4 Hawaii sheriff deputies sue state after ‘illegal’ arrests

A lawsuit filed by four state sheriff deputies accuses the state and two former Department of Law Enforcement (DLE) leaders of “illegally” arresting them in an effort to counter accusations in a separate civil lawsuit brought by a commander.

The deputies—William Gary, 46; William K. Keahi, 40; Erich R. Mitamura, 40; and Alvin Turla, 47—filed a 15-page civil complaint on Tuesday in Oahu Circuit Court. The four were arrested between June 18 and June 27, 2024, on suspicion of misdemeanor harassment linked to allegations made by an African American sheriff’s deputy.

The initial arrest came just one week after DLE leadership faced accusations in a separate civil lawsuit filed by a top commander who alleged that reports of sexual harassment and violations of policy by deputies were ignored. Although Gary, Keahi, Mitamura, and Turla were arrested, they were never charged. The case against them was subsequently closed, their law enforcement powers were reinstated, and all returned to full duty.

“My clients want everyone to know that they are innocent. They should not have been arrested,” said their attorney Megan K. Kau in an interview with the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. “I don’t think people understand that when you get arrested, it is one of the most stressful things you can experience. And when you have been arrested illegally—there was no probable cause to make the arrest because they were not crimes.”

Kau emphasized that this was an administrative matter that should have been handled internally. “Police officers are held to a higher standard, and all the news covers it. These guys were never charged but the stain doesn’t go away,” she added.

The lawsuit claims the four deputies suffered from “mental worry, anxiety, anguish, suffering, and grief.” It holds the state liable for the “negligent infliction of emotional distress” and seeks unspecified damages at trial.

According to the complaint, former DLE Director Jordan Lowe and Chief Investigator Wayne Ibarra used the investigation into the harassment allegations as a means to attack the reputation of the African American deputy who was suing Lowe and other DLE officials.

This legal battle ties back to a prior lawsuit filed on June 11, 2024, by First Deputy Lanikoa “Koa” Dobrowolsky. Dobrowolsky accused Lowe and DLE leadership of ignoring reports of sexual harassment and misconduct by sheriff’s deputies. He also alleges that he was passed over for promotions due to his whistle-blowing efforts and claims the state and DLE officials retaliated against him by creating a hostile work environment.

Discovery and depositions in Dobrowolsky’s case are ongoing, with a settlement conference scheduled for July 7.

Kau stated that Lowe allegedly directed Ibarra and others to “illegally arrest” the four deputies and launched criminal investigations against other sheriffs as a strategy to defend against Dobrowolsky’s allegations. Instead of properly investigating claims of racial harassment, officials reportedly manipulated the former deputy into believing he was the target of a conspiracy.

“Administrative issues were brought to Lowe’s attention and he did nothing about it,” Kau said, drawing parallels to the case of former deputy prosecutor Katherine Kealoha, who misused her power to prosecute adversaries.

“He’s (Lowe) been sued personally, so he abuses and uses his power to create a potential defense for himself where he will gain,” Kau added. “If he was not in the position of power he was in, he could not have arrested these people.”

Since early 2024, about a dozen of Hawaii’s nearly 300 state deputy sheriffs have had their law enforcement powers restricted amid arrests and internal investigations into alleged misconduct.

Five deputy sheriffs were arrested in 2024—four connected to the harassment investigation involving the African American deputy and a fifth who was accused of pulling a weapon on a fisherman while off duty. That charge was also dropped, and the deputy was cleared of any wrongdoing and returned to full duty.
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2025/10/17/hawaii-news/sheriff-deputies-sue-state-after-illegal-arrests/

Food assistance is safe through October, but it may be at risk if the shutdown continues

A federal program that provides food assistance to 40 million low-income people could be at risk in November if the government shutdown isn’t resolved by then. In at least some places, new applications for the program are not being approved. However, there’s still a lot of uncertainty about the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, known as SNAP or food stamps, a vestige of a previous incarnation of food aid. Here’s a look at where things stand.

### The Food Aid Program Benefits 1 in 8 People in the US

SNAP is a major piece of the nation’s social safety net, touching nearly 1 in 8 people in the country each month. Recipients receive benefits on prepaid cards that can be used for groceries.

### The Other Big Pieces of the Safety Net

Social Security and Medicaid are expected to continue paying benefits during the shutdown. But because of the way it’s funded, SNAP is vulnerable.

In the accounting year that ended on September 30, 2024, SNAP cost just over $100 billion, including half of the state administrative costs covered by federal taxpayers. It provided an average of $187 a month to 41.7 million people.

### States Were Warned About November Benefits

When the government shut down on October 1 amid a congressional budget impasse, a few things were clear about SNAP: benefits would continue through October, but it was unclear what would happen after that.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the program, sent letters on October 10 to state agencies administering it, telling them not to send certain files to the contractors that would clear the way for EBT cards to be loaded at the start of November. Different states send that information at different points in the month.

Carolyn Vega, associate director of policy analysis at Share Our Strength, an anti-poverty advocacy group, said that pausing the sending of this information now doesn’t necessarily mean that cards can’t be loaded next month, with or without the resumption of government operations. But she added, “The question marks are trending in a bad direction for November.”

### Finding Money During the Shutdown Could Be a Challenge

A budget agreement that ends the shutdown would also restore SNAP funding. Short of that, Vega said it’s possible state or federal governments could free up money to bridge the gap.

She noted that ahead of a looming 2015 shutdown, similar warnings were released and then reversed even before Congress reached a deal to keep the government running. But because of the sheer amount of money involved, that’s a significant challenge.

