Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Foreign.

Everyone, welcome to this continued version of the Judiciary Committee hearing that we started yesterday but couldn't get through all our bills. If we have a major zoom crash, we'll try again on Tuesday the 10th at.

I'm sorry, Tuesday the 18th at 10am in this room here, except on Bill 1316 which so I hope we get through at least 1316 because that has to be done by tomorrow. But we have lots of hearings tomorrow so hopefully nothing will go wrong. Okay, first up.

And we do have a two minute time limit on testifying both for zoom and in person. And first up on our agenda today is SB283. This establishes heightened penalties for the offense of bribery under certain circumstances. First up on 283 is Neily Chang for 1200 Deputy Public Defender.

Deputy Public Defender on behalf of my colleague, Ms. Chang. This charge is already AB felony. There have been significant charges that have been added to the statute in the last several years as a result of the public outcry and the experiences you have had as elected officials.

We do not believe that changes from AB felony to an A felony will provide any further of a sufficient deterrent or punish offenders appropriately. Further, we are not aware of anyone who has been charged with this. If an individual is charged with this, it will most likely be charged in the federal courts.

We do not believe this is appropriate.

Okay, thank you. Next is Daniel Hugo for Department of Prosecuting Attorney City and County. Morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes, Vice Chair Gabbard and Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo for the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu. Yes, these crimes are more likely to be charged in federal court.

And the reason is because the federal federal sentences are stiffer and the methods of proving it are much easier under under the federal rules of evidence. Nevertheless, we do believe that state court prosecutions can assist in efforts against public corruption.

And we are not proposing changing bribery as it currently exists for a class B felony except in three aggravating circumstances. First, when the person is an elected or appointed official. Second, when the bribe involves more than $20,000 and third, when there are three or more bribes in a three year period.

And these are aggravating circum that we do believe do more a class A felony grading. We point in our testimony to the prospect of increased cooperation. But you know, we don't just pass laws in order to ensure cooperation. We also pass laws because we think that it's commensurate to the crime.

And we believe that in these three aggravating circumstances that is the case. We Also would just suggest this is not included in our testimony, but on page two, line 10, there is a clause.

Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, we would be fine with a deletion of that particular phrase because it would, it would allow the interpretation with the deferral statute to be more consistent. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is, excuse me, Dara Carlin in support. Does anyone else, it's all about everybody who signed up for SB283. Does anyone else wish to sign to testify in SB283 in Zoom or in person? No. Okay, Members questions. I have A question for Mr. Hugo, if you don't mind. Or a couple of them.

So I guess sort of is the prosecutor's office intending to prosecute bribery crimes as class A felony or is this just a, is this just to scare people?

We would prefer that it be a deterrent.

You know, I think that the vast majority of public servants in Hawaii are honest, but when those cases are referred to us, and sometimes we get cases where the FBI does the initial workup, but then, you know, there's a question about whether they would continue with it in federal court because of course the U.S.

attorney's office has their own criteria. We would like in, in cases where those are referred to us to have a good prospect of being able to have a meaningful prosecution.

Have there been prosecutions where you thought where the, where the, your office believed that that should have been, you would have liked to have charged with class A felony is if this Bill were, if those conditions were met.

So I'm not aware of any specific cases, but I could certainly speak with the Special Prosecution Division which those, and.

Then how did you arrive at the value with 20,000?

20,000 I think is the, it's a, it is parallel with the theft one statute. So essentially that's been a, a marker that's been used in other legislation for like the most serious types of financial crimes.

Theft 1 isn't a class A right?

No, it is a class, it's a class B. We essentially see this as an aggravated theft one. There's a theft one, and also of the trail of public trust.

Good. If we were to raise the threshold, would you object to that?

No, I, I, I, I don't think we would make the perfect. The enemy of the good.

Will also proposes to elevate the felony level to class A for repeat offenders who commit three or more acts of bribery in a three year period. How, how did you arrive at that formula?

So that, that would be a Case where we would essentially be looking at bribery as a continuous offense and continuing offenses. The, the thing that we're looking at is both what would be a reasonable look back window and also what would be a reasonable number of occurrences. Three seems to be the standard that's used for continuing offenses.

And I think a three year look back period would essentially get us within two election cycles.

