Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs

Great afternoon, everyone, and happy New Year. Welcome to the Senate Committee on Public Safety and Military affairs. Today is January 292025 and we are in Conference Room 225. This hearing is also being streamed on the Hawaii State Senate's YouTube channel.

A few housekeeping announcements in the unlikely case of technical failures, this meeting will reconvene here in Conference Room 225 at 3pm on February 3rd. For all testifiers, including those on Zoom, we ask that you stand on your written testimony.

If your oral testimony is different from your written testimony, the time limit for each testifier will be one minute. The content, including the hearing notice, copies of the bills and testimony can be found on the Legislature's website. If time permits, decision making will occur after we hear from those offering testimonies. Members in the General public.

We do have two agendas today. We had a deferred item from a previous hearing, so I'd like to take that up for vote. This is Senate Bill 259. This is the 3 o'clock agenda. Measures deferred to Wednesday. Today, Senate Bill 259 is relating to record keeping. We did hear back.

I was able to connect with the Hondalu Police Department as this was part of their package and they did submit their comments in support. So with that, Chair would like to recommend that we pass with amendments on page 4, line 6, change the effective date to July 12077 and make any other technical amendments. Any further discussion?

If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Chair Elefante? Aye. I vote yes. Senator Fukunaga. Aye. Senator Rhodes? Excused. Senator, Court excused. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you so much. Vice Chair, it is okay if we roll into our regular 3:00 agenda?

Yes, it's okay. Chair.

Okay. Members are rolling into our regular 3:00 agenda. First on our agenda is SB603 relating to veterans. This establishes provisions governing any person who receives compensation for advising, assisting or consulting another person with veteran benefits. First on our list from the Attorney General's Office is Christopher Young.

Good afternoon. Deputy Attorney General, Christopher Young, with comments on the bill. We're recommending a couple of amendments to bolster the bill against legal challenges under. The First Amendment and the contracts clause. So the purpose section should identify the government interest behind the disclosures and the advertising section. And there should be a savings clause at the end.

Thank you. Okay, thank you so much.

Next on our list is Carlos Santana, in opposition. Ashley Berry from the National Association for Veteran Rights. On zoom.

Not present on Zoom.

Chair not present. Next Testifier is Leslie McKeague, in opposition. Josh Smith, CEO and co founder for testifying for Veteran Benefits Guide, in support on Zoom.

Also not present on Zoom Chair.

Not present. John Bloustrom testifying for Veterans Guardian VA claim consulting, in support.

Also not present on Zoom chair.

Okay, Next one is Benjamin Tipton testifying for Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, in support on Zoom.

Also not present on Zoom Chair.

Sean Deadweiler testifying for Black Veterans Empowerment Council, in support. We also have Jeff Jones testifying for Brotherhood of Main of Maintenance of Way Employees, in support. Paul Cockerham testifying for Purple Heart Homes, in support. Brian Johnson testifying for Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting llc. Connie Jones for United Veteran Benefits Agency, in support.

Mark Christiansen, Veterans Guardian VA Claim consulting, in support on Zoom.

Also not present on Zoom Chair.

Present on Zoom. And then our next two testifiers is Mike Golachuch Sr., in support and Terry Headey, in opposition. Is there anyone else that wishes to testify in SB603, if not Members? Any questions? The only person that came up was the Deputy Attorney General. Any questions? The Deputy Attorney General. Okay.

If not, we'll move on to our next bill, which is SB608 relating to veterans rights and benefits. Deputy Attorney General Christopher Young.

Deputy AG. Chris Young with comments. Similar recommendations as the previous bill. Although we do note, we also recommend adding an ex post facto savings clause as well. Well, okay, thank you.

Thank you so much. Carlos Santana, in opposition. Ashley Berry in opposition. John Blowstrom, Veterans Guardian VA Claim consulting on Zoom, in opposition.

Not present on Zoom Chair.

Thank you, IT. Josh Smith testifying for Veteran Benefits Guide, in opposition on Zoom.

Also not present on Zoom Chair.

Okay, Benjamin Tipton, in opposition on Zoom.

Also not present on Zoom Chair.

Next one we have is Brian Johnson, VP for Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, in opposition on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom Chair.

I'm sorry, I didn't have that on Zoom. I apologize for that. And Mark Christianson, Veterans Guardian VA Claim consulting on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom Chair.

Thank you. IT and then the other testifiers is Sean Deadweiler, Jeff Jones, Paul Cockerham and Connie Jones, all in opposition. And Terry Headey, in opposition.