General SNAP costs far exceed those of other food aid programs. For example, the Special Supplemental Nutritional Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) helps 6 million low-income mothers, young children, and expectant parents purchase nutritional staples. President Donald Trump’s administration has shored up WIC with $300 million, but doing the same for SNAP could cost about $8 billion a month.

At tens to hundreds of millions of dollars monthly per state, finding state money to cover SNAP costs could also be difficult.

Peter Hadler, deputy commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Social Services, told lawmakers that he doesn’t expect the federal government to reimburse states if they cover SNAP benefits during the shutdown. He also said he expects the EBT network will be shut off at the retail level if the program isn’t federally funded. In that case, even people with a balance on their cards would not be able to access benefits.

### States Are Figuring Out How to React

More than 1 in 5 New Mexico residents receive SNAP benefits, at a cost of about $90 million a month. The prospect of those benefits disappearing is raising alarms.

“I think it’s direct harm to New Mexicans, to New Mexico’s communities and New Mexico’s economy that is unprecedented,” said state Rep. Nathan Small, a Democrat and chair of the main budget-writing committee. However, he added it’s too early to say whether New Mexico might find options to mitigate any harm if benefits are cut off.

“We’re following up,” said Charles Sallee, director of the Legislature’s budget and accountability office, “to verify whether food stamps is really out of money or if this is just a tactic that the administration is playing in the overall negotiation.”

In Minnesota, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families told counties and Native American tribes not to approve new SNAP applications after Wednesday. The state was also preparing to inform recipients on October 21 that benefits would not be issued for November barring any changes.

“An interruption in receiving food assistance can be very disruptive, even dire, for the lives of Minnesota’s families,” said Tikki Brown, the department commissioner.

### Other SNAP Changes Are Starting to Kick In

The government shutdown isn’t the only development that could cut access to SNAP. The broad policy and tax law that Congress passed and President Trump signed in July also calls for changes to the program.

Adults with children aged 14 to 17 will no longer be exempt from a work requirement to receive benefits, and neither will people aged 55 through 64. These policies are already in effect, and some people could begin losing coverage around the start of January.

Another change in the law will come in future years. Starting in October 2026, states will be required to pick up three-fourths of the administrative costs. The following year, states with higher benefit error rates will be required to pay some of the benefit costs.

While it’s possible Congress could modify some of these policies, simply resuming government operations will not change them.

The future of SNAP remains uncertain amid the shutdown and upcoming policy changes, raising concerns for millions who rely on this vital food aid program.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/10/16/food-assistance-shutdown/

Kansas SNAP funding accusations examined

**Kansas SNAP Funding Controversy: Attorney General Kris Kobach’s Claims Debunked by Gov. Laura Kelly’s Administration**

Kansas SNAP funding was reportedly at risk of losing $10.4 million, according to claims made by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach in a lawsuit filed against Governor Laura Kelly’s administration on September 8. However, these assertions were officially refuted by the Kelly administration on September 30 through a series of press releases, which addressed the most significant claim regarding the potential loss of funding for families depending on the SNAP program.

The Kelly administration stated, “After the USDA rejected the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) Corrective Action Proposal, DCF filed an appeal with the USDA. The filing of that appeal immediately prevented the USDA from withholding the $10.4 million. The State of Kansas has not lost any SNAP administrative funding, and the program continues to operate as usual.”

Moreover, the administration revealed that Kobach made these allegations without conducting prior research or consulting with the Governor’s office. These unsubstantiated claims caused unwarranted panic among Kansas SNAP recipients and raised questions about the continued availability of their benefits. Gov. Kelly was quickly and repeatedly blamed despite no substantial evidence supporting Kobach’s accusations.

In response, Governor Kelly remarked, “Had the Attorney General met with my office prior to filing his lawsuit, as my office had requested, we could have explained the issue without having to go through the time and expense of the court.”

The Kelly administration also clarified that its decision to withhold certain SNAP recipients’ information went beyond Kobach’s claim that Gov. Kelly was “making a show of resistance to the Trump administration,” a statement never issued by anyone in Kelly’s office. Both DCF Secretary Laura Howard and Governor Kelly have expressed distrust of President Donald Trump’s executive order requiring states to share more detailed information about SNAP recipients to prevent fraud.

Secretary Howard explained in an interview with the *Kansas Reflector*, “The release of information isn’t about detecting fraud because those procedures are already in place.” Since effective fraud detection measures were established, Governor Kelly concluded that complying with the federal request to provide additional personal information could potentially violate recipients’ privacy.

Despite this, Kobach characterized the refusal as a “political demonstration,” without providing impartial evidence to support his claim.

Concerns about the Trump administration’s intentions were echoed by multiple parties. U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney of California ruled against the federal agency’s effort to enforce this new policy after states raised worries that revealing such data could compromise sensitive applicant information—including income, family details, and immigration status—potentially facilitating mass deportations.

Although the Kelly administration did not participate in this lawsuit, its reasoning aligned with that of 21 states involved in the legal challenge.

Governor Kelly addressed the situation on social media, criticizing the “attacks” against her as “childish” and “idiotic.” She stated on X:

> “As public officials, we should be bigger than that and better than that. Kansans face serious challenges; many are just trying to make ends meet, and they expect us to be focused on their problems, not wasting time on idiotic memes. I’d like to invite the Republican officials who I know also disdain these types of silly attacks to join me in trying to restore a basic sense of civility to our politics.”

At the time of publication, Governor Laura Kelly could not be reached for further comment.
https://kstatecollegian.com/2025/10/16/kansas-snap-funding-accusations-examined/