Okay. So if I'm reading it correctly right now, the three. Let's see. So there's a, if it's one instance and it's more than 20,000, that would be, that would bump it into the class A. But if it's three instances, but there's no minimum value. So you could conceivably have bribery for 100 bucks. 100 bucks.

100 bucks and you'd get a class A felony out of it.

Yes. And the issue there would be that there is a continuing breach of public trust even though it's below that dollar amount. Pretty harsh for that amount of money. Well, the thing about a bribery case is that we're not just showing that there's a payment. Right. There also has to be a quid pro quo.

So if somebody is selling basically the office that's held in trust for $100, you know, we do, we, we see the cases with the higher amounts as a question of scale. Right.

This, this is somebody who could probably affect a single piece of legislation given the, the high amount or a single judicial decision or Executive decision given the higher amount. But in cases where it's continuous, this is somebody who might be able to influence very small decisions, but is continue continually eroding the, the public trust.

I have questions. So servant, but he's talking about it.

Zero, I see.

Yeah. The statute, the proposed statute actually says the public servant. If you're a public servant elector appointed, then it automatically kicks it up to a class A no matter what the amount is. Yes. Yeah. On any, an end of and just 1100 bribe would put you in the class A.

Right. So it's the, in, in that case it would be a prosecution against the elected or appointed official. But there's also another person on, on the other end of a bribery transaction.

The person who's, who is paying to influence and then, and so the $20,000 or the repeated acts of, of bribery, those, those cases would be the person who is offering the bribe to the public official.

That really seems harsh. Okay, I understand what you're saying though. Okay. Yeah. Understand what I mean.

Okay. I have a number of questions. Sure. Okay. First, you know the City and county planning scandal. Was that being prosecuted by your office or is that federal?

I believe that's a federal prosecution.

So you know this Bill you have.

Yes.

Does that mirror the federal. I mean, is it the same punishment or is it harsher?

So the, the, any sort of federal prosecution, they fit within a matrix called the federal sentencing sentencing guidelines. So the, the federal. The eventual federal penalty will be looks at things like is the person cooperating, in which case they can receive a significant reduction in penalty. You know, what was their pass?

Where's the pass acts of any sort of criminal history. And so there, there's a more standardized uniform matrix. We don't have that in Hawaii. There's a quite a large amount of discretion that's given the judges.

Okay, so the other question I would have, would, what about the elements of the crime? Are they similar to the federal version?

So the essential elements of the crime. Yes, there.

The three acts of $100 each or.

Zero, sorry, no, not those. But the, but the essential element of bribery. And what, what makes a bribery prosecution so difficult is that you have to prove a quid pro quo. So it's not just money was given to a public official and the public official did something.

You have to show that those two were connected to each other. And that's often quite difficult. And you know, recently we had a federal prosecution for, for the former head of our office. And they were not able to prove that precisely because you need to be able to prove that, quote, pro quo.

Zero, you mean the feds could not. No, the feds did go after him.

They. They did. But there was an acquittal.

Yeah, yeah, but it wasn't. You're saying that the city and county prosecutor could not then go after him?

Well, I mean, we would have.

No, you have. No, you have no crime under the penal code.

Right. So. So like federal prosecutors, if we're bringing a bribery prosecution, we would have to show a quid pro quo, usually the way that these.

Zero, but there is a penal code that allows for the bribery. I mean, I haven't defended one, so I don't know.

So, yes, there is currently an offense called bribery which can be prosecuted and which is a class B felony.

And like the federal statute, the essential, the core of what bribery is, is similar, which is that you have to show quid pro quo essentially in exchange of some sort of public exercise of public office in exchange for money.

In that case, yes, he had an acquittal. But could you have gone after him too, under the state penal code? Because that was a federal crime.

I mean, so I, I suppose if we thought that we could, if we had the ev. If we had the evidence to show a quid pro quo, obviously, if the feds weren't able to, to prove that, that would be a significant reason not to.

Okay. I mean, that's part of prosecutorial discretion though. Right. But you have the authority to be able to do it if you had to?

Yes. So as a General rule, state and federal prosecutions are treated as separate sovereigns. So even if they have parallel statutes, both, both can go for the same.

So I, I'm sorry, one more thing. So recently the feds chose not to prosecute the D.C. mayor. Okay. If that occurred here in Hawaii, would our current penal code allow you to prosecute our mayor in the event for the same types of crimes that they were investigating him for?