Anyone else that wishes to testify on SB608, if not Members? Any questions? Move on to our next Item, which is SB601 relating to law enforcement. Requires law enforcement to post notice that a warranted or warrantless search has been conducted on a property. Requires a law enforcement officer to secure any entrance used by any officer in the search.

On our testifier list, we have E Edward Aquino, Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon. Chair Elefante, Vice Chair Wakai and Members of the Committee. The Office of the Public Defender supports SB601. Just want to highlight two things. This bill clarifies language in HRS 803.37 regarding the premises which may be entered pursuant to a search warrant, and that means by which officers can gain entry to these premises.

The second reason why we are so in support of this bill is that the bill increases the transparency and accountability and execution of warranted or warrantless searches. I'll incorporate the rest of the testimony that we've submitted before the Committee at this point.

Thank you. If you can identify yourself for the record, please.

My name is Edward Aquino with the Public Defender's office.

Thank you, Mr. Aquino. Chief of Police from Maui County is John Pelleter. In opposition, from the Honolulu Police Department, Major Hunter Alu. On zoom.

Not present on zoom Chair.

Okay. And then in opposition, in support, Jacob Weinek. And in opposition, Andrew Costlyn. That completes our list of registered testifier. Anyone else in the audience that wishes to testify? Yes. Please come forward. Aloha and welcome. And if you can state your name for the record.

My name is.

You need to. You need to sit down, sir. So you speak into the microphone and you do have one minute.

My name is Glenn Murray. This. This is my story. This bill is my story, my journey and my bill. A warrantless entry and search is the greatest intrusion of our Fourth Amendment rights. A police officer. A police officer uses his. A police officer determines probable cause on a warrantless search. Whereas on a search warrant.

A judge determines probable cause. Therefore, the people. Therefore, the people require the greatest degree of transparency regarding warrantless searches. Give the people the dignity, courtesy and respect they deserve.

Thank you, Mr. Murray.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to testify on SB601? Okay. If not Members questions. We'll move on to our next bill, which is SB 871 relating to arson. In person is Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department provides comments on Senate Bill 871. Specifically, there's a lot of new sections. That were created in this bill, so. If, hopefully the testimony makes sense. But what we did was we tried to place them specifically into the RCMS section.

The way that it's written in our testimony is exactly how it would look in the HRS if the Committee decided to adopt it word for word. We would also point out that living facility is not really defined well, maybe. A definition for what they intended, meaning.

That the bill introducer wanted, as well as pointing out the potential constitutional issue on the title in regards to 708, the restitution portion. And also if that's taken out, it's already covered in restitution in 706646 as well as the additional penalties. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Mr. Aquino from Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon once again, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Deputy Public Defender Edward Akin on behalf of the Office of the Public Defender. The Office of the Public Defender opposes SB9 number 871.

And the reason for that is we believe that a lot of the language in the current Bill as it stands is vague and overbroad and there will be issues regarding constitutionality.

The other part of the issue that we, we have with this particular bill is the fact that it creates what we would argue as an illegal sentence where somebody could be placed on probation at the same time be serving a five year prison term. So there's a lot of. It's quite draconian as we described.

And you know, in addition to that, it creates an extended term sentencing scheme that will probably not, well, will likely not pass constitutional muster. So for those reasons, we are opposing bill number 871.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Aquino. And last on the register testifier list is Captain Thomas Chang from Honolulu Police Department.

Hey. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I am Captain Thomas Chang from the Criminal Investigation Division of the Honolulu Police Department. HPD supports this bill 871. We stand by written testimony. We think this bill is crucial for protecting the community and safeguarding potential victims.

It aims to discourage people from participating in activities that threaten public safety and essential resources. Stricter penalties and longer prison sentences for repeat offenders are essential to tackle the increased danger presented by those who track a record of reckless or harmful behavior. Especially what's going on with California and what happened with Maui.

We want to deter this from happening, so we support this bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Captain. That completes our list of registered testifiers or anyone else that wishes to testify in SB871, if not Members. Questions? I have a question, Captain Chang. And then also have a follow up question for the Public Defender's office.

Yes, Chair.

Yes. In your capacity, have you ever seen any incidences relating to what this bill covers in terms of arrests?

Where there are harsher penalties for repeat offenders? Well, we have something like habitual property crime offenders that I've seen a lot.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah. For Mr. Aquino. Thank you for your testimony. If we were to proposed amendments where it's sort of less restrictive instead of shall, you know, may and then up to five years additional penalty with parole, would that be something the PDs would be sort of more open to?

I don't know if we'd be more open to that Chair Elefante. The reason why is because when you look at the language, for example somebody who is looking at arson in the second and third degree and as well as what they're probationable.

