen to pad and explain.  

Another great newsletter would be the debate over city and county labor contracts and how employees can game the "High-3" pension system.  Conflating systemic pension reform with an HPD officer's immediate right to county-funded legal counsel when sued for doing their job only serves to muddy the waters on a distinct legal obligation.

The statutory mandate under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 52D-8 is clear: if an officer is sued for acts done in the performance of their duty, the county must provide their defense. The law does not condition this right on popularity; it conditions it on whether the officer was doing the job assigned to them by the department. On the night of November 7, 2023, Sgt. Cachola was doing exactly that.

🏛️ AT A GLANCE: RECAP of Mr. Harrison’s Request

If you read nothing else, these are my personal three strongest, unassailable arguments from the legal letter Mr. Harrison wrote to prove Sgt. Cachola strictly meets the guidelines for county-provided legal counsel:

1. Complete Internal Affairs Clearance:The Honolulu Police Department’s Professional Standards Office (PSO) conducted an exhaustive investigation into this exact incident. They reviewed the checkpoint operation, body-worn camera footage, and all documentation, concluding that everything was fully within policy, the allegations were "not sustained," and no disciplinary action was warranted.

2. "By-the-Book" Statutory Compliance:This was a fully authorized intoxication control roadblock. HPD forms and records prove Sgt. Cachola met the exact mandatory minimum staffing requirements, executed every required safety layout (lighting, flares, signage), and strictly adhered to the statutory three-hour operation limit.

3. The Supreme Court’s KealohaStandard Rules Out "Motive": Under the controlling Hawaiʻi Supreme Court precedent (Kealoha, 2023), the plaintiff’s allegations of bad motive or discrimination do not alter the analysis. The Court ruled that even if an officer executes a legitimate duty imperfectly, they remain entitled to representation because they were initially acting to perform their public duties.

De-Escalating the Controversy with Objective Facts

The civil lawsuit attempts to capitalize on the optics of an arrest where the driver blew a 0.000 alcohol reading. Instead of sueing Mr. Cachola, perhaps the more calculated and efficient efforts should be to reform the procedures that even allow a driver to be arrested when blowing 0.000, not to pilary the sergeant on duty supervising another officer’s erroneous arrest.

Sgt. Cachola was supervising a team where the driver failed a standardized field sobriety test and allegedly displayed heavy physical indices of impairment. Because alcohol was ruled out by the screening tool, the officers correctly shifted their investigation to drug-related impairment (OVUII), utilizing Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) protocols. This is not an abuse of power; it is an active execution of traffic safety laws designed to keep drug-impaired drivers off Hawaiʻi's highways.

I believe the plaintiff was wrongly arrested and civil compensation is due for the erroneous arrest.  To me, the body cam footage doesn’t signal any drug or alcohol impairment. However, again, I’m writing specifically about Sgt. Cachola’s right to paid for legal representation, not the settlement I think is owed to make the plaintiff whole.

The Danger of a Dangerous Precedent

Denying legal counsel under these circumstances would signal to every sergeant and officer on the line that they are completely on their own the moment a controversial or litigious situation arises. It forces officers to choose between actively enforcing the law or protecting themselves from personal financial bankruptcy.

Conclusion

For decades, Mr. Harrison has been a masterful legal brief writer.  As a writer myself and yes, I consider myself at this point a “citizen journalist,” I’ve read hundreds, perhaps thousands of legal motions.  Mr. Harrision has consistently written the most clear and compelling documents I’ve read in my over 20 years of being involved in the criminal justice system.  

Sgt. Cachola's request does not sit at the margins of the law; as Mr. Harrison writes, it sits directly at its core. Law enformcement officers may draw controversy, but the operational execution of a lawfully ordered DUI checkpoint is a textbook performance of duty. The Commission must uphold institutional integrity, and direct the City and County of Honolulu to provide Sgt. Cachola with the legal defense he is legally owed.

What did you think of today's issue of JAIL MAIL

• 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 Absolute Fire, Bravo!
• 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽Eh, it was mid, OK at best
• 👏🏽 Be better, this was just awful