House Standing Committee on Consumer Protection & Commerce

Good afternoon, everyone. We are convening the Joint Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protec- Consumer Protection and Commerce. And the Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Friday, February 7th, 2025 at 2:00pm in Conference Room 325. We have one item on the agenda to- oh, do you want to. We have one item on the agenda today.

HB 756 HD1 relating to health. First up to testify, we have the Attorney General in support.

Good afternoon, chairs and members of the committee. My name is Chelsea Okamoto. I'm a deputy Attorney General assigned to the Tobacco Enforcement Unit. And thank you for hearing this bill. Our department's in support of this bill and you have our written testimony. It's no secret that flavors have ensnared an entire generation of kids and young adults.

And flavors are a tactic, a known tactic used by the tobacco industry to attract new young customers and to keep these people addicted for life. First, we like to ask for an oral amendment. At the last hearing, we asked for reference to Section 2636 to prevent delegation of final decision making power authority to a contracted inspector.

We were tracking the wording in HB 1116. However, there's a typo. So we'd like to ask the reference to be changed to 2638. This would be on page 13, line 9.

And we want to give credit and thank Rep Matayoshi and his staff for working hard on this bill and catching that and reaching out to us prior to this hearing for that wording. We'd also like to add a section to repeal section 328J-11.5. And that's similar to HB 380 which passed out of the House Health Committee.

Currently, 328J-11.5 preempts county ordinances regulating tobacco sales. And most counties have passed their own flavor bans. They're referred to as trigger bans. And by repealing that section, the counties would be allowed to enact the more stringent laws. And we want to be clear that it's not a state flavor ban versus a county flavor ban.

We believe that both pieces enacted would allow for a more comprehensive approach to addressing the proliferation of these flavored tobacco products. We'd also like to adopt the appropriation amounts of position numbers and restore the original effective data as noted in our testimony. We're available for questions and we appreciate the opportunity to testify on this matter. Thank you.

Thank you. And just to be clear, it was not me who caught that error. That was my staff. Thank you, Mike. Mike, you're doing a Great job. Okay, next up, we have the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities in support.

Thank you. Daintry Bartoldus, Executive Director for the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities. We stand in strong support of this measure. We know that flavored tobacco is tailored to the children and with nicotine affects the development of your brain. Very rarely do we get the opportunity to prevent a developmental disability. Kids are born that way.

But by flavor tobaccos delaying the brain, we don't need to create more individuals with a developmental disability. So we strongly ask that you please pass this measure. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, we have the Department of Health in support.

Good afternoon, chairs and Members of the Committee. My name is Jill Tamashiro testifying on behalf of the Hawaii State Department of Health, Dr. Kenneth Fink. Thank you for hearing this very important public health measure. We are in support of HB 756 HD1 and we also have a recommendation for a technical amendment in reference to the solid waste reference.

There's an explanation in our testimony and our testimony has our main points and I think the main message that we really want to communicate this year is, is the rise in prevalence for middle school and young adult group- age groups. This is particularly alarming.

We see that we, you know, first started tracking e cigarette use since 2014 and so 10 years and running we see the expansion of this product- problem to other age groups. So this is alarming. And we also see upticks in prevalence in indicators for middle schoolers, for every use, daily use and also for high schoolers as well.

So this suggests rise in addiction. We also know that the products on the- on the landscape of products are evolving and of most concern is the high nicotine content in these products. And lastly, we were recently in listening to focus groups of e cigarette users in their teens, as well as young adults.

And it's just really disheartening to see how addicted these young people are. So thank you for hearing this measure. We know that flavors are the enticement factor in addiction and menthol in particular plays a facilitative role in addiction as well. So we thank you for hearing this measure and let us know any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Coalition for a Tobacco Free Hawaii Youth Council in support.

Chairs, vice chairs and members of the committees. My name is Luke Itomura and I'm speaking on behalf of the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii's Youth Council. Thank you for allowing us to submit our testimony in strong support of HB 756 HD1, a bill that would end the sale of flavored tobacco in Hawaii.

We stand on our written testimony, but encourage you to take the time to read our testimony and the pages of testimony from youth from Kauai, Maui, Molokai, Oahu and Hawaii islands.

They have shared their stories of loved ones lost to nicotine addiction and how it negatively impacts them not just in school, but also in their homes and communities. How flavored tobacco includes including menthol, entices them to start and makes it harder to quit. And in my personal testimony, the financial toll that tobacco takes on our state.

We have been told that our voices matter.

So I ask you today to listen to those most impacted our youth and not tobacco industry lobbyists, tobacco funded think tanks from the mainland and abroad, or those that profit from selling addiction, but rather youth who don't want to see their family and friends among the 1,400 lives lost every year in our state due to tobacco related illnesses.

Thank you.

Thank you. And I want to thank all of the youth testifiers for submitting their testimony. Your personal stories really do mean a lot to us. Next up, we have Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids Hawaii in support.

Aloha chairs, vice chairs and members of the committee. Liza Ryan Gill with Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. And it was great to have a youth here. Oftentimes I feel it's really important to bring that youth perspective back into the room as this is something that impacts their life.

And I often try to just remind us to embody that space. What it's like to be 10 to 14 years old and having multimillion dollar companies that are pushing advertisements at you through social media and on your phone and barely being able to escape this.

Trying to find a bathroom on your middle school, on your high school, where you can go without having to smell vape everywhere that you go. Like, you know, indulge me.

When I was in middle school, I remember that it's a little bit further afield, but I remember that cannabis was a really big issue and that kids were dealing and everything on my bus. And I used to tell my mom, I don't want to ride the bus. Could you please take me to school?

In the middle of five kids, it was a real hardship on her, but I was like, I don't want to smell like weed when I get to school. And that that was many years ago now, but it is still something like that that our kids are experiencing right now. And they're saying, would you please help us?

Like this is an issue we have to deal with every day. We have kids that don't drink water because they don't want to go pee. Cause they don't want to go in that bathroom. Right. And we get to hear one voice right there.

But there are so many youth that are asking us to help them in this moment to speak to like the policy of it. We have four states, California, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island that have have already put together- passed similar legislation. And in those places in California we've seen nearly a 50% reduction in monthly E cigarette sales.

In Massachusetts, nearly a 90%, 89.8% reduction in E cigarette sales we've seen 62.6% reduction. In New York and in Rhode Island a 55.3. These, these policies do make a difference. They're not the end all be all. But I just ask us that can we listen to them?

This has been many, many years that they have come forward and said this is our priority. We want to go to school in peace. We want to feel like this is a place where we can focus without having all of these products pushed at us without getting started on this, on this nicotine addiction.

So I just ask you to remember our 10 year olds.

Thank you. Next up we have Retail Merchants of Hawaii in opposition.

Aloha. Sorry, I'm having some technical difficulties. This is Tina Yamaki with Retail Merchants of Hawaii and we are do oppose this bill.

Tina, you're coming in a little quiet. I don't know if there's a way for you to boost your mic.

Okay. This measure has economic consequences for the State of Hawaii. Tobacco sales last year alone brought in over 82 million in tax revenue and contributed significantly to the state's economy including things like cancer research. It also represents a $1.0 million decline from 2023. So that shows that people are quitting smoking and vaping and reducing their usage.

Flavored nicotine products are not just used by young people but also millions of adult smokers seeking to quit traditional cigarettes. According to a 2020 study, more than 60% of adult vapors use fruit and sweet flavors. A ban on flavored nicotine products does not eliminate the demand but rather pushes consumer to the black market.

Still going to be around just like we have other drugs like fentanyl and all of that and crack in our communities. It's not going to go away. It's just going to be pushed to the black market where we're not going to get taxes.

Additionally, a lot of retailers right now are hiring 16 years old. 16, 17 and 18 year olds because we're so short staffed.

I talk to a lot of these kids and what we're hearing from them is when they go to school, the teachers and their security turns a very blind eye when people are vaping because they don't want to deal with it. Our vape stores and things do not sell products to minors.

If an adult walks in there with a minor and tells them pick what you want, they don't sell the products to them. But when things leave our stores, we don't know what happens to them.

We feel that, you know, rather than penalizing law abiding adults and businesses, the state should direct resources to better enforcement of age restriction, stricter penalties for those friends and family who provide the minors and with tobacco and vape products and consumer education.

Youth vaping rates have declined significantly over the past three years due to stronger age reduction, enforcement and public education campaigns. I'll be around for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Americans for Tax Reform in opposition. Not present? Okay, not present. Next up we have Hawaii Public Health Institute in support.

Chairs, member of the committee. My name is Scott Stensrud. I'm the statewide youth coordinator for the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii Program of Hawai'I Public Health Institute. We stand on a written testimony. I'd just like to point out a few statistics from that.

Ward Research poll showed that 76% of voters are in favor of ending the sale of flavored tobacco products. When you specifically call out that this includes menthol, it drops to a whole 2% less. 74%.

Also like to point out that many of the products that are being sold here in Hawaii by our retailers are not authorized by the FDA. There are only 34 devices that are currently authorized. Only one of those is flavored. Last I just as Liza, you know, mentioned, I just hope that you take time to look at the- the youth testimony.

I noticed the one in there from now, a young woman who started working, she was actually an intern for me seven years ago, started working on this as a- as a college student. She has since graduated with a degree in public health, gotten married, had a baby and gone back to school to get her public health nursing degree.

And yet she's still having to submit testimony on this issue. So hopefully this is the year that this happens. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Next up, we have Marukin Market in opposition. Okay, not present. Next up, we have Kaiser Permanente in support.

Aloha Chair Matayoshi, Chair Tarnas. Excuse me, Jonathan Ching. On behalf of Kaiser Permanente. We'll- We'll stand on our written testimony in strong support. Available for any questions. Thank you.

Just come sit down. Next up we have SNK Wholesale in opposition.

Hi. Aloha chairs and the members of the communities. My name is--

Miss. Your video is a little choppy. Is there anywhere you could send with better reception? Yep, that's better. Go ahead please.

Sorry about that. Again my name is Koko He. I'm a small- small business owner in Hawaii. I strongly opposite HB 756 because it will have unintended consequence that harm both business and the public health. The bank could eliminate nearly 70% of my tobacco related sales and threaten my lifehood and all my employ- employees also. Additionally bang

FDA authorized vapor products take away a harm reduction tool for adult smokers looking to quit traditional cigarettes. By removing regulate alternatives the states could be pushing smokers back to the more harmful products rather than helping them transition to safe options rural and Austrian ban We should focus on enforcing regulations to prevent the black markets.

The bills does more harm than good and I urge you to vote against it. Mahalo for your time.

Thank you. Next up we have Non Stop Convenience in opposition. I believe they are online. Juan He, are you there?

Oh, hello.

I think we can hear you although we can't see you. Do you have a camera? You may have to slide your camera.

Aloha Vice Chair and the Member of committee. My name is Jen and I own Non Stop Convenience in Aiea, Honolulu.

