House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone. This is the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Wednesday, February 5th, 2:00pm. We're in Conference Room 325. My name is David Tarnas. I'm the Chair of the Committee. Vice Chair Poepoe is here. Representative Shimizu and Representative Perruso. The other Members will be here presently.

We're here for the purposes of considering numerous measures that are on the agenda. Just to let everyone know, we are planning to have the testimony on the first bill and then ask questions on those testimonies that Members have. And then we'll do decision making on the first bill only.

After that, we'll go back to the agenda and go through the rest of the agenda and do decision making on all the other bills at the end. The reason why we're doing that is because the first bill is a triple referral. The deadline for filing the triple referrals is 6pm tonight.

So I want to give our staff adequate time to prepare that standing committee report. So that's why it's going to seem a little different. So after our first bill, we'll do that. For those who are testifying today, I would request that you limit your testimony to two minutes. I will ask you to summarize at that point.

If you're testifying via Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete. The Zoom chat function is for those who have technical questions, and it communicates with our technical staff. It doesn't get to me, so only use it for technical questions only. If you're disconnected on Zoom, don't panic. Just rejoin and our technical staff here will let me know and I'll try to fit you back in to finish your testimony.

If there's a power outage here and a network failure and we have to cancel the hearing and reschedule, we'll make sure to post appropriate notice so you'll know when we're doing that. When you're testifying via Zoom, please do not use any trademarked or copyrighted images. That kicks us off of YouTube, and that's a problem.

We want the public to see what's going on here, so please help us out that way. And if you would just conduct yourself with aloha and please refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior. As I always say, it's okay to disagree. Let's just not be disagreeable.

We're here all together trying to work and do the best thing for the state. Okay. So we're going to go ahead and start with the first bill, House Bill 1324, relating to landlord tenant disputes. This measure requires the Judiciary to contract for legal services for residential tenants in actions or proceedings with their landlord under certain circumstances, and authorizes attorneys, paralegals, and law students to provide legal services to residential tenants and appropriates funds. First up, we have comments from the Attorney General via Zoom. Oh, you're in person. Even better. Thank you so much for being here.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe. My name is Deputy Attorney General Alyssa Kau. On behalf of the Department of the Attorney General, we stand on our testimony that we've submitted. Recommending a change to page five, lines 15 through 19, that amends the definition of eligible residential tenant to remove any reference to the Hawaii Public Housing Authority. We stand on our comments, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

And for those who are watching, could you explain why you want to remove the tenants from the Hawaii Public Housing Authority?

Yes, I can. So the... When the Hawaii Public Housing Authority would like to evict their tenant, they go through an administrative process. If landlords... And that administrative process is different than the process which a landlord and a tenant would normally go through, and that's in the judicial court. So because the provisions would conflict, we would recommend deleting that language.

That's great. Thank you for that explanation. That helps. Okay, thank you. Moving on. We have testimony from the Judiciary. Welcome. Please introduce yourself and proceed. Nope. Oh, that was for a different hearing, a different bill? Got it. Okay, so I refer Members to the written testimony from the Judiciary with comments. Next, we have testimony from Susan Le.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee. My name is Susan Le, and I'm providing testimony on behalf of Hawaii Appleseed in strong support of this bill to establish a right to counsel program for tenants facing eviction in Hawaii.

I just wanted to note the overwhelming success of programs similar to the one that's being recommended here in 24 jurisdictions across the state. And with overwhelming success of tenants having a likelihood of 80 to 90% of staying in their units, as opposed to areas that do not have right to counsel.

Whereas we've seen studies show that tenants who are not represented in eviction court, some, only about 1 to 5% of tenants are represented, and the outcomes are usually far worse. And it sometimes will end in sudden displacement, which really increases financial hardship and increases the cycles of having difficulty in finding housing and retaining housing. Also wanted to note that because there's very little enforcement and monitoring arms for evictions, usually the right to counsel within the legal system is really the only way to ensure that existing legal protections are upheld for tenants.

