SB 284: Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Package; AG; Criminal Offenses; Wiretapping Authorization
- Session Year: 2025-2026
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2025-03-28
Current Status:
In Progress
(2025-05-19: Act 078, on 05/19/2025 (Gov. Msg. No. 1178).)
Introduced
In Committee
First Chamber
In Committee
Second Chamber
Final Decking
Enacted
Requires the Department of the Attorney General to provide a written memorandum recommending approval or disapproval of an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication to the prosecuting attorney within twenty-four hours of the prosecuting attorney's request to the Department. Establishes a process for emergency applications for emergency orders authorizing or approving the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. (HD1)
Requires the Department of the Attorney General to provide a written memorandum recommending approval or disapproval of an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication to the prosecuting attorney within twenty-four hours of the prosecuting attorney's request from the Department. Clarifies that wiretapping applications made to a designated judge be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of the Attorney General recommending approval or disapproval is not required in cases where the prosecutor swears or affirms to the judge that immediate action is required to avoid death or injury and the judge agrees that immediate action is warranted. Requires that the judge's order granting the emergency application contain an express finding that immediate action was necessary to avoid death or injury. (SD1)
Removes requirement that all wiretapping applications made to a designated judge be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of the Attorney General recommending approval or disapproval.
|
THE SENATE |
S.B. NO. |
284 |
|
THIRTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, 2025 |
S.D. 1 |
|
|
STATE OF HAWAII |
H.D. 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
A BILL FOR AN ACT
RELATING TO INTERCEPTION OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
"§803- Emergency applications and orders. (a) If an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication is immediately necessary to prevent death or injury, an emergency application for an emergency order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication may be submitted to a designated judge without a written memorandum recommending approval or disapproval by the department of the attorney general; provided that:
(1) The emergency application attests that the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication is immediately necessary to prevent death or injury;
(2) The emergency application identifies the person or persons who are in danger of death or injury, if the identity of the person or persons is known;
(3) The emergency application meets all other requirements for an application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication as set forth in this part;
(4) The emergency order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication contains a finding that the order needed to be granted immediately to prevent death or injury; and
(5) The emergency order states that the interception shall terminate when the danger of death or injury has abated, a follow-up application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication has been denied, or forty-eight hours have passed since the granting of the emergency order if no follow-up order has been granted.
(b) If an emergency order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication is granted, a follow-up application for a follow-up order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication shall be submitted to a designated judge within forty-eight hours of the granting of the emergency order. The follow-up application shall:
(1) Meet all of the requirements for an application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication set forth in this part; and
(2) Be accompanied by a written memorandum recommending approval or disapproval by the department of the attorney general; provided that the department of the attorney general shall provide the written memorandum within twenty-four hours of the request for the written memorandum.
(c) The interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication authorized or approved by an emergency order shall immediately terminate if:
(1) The danger of death or injury has abated;
(2) A follow-up application is denied; or
(3) A follow-up order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication is not granted within forty-eight hours after the granting of the emergency order.
(d) In the event a follow-up application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication is denied, or in any other case where a follow-up order is not granted by a designated judge within forty-eight hours after the granting of an emergency order, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted shall be treated as having been obtained in violation of this chapter. An application for a follow-up order and the granting of a follow-up order may occur after the interception has terminated; provided that the follow-up order is granted within forty-eight hours of the granting of the emergency order.
(e) Except as specifically provided by this section, all emergency applications for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, emergency orders authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, follow-up applications for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, and follow-up orders authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication shall be subject to the requirements set forth in this part."