But the bill as it states right now requires that the person be sentenced to an additional five years. You can't sentence somebody to five years and probation at the same time. That's against 706-624. And then when you're asking for an extended term sentencing, there's already a provision for that for extended term sentencing.

And there's already a provision for what is mandatory and what is not. When somebody's repeat offender, there's a mandatory prison term. When somebody commits a crime against the elderly and the vulnerable, there's also there's already a sentence scheme sentencing scheme for that. We believe that this is not necessary for this.

We believe the current statute as it stands and the current HRS sections relating to punishment are already adequate to answer these things. The other issue is the idea of extended sentencing.

It strikes against what we would consider it's considered under apprendi under the Federal Constitution and their state dmaungatenga in our state constitution where that needs to go to a jury and this forecloses the, you know, the jury, the jury trial process.

And it does, it does contradict the due process right of a defendant when charged with this type of offenses. So we believe that there's already a sentencing scheme as well as an extended sentencing scheme for these type of offenses. We believe that this bill is not necessary.

Thank you, Members. Any other questions? Okay, if not, thank you. Moving on to our next Bill which is SB 1130 relating to the general excise tax. This exempts the state general excise tax. The sales and gross proceeds from the sales of construction rebuilding materials for residential and commercial properties and federally declared disaster areas.

Applies only to rebuilding materials purchased between July 1st, 2025 and December 31st, 2028. First up on our list, Gary Suganuma, Director for the Department of Tax or his representative.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Winston Wong on behalf of the Dept. tax. We've sent in our written testimony, but I just want to reiterate our request that there be a third party certification for this credit. That's not unusual. There's already that certification requirement in place for other certified housing projects.

In addition to that, we also request that the effective date of this be moved to January 1, 2026. Because of the difficulties with implementing this exemption on a tight timeline. If this is approved by the time it's implemented by July 1, 2025 that's a really short timeline for us to make the system informed changes.

I'll be available for questions after.

Okay, thank. We have Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation offering comments on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Kika Bukowski.

Okay. In support as an individual. IBEW 1268. Tina Yamaki, President of Retail Merchants of Hawaii on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Katie Austin testifying for Lahaina Strong in support and Pamela Tumpap testifying for Maui Chamber of Commerce, offering comments. That completes our list of registered testifiers or anyone else in the audience or on Zoom that wishes to testify on SB 1130. Okay. If not Members questions? Yep. Senator Rhoads.

Could I have Department of Taxation up again? Is there anything in this Bill that requires that the GET, if it passed and there's no GET on these particular types of material. Do the people selling it have to pass along the savings or can they just keep the price the same and pocket the difference?

Well, they wouldn't be able to do that. If you pass on the GET visibly, then you're required by statute to pass that on to the Department of Taxation. You hold those amounts in trust.

So when you have a receipt of a sale and you see the GET tacked onto that sale and it's passed on, it's statutorily required that the vendor of the business in that case pass on exactly those amounts to the state.

If they just increase their prices and they're just eating it and they don't pass it on visibly, then they're not truly passing it on. I know it's a technicality, but that's part of the law.

So they could, they could raise a. Since they don't have to, since they wouldn't be paying GET, they wouldn't have to put anything on there for the GET, but they could just raise their prices.

Correct. I guess with this Bill, it would apply to such a small percentage of the taxpayers in this case. So they would, it would really be difficult in that case for them to raise the prices just for those of the exemption applies and then for others to, I guess keep a lower price.

They would have the same sticker price, I'm assuming when they sell those goods. But the GET would be passed on only to those who could not claim the exemption.

Oh, I see. Okay. All right, fine. Thank you. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you. You're welcome. Any other further questions? Okay. If not, thank you so much. Our final item on Our agenda is SB104 relating to corrections. This restricts the use of solitary confinement and state operated and state contracted correctional facilities with certain specified exceptions.

Requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations to develop written policies and procedures regarding solitary confinement by July 12026. Requires the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission to review certain housing placements.

Requires the Department to develop policies and procedures to review committed persons placed in solitary confinement and develop a plan for committed persons currently in solitary confinement by 4:1. 2026. Requires a report to Legislature and the and Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission effective on July 1, 2026.

First on our list is Director of Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations, Director Johnson.

Thank you, Chair Elefante, Vice Chair Wakai. Members of the Committee, I'm Tommy Johnson, the Director, Department of Corrections Rehabilitation. I will summarize my two page testimony. I did provide a copy of Our Correctional Policy Cor 1101. I would like to say we are in strong opposition to this measure.

