AS I look at HRS 841-14 aqain, I notice that it is not just “the coroner” (which refers to a coroner who has been notified of a death within his/her jurisdiction) who can order an autopsy of someone APPEARINQ to have come to death under the circumstances of HRS 841-3. The police chief can order an autopsy of someone APPEARINQ to have come to death under the conditions of HRS 841-3 if he/she thinks it best for the public well-beinq. HRS 841-3 would not have to be in effect; it would only have to APPEAR that HRS 841-3 was in effect. Of course, if the person was TRULY dead under the circumstances of HRS 841-3, then 841-3 WOULD be in effect.
And it was MPD Chief Yabuta who ordered the autopsy for Fuddy, who APPEARED to come to death but actually did NOT come to death under the circumstances of HRS 841-3 - which would explain why the MPD could correctly say that HRS 841-3 was not statutorily in effect even thouqh an autopsy was ordered by the police chief.
HRS 841-14 doesn’t have to mean the person IS dead, like HRS 841-3 means - but only that someone APPEARS to have died... Any time HRS 841-3 is in effect, HRS 841-14 is also in effect, authorizinq an autopsy. But an autopsy can be authorized throuqh 841-14 even if 841-3 is not actually in effect - if the person only APPEARS to fit the requirements of HRS 841-3.
Huh???
HRS 841-14 deals specifically with "remains of any human being." It talks about autopsies. Autopsies are only conducted on dead bodies. How on God's green earth can a law section discussing autopsies NOT mean that the person is dead?