SECTION 2. Section 803-46, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
"(a)
Each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception
of a wire, oral, or electronic communication shall be made in writing upon oath
or affirmation to a designated judge and shall be accompanied by a written
memorandum recommending approval or disapproval by the department of the
attorney general. If the application
is being prepared by the prosecuting attorney of a county, the department of
the attorney general shall provide its memorandum to the prosecuting attorney
within twenty-four hours of the attorney's request to the department. The application shall state the applicant's
authority to make the application. [The
term "designated judge" as] As used in this section [shall
not only mean], "designated judge" means a circuit court
judge specifically designated by the chief justice of the Hawaii supreme court[,
but shall also mean] or any circuit court judge or district court
judge, if no circuit court judge has been designated by the chief justice or is
otherwise unavailable. Each application
shall include the following information:
(1) The
identity of the investigative or law enforcement officer or officers requesting
the application[,] or the official or officials applying for an
order;
(2) A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant, to justify the applicant's belief that an order should be issued, including:
(A) Details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed;
(B) Except as provided in subsection (j), a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted;
(C) A particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted;
(D) The identity or descriptions of all persons, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted; and
(E) Where appropriate, the involvement of organized crime;
(3) A full and complete, but not unduly technical or complex, statement of the facts concerning how the interception is to be accomplished, and if physical entry upon private premises is necessary, facts supporting the necessity;
(4) A
full and complete statement of facts as to whether [or not] other
investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably
appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous;
(5) A statement of facts indicating the period of time for which the interception is required to be maintained. If the nature of the investigation is such that the authorization for interception should not automatically terminate when the described type of communication has been obtained, a particular description of facts establishing probable cause to believe that additional communications of the same type will occur thereafter;
(6) A full and complete statement of the facts concerning all previous applications known to the individual authorizing and making the application, made to any designated judge for authorization to intercept, or for approval of interceptions of, wire, oral, or electronic communications involving any of the same persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken by the designated judge on each application; and
(7) When the application is for the extension of an order, a statement setting forth the results thus far obtained from the interception, or a reasonable explanation of the failure to obtain any results."
SECTION 3. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New statutory material is underscored.
SECTION 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Report Title:
Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Package; AG; Criminal Offenses; Wiretapping Authorization
Description:
Requires the Department of the Attorney General to provide a written memorandum recommending approval or disapproval of an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication to the prosecuting attorney within twenty-four hours of the prosecuting attorney's request to the Department. Establishes a process for emergency applications for emergency orders authorizing or approving the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. (HD1)
The summary description of legislation appearing on this page is for informational purposes only and is not legislation or evidence of legislative intent.
|
THE SENATE |
S.B. NO. |
284 |
|
THIRTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, 2025 |
S.D. 1 |
|
|
STATE OF HAWAII |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
A BILL FOR AN ACT
RELATING TO INTERCEPTION OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Section 803-46, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
"(a) Each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation to a designated judge and shall be accompanied by a written memorandum recommending approval or disapproval by the department of the attorney general. If the application is being prepared by the prosecuting attorney of a county, the department of the attorney general shall provide its memorandum to the prosecuting attorney within twenty-four hours of the attorney's request to the department. The application shall state the applicant's authority to make the application. The term "designated judge" as used in this section shall not only mean a circuit court judge specifically designated by the chief justice of the Hawaii supreme court, but shall also mean any circuit court judge or district court judge, if no circuit court judge has been designated by the chief justice or is otherwise unavailable. Each application shall include the following information:
(1) The identity of the investigative or law enforcement officer or officers requesting the application, the official or officials applying for an order;
(2) A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant, to justify the applicant's belief that an order should be issued, including:
(A) Details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed;
(B) Except as provided in subsection (j), a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted;
(C) A particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted;
(D) The identity or descriptions of all persons, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted; and
(E) Where appropriate, the involvement of organized crime;
(3) A full and complete, but not unduly technical or complex, statement of the facts concerning how the interception is to be accomplished, and if physical entry upon private premises is necessary, facts supporting the necessity;
(4) A full and complete statement of facts as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous;
(5) A statement of facts indicating the period of time for which the interception is required to be maintained. If the nature of the investigation is such that the authorization for interception should not automatically terminate when the described type of communication has been obtained, a particular description of facts establishing probable cause to believe that additional communications of the same type will occur thereafter;
(6) A full and complete statement of the facts concerning all previous applications known to the individual authorizing and making the application, made to any designated judge for authorization to intercept, or for approval of interceptions of, wire, oral, or electronic communications involving any of the same persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken by the designated judge on each application; and
(7) When the application is for the extension of an order, a statement setting forth the results thus far obtained from the interception, or a reasonable explanation of the failure to obtain any results."
SECTION 2. Chapter 803, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to part IV to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:
"§803- Emergency applications and orders. (a) If an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication is immediately necessary to prevent death or injury, an emergency application for an emergency order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication may be submitted to a designated judge without a written memorandum recommending approval or disapproval by the department of the attorney general; provided that:
(1) The emergency application attests that the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication is immediately necessary to prevent death or injury;
(2) The emergency application identifies the person or persons who are in danger of death or injury, if the identity of the person or persons is known;
(3) The emergency application meets all other requirements for an application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication as set forth in this part;
(4) The emergency order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication contains a finding that the order needed to be granted immediately to prevent death or injury; and
(5) The emergency order states that the interception shall terminate when the danger of death or injury has abated, a follow-up application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication has been denied, or forty-eight hours have passed since the granting of the emergency order if no follow-up order has been granted.