We had several incidences where we had staff ACOs attacked, including nurses. We had one ACO recently suffered a skull fracture, another serious injury because being pushed down the steps by an inmate rushing to intervene for another inmate being assaulted. Yet another sustained facial injury when he was punched in the face by an inmate.

Several of our nurses have been injured while apparently trying to provide treatment to inmates for no apparent reason they were assaulted. I would like to state that as written. This measure does not address the guidance provided by the National Institute of Corrections or the American Correction Association, which our policy does. We update our policies routinely.

The last time we updated the policy provided to you was in 2024.

Thank you Director.

You're welcome.

McKenna Woodward, in support. In person is Chair Mark Patterson. See.

Aloha. I am not Mark Patterson, but I am Kristin Johnson, the Oversight Coordinator of the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. We stand by our written testimony, but I also just wanted to add in one brief point, point that to Director Johnson's point about keeping staff safe. We completely agree with that.

And I actually think that this bill falls in line with that because you'll Notice in section D5 it lists specific reasons, including an investigation of an alleged disciplinary offense, as to why people could use solitary. And so any of those assaults listed, they would be placed in solitary. So I just wanted to communicate that. Thank you all.

Thank you. Coordinator Johnson, Mr. Aquino from Office of Public Defenders.

Hello again, Chair Elephante, Vice Chair Wakai, Members of the Committee. While the. While the Office of the Public Defender generally opposes the use of solitary confinement for any purpose, this bill addresses some of the major concerns that are raised when solitary confinement is utilized as such.

The Office of the Public Defender supports the bill because we believe this Bill restricts the use of solitaire confinement in facilities to certain limited situations, imposes important safeguards, including procedural due process protections, and subjects the use of confinement to independent oversight. So those are the reasons why we're in support of this. Thank you.

Thank you. Pat Brady testifying for Community Alliance on Prisons.

Yes, I am. Aloha Committee, Pat Brady. We are in strong support of this measure. So many people have died in solitary by suicide. So something is very, very wrong and we need to fix that.

So there are many things that we could do that would be alternatives to solitary decarceration, increased visitation, racial diversity among the staff, positive incentives. There's no incentive in solitary. People don't have books, they don't have programs. They're basically thrown in a room and left there. That is a huge problem.

And that is a huge problem for management of a facility. This bill was written by me and Ted Sakai, who was the Director, the former Director of the Department. He wrote the PNPs, the policies and procedure.

Thank you.

In 2014, this updates that. Thank you.

We have Lois Estrich testifying for Hawaii Disability Rights Center, in support. Abby Simmons, in support. From the Testifying for Stonewall Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii. From the ACLU of Hawaii, Kerry Ann Shirota, in support. Isis Oozborn, in support. Michael O'Der, comments. Carla Allison, in support. Kathy Haynes, in support. Carolyn Eaton, in support.

Barbara Polk offering comments. Stephen Mulkent, in support. Veronica Moore, in support. Hang on, let me get through the list and then I'll call. Kathy Tilly, in support. That completes our list of individual and registered testifiers. Anyone else wishing to testify? Oh, I did. Okay. I'm sorry if I missed you.

Oh, hi, Carolyn. Hi. I especially came today.

Thank you.

Sort of the beginning of the session.

If you can bring the mic closer so we can.

I wanted to introduce myself.

Yes.

I am a Makiki resident, a staunch supporter of the Oversight Commission, and I especially want to comment about all the parts that specify involvement of the Commission and the coordinator in this bill.

So beyond writing a new policy about solitary, there are the involvement of the coordinator in reviewing the people who have been given this assignment and without going into my long testimony, I would like to say that those are especially dear to me that I want this. I would like the bill to be enacted.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. Anyone else that wishes to testify in SB104? Okay. If not Members, are you okay if we roll into decision? Okay. Members for the the first bill for SB603 relating to veterans Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments.

We're going to accept the Attorney General's recommendation by including a preamble with the following Moreover, the Legislature acknowledges the risk of misleading or unfair practices associated with services addressed in the Bill and emphasizes the necessity of its requirements and restrictions to protect veteran consumers from potential exploitation.

Insert a new section 7 after page 6, line 20 to read as follows.

In Section 7, this act shall not be applied so as to impair any contract existing of the effective date of this act in a manner voluntary of testimony of the Department of the Attorney General, which is on page three of three, either the Constitution of the State of Hawaii or Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.

The current Section 7 should be renumbered as Section 8 and on page 7, line 6, we're going to change the effective date to July 1, 2077 and any other technical amendments. Any discussion? Okay. If not Vice Chair for the vote? Chair votes Aye.

[Roll Call] Chair your recommendations adopted.