So, yes, there would not be an issue with the penal code. The usual issue is with evidence.

Okay, thank you, Members.

Other questions?

No, that's it.

Okay. If not, we'll go ahead and move on to the next bill, SB 694. This prohibits minors from being held in jails, lockups, and prisons for adults. First up on 694 is Judge Medeiros for the Judiciary. Good morning.

Morning, Vice Chair Rhoads. Sorry, Chair Rhoads, Vice Chair Gabbard, Members of the Committee. My name is Jessi Hall. I'm a district family court judge. As you can see from our testimony, we did state that we opposed. And it's not the intent that we oppose, it's the ability to comply. It's the bill, unfortunately, is Oahu centric.

The neighboring islands could not comply with the way that it's currently written. I did receive the amendment, which I do appreciate very much. But I still have a couple of concerns, one of which, I apologize, I'm not able to answer today. And that would be whether metropolitan statistical area would cover the neighboring circuits.

It's my understanding it might be a population of 50,000 or less, which I don't think the other circuits would be able to meet either. And so that would be my only concern. Would they still be covered by this amendment? The other issue with the amendment would be the six hour limitation.

If a minor was picked up at 8pm at night, they would not be able to get them here to Oahu by within the six hour period. Just no flights. It's just not a possibility. Oahu is the only place that there is a secure juvenile detention facility. The other thing is, with our juveniles, the way it works, once they're picked up, they're taken to the facility or to the courthouse. They have to have a hearing the next business day to determine whether they'll be detained or not.

So if you pick up a minority on, let's say, Hilo. They, based on the way this is written, they would have to fly them to Oahu for the night, fly them back for their hearing to determine if they're going to be detained. If they are going to be detained, have to fly them back to Oahu. So it's just logistics and making sure that the neighboring islands would be able to comply. Thank you for the ability to testify. I'll be here for questions.

Thank you. Next is Darcia Forester for Public Defender. Or Representative Ganaden again.

Chair, Vice Chair. Sonny Ganaden on behalf of my colleague, Ms. Forester. She's in court today. We are in support of the amendment. However, we do, of course, defer to the Judiciary and Judge Hall and her expertise. Of course, this is part of over a decade of effort by the Legislature, many individuals in government who've been trying to decarcerate youth in our community with much success. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission in support. McKenna Woodward for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, also in support. James Dold for Hawaii... I'm sorry, Human Rights for Kids on Zoom. Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to testify before your Committee again. Thank you, Senator Gabbard, for introducing this important bill. This issue, you know, fundamentally is a human rights issue. The ICCPR and the CRC categorically prohibits the placement of children in adult correctional facilities, full stop.

The placement of children in those facilities does constitute a human rights violation for very important and specific reasons. When we look at the data and we see what children's experiences are when they're placed in adult correctional facilities, we oftentimes see very tremendous hardship and trauma that's imposed upon them.

Matter of fact, this was the reason why the Prison Rape Elimination Act was actually needed, because children were the ones who were being raped and physically violated in our correctional institutions. So much so that they're five times more likely to experience physical and sexual violence when they're placed in these facilities. And when they're not, when they're not experiencing violence, oftentimes it's because they're placed in solitary confinement, which is another form of torture and another human rights violation.

And so when we're talking about where these kids are placed, I think it's important for the Committee to understand that these kids are oftentimes being held in isolation. It's where we have cases like Kalief Browder in New York, where he was held in isolation in an adult jail in New York City and subsequently killed himself.

We see that children who are placed in adult correctional facilities are nine times more likely to commit suicide for all the reasons that I just discussed. And also note in a study that we did of people who were tried as adults and held in correctional facilities, 75% of them experience some form of harm, including 15% experiencing physical harm, 88% experiencing physical violence, and 70% experiencing mental violence.

There are solutions here because states like California, West Virginia, and Delaware have banned the placement of children in their adult correctional facilities, and there's no reason why Hawaii couldn't do the same. Even if we have to get innovative and have things like virtual hearings, bring those kids in. And so we would encourage a favorable report. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next is Melissa Pavlicek for Opportunity for Youth Action Hawaii in support. Carrie Ann Shirota for ACLU of Hawaii, also in support. Dara Carlin in support. Reese Neal in support. Victor Ramos in opposition. That's everybody who signed up on SB 694. Does anyone else wish to testify in SB 694? Okay, seeing none. Members, questions? Senator Gabbard.