(b) If an emergency order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication is granted, a follow-up application for a follow-up order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication shall be submitted to a designated judge within forty-eight hours of the granting of the emergency order. The follow-up application shall:
(1) Meet all of the requirements for an application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication set forth in this part; and
(2) Be accompanied by a written memorandum recommending approval or disapproval by the department of the attorney general; provided that the department of the attorney general shall provide the written memorandum within twenty-four hours of the request for the written memorandum.
(c) The interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication authorized or approved by an emergency order shall immediately terminate if:
(1) The danger of death or injury has abated;
(2) A follow-up application is denied; or
(3) A follow-up order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication is not granted within forty-eight hours after the granting of the emergency order.
(d) In the event a follow-up application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication is denied, or in any other case where a follow-up order is not granted by a designated judge within forty-eight hours after the granting of an emergency order, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted shall be treated as having been obtained in violation of this chapter. An application for a follow-up order and the granting of a follow-up order may occur after the interception has terminated; provided that the follow-up order is granted within forty-eight hours of the granting of the emergency order.
(e) Except as specifically provided by this section, all emergency applications for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, emergency orders authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, follow-up applications for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, and follow-up orders authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication shall be subject to the requirements set forth in this part."
SECTION 3. New statutory material is underscored.
SECTION 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Report Title:
Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Package; Criminal Offenses; Wiretapping Authorization
Description:
Requires the Department of the Attorney General to provide a written memorandum recommending approval or disapproval of an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication to the prosecuting attorney within twenty-four hours of the prosecuting attorney's request from the Department. Clarifies that wiretapping applications made to a designated judge be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of the Attorney General recommending approval or disapproval is not required in cases where the prosecutor swears or affirms to the judge that immediate action is required to avoid death or injury and the judge agrees that immediate action is warranted. Requires that the judge's order granting the emergency application contain an express finding that immediate action was necessary to avoid death or injury. (SD1)
The summary description of legislation appearing on this page is for informational purposes only and is not legislation or evidence of legislative intent.
|
THE SENATE |
S.B. NO. |
284 |
|
THIRTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, 2025 |
|
|
|
STATE OF HAWAII |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
A BILL FOR AN ACT
RELATING TO INTERCEPTION OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Section 803-46, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
"(a)
Each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception
of a wire, oral, or electronic communication shall be made in writing upon oath
or affirmation to a designated judge [and shall be accompanied by a written
memorandum recommending approval or disapproval by the department of the
attorney general]. The application
shall state the applicant's authority to make the application. The term "designated judge" as used
in this section shall not only mean a circuit court judge specifically
designated by the chief justice of the Hawaii supreme court, but shall also
mean any circuit court judge or district court judge, if no circuit court judge
has been designated by the chief justice or is otherwise unavailable. Each application shall include the following
information:
(1) The identity of the investigative or law enforcement officer or officers requesting the application, the official or officials applying for an order;
(2) A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant, to justify the applicant's belief that an order should be issued, including:
(A) Details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed;
(B) Except as provided in subsection (j), a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted;
(C) A particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted;
(D) The identity or descriptions of all persons, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted; and
(E) Where appropriate, the involvement of organized crime;
(3) A full and complete, but not unduly technical or complex, statement of the facts concerning how the interception is to be accomplished, and if physical entry upon private premises is necessary, facts supporting the necessity;
(4) A full and complete statement of facts as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous;
(5) A statement of facts indicating the period of time for which the interception is required to be maintained. If the nature of the investigation is such that the authorization for interception should not automatically terminate when the described type of communication has been obtained, a particular description of facts establishing probable cause to believe that additional communications of the same type will occur thereafter;
(6) A full and complete statement of the facts concerning all previous applications known to the individual authorizing and making the application, made to any designated judge for authorization to intercept, or for approval of interceptions of, wire, oral, or electronic communications involving any of the same persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken by the designated judge on each application; and
(7) When the application is for the extension of an order, a statement setting forth the results thus far obtained from the interception, or a reasonable explanation of the failure to obtain any results."
SECTION 2. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken.
SECTION 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
|
INTRODUCED BY: |
_____________________________ |
|
|
By Request |
Report Title:
Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Package; Criminal Offenses; Wiretapping Authorization
Description:
Removes requirement that all wiretapping applications made to a designated judge be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of the Attorney General recommending approval or disapproval.