I'm strongly of HB 756 because it would be create a economic crisis for the local business reduce test revenue and encourage your late activity mental and favorite tobacco products makeup assign me benson portion of my store sales and banning them would put my business and many others at risk of crossword.

The test revenue from these products also helps fund the state programs. If these sales disappear- disappear Hawaii make up for the loose. Instead of banning products that contribute to the economy the focus should be on taking down on illegal sellers and preventing under wage assist. In addition learning prohibition has never worked. When Naco sales disappear illegal markets were.

The bill will only push people to understanding.

Miss He, that's been two minutes. If you don't mind summarizing your testimony please.

There are no age restriction or.

Miss He, can you hear me? Miss He, can you hear me?

I urge you to oppose, HB 756 and Professor Mall.

Okay, we're going to have to. If you could please summarize your testimony we'll stick with you otherwise we need to move on.

Oh, thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next up we have the taxpayers protection alliance with comments. Okay, not present. Next up American Lung Association in support. Not present. Fortunately we have Don Weisman in support. Don, you there? We can't hear you, though. Are you muted? Is he shaking his head no? To pass the bill?

I think he can hear us. We still can't hear you. You want to give a very emphatic thumbs up or thumbs down maybe? Okay. In support. Ladies and gentlemen, do you think you're going to be able to fix your technical difficulties soon? Otherwise we're going to move on. You're our last guy. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you for trying. I'm pretty sure Don is in firm support of this bill. Alright, that's all the testifiers we have. Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure? Okay. Seeing none, we will take a brief recess. Recess. Reconvening. There's only one item on the agenda today, HB 756 relating to health. Chair's recommendation.

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Members, I usually ask for after I do the interview. So chair's recommendation is to make the corrections from the AG's office to reference HRS 2636. Change that to 26-38 throughout.

Adopting DoH's amendments to change page 11, lines 9 through 11 to state the cost of proper disposal of electronic smoking devices and e liquids as hazardous waste pursuant to rules adopted in accordance with section 342J-4 shall be borne by the realtor.

We're also going to be noting the amounts, the FTEs and the effective date in the committee report. Members on- Members on CPC. Any comments? Go ahead. Rep. Pierick.

Yeah, I'd like to thank the Chair and the introducer of this bill. I think it's a great idea to decrease access to flavored tobacco. Excuse me, flavored e vaping and that kind of stuff. And that's also in line with tobacco and recreational marijuana. So we're going in a good direction as a body.

Thank you. Any other comments? If not vice chair for the vote.

Okay. Members voting on House Bill 756, House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair will vote aye. [roll call]. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you, Members.

So now for the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee, the recommendation is the same. Are there questions or concerns, members? If not vice chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 756 HD1 with amendments. [roll call]

Comments, please.

You have to say yes or with reservations or no. Okay.

I acknowledge the concerns against the bill, but I support it for the youth. So with reservations?

Okay, with reservations. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you.

Thank you, members. We were adjourned.

Welcome, everyone.

Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. Today is Friday, February 7th. We're on the 205 Agenda. It's actually now 2:30 here in Conference Room 325. And we're here for the purposes of hearing testimony, making decisions on numerous measures. For those who are testifying online, please make sure that.

Or for everyone testifying, if you keep your testimony to two minutes, that would be great. And if you're testifying online, keep yourself muted and your video off until you testify and then turn it off again when you're finished.

If you have technical issues, just use the chat function to contact our IT staff and they can help you out. If you get cut off, just rejoin when you can and we'll fit you back in to give testimony as soon as I can.

If the power goes off here, we'll reschedule and post appropriate notice so everyone will know when we're doing that, and I would. If you're testifying on Zoom, please don't use any copyrighted or trademarked images because it kicks us off of YouTube, and that's not good. And then finally, please everyone conduct themselves with Aloha.

And as I like to say, it's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. We can all work together to do what's best for the people of Hawaii. So with that, let's go ahead and get started on House Bill 806 relating to fireworks.

This measure appropriates funds for the Department of Law Enforcement to conduct sting operations on Oahu to enforce fireworks ordinances or laws. First up, we have Director Mike Lambert, Department of Law Enforcement.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. The Department of Law Enforcement stands in strong support of this bill. We appreciate the appropriation because undercover operations are expensive and without the additional funding it could take away from current budget. I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you. Next we have Honolulu Police Department. Welcome back, sir.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, my name is Ernest Robello. I'm a lieutenant with the Honolulu Police Department, Narcotics Vice Division. I'm here to testify that the Honolulu Police Department supports this bill. We have submitted written testimony in favor of this bill. I will be available if there are any questions. Thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you, sir. Next person who said they want to testify is Greg Misakian on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm testifying as an individual. My name is Greg Misakian, but I also serve on the Waikiki Neighborhood Board, and I currently serve as first Vice President of the Kakua Council, which is an elder advocacy organization.

So while I'm not speaking on behalf of either, I do know that both organizations have concerns that's been discussed regarding illegal fireworks and the noise. We've had these discussions at our meetings and in the past. And while I live in Waikiki proper, I live right off of Kalakaua Avenue.

I am constantly subjected to hearing the aerial mortars going off on a regular basis. It's been a little quiet for the last couple of weeks, but prior to New Year's, after New Year's, it doesn't matter. There's different times that they go off. It's very concerning. It's very detrimental to our pets and to our kupuna.

And I hope that you do support this. I know HPD is, you know, they say they do their best. I do support them, but they need to enforce. I watched a video where they literally drove by the aerial fireworks and didn't stop. So that that needs to be something that's addressed.

So thank you for the opportunity to serve. Certainly express my opinion. Thank you.

Certainly, Mr. Misakian. That's all the testifiers that said they wish to testify in this measure. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on HB 806? If not, questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. We'll proceed on to the next measure. House Bill 438 relating to due process protections.

This measure establishes the due process in Immigration Proceedings Program within the judiciary to provide legal representation to individuals in immigration related proceedings in immigration court and appropriates funds. First up, let's see. We have written comments from the judiciary and nobody here. So I refer members to their written comments.

Next person that says they're going to be here in person is Amy Agbayani.

Thank you very much. Chair and Vice Chair. Members, my name is Amy Agbayani. I'm with the Hawaii Prince of Civil Rights. We strongly support this House Draft 1 and available for questions.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next person who said they want to testify is Nathan Lee, ACLU Hawaii.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. ACLU Hawaii is in strong support of this bill. We want to note that due process of law and fair access to justice are essential to a healthy and functioning justice system. And what this bill will do is help people vindicate their legal rights.

A national study on immigration found that people who had legal representation were four times more likely to be released from detention when they were held in custody. And those that did seek immigration relief were twice as likely to obtain this relief like asylum if they had legal representation.

And so we think that this is a common sense bill to allow people to vindicate their legal rights and to preserve their freedom from deportation.

And without the provision of counsel, we fear that immigration hearings would become unjustly skewed against low income people who may otherwise qualify for asylum but might be daunted by the task of appearing per say before a judge. So are in strong support and available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Sandy Ma.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Sandy Ma for the legal clinic. This bill will provide income qualified people appearing in immigration court with counsel. Currently, if you're appearing before immigration court, you are not entitled to counsel. And this is because immigration court is a civil process.

But however, the consequences of immigration court are just as dire as in a criminal proceeding. You could be deported and separated from your family. Children often can appear in immigration court before an immigration judge without counsel. And so this is to provide counsel for those appearing in immigration court.

The constitution applies to everyone in this country whether you have the proper documentation or not. And this bill will ensure due process for those appearing in immigration court. If you have any questions, I'm available to answer. Thank you very much. Thank you for hearing this bill.

Thank you, Ms. Ma. Next we have Jamie Detwiler, Hawaiian Islands Republican Women on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair Tarnea, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. The Hawaiian Islands Republican Women stand in strong opposition to this Bill. HB 438 HD1 states that legislature finds that individuals facing deportation or other immigration related procedures proceedings in immigration court lack the right to government funded legal representation.

Contrary to what others have testified, if you are in this country illegally against the law, you do not have due process protections. According to U.S. Homeland Security Border czar Tom Homan, if anyone or any organizations are knowingly harboring and concealing illegal aliens, that's a violation against Title 8 U.S. code 1324. Additionally, according to Pam Bondi, U.S.

Attorney General, if you are violating Title 8 USC 1324, you run the risk of losing federal funding to the state. This bill is not right. Legal immigration is the right way to pursue citizenship in our country. Illegal immigrants do not need taxpayers payer funded legal representation. HB 438 HD1 proposes that kind of support for immigrants.

I want to make it clear that we support legal immigration. My grandparents are legal immigrants to this country and they did it the right way. So this bill is ambiguous and lacks critical detail to be seriously considered to pass. We ask respectfully that you uphold the oath of office. Please vote no on HB 438. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next we have Danicole Ramos, William S. Richardson School of Law Refugee and Immigration Clinic. There you are.

Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Danicole Ramos. I'm an immigration attorney with the William S. Richardson School of Law Refugee and Immigration Clinic where we teach a clinical course on immigration law. Students work with us on real life cases as part of their requirement for graduation. So you have our testimony in support.

And as previous testifiers have mentioned why they support the bill, we also express that same sentiment. We do want to just emphasize in our written testimony. We just want to propose a slight amendment to section 601 regarding powers and duties on part four. We just suggest that you cross out the University of Hawaii William S.

Richardson School of Law and just insert language that talks about providing training and education and the specific reason why we appreciate the amendment and recognizing what we do at the law school, we wanted to also create flexibility for other legal services providers to get those funding, while also recognizing that just building the capacity and the need for immigration lawyers is important, but also developing that pipeline of training law students and pro bono attorneys who want to do this work is also just important.

So just that slight amendment still emphasizing the importance of training, but I think it will still leave flexibility for all legal services, all legal service providers to get the funding as well. So thank you so much and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you very much. We've received numerous other testimonies in support. We have and some in opposition. The next person that said they wish to testify is Noella Von Vigant. Not present. The next person that said they want to testify is Kerwin Canionero.

Hello and good afternoon everyone. Please proceed. I'd like to stand in strong opposition to HB 438 which opposes that to allocate taxpayers dollars to provide legal representation for illegal aliens facing proceedings in immigration court regardless of their ability to pay this bill of direct burden on hardworking taxpayers and unconstitutional misuse of public funds.

First and foremost, American taxpayers should not be forced to fund legal representation for individuals who have violated our immigration law. Our nation operates under the rule of law and prioritizing taxpayers funded legal defense for those who have entered or remained in the country illegally undermines the integrity of our immigration system.

Instead of protecting and enforcing existing immigration law, HB 438 incentivizes illegal immigration and diverts limited financial resources away from our own citizens. From a constitutional standpoint, the bill raises serious concerns. Nowhere in the U.S. constitution, it mandated that taxpayers bear the financial burden of providing legal representation for noncitizens.