Okay, thank you. Next bill is SB608. Chairs are going to recommend that we pass with amendments.

We're going to accept the Attorney General's recommendation by including a preamble with the following Moreover, the Legislature acknowledges the risk of misleading or unfair practices associated with the services addressed in the Bill and emphasizes the necessity of its requirements and restrictions to protect veteran consumers from potential exploitation.

Include the following wording after page 4, line 20, Section 6 this act does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings that were begun before its effective date.

Section 7 this act shall not be applied so as to impair any contract existing as of the effective date of this act in a manner volatile of either the Constitution of the State of Hawaii or Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.

The current Section 6 should then be renumbered as Section 8 and then on page 5, line 2, change the effective date to July 1, 2077 and any other technical amendments. Any further discussion? If not. Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes Aye.

Noting the presence of all Members, any opposition or reservations to the Chair's recommendation be passed as.

No vote for me.

No for DeCorte. Chair your recommendations adopted.

Okay, thank you. For Our next bill, SB601 relating to law enforcement. Chair recommendation is to pass as is. Any further discussion? If not Vice Chair for the vote.

Noting the presence of all Members, any opposition or reservations to the Chair's recommendation.

We pass this measure as is. No for DeCorte. Chair your recommendation is adopted.

No vote.

Okay, thank you, Vice Chair. The next bill is SB871 relating to arson. Chair is going to recommend that we pass with amendments on page 3 under the section of additional penalties. On line 19, change shall to may. On the same page 3, line 20, add after the word years with the possibility of parole.

On page four under section Arson in the first degree. On line 16, change the word shall to may and after the word additional, add the words after the word additional, add the words five years.

On page four, same section, line 17, we're going to strike out mandatory minimum 15 year and and strike the word without to adding the words with the and then on page five, line 11, strike the word shall and change to may. On line 12, strike out the words mandatory minimum.

On line 13, strike out the word without and change to with. And then on page 7, line 15, change the effective date to July 1, 2077 and pass with technical amendments.

And further, I'd like to add that I know there are a lot of co sponsors on this and I just wanted to have further discussion noting the concerns from some of the testifiers to move along the bill as this goes to the Committee on Judiciary Next. So that's the Chair's recommendation.

Any further discussion, if not Vice Chair for the vote noting the presence of.

All Members, any opposition or reservations to the Chair's recommendation. We pass this measure with amendments. I've seen and heard none. Chair, your recommendations adopted.

Okay, thank you so much. On SB 1130 relating to the General excise tax, Chair is going to recommend a few amendments. We're going to take the Department of Taxation's recommendations on a third party issue certification and also change the effective date on the first part from July 1, 2025 to January 1, 2026 and any other technical amendments.

Any further discussion? Okay. If not Vice Chair for the vote.

Noting the presence of all Members, any opposition or reservations to the Chair's recommendation. We pass this measure with amendments. Seen and heard none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. So and then our Last measure is SB104. This is relating to corrections. The Chair is going to recommend that we pass with amendments. We're going to take the suggested language of the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission to include the following.

On page 24, line three, solitary confinement is defined as occurring when all of the following conditions are present. One, a committed person is confined in a correctional facility pursuant to disciplinary, administrative, protective, investigative, medical or other purposes. Throughout the bill, we're going to change all references to solitary confinement to restrictive housing.

On page 26, line 1, change the effective date to July 1, 2077 and any other technical amendments.

Also, I'd like to note in the Committee report will include the reference made by the Hawaii Correctional State Oversight Commission that the Department of Justice defines restrictive housing as any type of detention that involves one, removal from the General inmate population, whether voluntary or involuntary.

Two, placement in a locked room or cell, whether alone or with another inmate, and three, inability to leave the room or cell for the vast majority of the day, typically 22 hours or more. End quote. And that will be it. And any other. Yeah, I did say any other technical amendments. Any further discussion on the recommendation?

Sorry, Chair, really quick. The Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. Was that Director Johnson?

Yes.

Okay, go ahead. Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry. Direct Coordinator. Coordinator. Oh, okay. Yeah. Kristin Johnson.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm.

I'm the new kid on the block, so thanks.

Yeah, I think. Did I say that correctly? Hawaii Correctional Oversight Commission. Yeah. System Oversight Commission. Okay.

It's very long, but we.

We are taking some of their recommendations, as I just indicated.

Thank you.

Yep. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. If not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting, the presence of all Members, any opposition, or reservations to the Chair's recommendation, we pass this measure with amendments. Having seen and heard none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you so much. There being no further business, the Committee on Public Safety Military affairs is adjourned.