The Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai’i has partially overturned a lower court’s decision in a case involving Anthony Bellamy and the Honolulu Police Department (HPD). The case stems from an incident where police officers responded to a reported gunshot at Bellamy’s apartment building. The appeals court found that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of HPD, citing genuine issues of material fact that needed to be decided by a jury.
The incident occurred on May 8, 2021, when police officers, responding to a 911 call about a possible gunshot, went to Bellamy’s apartment. Bellamy claimed that officers entered his apartment with weapons drawn, pointed at him, and demanded to know where the gun was, without a warrant or any immediate justification. He alleged various torts, including negligence, assault, and improper search and seizure.
HPD, on the other hand, argued that the officers’ actions were justified and moved for summary judgment, arguing that there were no genuine issues of material fact. They presented recordings of the 911 call, declarations from the officers, and video and audio from their body-worn cameras. The lower court sided with HPD and granted the summary judgment.
Bellamy appealed, arguing that the lower court should not have granted summary judgment because there were disputed material facts, particularly concerning the credibility of the witnesses. He also argued that the court disregarded the fact that another judge had denied HPD’s motion to dismiss Count VI (improper search and seizure).
The appeals court agreed with Bellamy, focusing on the core issue of whether there were genuine issues of material fact. The court reviewed the evidence, including Bellamy’s declaration, which directly contradicted the body-worn camera footage.
The court acknowledged the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent in *Scott v. Harris*, where video evidence that “blatantly contradicted” a plaintiff’s story was considered when ruling on summary judgment. However, the Hawai’i court cited the *Nozawa* case, which established that under Hawai’i law, the weight of all evidence, including video footage, and the credibility of witnesses must be evaluated by a jury. The court stated that Bellamy’s declaration, based on his personal knowledge, created genuine issues of material fact that the jury needed to resolve.
The court also addressed the issue of qualified immunity. Although HPD asserted this as an affirmative defense in its answers to Bellamy’s complaint, it did not argue it in its motion for summary judgment. The appeals court, therefore, did not rule on the appropriateness of summary judgment as to that defense.
Ultimately, the court vacated the lower court’s judgment in part. The dismissal of Bellamy’s punitive damage claim against the City and County of Honolulu was affirmed, but the case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings, consistent with the appeals court’s opinion. The court emphasized that the jury must determine which version of events it believes, not a judge making a decision on summary judgment.