In immigration speech, the Sixth Amendment guarantees legal representation in criminal cases, but immigration cases are civil proceedings, whereas such an entitlement does not exist. Forcing taxpayers to cover legal fees for illegal aliens is an overreach of government authority and unfair redistribution of public funds. Furthermore, Hawaii is already facing financial challenges in providing for its own citizens.

Our tax dollars should be invested in critical areas such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, housing and public safety for law abiding residents. We have homeless veterans, struggling families, and underfunded schools that require our immediate attention and financial support. Prioritizing taxpayer money for non citizens over legal residents and American citizens is this service to the hard working people of Hawaii.

I urge you to uphold HB 438 and focus on legislation that supports American citizens and legal residents. We must uphold the integrity of our immigration system while ensuring that our taxpayer funds are used responsibly and in accordance with the best interest of our community. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I hope that you stand with the taxpayer of Hawaii and vote against HB 438. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from Justice Kiaha.

Aloha Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Justice-John Kiaha and I'm a Bachelor's of Social Work student. You have my written testimony and I'm going to reiterate that here. I stand in strong support of HB 438 and urge you to pass this legislation.

In our current time, it seems that many things are under pressure, one being immigration. The state of Hawaii has come to recognize that our immigrant communities are deeply connected and woven into our social fabric. We acknowledge that these communities have a home here within the State of Hawaii.

As the legislation states, approximately 18% of Hawaii's population identified themselves as US born residents living with at least one immigrant parent. With that being said, it is evident that immigrant families are an integral part of our communities with their contribution to our economy, culture and overall social lifestyle of our residents.

However, despite their contributions, many immigrants continue to face systemic barriers in accessing essential services such as legal protections and legal representation.

HB 438 seeks to address the disparities by establishing a program to both increase and provide access to legal representation for individuals who are facing immigration related cases within immigration court, assuring that due process, family unity and economic stability are all the forefront of all cases.

Due process is integral in immigration proceedings as it provides legal representation to residents of the state who are facing immigration related cases regardless of their ability to pay. I personally would like to highlight this as it reminds us that regardless of citizenship status, sexuality, race or gender, we all deserve to be represented equally and fairly.

There is so much more that can be said for HB 438 as the legislation ushers in such greatness for our state. All in all, I strongly urge the committee to pass this legislation. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. In total, we've received testimony from numerous individuals, 51 in support, 83 in opposition, and one with comments. We've heard from everyone who said they wanted to testify. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in HB 438? Please come on up.

Let's have the person in the room here first and then we'll have the person on zoom. Please proceed. Please introduce yourself.

Yeah kala mai for not registering earlier, Liza Ryan Gill, Executive Director of the Hawai'i Coalition for Immigrant Rights representing about 30 immigrants serving in immigrant led organizations across the Pa'ina. We stand in strong support of this bill.

Just as a reminder to some of the comments from the testifiers that are here, there's nothing in here that would make the state harbor folks that are out of status.

Interesting comments from the border czar Tom Homan on this issue, but everything is fully within our constitutional rights to make sure that people have access to due process through this. To another comment that we heard up there.

Just in the year of 2022, folks that were out of status in Hawaii paid $157 million in state in local taxes in Hawaii and they've received very little if any type of support back from the state.

I think one thing that is important to also remember is that if somebody fights their case and wins their case in our immigration court that they can remain here lawfully and so that they may have recourse to a pathway to be able to stay, which then saves the money of having to put these families back together and wonder if their children are going into child protective service and need to be custody of the state.

So that is something to think about on the other side of the cost that it takes when we rip apart families, especially families that have a legal recourse to be able to stay.

One thing that I would also remind folks is that we are currently in a lot of tumult right now on immigration and there are lawful statuses that folks currently have temporary protected status or humanitarian parole. Those folks again, have a lawful status, but that status may be revoked by the federal government.

And those folks who did have a lawful status may find themselves without could be a DACA mented. Some of our individuals with 340 folks with DACA here in the state, they may lose that status. We want to give them a chance to be able to fight their case in court.

That is very, very difficult to do if they have nobody with legal expertise by their side. So we thank you so much for your support on this issue.

Thank you very much. Was there someone online that wanted to testify? Please proceed. Introduce yourself, please.

Thank you, Chair. Greg Misakian again. And I did submit written testimony on this bill opposing. But what I would like to say, after listening to everyone, I know it's a very compassionate issue. There's a lot of emotions in this.

And what I would suggest this bill could look at the potential for instead of state funding, why don't we have attorneys offering pro bono service for this? There should be a pool of attorneys. The other potential for assisting people that are of illegal status.

And I don't support court costs for people or attorney costs for people that are of illegal status unless there's special circumstances.

But if there was a requirement for it, why couldn't the people that are so emotional about this and so compassionate about it, and I'm also concerned, why can't they start a nonprofit and actually contribute funds for the legal costs? So pro bono, nonprofit, two options. Please don't go after state funding for this because I think it's improper. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in HB 438? Yes. Please introduce yourself and proceed. Focusing on the bill itself.

Yes. Angela Melody Young in strong support of providing resources to help the immigrant families legal resources. So Hawaii has a demographic made up of a lot of immigrant families. Right. So I will provide a broad basic overview.

I just need you to focus on the bill itself, please.

Okay. What about the rationale to why provide?

Just focus on the bill itself.

Okay. So.

As a research and data advocacy grassroots movement, can we help to convey the message of why immigrant legal services are needed in Hawaii?

Just please focus your testimony on the Bill itself. The clock is ticking, so you're running out of time.

So, okay, just stop me if I'm not going along with the rules or something. Okay, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Okay, So a few ethnic minorities and immigrant households in Hawaii, such as the Marshallese, Tongans, Samoans, as well as Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Filipino communities, have struggles with very disadvantaged things in society.

For the lawyers to provide for immigrant families is very necessary. Especially, for example, political asylum is a form of immigration protection that allows people to stay in the United States for the immigrants that have been persecuted and for the fear of persecution in the home country.

So in consideration of chaotic international ties with various countries and the immigrants pleading political asylum in Hawaii, we should be considerate of providing the lawyer and attorney resources for those families. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? An HB 438. If not. Questions, Members? First, Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for judiciary. Is anyone from judiciary here, or even Legal Services? My question is. Not here. Okay. Anyone who can answer this question?

If the person is an illegal immigrant, are they, I guess there's a due process for them to reach the point of deportation, or is there a pathway for them to become legal and remain in the state?

Yeah, I can speak to that.

Introduce yourself again, please.

So I'm Danicole Ramos. I'm an immigration attorney at the clinic at the UH Law School. So if someone is detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, they go to federal detention center.

Depending on their situation and their current status, there usually are different ways of pathways to cancellation of what would be called cancellation of removal. And then there would also be ways to get them to legal status. So I'll give you an example. Right. So let's say there's a person who, let's say, overstayed their visa, right?

And maybe they had, like, a slight criminal record, but they're married to a United States citizen. In that specific regard, what would happen is that if they're detained by ICE, they're going to the Federal Detention center, they see a lawyer.

What we would possibly do is call it a defensive adjustment of status, which means that their status, currently they're out of status because they overstayed on a visa or they don't have what would be, quote, unquote, "legal status".

And because There's a pathway from them having an immediate relative who is a US Citizen, that would be the pathway for them to naturalize. So that's one some depending on. They can also ask for, let's say they're detained. They can also ask for asylum based on being fear of coming back, going back to their home country.

That is also another legal pathway for them. So there's different ways. It really depends on the specific individual's immigration situation, their story. We ask everything about their family background. I can't say generally what are the pathways of relief.

It's really dependent on case by case basis.

Chair, can I ask a follow up question? So a person in that situation that you gave us as an example, having no representation, how does that affect them in that scenario versus they do have legal representation?

Yeah. So generally there's statistics that show that if someone is represented, if someone that is detained and goes through immigration court proceedings, has a lawyer, they are a four times likely chance to have some kind of immigration relief. Immigration law is very complicated.

There's the Immigration Nationality Act itself that I told you about provides different defenses of relief. There's also the President's Executive orders that define what prioritizes what immigration customs and enforcement should get and detain.

And because of whatever reason it is, let's say it could be a language barrier or just how complicated immigration laws and the different kinds of exceptions to the rules and relief, most times if they're going to immigration court, they're just going to give up and just be let go and go through removal proceedings.

At least by having a lawyer, as ACLU mentioned, there's an opportunity for them to have some kind of recognition of their do process rights. At least just give them a chance to realize what are the possible pathways for them to legally stay in the United States.

All right, thank you so much for that explanation. Thank you for being here. Thank you, Chair.

Certainly. Thank you, Representative Garcia. Thank you.

Danicole, you can stay up there. Question. So when somebody who is arrested by federal enforcement for their immigration status, ICE, I guess that would be they're taken to a federal detention facility.

So yes. So the way this works is that if ICE detain someone, they're put. We only have one federal detention center here in Hawaii and that's the one at Honolulu by the airport.

Okay. And when they get there, are they given the option for legal services?

So that is the challenge that's happening right now. Right? There isn't. It's not like what's been mentioned before criminal court. Right. Where they can immediately call a public defender.

So what we've done, and we've talked to the Hoya American Immigration Lawyers Association is we've actually set up a hotline where there's a network of immigration lawyers where we give their numbers to their families, and then their families can call one of us.

We'll have, like, different shifts as lawyers where they can call us and talk to us, and then we as lawyers can actually go to the federal detention center to meet with them and to kind of hear their story and explain their case.

What happens currently?

We've just recently started it a couple weeks ago. And so we're in the process of making families and people in the communities who have this kind of population aware of it.

This Bill, though, would be legal services for illegal immigrants while they're in state court fiduciary.

No, no, no, no, no. So immigration is a federal. Is federal, right. It's a federal law. State courts don't have any control over immigration. Immigration court is also an administrative court, so it's under the Department of Justice.

So this would be legal representation within federal court.

It would be legal representation under immigration court, which is an administrative court under the Department of Justice. It's separate from federal courts. It's under federal law, but it's an administrative court under the Department of Justice.

Thank you, Chair. I have one. One more question for the AG's office, if anyone is here. From the AG's office. No?

Okay, well, never mind. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Any. Any other questions, Members?

Yeah, so, you know, I appreciate your frustration, Representative Garcia. Thank you very much to the testifiers. We're going to move on to the next measure, House Bill 386 relating to dangerous drugs. This measure conforms fentanyl to the possession of FENS thresholds for methamphetamine, heroin, morphine, and cocaine. First up, Honolulu Police Department.

Good afternoon again, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is Ernest Robello. I'm a Lieutenant with the Narcotics Vice Division of the Honolulu Police Department. I'm here to say that the Honolulu Police Department supports this Bill. We have submitted written testimony.