Judiciary. So how many youth each year are processed in the second, third, and the fifth districts where they're held in adult jails?

When you say jail, do you mean our detention home? I don't know the exact number per year. I know currently, believe we have one from Hawaii Island or one or two from Hawaii Island at detention home and one other, I believe, from Maui. It's a very limited number. And I think our head count this morning at DH total is only 11, and we can house 60 youth.

And as Mr. Dold mentioned at the very tail end of his testimony, could the court proceedings for these youth, could they be held virtually?

Yes. In fact, for the neighboring islands, their hearings are often held virtually from the detention home. But even if you send a youth here, they get picked up, you send them a youth here, let's say at their hearing the next day, they're going to be released, they have to fly right back home.

I see. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Other questions? Judge Medeiros, you don't mind coming back? Sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. My bad. So, yeah, I mean, I guess that the low number, the low volume seems to me to argue in favor of just, you know, the Judiciary just have to figure it out on those relatively rare instances where this comes up. I mean at some point you can dedicate a facility somewhere to take care of them, but...

That's where the cost benefit does not match. I mean, because we are talking such low numbers, to have a facility facility on each island would not make any financial sense.

And why not just fly them up to Oahu then? If you'd have to fly back and forth a couple times, it's still cheaper than building a detention facility.

True, but it's just the logistics of a child picked up at night. There's no flights. The, unfortunately, flights don't go 24 hours a day. A child would have to be held somewhere.

Right, but I mean is there any, is there any legal impediment to having them held in a hotel?

It's not secure. That's the main impediment. Because the youth that are coming here are the higher level offenses. We've got, you know, allegations of murder and attempted murder being held at DH. We're not talking the runaways, definitely, because those are not held at all. We're not talking misdemeanors. We're talking high level felonies.

And it just seems to me like that's an argument for having a youth facility on every island. And so it's expensive, but it's, what else are you supposed to do other than put them in with adults? Which I think all the data indicates pretty clearly is not a great idea.

And we would agree with that. That's why in 2022 it was a Judiciary package bill that created the site and sound restrictions preventing youth from having being in a location with sight and sound of any adults that are also detained.

Okay. All right, well, we'll figure something out. But I don't, I'm very reluctant to have... I think it's a good bill, put it that way. So we'll see how it goes.

Well, if you do go with amendment, I would just ask to reconsider the six hour time limitation.

Okay. All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions on this one? Okay, see on. Let's go ahead and move on to SB 1316. This is relating to court ordered payments. Requires a judiciary to contract collection agency or license attorney to collect delinquent court ordered fees, fine sanctions and court costs. First up on 1316 is Rodney Miley, Chief Administrator for the courts comments.

Next is Mark Tom or Trisha Nakamatsu for the Attorney General. Morning again.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Trisha Nakamatsu appearing on behalf of the Department. We are in strong support of this bill and thank you Chair for hearing it. This bill is meant to address a 2024 Hawaii Supreme Court case decision, State v.

Fae, that basically upended a long standing practice for district courts to set proof compliance hearings in cases in which an offender is court ordered to pay fines, fees and or restitution and is not able to pay all those things at once. So this bill actually provides a couple of different solutions.

So one, in criminal cases, fines and fees currently can't be sent to are not sent to collections the way they are routinely done in traffic cases. So this bill would allow for that as an option. However, it would strike out juvenile monetary assessments and restitution from being able to be sent to collections.

We just don't feel that those particular types of payments are well suited for collections. We also think that.

So in those circumstances, when the court gives an offender time to pay off their fines, fees or restitution, most importantly the restitution, there's already a statute that exists that allows them those payments to be made over time to accommodate an offender's financial circumstances.

So this bill would define the term default, which is also already in statute and which was actually a key part of the state DEFA decision. The word default is currently not defined anywhere. There's no mechanism for the term the court to determine when default occurs. So this bill would basically create that structure and definition.

We do, and it would codify the proof compliance hearings process that then allows the courts to know when someone is in default. We understand that the judiciary sent testimony asking that it be limited to circuit court hearings. So we are open to possibly limiting it to district court.