And with that, I also just wanted to provide one amendment to the bill, which is that most of these tenant landlord laws that are helping protect the from tenants from displacement are usually self help. Tenants have to be aware of their own rights and initiate their own actions along for those things. And so the suggested amendment is to include a formal notice of a legal right to counsel if this program is passed in any situations where rent is increased, eviction notice is filed, and even at the signing of a lease. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And we have testimony from four individuals in addition in support. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on House Bill 1324? Yes. Please come on up, introduce yourself and proceed.

Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on this bill. My name is Celeste Gonsalves, and I'm actually your pro se litigant who's been fighting my wrongful evictions for four years now in the Hawaii State Judicial System. And I have personally seen other people who are in this situation where they are being in court and going through an eviction process and just don't know what to do and getting bombarded by very aggressive attorneys and judges who already know the attorneys and they have some type of relationships.

I have witnessed, you know, in the Judiciary, in these courtrooms, you know, there's a lot of cases, and a lot of times they're just boom, boom, boom, going through the cases. And these tenants who are in these desperate situations where there's their livelihood and their families are in jeopardy of losing their housing and because they don't have a law degree and they don't know how to get up in front of the judge and to speak without shaking like a leaf and without being so terrified by the whole process that they oftentimes just get evicted.

And they just, they're so blindsided by the whole process. They sounded like, what just happened? I thought I had rights. Well, you do have rights, but when you're up against aggressive attorneys who, I'm sorry to say this, but sometimes do not follow the rules. And if you don't understand the rules, then you don't really know that they're not following them. So I do support this bill.

However, I do want to make a point here. When a person commits a crime and they are considered low income and they qualify, they get a real attorney. They get a public offender, public defender. I believe that's what it. I never committed crimes, so I don't know. So the person who represents them. And reading through this bill late last night, you know, I understand where the need for a law like this comes into play. I really strongly advocate for tenants. I'm not allowed to help them because I'm not an attorney.

But, you know, to say that going to allow law students and paralegals to represent you in court, I don't think that that really bridges the gap. But it is a starting point to where maybe this bill could then build on. Because really, really what is needed here is court appointed attorneys to represent them so they have an equal playing field here. So I got my cue. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here to provide your testimony.

Thank you.

And did you provide your name to our staff? Okay, perfect. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1324? If not, questions, Members? Any questions? Question, Mr. Shimizu.

I'm not sure who can answer this question, but the question I have is what kind of numbers are we talking about as far as unrepresented tenants?

Would the Attorney General representative or Appleseed representative be able to respond to that? Would you be able to respond to that? Please come on up. Respond. Thank you.

Yes. Unfortunately, I don't have very specific Hawaii stats, but on a national trend, 83% of landlords have attorney representation during an eviction court proceeding, whereas only 4% of tenants do. And then in a sample study that Hawaii Appleseed did in 2020, we saw that tenants in Hawaii were only represented 1% of the time.

That's all the data we got right this point.

Yeah. Okay. I was hoping for numbers, quantities.

Oh, I'm sorry. Quantities.

For Hawaii, if you have them. If not, we'll have to get this information.

Unfortunately, I don't, on me.

Maybe you could follow up with Representative and provide me the information as well. That'd be great.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Certainly. Thank you, Representative. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers on this first measure. We're going to go into decision making on this particular measure only at this time. We have quorum. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Yep.

So we're going to go ahead and do decision making on this first measure, House Bill 1324. My recommendation is to move this bill forward because it's an important one to help those who are not, tenants who are not currently being represented. And I would like to defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000. I'd like to make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. I would like to adopt the recommendation of the Attorney General in their testimony, as was described in testimony presented.

And then the Judiciary in their testimony also recommended an amendment, which is basically to comport with the client income limits that legal service providers commonly apply in contracts administered by the Judiciary. So that way it provides some consistency across the board for these legal service providers. So that would be my recommendation. Any questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 1324 with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote aye. [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Members, for being here for decision making. We're going to go on to the agenda where we left off on the second measure and continue. House Bill 126, relating to property forfeiture. This measure increases transparency and accountability surrounding property forfeiture.

It clarifies which property is subject to forfeiture, amends the authorized disposition of forfeited property and the proceeds thereof, and repeals language that requires the Hawaii Omnibus Criminal Forfeiture Act to be construed liberally. For this, we're first up we have testimony from the Attorney General.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Members of the Committee. My name is Gurudev Allin. I'm a Deputy Attorney General. The Department has submitted written comments on this bill. As we note in those comments, civil asset forfeiture is an important, powerful law enforcement tool.