I think we are—have become aware of the dangers of fentanyl, and fentanyl is now even becoming a more dangerous drugs with the modifications that are being made to this particular drug. We strongly support this Bill and I will be available for any questions, if there are any. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for being here, sir. Next, Daniel Hugo, Prosecuting Attorney.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Daniel Hugo, representing the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney for the City and County of Honolulu. Synthetic opioids, excluding methadone, already account for more drug overdose deaths than all other drugs combined nationwide. And fentanyl is among the most dangerous of these.

It's a fast-acting opioid that alleviates pain by depressing the central nervous system and the respiratory system. It's a hundred—hundreds—of times more potent than heroin and because it's an odorless crystalline substance, it can be easily introduced not only into other drugs, but into food and water.

It also can be weaponized as an aerosol. Two milligrams of fentanyl is enough to kill a person, and one ounce, which is the amounts that we're discussing in this Bill, is more than 28,000 milligrams. HB 386 targets the distributors of this deadly poison, as well as those possessing amounts indicating intent to distribute. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's all the testifiers that said they wish to testify today. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thanks to the testifiers, we're going to move on to the next measure, House Bill 388, relating to torture. This measure defines and prohibits the offense of torture.

First up, Mr. Bento, Office of Public Defender. Welcome, sir. Please proceed.

Thank you. And good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is William Bento. I'm an Attorney with the Office of the Public Defender. Our Office does oppose this Bill, but I do want to say that we are not insensitive to the concerns raised by the Bill.

We know that there have been, as reported in the media, at least two cases that likely prompted the language and the sense that it's necessary. But I just want to point out that those individuals involved in those cases are all currently being prosecuted under current law, and they are all facing very lengthy jail sentences under current law.

And so, our position is that this Bill is really not needed because you can already prosecute people for the things that are outlined here. The concerns that we have stated in our written testimony, about the language that's used in the Bill, our concern is that it is vague and over broad in some terms and can lead to abusive prosecutions.

Winding its way through the Legislature at this time, on the Senate side and the House side, is another Bill dealing with a Supreme Court case that turned on the definition of profit.

The word "profit." Some of you probably are aware of that Bill. So, the way in which language is used in the drafting of the statute is very important. Looking through here, when, when a person is not on full notice of what it is they're being accused of, that invites litigation and constitutional questions.

And so, what we've pointed out in our written testimony is that the lack of definition of certain terms is going to be very confusing and can lead to confusing prosecutions and overzealous prosecutions.

The fact that all of the things defined here are considered to be a Class A felony, punishable by 20 years of imprisonment, when some of these things already are in our statutes and can be—a person could receive only five years except for a simple change in the way the language is listed here.

So, I would ask that you take careful look at the Bill. But please understand that these things can currently be prosecuted and there's really no need for this language. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Vince Legaspi, Honolulu Police Department.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee. I'm Captain Vince Legaspi of the Criminal Investigation Division, Violent Crimes Section of Honolulu Police Department. HPD supports House Bill 388 relating to torture. I have experience in sex crimes with kids, domestic violence, child abuse. You know, assault and abuse is typically driven by the heat of the moment—unchecked anger.

Torture is planned and done over a period of time. Cruel and unusual punishment. I've seen the worst of human beings can do to other human beings. But when it comes to children, it's very concerning because they usually can't protect themselves. I strongly support this Bill to protect our kids.

As I read every part of this Bill, it's reality, it's happening out there, and it's disturbing. I strongly support Bill HB 388. The Bill further protects our keiki, and we definitely need it. I'll remain if you have any questions.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Next, Daniel Hugo, Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

Good afternoon again, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. We're in strong support of this Bill. We pointed to two problems in the current law. First, that many of these cases cannot be prosecuted as assault, abuse of a family household member, or even attempted murder.

And we gave the example of starvation. Oftentimes, we cannot meet the bodily injury requirement to prove a starvation case because people who are experiencing starvation, the hunger shuts down their ability to also feel pain. In attempted murder cases—attempted murder, you have to prove the intent to kill.

And oftentimes, the defense that torturers raise is that they had no intent to kill. They actually wanted the victim alive so that they could continue to enjoy inflicting suffering on them. The second issue that we point to is that assault cannot be prosecuted as a continuing offense. The case on this is State v. Dacoit.

And a continuing offense essentially allows you to aggregate a crime that has a common state of mind and a unified course of conduct. So, the example, the classic example of this is State v. Shaw, where there was a waitress who was padding her tips and committed 105 individual thefts, but was prosecuted for the unified course of conduct.

Theft has continually, continually—continuously—been recognized as a continuous course of conduct. More recently, we have a constitutional amendment recognizing sexual assault of minors as a continuing course of conduct, but we do not have one for assault.

And even Justice Richard Pollock, with whom I probably disagree on a lot of criminal law issues, former head of the Public Defender's Office, dissented into coit because he thought it was absurd that as a matter of law, you couldn't say that abuse could be a unified course of conduct. But this is not unusual in our law.

Oftentimes, property does get more rights. Falsely labeling Hawaii grown coffee is a Class C felony; domestic abuse is a misdemeanor. Theft of an urn is a Class C felony. Abuse of the corpse is a misdemeanor.

This is a issue in our law where we have given essentially more rights to continuous property offenses than we have to continuous torture of children.

Finally, we note that each of the three cases that we identify in our Bill, cases of aggravated kidnapping, cases of felony assaults that have followed a pattern or practice of previous assaults, as well as the specific forms of cruel and degrading treatment that we identified, are all cases that present heightened danger to the victims that do meet the classic definition of torture.

If any of this happened to a person who was in uniform or to an enemy combatant, we would recognize it as torture. Our law still does not recognize it when it happens to children and to members of our own community. Please pass this Bill.

Thank you. Next, we have testimony from Rafael Kiichiro Renteria.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Rafael Renteria. I'm a former Honolulu prosecuting—Department of the Prosecuting Attorney Prosecutor, and also a current Civil Attorney in private practice. Unfortunately, I had a lot of connection with these kinds of cases that are described as torture. It's a matter of public record.

I've been involved in some of the current cases that have been in the news. In my professional experience, it's very difficult to prosecute these cases and really to hold people accountable for these heinous acts that they've committed on children. There are the possibility of enhanced sentencing in the cases that we've seen in the news because those cases have resulted in the ultimate consequence, which is death of a person.

But in many instances, these acts can only be prosecuted as misdemeanors or various other lower-level offenses for which, you know, these enhanced sentencings are just a barrier to appropriate punishment or wholly unavailable.

The intent of this Bill I wholly support and I do ask that you pass this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's all the testifiers that said they wish to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 388? Ah, yes, please. Oh, I guess we have. I'm sorry, Deena Thoemmes, from Hawaii Police Department and Justin Higa, Hawaii Police Department. Sorry, please proceed.

Good, good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Lieutenant Deena Thoemmes of the Honolulu Police Department's Homicide Detail. We're here to support House Bill 388 relating to torture. This Bill directly addresses torture of children and vulnerable persons, a category of abuse that goes beyond what is typically encountered in child maltreatment cases.

In my years as a Homicide Lieutenant and Detective, I investigated some of the most horrific crimes imaginable. While these crimes have always existed, advancements in social media reporting and media technologies have made them more visible and brought greater public awareness. Child torture is uniquely insidious. It is gradual but with harmful effects.

Unlike general child abuse, it is calculated, systematic, and designed to break the victim's will entirely. Survivors, when rescued, are often so disoriented and psychologically shattered that they struggle to recall or describe the sequence of events. This is the precise effect of torture. It erodes identity, confuses, and ensures total compliance.

A major challenge we face prosecuting these crimes is that many of the most severe torture tactics, such as forced holds and starvation, leave minimal visible physical injuries. These methods are not the result of neglect or poverty, but are intentional tools of domination.

In 100% of these cases we have investigated and charged, the perpetrators had the means to feed and care for the children. Instead, they chose not to, as a method of control and suffering. However, our current statutory framework does not adequately capture these acts, making it difficult to hold those offenders accountable.

Through our collaboration with the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit and other experts, we know that these perpetrators are classified as non-sexual sadists. They are not struggling parents. They are individuals who take pleasure in the suffering of children. They are highly manipulative, skilled at deceiving systems, and often forcing surviving children to participate in covering up their crimes.

Without a specific statute addressing torture of children and vulnerable persons, our ability to prosecute and protect these children is severely hindered. Passing this Bill will provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to intervene effectively and hold these perpetrators fully accountable. It is our duty to protect the most vulnerable members of our society.

Right now, without this law, we are failing them. We need this legislation to ensure that those who commit these acts are fully prosecuted and that no child endures this suffering, without justice. I urge you to take immediate action and support this Bill. We cannot allow legal loopholes to protect those who derive pleasure from the suffering of children.

It is time to act decisively and aggressively to close these gaps and bring justice to the victims. That's all I have.

Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you.

Justin Higa, Honolulu Police Department also.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Justin Higa. I'm a Detective with the whole Police Department, Criminal Investigation Division. I am currently assigned to the Homicide Detail.

I'm here today to show strong support for HB 388, relating to torture. In 2024, I was a Lead Investigator for the following case, State of Hawaii v. Brandy Blas, Deborah Geron, and Thomas Blas. This case was charged in February 2024, where the suspects are currently awaiting trial for the murder of a 10-year-old child.

As a Detective, I have assisted in investigating multiple cases involving the torture of children. These investigations, for lack of better words, are some of the most horrifying things that a person could experience.

They involve the starving, binding, force holds, beating, and the burning of children at the hands of the people that they should trust the most, their parents or legal guardians.

One of the things that we have seen as investigators is that there is a gaping hole in the law regarding some of the torture that children are subjected to, specifically with regards to behavior—regards to starvation, fluid restriction, forced exercise, subjected to unsanitary conditions, such as they are in their own feces and placed in force holds.

And to be clear, there are not instances where a child is denied dessert, told to clean up a bathroom because it's a chore, or left in a dirty diaper for five minutes too long.

These are instances where a child has been systematically deprived of food, water, basic necessities, beaten, and tortured, because a parent or legal guardian has decided to do so. The current laws are currently not enough.

The torture bill will adjoin a hole in the Hawaii revised statute that will allow investigators, like myself, to hold sadists who torture children accountable for their actions. The homicide detail of HPD remains committed to its mission of obtaining justice and being the voice for all victims, especially our most vulnerable and the Keiki.

As law enforcement who are on the front lines, we daily see the horror that these cases inflict on the children—children of our community. Thus, we humbly ask for House Bill 388 to be passed. I thank you for your time.

Thank you very much and thank you very much for your work in this very difficult area. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Please, Ms. Young.

Angela Melody Young, in strong support of the measure. And so, our proposed amendment then would be under ABC, a new—I think it's called subsection, and I'm not sure, I'm not a lawyer—but ABCD, any person who knowingly witnesses torture of children and does not report it will be subject to penalties.

Because if you're going in circles, relying on proving the bodily injury, when we refer to the very infamous case of Isabella, there were eyewitness accounts, family members who reported a series of events that were happening to Isabella, that ultimately led to the demise of everything.