However, we also understand that victim advocates have now expressed a concern asking that for their own reasons, they feel that it should apply to circuit court cases. So whatever the decision of the Committee, the Department is willing to help work on language to effectuate that.

Okay, thank you. Next, Taryn Tommasa for office Public defender.

Again and Deputy Public Defender on behalf of my colleague, Ms. Tommasa. Of course this is about individuals who have not defaulted before the court continue to come into court. The State vs Faye case is quite short. We implore that Committee and Members of the public to just read it.

We believe that this bill is a violation of the separation of powers the judiciary, both in its holding by Judge Eddins with no dissent, as well as its testimony before you today is clear. Although it's in our our testimony, we believe it's important to just say it into the record.

The court did say that financial obligations were not meant to prolong criminal justice oversight creating on top of shadow control that surpassed the original sentence. The court remarked that from the outset court monitoring of pre standing restitution orders unnecessarily burdens defendants and wastes judicial resources. For those reasons, we believe that this should be deferred.

Great, thank you. Next up, that's everybody who test signed up for SB 1316. Would anyone else like to testify in SB 1316? Sure. Come on up.

I apologize for my late testimony. No problem. Thank you. I'm Pam Ferguson-Bray. Good morning.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members, Pam Ferguson-Bray, the Executive Director of the Crime Victim Compensation Commission speaking in support of what we think adds a really important tool to the enforcement of court ordered restitution, which is through proof of compliance hearings in circuit court. The Commission administers a restitution recovery project that does cases for inmates and parolees.

And through that we have an article that we did about Hawaii's experience in being able to enforce restitution orders in that area with the Council state governments. Proof of compliance hearings have been found to be a very effective tool for restitution collection in district court.

And so there's no reason this should not be available in circuit courts to collect restitution. Restitution for many crime victims is the only measure that they have that they found justice in the system. And in a series of I think there's nobody that said it better in a way than these two issues.

What it means to have justice for victims and what it means to have the court enforce its own order and what that means to our sense of justice and the rule of law is after a 2011 series of articles, the Administrative Director of the court said clearly offenders failure to fully pay restitution is a difficult, complex and long standing problem, but one that must absolutely be addressed because of the hurtful impact it has on victims and because non compliance with court orders undermines public trust and confidence in the justice system.

And I think those two issues together the rule of law, the ability of the court to enforce its orders, to say to our community when we say that offenders will be held accountable and that's justice in our system that that will happen.

When you look at the data For ENCEJs for 2019, we looked at restitution cases from 2003 to 2018, the average misdemeanor mean amount of restitution for in a misdemeanor case is $303. The average in a felony was $1,336 less than 61% of the cases in felonies did offenders owe more than $1,000.

So this is not a difficult task.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify in SB 1316? Seeing none. Members, questions?

All right, I think we're ready to vote if you guys are amenable to that. Okay, we'll go back to the top of the agenda, SB 283. This establishes heightened penalties for the offense of bribery. Recommendation's to pass with some amendments.

We'll go ahead and take out notwithstanding—let's see. Mr. Hugo, which, what was?

I believe it's Page 2110.

Oh, I see.

And it actually is superfluous here because they're restating it here. So, I must, as a tech, delete this because they're restating.

Okay. Okay, we'll take it. Okay. So, the recommendation is to go ahead and take it out, but it's, it's because you're, you're okay with taking it out on Page 2, Line 10, because it's restated later in the? Okay. Okay. So that's basically a tech. But we'll say it out loud. I'm going to change it fairly substantially.

I'm going to say that—I'm going to recommend that we, it applies to public official—public-elected and public officials—in the same language is in there now, but "and" instead of "or." It will be "and increase the," and it has to be a threshold of, I'm going to raise the threshold of $50,000, instead of $20,000.

Or—so, it'll be public official and one of these other two. So, it'll be "public official and $50,000 or more at one shot," or "an aggregate of $50,000 over a three-year period, with three or more acts of bribery."

So, it's—I mean a Class A Felony is heavy duty stuff. I think the max is 25 years. 25 years. 20. 20 years. Long time. Any case, that's the recommendation. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Next up is SB694. This prohibits minors from being held in jails, lockups or prisons for adults. I understand the arguments made. I just think it's a really bad idea to put minors in with adults.

And there are some logistical problems caused by mainly caused by the fact that we're an island state and there aren't very many fortunately there aren't very many juveniles who are in this position. So recommendation is to pass it unamended. Questions or concerns if not Senator Gabbard.