This bill does make significant changes that address concerns about transparency, record keeping requirements, and also changes to the distribution of assets. Although the Department maintains that existing law adequately protects the rights of property owners, we do not believe that this bill negatively impacts the ability of law enforcement to use civil asset forfeiture as a law enforcement tool. And we therefore just stand on our comments. And I'm here to answer questions if you have any. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from the Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas and Members of the Committee. My name is Hayley Cheng. I'm the First Deputy for the Office of the Public Defender, and we are supportive of this measure. We submitted fairly comprehensive testimony outlining our position and the concerns that we have over civil forfeiture generally.

Our office is also supporting another bill that is out there that really restricts, and we are hoping eventually we are going to start to eliminate civil forfeiture because of the concerns, the motivation of law enforcement, the lack of transparency, and similarly to the landlord tenant issue that we were discussing.

The inability of the majority of the people subjected to this to meaningfully fight and challenge their cases once their property is forfeited. And most notably, we'd like to highlight that even though your forfeiture is maybe connected to a criminal matter, you are not entitled to a criminal attorney or any attorney for these proceedings.

So, again, recovering your property, even if you were never formally charged with or convicted of a crime, is concerning. So we are all for increased transparency. And I think the citizens and the community need to know how this process is playing out and where all of the assets are, in fact, going to. So I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Cheng. Next, we have testimony from the Honolulu Police Department. Welcome. Please introduce yourself and proceed.

Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Madam Vice Chair. My name is Lieutenant Domingo Manog of the Honolulu Police Department, Narcotics/Vice Division. On behalf of our Department, the Honolulu Police Department, we stand by our submitted written testimony relating to property forfeiture. I'd be standing by, sir.

If you could just highlight your testimony. Are you in support, are you in opposition, and if so, for what reasons?

Yeah, we stand by in oppose of House Bill 126.

Okay. So any particular reason?

Reason being is that asset forfeiture is an excellent tool for us to use to go against this illegal criminal activity, especially gambling. Yeah.

Okay.

Delaying or pretty much the changes, or the bill would delay our activities on going after these individuals. Pretty much.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, we have testimony from the Community Alliance on Prisons, Ms. Kat Brady. Welcome. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the Judiciary Committee. Kat Brady testifying for Community Alliance on Prisons in strong support of this measure. There was...

Move the microphone so it's right by you.

Sorry, short.

Just the right size.

There was an editorial at the end of last year in the Washington Post that basically said there is such a need for civil asset forfeiture that, on both the state and the federal levels, it pressures people to give up their property. And just a cursory search actually showed that the amounts of forfeiture taken are small, and the police like that because they're not often challenged. So we believe that, the editorial went on and said 37 states have already passed legislation.

So this is a bipartisan move where people are saying, no, we shouldn't be encouraging forfeiture so police departments or other departments can grow their budget. We actually think the state, the county should be paying the budgets of those departments and not on the backs of the people. So we thank you very much and hope you pass this bill.

Thank you very much. We've got testimony in support from the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii. Next, we have testimony and support from the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, Nikos Leverenz. Please proceed, Sir.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the Committee. Nikos Leverenz on behalf of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii testifying in support of this measure. When I read the bill's contents, it took me back to the time that I helped reform California's asset forfeiture law in the 2015-2016 section.

Then Attorney General Kamala Harris at the time had reports that specified by county the transactions that are contemplated in this bill. During that session, I also had the privilege of walking the halls with Brad Cates, who was the Justice Department's Asset Forfeiture Office Director from 85 to 89. And he's very clear, he's an abolitionist.

I know that this bill is a modest measure compared to prior asset forfeiture reform bills, but, you know, Hawaii still has work to do, especially in light of the very scathing audit produced by the State Auditor in 2018. Let me just read from Mr. Cates's op ed in 2014 from the Washington Post.

Asset forfeiture was conceived as a way to cut into the profit motive that fueled rapid drug trafficking by cartels and other criminal enterprises. Over time, however, the tactic has turned into an evil itself, with the corruption it engendered among government and law enforcement coming to clearly outweigh any benefits.