So, if there is no way to prove the evidence of bodily injury or torture, then why keep trying to push from that way, right? So, get the witnesses to be held accountable. So, yeah. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers. We'll move on to the next measure, House Bill 393, making an appropriation for career criminal prosecution.

This is appropriating money to the Department of Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu for the Career Criminal Prosecution Unit. And we have Daniel Hugo.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Daniel Hugo from the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office in strong support of HB 393. Career criminals are subject to something called the Pareto Effect, which is essentially when you have a small group of people who are responsible for disproportionate. Disproportionate. Disproportionately influence the effect. Right.

So there is a very small number of criminals who repeatedly commit the most serious crimes. And that's what the Career Criminal Unit focuses on. They focus on repeat offenders as well as people who are on felony probation. This has been a long standing program in our office, and we appreciate the legislature's continued support for it. Thank you.

Thank you. It's a great program. Thanks for your work on that. That's all that have said they wish to testify on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 393?

Good morning chair. Greg Misakian on Zoom.

Please proceed.

Thank you. I just want to say that I fully support this bill and I hope that it moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Thank you. Any questions? No. Thanks. We'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 394. Making an appropriation for the Victim Witness Assistance Program. This measure appropriates monies as a grant and aid to the City and County of Honolulu Department of Prosecuting Attorney for the Victim Witness Assistance Program, Daniel Hugo.

Good afternoon again, Chair, Vice Chair and members of the committee, Daniel Hugo from the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office in strong support of House Bill 394. The Victim/Witness Kokua Program. If you're the victim of a violent crime, probably the last person that you want to talk to are a bunch of lawyers. But that is the criminal justice system.

It is going to be a process of constantly talking with lawyers. And our Victim/Witness Program gives other people to talk to, to give, give support and guidance through what can be a confusing and very difficult process. I do just want to point out that victims are doubly involuntary, involuntary participants.

They didn't consent to the crime and they don't control the course or scope of the litigation. So it's very important to give them some measure of autonomy and hope. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? HB 394? If not. Questions? Members? None. We'll move on thanks to the testifier. Next is House Bill 538 relating to safe entryways. This measure prohibit individuals from residing in a doorway or surrounding area of certain places and gives county police departments primary authority to enforce the prohibition.

First up, we have testimony and support from the Honolulu Police Department. Mr. Roberts on Zoom. Not present. Next, we have testimony support from. Oh, you are present. Please go ahead.

I apologize. Good afternoon, Committee Chair and Members. I'm Acting Major Henry Roberts of District 1 Central Honolulu. I would like to note that my written testimony has already been submitted. While HPD supports House Bill 538 relating to safe entryways and its intent to enhance public safety and ensuring clear access to essential areas such as businesses and.

Residential areas, it does fill a gap in our current laws providing the law enforcement with the authority to act when doorways are obstructed. We do believe the bill could more closely align with U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Grants Pass vs. Johnson, 603 U.S. 520 in 2024, particularly regarding the handling of property.

Although the bill partially aligns with the ruling, HPD already has established procedures in place that are fully consistent with its provisions. And we would like to see that those practice be more fully reflected in the bill. And that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next, Gregory Misakian.

Thank you, Chair. Again, Greg Misakian here to testify in support of this bill. And I appreciate what was just stated by the representative from HPD, and I hope this bill moves forward. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 538? If not, questions members? Seeing none. We're going to move on. Thank you. To the testifiers, House Bill 103 relating to sentencing.

This measure changes the age for which individuals are eligible for life without parole sentences from 18 years of age or older to 21 years of age or older. First up, we have Darcia Forester, Office of Public Defender, or her representative, Mr. Bento. Please proceed.

Good afternoon again, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. William Bento of the Public Defender's Office. I'm here on behalf of Ms. Forester, who submitted the written testimony. We're in very strong support of HB 103. We believe, as stated in the preamble to the bill, that the scientific community, legal and psychological community, support this.

And we support the intent of the bill as well as the way in which it's drafted and the language. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Daniel Hugo.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Daniel Hugo from the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. We do oppose this measure when we're talking about first degree murder, we're not just talking about murder, the most serious offense in the criminal code, but murder that is committed under special circumstances.

So we're talking about mass killers or serial killers, contract killers, people who kill in order to pervert the course of justice. So people who kill police officers, prosecutors, witnesses, judges. We're also talking about people who kill even while they're in prison. So there are special aggravating circumstances for first degree murder.

I will also note that although the law says life without parole, even with that sentence, people do have the option after 20 years, after serving their sentence for 20 years, to apply for a commutation to the governor. So that is still available even in cases where there is life, with an original sentence of life without parole.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's all that said they wish to testify today. Mr. Misakian, you testify, you sent in written testimony. Did you want to say anything?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. If I could just bear with me. So I did submit a very brief written testimony, and I'm going to read it because it's just a sentence. I don't support HB 103 as I personally believe that 18 is the age that you're classified as an adult nationally and worldwide. The age of majority is widely established at 18.

That's basically what I've written. I support what was just stated by the previous testifier, and I do not support this bill. So I'm in opposition.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not. Questions, members? Representative Shimizu.

Question for prosecuting attorney. I'm not sure if you're able to answer this question, but I wanted to know if currently judges have the ability or the flexibility to sentence accordingly.

So that the prescribed sentence for first degree murder is a life without parole in cases where the person is over 18. So there's just one sentence that's provided.

Okay, thank you. Thanks very much. Any other questions members? If not, we'll move on. Thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 610 relating to cold case investigations.

This measure establishes and appropriates money for a cold case investigation unit within the Department of the Attorney General and prioritizes unsolved cases involving an indigenous victim. First up, we have the Attorney General.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Adrian Daw on behalf of the Department. The Department stands in support of this bill. There are a couple of issues with regards to the preference of indigenous victims. We would ask to strike that language. We have proposed a remedy for that.

Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Next. McKenna Woodward, Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha. Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. McKenna Woodward, on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in strong support of HB 610. We will stand on our written testimony for the most part today. But we would also like to express our deep appreciation to the introducers for. For bringing forward this critical measure.

As highlighted in the 2022 Missing and Murdered Native Hawaiian Women and Girls Task Force report, more than a quarter of missing girls in Hawaii are native Hawaiians. The report also found that only 19% of missing children cases are resolved each year.

This underscores the urgent need for increased action to address this crisis and ensure that justice is served to victims and their families. For these reasons and those outlined in our written testimony, we respectfully request your aye vote mahalo for your consideration.

Thank you for your testimony. Final testifier Zoe Quip.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Zoe Quip and I'm a social work student at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. I'm testifying in strong support of House bill 610 which addresses cold case investigations related to missing and murdered Indigenous women peoples.

My understanding of the hardships within Indigenous communities comes from both academic research and deeply impactful coursework. The crisis of MMIW is a long standing social issue rooted in colon colonialism. For centuries, Indigenous women and girls have been dehumanized, overlooked and treated as disposable.

Structural barriers, resource limitations for tribal police and systemic biases have perpetuated this crisis, leaving countless families without justice or closure. We cannot ignore the numbers. According to a modern Trail of Tears, homicide is one of the leading causes of death for Indigenous women and peoples between the ages of 10 and 34.

And more than 80% of indigenous people experience violence in their lifetime. Despite these statistics, Indigenous communities often lack the necessary resources and support systems to address these injustices. Passing this bill is not just a legislative step. It is a step toward healing, accountability and systemic change.

It is an opportunity to provide Indigenous families with the exhaustive investigative efforts and justice that every person deserves. I urge you to Support House Bill 610 and help ensure that these cases receive the attention that they have long been denied. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in HB610? If not, questions? Members, seeing none, we'll move on. Thank you very much. House Bill 147, relating to attachment and execution of real property—this measure increases the real property exemption amount for attachment or execution.

We've first person said they wish to testify as Marvin Dang.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Marvin Dang, for the Hawaii Financial Services Association, wants to first point out that this Bill does not involve homeowner exemptions from rogue property tax assessments. What this Bill deals with is entirely different—it's an exemption from claims of creditors.

We want to also point out—it's not in our testimony—that the Federal Bankruptcy Code has an exemption of $27,900 in equity for a debtor's residence. What this Bill would do is increase the exemption in two different aspects: one from $30,000 to $90,000, and another part from $20,000 to $60,000.

We don't take a specific position on a dollar amount. We do, in our testimony, say that perhaps it could be somewhere between $60,000 and $90,000—but at the lower end of that range. We note that the collection law section of the Hawaii State Bar Association does propose $50,000.

I should also point out that it's not clear that this property that's involved would be the primary or principal residence of the individual debtor. There is another section—well, the section of this Bill deals with 651-92. There's a previous section, 651-91, that defines real property.

If you're inclined to agree that, really, it should be the principal or primary residence, that would be where the definition would have to be adjusted and tightened up. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next, Mihoko Ito with Hawaii Bankers Association—or Tiffany Yajima. Not present. Finally, Stephanie Sakamoto. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify on HB 147? If not, questions? Members, if not, we'll move on. Thanks very much. Next, House Bill 127, relating to pretrial release.

This measure requires the court to enter on the record its written findings regarding the necessity of the conditions imposed on a defendant's release. Requires bail to be set in an amount that the defendant can afford based on certain factors. First up, we have Office of Public Defender. Mr. Bento. Welcome back.

Good afternoon once again, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the Committee. My name is William Bento. I'm an attorney with the Office of the Public Defender. We do support this measure. We think that it is important for the court to have to make findings in regard to why bail is being set at a certain amount.

We do have some concerns. We didn't put them in our written testimony. But I do want to say that sometimes those findings made public in court could be detrimental to a defendant based upon what that person might be charged with or some of the allegations in the case.

Because most of these individuals who cannot post bail are going to remain in custody. And being in custody in that situation sometimes carries with it its own rules. And depending on what a person might be charged with, some things made public could be detrimental to someone.

So, you know, we would probably, as counsel at an arraignment, for example, would ask the court to perhaps temper some of its public statements in regards to findings. But we do support the idea of having findings made because we do find that individuals that have the means can post bail and those that don't have the means usually have to remain in custody.

One of the things that does happen by statute is that the Office of the Public Defender is charged with determining whether someone financially would qualify for our free legal services. And so some of the information that the bill requires the court to ascertain and make findings on, we're already doing that.

So perhaps if the committee wishes, they could make an amendment that would say that the Public Defender's Office, at the request of the court, can share that information with the court dealing with those financial resources of the potential client. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Jennifer Awong, Judiciary.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Jennifer Awong. I'm the Staff Attorney for the Criminal Administrative Divisions of the First Circuit Court. We did submit written testimony signed by the chief judges of the First, Second, and Third Circuit.

I'm not sure if it made it to the publication, but I do have copies if you need it. Essentially, the judiciary takes no position on the intent of the proposed legislation and just wanted to note that the Judicial Council is currently conducting the penal code review which was enacted by Act 245 last session.