The summary description of legislation appearing on this page is for informational purposes only and is not legislation or evidence of legislative intent.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| May 19, 2025 | Act 078, on 05/19/2025 (Gov. Msg. No. 1178). |
| May 19, 2025 | Act 078, 05/19/2025 (Gov. Msg. No. 1178). |
| Apr 16, 2025 | Enrolled to Governor. |
| Apr 16, 2025 | Received notice of Final Reading (Sen. Com. No. 806). |
| Apr 16, 2025 | Passed Final Reading. Ayes, 23; Aye(s) with reservations: none. Noes, 0 (none). Excused, 2 (Senator(s) Fevella, Ihara). |
| Apr 15, 2025 | Received notice of reconsideration and Senate agreement (Sen. Com. No. 786). |
| Apr 15, 2025 | One Day Notice 04-16-25 |
| Apr 15, 2025 | Senate agrees with House amendments. Placed on the calendar for Final Reading on 04-16-25. |
| Apr 15, 2025 | Reconsideration of action taken on 04-03-25 in disagreeing to the House amendments. |
| Apr 15, 2025 | Received notice of appointment of House conferees (Hse. Com. No. 731). |
| Apr 14, 2025 | House Conferees Appointed: Tarnas Chair; Belatti, Shimizu. |
| Apr 3, 2025 | Received notice of disagreement (Sen. Com. No. 481). |
| Apr 3, 2025 | Senate disagrees with House amendments. |
| Apr 3, 2025 | Received from House (Hse. Com. No. 432). |
| Apr 2, 2025 | Passed Third Reading with none voting aye with reservations; none voting no (0) and Representative(s) Cochran excused (1). Transmitted to Senate. |
| Mar 31, 2025 | Passed Second Reading as amended in HD 1; placed on the calendar for Third Reading with none voting aye with reservations; none voting no (0) and Representative(s) Cochran, Hussey, Lowen, Ward excused (4). |
| Mar 31, 2025 | Reported from JHA (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 1721) as amended in HD 1, recommending passage on Second Reading and placement on the calendar for Third Reading. |
| Mar 13, 2025 | The committee on JHA recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes were as follows: 9 Ayes: Representative(s) Tarnas, Poepoe, Belatti, Hashem, Kahaloa, Perruso, Takayama, Todd, Shimizu; Ayes with reservations: none; 0 Noes: none; and 2 Excused: Representative(s) Cochran, Garcia. |
| Mar 11, 2025 | Bill scheduled to be heard by JHA on Thursday, 03-13-25 2:00PM in House conference room 325 VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE. |
| Mar 6, 2025 | Referred to JHA, referral sheet 19 |
| Mar 6, 2025 | Pass First Reading |
| Mar 4, 2025 | Received from Senate (Sen. Com. No. 121) in amended form (SD 1). |
| Mar 4, 2025 | Passed Third Reading, as amended (SD 1). Ayes, 25; Aye(s) with reservations: none . Noes, 0 (none). Excused, 0 (none). Transmitted to House. |
| Feb 28, 2025 | 48 Hrs. Notice 03-04-25. |
| Feb 28, 2025 | Report adopted; Passed Second Reading, as amended (SD 1). |
| Feb 28, 2025 | Reported from JDC (Stand. Com. Rep. No. 882) with recommendation of passage on Second Reading, as amended (SD 1) and placement on the calendar for Third Reading. |
| Feb 20, 2025 | The committee(s) on JDC recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS. The votes in JDC were as follows: 4 Aye(s): Senator(s) Rhoads, Chang, San Buenaventura, Awa; Aye(s) with reservations: none ; 0 No(es): none; and 1 Excused: Senator(s) Gabbard. |
| Feb 14, 2025 | The committee(s) on JDC has scheduled a public hearing on 02-20-25 9:45AM; Conference Room 016 & Videoconference. |
| Jan 21, 2025 | Referred to JDC. |
| Jan 15, 2025 | Introduced and passed First Reading. |
| Jan 14, 2025 | Pending Introduction. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 16, 2025 | Final Reading | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Apr 2, 2025 | Third Reading | House Floor |
Passed |
|
| Mar 13, 2025 | The committee on JHA recommend that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS | House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs |
Passed |
|
| Mar 4, 2025 | Third Reading | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Feb 20, 2025 | The committee(s) on JDC recommend(s) that the measure be PASSED, WITH AMENDMENTS | Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| County of Honolulu | ** Support | |
| Department of the Attorney General | *** Support | Mar 13, 2025 |
| Department of the Attorney General and Department of the Prosecuting Attorney for the City | ** Support | |
| Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu | *** Support | Mar 13, 2025 |
STAND. COM. REP. NO. 1721
Honolulu, Hawaii
, 2025
RE: S.B. No. 284
S.D. 1
H.D. 1
Honorable Nadine K. Nakamura
Speaker, House of Representatives
Thirty-Third State Legislature
Regular Session of 2025
State of Hawaii
Madame:
Your Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs, to which was referred S.B. No. 284, S.D. 1, entitled:
"A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO INTERCEPTION OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION,"
begs leave to report as follows:
The purpose of this measure is to:
(1) Require the Department of the Attorney General to provide a written memorandum recommending approval or disapproval of an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication to the prosecuting attorney within twenty-four hours of the prosecuting attorney's request to the Department; and
(2) Establish a process for emergency applications for emergency orders authorizing or approving the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.