On SB694 the recommendations to pass unmended. The Members present. Are there any no votes or reservations hearing? None. The measure passes.

Thank you. Next up is SB 1316. This requires the judiciary to contract with the collection agency or licensed attorney to collect delinquent court order fees, fine sanctions and court costs. Recommendations to pass with city amendments. We'll go ahead and we'll apply it to district court only and then we'll add blank positions and blank appropriations and defective dates.

So 04-23-2057 testimony was they wouldn't be able to do this without additional help, questions or concerns if not Senator Gavin.

On SB 1316 Recommendation is to pass amendments of the Members present any no votes or reservations hearing now. The measure passed.

Thank you Members.

That concludes our 95945 agenda for that coming in for the Judiciary Committee hearing at 9:50.

This is a decision making only hearing and no no public testimony will be taken. First up on the 950 agenda is SB112.

This allows surviving immediate family Members of deceased persons for whom law enforcement initiated an investigation to receive a copy of the closing report prepared by the investigating Police Department upon the conclusion of all criminal proceedings related to the incident.

After having discussed the the amendments made at Public Safety Committee with their with that Chair with Chair Elefante, he's agreed to put back in the timelines that we had in the original bill, which is you can make the request once the criminal proceeding is done or five years after the report is concluded.

And there's a decision tree about how you do that. So we'll put that back in. The problem with just saying all criminal proceedings have to be concluded is that on an open case could be open forever and you'd never get to see them.

So we'll we'll revert to the other language on the timeline but keep everything else that PSM did questions or concerns. If not S.

[Roll call]

Thank you. Next up is SP116. This establishes provisions relating to civil meaning to civil liberty.

Civil remedies for discriminatory reporting to a law enforcement officer provides that any person who contacts a law enforcement officer to contact a person on the basis of the person's actual perceived race, color and ancestry, ethnicity, national origin, place of birth, sex, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity with a specific intent to infringe upon the person's rights will be solely liable for resulting damages.

The recommendation on this one is to, when I have prior concurrence to put a good date on it. So we'll put September 12025. Questions or concerns.

If not Senator Gabbard Chair's recommendation on. SB116 and C1 is to pass with amendments of the Members present. Any no votes or reservations hearing? None. The measure passes.

Thank you. Next up is SB 307, "establishes the right of a person to record law enforcement activities." Recommendation here is, again with prior concurrence, we're going to put a good date on it. September 1, 2025. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Gabbard.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next up is SB 353. This amends Chapter 127-A to clarify state and local authority for...emergencies. Prohibits the Governor or Mayor from suspending requests for public records on—or vital statistics, I think—during a State of emergency, as definition of the term severe warning.

Allows the Legislature and city councils to terminate a State of Emergency in whole or in part issued by the Governor or Mayor, respectively. The recommendation on 307 is to—I'm sorry, 3, yes, 353, my apologies—353 is technical amendments only. Questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Finally, we have SB 601. This requires law enforcement to post notice that a warranted or warrantless search has been conducted on a property. Requires a law enforcement officer to secure any entrance used by an officer in the search.

Recommendation here, with prior concurrence from Chair Elefante, is to delete reference—delete the reference—to warrantless searches on Page 2, Line 3, as this statute and the part do not concern warrantless searches. This is the warranted searches section, and we'll insert language on the requirements for providing a notice and securing the entrance for warrant list, sorry, warrantless searches into another part of the criminal law.

We'll add a section to the Bill instructing a law enforcement officer expect—instructing—law enforcement to develop a policy for securing interest—entrances—after a search and we'll add a reasonableness standard to the breaking of the entrance door and other parts of the house.

In other words, you can't just go in and destroy the place. There has to be some reason for breaking what you break. And then we'll delete the amendment on Page 1, Line 1, that allows an officer—this is really a tech—that allows an officer to break into other parts of a house such as a closet.

The references are confusing, and we will make them less confusing. Page 2, Line 1, I'm sorry. Did I say that wrong? Good. That's it. Other questions or concerns, or any questions or concerns? Seeing none. For the vote on 601.

[Roll Call]

Thanks very much. That concludes our business for today. We have a—probably quite a long Joint Hearing tomorrow with Health and Human Services.

See you then. Thanks.