Included in that penal code review, as one of the subcommittees, is a committee specifically dedicated to pretrial reform and their report is due at the end of this year. So we were asked, respectfully asking, that it be deferred until the end of this year. If it is not going to be deferred, we do have additional comments that are outlined in our testimony.

Specifically that we suggest that the best way to achieve the stated goals of the proposed legislation, namely on the record findings of the ability to pay or the ability to afford bail, and the necessity of the conditions imposed that any revisions outlined in this bill be placed in chapter or Section 804-7.5, which is the actual hearing that we have that is on the record and we can make those findings on the record at that time.

There is a concern from the judiciary, a significant concern from the judiciary regarding written findings. There are thousands of hearings that could be interpreted that this bill would apply to. It would require written findings for each one of those. And that is just not sustainable with our current staffing and resources. I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Awong. Next, we have testimony from Kelden Waltjen, Office of Prosecuting Attorney. Please proceed.

Aloha. Chair, can you hear me?

Yes, we hear you and we see you. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and committee members, Hawai'i County Prosecuting Attorney Kelden Waltjen. We stand in strong opposition of this bill. The purpose of this bill is to reduce pre-trial incarceration rates. Our office believes that there are far better and more effective ways to address overcrowding than simply prioritizing the premature release of offenders without adequate support services. This legislation, simply put, is not necessary nor feasible, as noted by Ms. Awong, who previously testified.

Given overwhelming attention on jail overcrowding issues across our state, courts are already reluctant to maintain bail and rarely maintain bail on misdemeanor and petty misdemeanor offenses. Requiring written findings on record will only further burden our court judiciary staff and contribute to the already crowded and congested criminal court dockets.

We've already had several occurrences on Hawai'i Island where court dockets have ran past 4:30 resulting in court continuances incurring unnecessary overtime expenses and presenting other personnel issues and concerns, including courthouse security. If any changes are considered to I would suggest amending 804-9 to include consideration of a defendant's criminal history when a court is determining bail amounts.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to address the misconceptions regarding jail overcrowding, especially on Hawai'i Island. HCCC, Hawai'i Community Correctional Center, is the primary correctional facility that houses pretrial inmates on Hawai'i Island. Many of those currently in custody have had several pending felony matters, have been previously granted supervisories over prosecutors objections, and have had their release revoked for committing a new offense.

The most recent report from on dated February 3 by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation indicates that the head counts currently at 294, 90% of those in custody are being held on felony matters, 90%, leaving 10% being held on misdemeanors or petty misdemeanors. Out of those 10%, that's 29 individuals, six have been sentenced, 23 are remaining.

I didn't get a chance to look up all those individual cases, but I highly suspect that most of those are misdemeanor domestic violence related offenses. HCCC continues to be the highest overcapacity facility with 130.1% over occupancy. That being said, HB 127 will not drastically reduce the jail population at HCCC. Jeopardizing public safety on account of overcrowding is wrong.

You want to summarize, Mr. Waltjen?

I encourage this committee to introduce legislation that promotes public safety and justice for victims. Please consider the overwhelming opposition to this bill. The public has made its position clear. HB 127 is another offender focused legislation. Please, let's not forget about victims of crime. We submit in our written input. I'm available to answer any questions. Mahalo.

Thank you. Mr. Waltjen. Daniel Hugo.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney does oppose this bill. We acknowledge that there are weaknesses with cash bail. Probably the worst of which is that people who can commit serious enough crimes, but who can afford to pay out can walk out of jail and have no conditions imposed on them.

But we do believe that while we have the system that we have, the priority should be on the danger to the public and the risks to the integrity of the judicial process. And we believe that this bill places affordability, prioritizes that over those larger concerns.

Our office has had direct experience in a very dramatic case of placing affordability over public safety concerns. We charged Sidney Tafokitau and his bail was reduced over our objection from $150,000 to $75,000, which he was affordable because he could post it the next day.

He then, in less than two weeks, opened fire on a crowd of people. And when the new year opened in 2024, he had a very busy day in which he shot his ex girlfriend, took a car hostage, and ended up shooting police officers. The police officer shot back. That's a very extreme example.

But this sort of breakdown happens all the time when defending defendants are released without adequate supervision and when the bail amount is not set in an amount that takes into account their criminal history and the risk of recidivism. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Nathan Lee.

Hello again. ACLU of Hawai'i in support. We just want to note that in looking through some of the testimony that this bill is fairly basic and it essentially helps to ensure that ability to pay is not the reason that you are held in pretrial detention. It does not mean that we cannot be thoughtful or consider public safety when people are having their bail set. And so I think we just need to clear up some misconceptions about the bill. This is not cash bail elimination.

And I would point out that in jurisdictions outside of Hawai'i that have a limited cash bail, you know, they don't see any spikes in public safety concerns. Other jurisdictions have actually seen pretrial incarceration decrease without increases in crime, especially violent crime.

And so I think we have to be clear about what we're talking about with this bill. We also want to note that the requirement to provide bail under the least restrictive conditions required for appearance of public safety are already present in 804-4 as currently written.

But this bill would serve to directly connect this right to an obligation to enter written findings. And we think that's important not only for clarity for individuals who are being potentially held pretrial, but but also for the legitimacy of the system and for the judiciary.

We also want to note that the judiciary did have a criminal pretrial task force in December of 2018 issue a report asking to maximize pretrial release of those who do not pose a danger or a flight risk. So while we acknowledge the concerns of the judiciary and their upcoming report, we also want to note that they have already considered this issue and they have said that we need pretrial reform. We also want to make sure that people are not unjustly held in the time it takes for a new report to be issued.

Finally, pretrial detention is extremely costly, not only to the people who are held pretrial, especially if they're innocent, but also to their communities, because it's been proven by extensive research to increase recidivism, increased costs of holding these people in prisons.

And we think that upfront cost of simply requiring people to have written findings on why they're being held is, it is worth it in order to reduce all the further costs, not only like emotional psychological costs, but actual dollars that will cost the state if people are held without being without the need to.

Thank you, Mr. Lee. Next, Kat Brady, Community Alliance on Prisons.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Poepoe and members of the Committee. Kat Brady for Community Alliance on Prisons. We support this measure and we actually believe that court records should be written in plain language so that people really understand what's happening. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Stacy Diaz on Zoom. Not present. Next, Noella Von Vigant on Zoom. Not present. Next, Kerwin Canianero, please proceed. Could you unmute yourself, please?

Please proceed. No, you're still muted.

You want to try one more time? Otherwise we'll need to go on. We do have your testimony in opposition. Try speaking. No, sorry, we do not hear you. I apologize, sir. We do have your testimony in opposition and all the Committee Members have it. I'm sorry, we can't hear you. Something must be up with your microphone.

Sorry, sir. We'll go on. You can try to reconnect again if you want and come back in, but going to move on. Thank you, sir. HB127. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, Members. LAHA chair.

Greg Misakian on Zoom. Go ahead, Mr. Misakian. Thank you. I appreciate it. Again, Greg Misakian. I did not submit testimony. I noticed. For this bill. Please proceed. Clear. Thank you. I am in opposition to it. I do understand what's behind it. I have researched this a bit, but I.

I didn't have enough time to go through the bill in detail. And I don't like to provide written testimony and circumstances like that. But in hearing the additional oral testimony and understanding a bit, I do not support this bill. I would ask that this bill be deferred. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on HB127? If not, questions, Members. Mr. Shimizu.

Prosecuting attorney. I guess you gave an extreme example of a lower bail amount and the person being released causing public harm. I was wondering, besides that example, are there any statistics that would give us an indication whether a lower bail amount and release of the subject is causing a problem to public safety?

I could certainly check if our office has statistics available. I will say that when the risk assessment is done by oisc, they do evaluate it according to a standardized risk score. What does that mean? It basically looks at certain factors that correlate with a heightened risk of danger, and then they score those up.

And that's based on larger studies, so not specific to Hawaii. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for testifying.

Thank you, Chair.

Certainly. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? Any other questions? If not, thanks, we'll move on to the next measure.

House Bill 128 relating to criminal justice reform establishes factors under which officers may, without warrant, arrest and detain persons for petty misdemeanors and violations, and requires officers to record the factors that justify the warrantless arrest on this measure. First up, Honolulu Police Department, Emmanuel Hernandez.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Major Emmanuel Hernandez of HPD's training Committee. Although the HPD understands the intent of the language proposed by Bill 128 in Section 80036. We oppose this bill based on the language the changes proposed in hrs.

80035 which states that for a petty misdemeanor arrest, not only must the standard of probable cause be met, but if an individual meets these four listed criteria, the arrest is not affected.

There are several arrests sorry several offenses in the petty misdemeanor range that an arrest is in the best public interest of public safety, public order, or even victim safety such petty misdemeanors as OVII or operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicant abuse of a family or household member involving offensive contact instead of physical injury, domestic sorry.

Disorderly conduct as well as indecent exposure. We understand that a citation may deter future criminal behavior, but with certain offenses the arrest would be in the best public interest. We have also submitted written testimony and I am available for any questions. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. Thank you very much.

Next we have Kelden Welchin, Hawaii County Office of Prosecuting Attorney.

Aloha Chair Tarnas Vice Chair Poepoe and Committee Members, Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney Keldin Walden. We stand in strong opposition of this bill. We share in the same arguments that are mentioned by the Honolulu Police Department.

The purpose of this bill is to reduce the number of what is referred to as unnecessary arrests by police by amending Section 8036 again. Similarly, as noted in my testimony in HB137. Simply put, this legislation is just not necessary. Current law already provides officers with discretion to issue citations when warranted.

Instead, this legislation will make it more difficult for police to do their job, which is to maintain public safety, protect and enforce the law. Placing further restrictions upon police only further jeopardizes public safety and puts victims at risk. We need legislation that protects victims, not one that places them in danger.

You know, I talked a little bit about about the jail earlier, so I'm not going to go over it again about the numbers and the and the data. But we do feel that there are far more effective ways to reform our criminal justice system to better serve our community on Hawaii Island.

For a long time there's been a need for an additional Kona District Court judge and for a long time a need for a Hilo, a Circuit Court judge. There's a significant attorney shortage across the state and it's no different on our island as well. The Office of the Public Defenders is seriously short is staff.

They have a serious staff shortage. I'm you know as a result of their staff shortage, they've been withdrawing from all Class 8 felonies and DUIs in the in their corner office intacts our criminal justice system. I'm happy to see. You know, given the staff shortage, I'm happy to see that Mr.

Bento is able to provide testimony today because I know they're seriously impacted by these staff shortages. There's also a staff shortage of just available defense counsel. When the public defender's office is warrant withdraw from cases, court appointed counsel needs to be placed in those cases.

And the court's having a hard time finding attorneys for those cases as well is also a shortage of court interpreters. I encourage this Committee to consult confer with local law enforcement, Members of the judiciary and our partner agencies when considering the proposal of new legislation.