Your Committee finds that this measure would expedite the application process for intercepting communications in emergencies, ensuring timely responses to prevent death or injury while maintaining legal oversight.
Your Committee has amended this measure by making technical, nonsubstantive amendments for the purposes of clarity, consistency, and style.
As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of S.B. No. 284, S.D. 1, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Second Reading in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 284, S.D. 1, H.D. 1, and be placed on the calendar for Third Reading.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs,
|
|
|
____________________________ DAVID A. TARNAS, Chair |
|
|
|
|
STAND. COM. REP. NO. 882
Honolulu, Hawaii
RE: S.B. No. 284
S.D. 1
Honorable Ronald D. Kouchi
President of the Senate
Thirty-Third State Legislature
Regular Session of 2025
State of Hawaii
Sir:
Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred S.B. No. 284 entitled:
"A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO INTERCEPTION OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION,"
begs leave to report as follows:
The purpose and intent of this measure is to remove the requirement that all wiretapping applications made to a designated judge be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of the Attorney General recommending approval or disapproval.
Your Committee received testimony in support of this measure from the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney of the City and County of Honolulu.
Your Committee received testimony in opposition to this measure from one individual.
Your Committee received comments on this measure from the Department of the Attorney General.
Your Committee finds that existing law requires direct approval for a wiretap authorization be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of the Attorney General. Your Committee believes that live interception of electronic communications is an extraordinary measure that should be used sparingly and subject to a full and complete statement of known facts and only with judicial authorization. Your Committee further finds that in emergencies that are likely to result in death or injury, law enforcement will simply act without a court order. This measure will permit law enforcement to respond in a timely and lawful manner to emergencies requiring wiretapping, including by allowing investigators to obtain live location data from phones, subject to prosecutorial review and judicial authorization.
Your Committee notes that this measure, as written, would eliminate the review of applications and issuing of the Department of Attorney General recommendations for approval or disapproval in their entirety. Your Committee believes that eliminating the Department of the Attorney General from the application process would likely make review of these applications more difficult for judges, and may result in the granting of orders based on legally deficient applications.
Accordingly, your Committee has amended this measure by:
(1) Deleting language that would have removed the requirement that all wiretapping applications made to a designated judge be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of the Attorney General recommending approval or disapproval;
(2) Specifying that if the application is being prepared by the prosecuting attorney of a county, the Department of the Attorney General shall provide a written memorandum recommending approval or disapproval of an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication to the prosecuting attorney within twenty-four hours of the attorney's request to the Department;
(3) Inserting language that:
(A) Clarifies that wiretapping applications made to a designated judge be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of the Attorney General recommending approval or disapproval is not required in cases where the prosecutor swears or affirms to the judge that immediate action is required to avoid death or injury and the judge agrees that immediate action is warranted;
(B) Clarifies the requirements and procedures for an emergency application and emergency order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication; and
(C) Requires the Department of the Attorney General to provide a written memorandum recommending the approval or disapproval of a follow-up application for an emergency wiretapping application within twenty-four hours; and
(4) Making technical, nonsubstantive amendments for the purposes of clarity and consistency.
As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Judiciary that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of S.B. No. 284, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Second Reading in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 284, S.D. 1, and be placed on the calendar for Third Reading.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the Committee on Judiciary,
|
|
|
________________________________ KARL RHOADS, Chair |
|
|
|
|
|
Date
|
Testimony PDF
|
|---|---|
| Mar 13, 2025 | SB284_SD1_TESTIMONY_JHA_03-13-25_.PDF |
| Feb 19, 2025 | SB284_TESTIMONY_JDC_02-20-25_.PDF |
Discussed in Hearing
7MIN
House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs
17MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):