Let's work together to restore the public's trust and confidence in our criminal justice system. We submitted our written input and are available to answer any question. Mahalo.

Thank you, Mr. Welch. And next. Daniel Hugo.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair. Members of the Committee Department of the prosecuting attorney does oppose this bill. I'm going to just add one clarification though, which is that under the Hawaii rules of penal procedure, when there is a warrantless arrest, the officers do have to attach a written statement as to the reasons for the arrest.

So oftentimes, as in a drunk driving case, the exception that's identified in this bill will already be implicit in that statement. If what the Committee is looking for is or what this bill is looking for is an express statement, then we believe that will create an unnecessary administrative burden without creating any sort of improvement in policing.

So thank you, sir. Next. Nathan Lee.

Hello again. ACLU of Hawaii is in support. We'll stand on our written testimony. Just we'll highlight that we think that this bill basically makes puts very minor guardrails on existing officer discretion. And so just in response to previous concerns raised, we do think that officer discretion is still available.

And so when there are these edge cases like have been mentioned, officers can certainly issue an arrest if they believe it necessary.

And so just looking at the text of this bill itself, we believe that it's, you know, fairly basic measure and will, you know, only serve to put basic guardrails like a probable cause assessment onto how officers conduct their business. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Stacy Diaz, Online. Not present. Noella Van Vigant. Not present. Kerwin canionero. See if we can hear you this time, everyone.

Yes, we hear you now. Yay.

Please proceed.

All right, thank you. That's a strong in opposition to HB128, a bill that seeks to establish vague and subjective factors under which law enforcement officers may, without a warrant, arrest and detain individuals for petty misdemeanors and violations.

This legislation does not raise not only raises serious constitutional concerns but also threatens to undermine civil liberties and due process as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. First and foremost, HB128 it is unconstitutionally vague.

It fails to provide clear objective criteria for when an individual may be arrested and detained, leaving excessive discretion in the hands of law enforcement officers. The lack of specificity increase the likelihood of arbitrary enforcement and unequal application of the law.

The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment requires laws to be clear and precise so that individuals can understand what conduct is prohibited and law enforcement can fairly and constituently apply the law. HB128 fails this fundamental test.

Moreover, the bill is inherently biased and subjective as it grants officers the authority to make warrantless arrests based on discretionary judgment rather than concrete legal standards. This opens the door to racial profiling, socioeconomic discrimination, and selective enforcement. Historically, vague laws have misappropriately affected marginalized communities, and HB128 is no exception.

It provides law enforcement with excessive power to target individual based on precipitation perception rather than evidence, eroding trust between communities and the police. Furthermore, the legislation violates the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Warrantless arrests, particularly for minor infraction printed upon the fundamental rights of individual, contradict well established legal precedents and emphasize the necessity of probable cause and judicial oversight of permitting officers who detain individual for minor offenses without a warrant. HB128 encourages excessive police policing and unnecessary interaction of individuals who pose no immediate threat to public safety.

Additionally, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial. Yet this bill enables law enforcement to act as judge, jury, and executioner in determining why should who should be arrested and detained. Without a warrant requirement or due process protection, individuals may find themselves incarcerated for minor violations without immediate recourse, further burdening an already overwhelmed judicial system.

In light of this constitutional violation and the potential of discriminatory enforcement, a strong urgent to oppose HB128 public safety should never come at the expense of fundamental rights, and our legal system must prioritize fairness, accountability, and equal protection under the law.

Rather than expanding the authority of law enforcement to make warrantless arrests for minor offenses, we should be focusing on meaningful reforms that enhance public trust, address systematic inequalities and uphold the principles enshrined in our Constitution. Thank you for your time and consideration. I urge you to reject SB128 and stand against unconstitutional overreach and power.

Thank you very much. I'm glad you fixed your microphone. Thanks. Okay, that's the last person who wanted to testify on this measure. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in HB128 otherwise? Yes. Mr. Bento.

Good afternoon. Once again, I believe we did submit testimony in support of the bill. I just want to point out a couple of things. One, what we're talking about here is really already the law.

Number two, the only addition here is asking the police officer to choose one of four criteria and just check it off or circle it or note it down for why they're arresting instead of issuing a citation.

So as was stated before, if there was in fact an abuse of a household Member, arrest number four must be detained to prevent bodily injury to that person or another person. Just check that off. That would suffice. DUI committed an offense of such a nature where there could be further police contact.

Clearly you're not going to let that person drive away. They just have to check that off. So it gives a public record of the reason why this person was held in custody versus being just issued a citation. And that sort of.

It's just a means of keeping track as to why people are being arrested and this placed in custody. Thank you.

Thank you. I. I don't see your testimony in here, so if you could provide testimony, we'll make sure it's part of the record. Thank you very much, Mr. Bento. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not questions? Members seeing none, we're going to move on.

Thank you very much to the testifiers HB 560 relating to the judiciary. This measure appropriates funds to the judiciary for services contracted with community based organizations that deliver essential services, streamline judicial processes and support the judiciary's capacity to effectively meet the needs of vulnerable households. First up, first person said they wish to testify.

Judith Clark, Hawaii Youth Services Network.

Good afternoon, Chair Members of the Committee. I'm Judith Clark, Executive Director of Hawaii Youth Services Network and we are in strong support of this Bill.

The most recent Alice report by the Aloha United Way stated that 37% of households said that at least one Member of their family was considering moving out of state due to the high cost of living in Hawaii.

Community based organizations struggle to attract and retain qualified staff when contracts and grants do not pay the full cost of providing services. CBOs are not able to provide competitive wages. Our workers choose higher paying jobs or places with a lower cost of living.

It is shameful that so many of our nonprofit staff are paid so little that they are eligible for SNAP and other public benefits. Staff working with homeless persons are often concerned about losing their own housing and becoming homeless themselves.

One outreach worker shared with me, if my landlord raises my rent, I won't be able to afford my housing. In 2024, the Salvation Army Family Intervention Services had to pause admissions of clients to their emergency shelter for boys on Maui due to a critical shortage of staff.

As a Member of the True Cost Coalition, Hawaii Youth Services Network believes that this Bill is crucial to ensuring justice for all residents regardless of their economic status or personal circumstances. Thank you for your time and dedication to this critical issue. Thank you very much.

Sandy Ma not present. Next Trisha Kajimura.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas Vice Chair Poi Poi Members of the Committee Tricia Kajimura Testifying for Parents and Children Together or pact.

We're testifying on this Bill as one of our highest priorities because we are a contracted provider for the judiciary and as a Member of the True Cost Coalition, all of our we have about 10 contracts with the judiciary, all related to domestic violence services.

So these through these contracts we provide services such as counseling for survivors, child witnesses, parenting and anger management classes for offenders, case management and other supportive services. These programs are chronically underfunded and we've always been willing to make up the gap with fundraising.

But as the contract rates remain flat and our operating costs increase, that gap has become insurmountable. And just to demonstrate we've our state grant and aid application this year is for those programs. We are also intended to seek federal funding.

Unfortunately, that is looking bleak, especially in this area of domestic violence that is so important to the health and safety of women, children and all the other vulnerable people in our state. So we ask you to please move this Bill forward and to consider increasing funding for judiciary purchase of service contracts. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you very much and thank you for your work. Next Hawaii True Cost Coalition.

Ms.

Pavlicek?

Aloha. I'm Melissa Pavlicek and with me today is Hannah Leziak. We're two of the representatives for the True Cost Coalition and you've heard from some of our Members today. We're in strong support of this measure. All of the community based organizations that you are hearing from are doing the work of government to keep our communities safe.

This is our highest priority. And we really appreciate you hearing this Bill.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. As Melissa said, I'm Hannah Leziak here on behalf of the True Cost Coalition. And I just wanted to emphasize again that the true cost of the services that our organizations provide has increased faster and much more dramatically than appropriations and contract increases have.

So we thank you for hearing this Bill, and Melissa and I are here for any questions that you have.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your good work. Sandy Ma, welcome back. Can't be in two places at once. I understand. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Sandy Ma, for the legal clinic, we stand in support of HB560. I'm just going to stand on my written testimony. Thank you for hearing this measure. Thank you.

Certainly. Thank you. Cap Brady, Community alliance on Prisons.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Afternoon.

Cap's a Member of the True Cost Coalition, and we're really proud of that. It's a group of people who are doing the work that government cannot do itself. So that's really fabulous.

This Bill is a great example of collaboration of people coming together to say we've got some problems in our community and we're going to work on them, and we do.

Last week, the Executive Director of the Legal Aid foundation testified, and it was so heartbreaking because he was saying because of the funding cuts, they're not going to be able to actually, they have to turn people away. And some of the people who come before that agency are the most vulnerable people in our community.

So the looming threat of the Federal Government is frightening to nonprofits, and we're hoping that the state steps up and helps us provide what's needed for our most vulnerable citizens. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Ms. Brady. Thank you for your good work. Next, Laurie Lum, Child and Family Service.

Hello, Ms. Lum. Welcome.

Vice Chair Poi, Members of the Committee, Lori Lum, on behalf of Child and Family Service, testifying in support of House Bill 560 and echoing the comments of all the previous testifiers. For 125 years, child and Family Service has provided family strengthening services serving Keiki to kupuna like pact.

Our contracts with the judiciary are related to assisting domestic violence victims and juvenile substance abuse. Unfortunately, the demand for these services has increased year over year. Yet our contracts with the judiciary, we've seen a decrease, not just flatline, but actually the contract service rates have decreased for over 10 years.

So we've done our best, like others, to try to fill those funding gaps. But this Bill will help ensure continued service for those our most vulnerable residents. So we thank you for the opportunity and I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. As the last testifier said, they wish to testify. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 560? Please proceed, Ms. Young.

Angela Melody Young, testifying in strong support. So extrajudiciary funding can support organizations, for example, such as Volunteer Legal Services, a community based organization which provides free attorney advice for pop up booths. And it's very necessary for disadvantaged communities suffering from job insecurity, financial instability and overcrowding rates, problems with housing, the legal services can really provide for that.

So if you've ever gone to a pop up booth, for example, from Volunteer Legal Services, at the very bottom of the brochure it mentions, it operates from the appropriation of funding from the judiciary.

So this can also help with career development training in the workforce to strengthen the pipeline of student attorneys which practices with such community based organizations. And it can also help with provisions for University of Hawaii students to practice under supervision. For indigent populations and people who can't access attorney advice, this could be very helpful.

And this will help streamline, improve, expedite and assist the judicial processes in Hawaii. You wouldn't want the General public to suffer from ineffective counsel. Right? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not questions, Members see none. Thank you. To the testifiers. Let's move on to House Bill 1247 relating to criminal proceedings. This measure provides immediate judicial review of orders fixing minimum terms of imprisonment. First up, we have Office of Public Defender.

Thank you for your patience, Mr. Lowenthal.

Good afternoon everyone. Ben Lowenthal from the Public Defender's office. I'm the supervisor for the Appellate and Paroles division. So our attorneys in our division appear regularly in front of the Parole Board. And we also, our lawyers appear in circuit court. We stand in support of this measure.

I am also happy to report that we have been in discussions with the judiciary and we were able to get an idea of what their suggestions were. We fully agree with their suggestions and we would like to put whatever we need to put on the record for that.

I believe their proposal to amend the statute on the second page of their testimony would be for section four of the Bill.

If that changes, then the provisions in Section 2 about the records, then the provisions about the need to appeal from an old criminal case are unnecessary because it would all be superseded by a different kind of petition. Now, I realize throwing a lot of technical things. I'm going to be sitting over there if there are any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, the Hawaii Paroling Authority. Thank you for your patience, sir.

No problem. Good afternoon. Corey Reinke, Administrator with the Hawaii Prone Authority. We stand in. We stand on our written testimony and just wanted to add that fiscal year 23 to 24, Hawaii Prone Authority held over 1100 minimum hearings. Thank you.

I appreciate your hard work, sir. Next, the Judiciary.

Good afternoon again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jennifer Owong. I'm the Staff Attorney for the Criminal divisions of the First Circuit, Criminal Administrative Division.

We did submit written testimony on behalf of the chief Judges of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Circuit recommending alternative language in order to achieve the goals of the stated goals of the proposed legislation. We did speak with the Public Defender's office, and we understand they are in agreement.

We are asking that the suggested alternative language would permit the Hawaii Supreme Court to establish comprehensive procedural protections in a separate cause of action, while guaranteeing the right to counsel in that process and alleviating any of the issues with respect to jurisdiction and the other issues that we had outlined in our testimony.

If accepted, we are requesting that the amendment not be effective until June 302026 to. To permit the judiciary time to promulgate the rules in order to effectuate the provisions of the Bill. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Elong. And finally, Daniel Hugo.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Daniel Hugo from the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. In opposition to this Bill. We raised two grounds for our opposition. First, it's not clear from this Bill whether the adverse party being challenged is the Paroling Authority.

We believe that the prosecution should be represented on this appeal and should have the opportunity to defend the sentence. We're the ones who, from the Investigation, through the charging, through the trial, through the conviction sentencing, who have taken the responsibility for this case. And we are willing to carry that onto appeal.

We also believe a fair system would be like that on the federal system, where both the government and the defendant have the opportunity to appeal. Unreasonable departures from sentencing guidelines. There are cases of unreasonable leniency as well, where we believe that the prosecution should be allowed to appeal. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in HB 1247? If not. Questions, Members. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Paroling Authority, please. I know you said you stood on your written testimony, and I'm looking at it, and I wasn't really clear where you stand on it. Could you expand and summarize your position?

Well, I think in the beginning. Sorry, one second. I mean, there's already a process in place that we have with a guideline set forth by our Hawaii Administrative Rules. And we. We stand in regards to the amendment should have a defined procedure and standard for review by the courts. That's kind of where we are with.

So in other words, if this Bill is amended to address your concerns, then you would be for it.

I mean, if you had put me on the spot right now, I mean, more frankly, we would oppose this Bill.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Representative. Any other questions? If not, we'll go on to the final measure on our agenda. HB 892 relating to geographical restrictions. This measure establishes limitations on geographical restrictions provided as a condition of probation. First up, we have the judiciary. Thank you for your patience, sir.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. Hello. My name is Greg Wono. I'm the acting Operation Administrator and I am. We are in support of HB 892. Right now, geographical restrictions don't consider a person's resources or support systems. This seriously affect their family, job, social life and access to treatment.

Instead, these restrictions should be based on the person's criminal convictions. That way, probation can focus on rehabilitation and give them the best chances to succeed. Also, while these restrictions are meant to keep people accountable and the public safe, they don't always work well. If this restriction is too big, then. It becomes harder to enforce and makes.

It tougher for someone to reintegrate into society. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Finally, Ben Lowenthal, Office of public defender. Mr. Sonny Ganaden. Welcome back.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. My name is Sonny Ganaden. I'm a deputy Public defender. This bill is kind of unique. The Office of the Public Defender, unlike other state agencies, doesn't really present a package. When we feel that there's something that's gone wrong in a case, we appeal it through the judiciary, as you ordinarily should.

We find this to be so egregious that we made it a big priority for coming to you, the Legislature. Geographic restrictions have been in place for several decades here on Oahu advocated for by the Office of the Prosecutor.

We found that in many instances individuals are charged with something as simple as like a theft 4 from let's say a 711 in Kapolei. Then later when the individual pleads out, the prosecutor asks that they are they not enter the entire west side of Oahu for an entire year? We have collected our own data from offer sheets.

That is the offer that a prosecutor has to give to a public defender for a potential plea deal. We found that in the 109 times that one of these geographic restrictions was requested in November and December of 2024, they were only granted 26 times. The district court tends to disagree with them.

We've had a difficult time in trying to get this before the courts and so we are coming to you.

We think that not only is this a violation of our like public morals, but a real violation of law in the freedom of movement which is considered a human right enshrined in law in the United States and in Hawaii.

We've cited much constitutional law inclusive of the collective past cases which refer to Native Hawaiians and the borrowing of land from for individuals for access to land and sea which is also protected in our state constitution. For those reasons, we would like you to pass this measure. There's a hole in the bill at the end.

There's a dash where right before the word acres, we believe it should be 0.5 acres. Ordinarily, in things like restraining orders, when an individual is barred from a certain place, it's about 100 yards. It defers throughout the hrs. We think 0.5 acres is appropriate.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in 892 please. Mr. Hugo.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo from the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney. We are opposing this bill.

The geographic restrictions I just want to point out come from these neighborhoods that are asking that a persistent criminal element that is taken to district court, released comes back that they have some relief from that so that they can begin to rebuild their communities and actually reinvest in them. That's the basis of this.

And when these sort of intermediate measures fail, what we see is an attitude of greater support for more punitive measures. The mass incarcerations that occurred in the 80s and 90s were a direct result of the perceived leniency, perceived and real leniency that occurred in the 60s and 70s.

And when we don't have these intermediate measures and people see persistent crime and feel helpless about it, they are much more punitive and retributive. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure, if not questions. I do have one question for Judiciary, Mr. Wono. Right now, as was mentioned by the public defender, it's blank. This is on line 11, page three, line 11. And you're suggesting it was being suggested. Was it 0.5 acres? 0.5 acres. Is.

Are you amenable to that? Yeah, we are. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to all the testifiers. We're going to go to decision making now up to the top of the agenda. First up, HB 806 relating to fireworks.

It's already been amended in a previous Committee and it has a defective date. Everything is prepared to move on to finance. I would just like to move it out as is. Questions or concerns, Members? If not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 806 HD1 as is. [Roll Call] Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next measure HB438, HD1 relating to due process protections. And this one I would like to move it out with an HD2.

Make sure we've defected the date and that I want to adopt the recommendation from the Refugee and Immigration Law Clinic of uh, Richardson School of Law, which is on page four including the word taking out, uh, the University of Hawaii reference and putting in provide training and education for or partner with entities capable of training and educating law students and legal practitioners to provide legal representation to individuals in immigration related proceedings.

That way they can actually partner with organizations in addition to and not just solely with Richardson. Those are. That is my recommendation. Questions or concerns, Members? Yes, Representative Garcia. Thank you, Chair.

I'll be voting no because I don't believe that taxpayer funded resources should be going towards illegal immigrants. Thank you.

Understood. Thank you, Representative Shimizu.

Chair, I have a question on, on page, page three, line six to seven. It says that the purpose is to provide this legal representation to persons regardless of their ability to pay. And later on it goes on to say that it's for persons that have, I believe, below 250% of the poverty level.

So I was confused about that.

That's a good point. And this measure now goes on to finance and I think that that's a good thing for them to fix.

Okay, I do have concerns, so I will be voting with reservations Chair.

Understood. Other questions or concerns Members if not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 438 HD1 with amendments. [Roll Call] Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 386 relating to dangerous drugs. I think this is a good Bill as is. I'd like to move it out as is. Questions or concerns Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 386 as is. [Roll Call] Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. On House Bill 388, I'd like to wait for the Senate Bill 281 which is companion bill, has been passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is moving. So I'd like to Defer House Bill 388 and wait for that measure to come over. Questions or concerns Members. No.

Okay, we'll move on House Bill 393 making an appropriation for career criminal prosecution.

On this measure, I'd like to recommend we move it out with House Draft 1 blank out the appropriations and put the amount of $747,267 into the standing Committee report and defect the effective date, move it on to finance questions or concerns Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 393 with amendments. [Roll Call] Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 394 making an appropriation for the Victim Witness Assistance Program. I'd like to do pass this.

I'd like to recommend we move this out with House, draft one blank out the appropriation and put the amount into the Standing Committee report, which is $736,785 and defect the effective date July 1, 3000 questions or concerns Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 394 with amendments. [Roll Call] Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 538. It was important that we had a discussion about this, but I am concerned in talking to the attorneys within the Committee and in our staff. There are some serious concerns with private property rights and due process concerns, especially related to the removal and disposal of personal property.

I would like to request, I'd like to defer this measure and ask that the introducer go back and work to try to address these issues because I am not able to fix them. So if we can fix them and bring them back in time, then I'll reschedule this for further consideration.

But it needs too much work for me to do anything with it right now at this hearing. So I propose that we defer it and if we can, we'll bring it back later. Okay. Questions or concerns? Okay, moving on. House Bill 103 relating to sentencing.

I think this is a an important measure that I would like to move forward and my recommendation is to move this out as is. Questions or concerns Members Representative Chair.

I have concerns as received in a testimony from prosecuting attorney. So I will be voting no on this. Understood.

Representative Garcia thank you. Chair, 18 years old is the age of majority. People can serve their country, fight in war. I mean they're a legal adult. They should be held accountable. So I think this is just going to move us towards or it's moving us in a soft in crime approach. So therefore no vote.

Understood. Thank you for thanks for your observation on this measure and I appreciate your position. Other questions or concerns? If not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 103 as is. [Roll Call]. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 610 relating to cold case investigations. I'd like to recommend we move this out with amendments. I'd like to adopt the Attorney General's amendments. Also make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style and defect the effective date to July 1, 3000 questions or concerns Members if not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 610 with amendments. [Roll Call] Okay, recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. The next measure on House Bill 147, I would like to defer this measure and wait for the Senate Companion bill to come over which is Senate Bill 115. It's moved out of the Senate Judiciary and it's moving on to the Next Committee in the Senate.

So I've got some concerns with this and I will wait to see if the Senate addresses them and we can consider this after crossover questions or concerns. Members. If not, move on to the next one. House Bill 127 relating to pretrial release. I'd like to recommend we move this out with amendments.

I'd like to adopt the Judiciary's amendments and make some technical amendments and defect the effective dates of July 1, 3000. I appreciate the work on this.