Eventually, more than 200 crimes beyond drugs came to be included in the forfeiture scheme. This may have been fine in theory, but in the real world, it went badly astray. Many states adopted their own forfeiture laws, creating programs with less monitoring than those at the federal level. So mahalo for introducing this bill and that the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Leverenz. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 126? And if I just may take this moment, if you have not signed up to testify, like you didn't say it on your testimony online, If you could please give your name to our staff over here so that I'm prepared so I don't have to just have you raise your hand and walk up. So please go ahead, Ms. Choon, for now and provide your name to her afterward. Please introduce yourself and proceed.

I will do that. I'm Choon James. I'm from the North Shore. I usually don't hang around here. I'm usually at the City Hall site. But I just want to share this with you because I think she is so good, and it is the US Constitution. I am all for sticking to the US Constitution. This is from one of my favorite Supreme Court Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

14th Amendment protection against excessive punitive economic sanctions secured by the clause is, to repeat, both fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty and deeply rooted in this history, this nation's history and tradition. Those fines should not be used to retaliate against political enemies or have been used as a source of revenue. So there. Hawaii, I'm sure, is a good place to where you have the balance. But I just wanted to share this with you in time for the Bill 29. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 126? If not, questions, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for HPD. So as I understand the language of this bill, HPD still has that option to pursue forfeiture. You just have to go through more clear process paperwork. Is that correct?

Yes, sir. Yeah.

So again, you're not... Is your right to do that or your option to do that is not being taken away. It's just being, I guess, enforced to enhance the transparency of that. So obviously you got to do more paperwork.

Yeah. In terms of transparency, sir. Yeah. We've been in our police report pretty much it covers the items, the amount of the items, you know, the ownership, you know, in terms of transparency. Yeah, pretty much we cover that.

So why would you oppose it then if you are able to do that and you just need to fill out the paperwork?

No, sir. Yeah. Because pretty much it would delay our ability to enforce the forfeiture law based on when we read the amendments into the bill.

Okay. Sorry, Chair, one last question. So when you delay the forfeiture, how does that affect... I'm trying to understand real life, when you're doing your job and you want to do this, but now you're saying it's delaying it. How does it work out in real life as far as the outcomes?

Pretty much with the proceeds of the forfeiture, you know, we retain some of the proceeds and that would help us pretty much to for equipments for our operations, operations wise to fund those operations and those equipments.

But it's not, it's not material like evidence then. You're not talking about evidence.

That's pretty much similar to that one, sir. Yeah.

Is it evidence based, the forfeiture?

Yes, sir. Yeah, once it's pretty much done in court or whatnot, once we get the word pretty much from, you know, the DPA and all that, when it's settled down, then we get the part of proceeds pretty much that we can get and we can use it for our operation.

So it'll affect your ability to do your job, is that what you're saying.

How should I say this? In some sort of way, sir, yeah. Because of the proceeds that we get from the asset for forfeiture, if you don't have that much funding and all, then it would affect our operations.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Representative.

Any other questions, Members? If not, let's move on. Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you, sir.

Next, we're moving on to House Bill 166 relating to the defense of state employees.

This measure requires the state to defend professionally licensed or certified state employees from civil actions or proceedings under certain circumstances, clarifies that the employee may employ their own attorney at the employee's own expense, and establishes a process for the Attorney General to transfer or withdraw representation if the Attorney General declines to defend the employee.

First up, we have testimony from the Hawaii Association for Justice. Mr. Oy, welcome.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Evan Oy, on behalf of the Hawaii Association for Justice. We just wanted to stand on our testimony in support of this measure and just wanted to make ourselves available for any questions.

I always ask for you to highlight. What are the reasons why you support this?

Well, we feel that this measure appropriately balances the protections of residents rights to recover while offering protection to our hard working, professionally licensed, certified state employees at the state level. So we feel like the measure really adequately balances it and we support it.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we have testimony and support from Randy Pereira, Hawaii State AFL, CIO or his designee.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Steve Teves for HGEA. We stand.

Which is the next testimony? We've received two testimonies, one from Hawaii State.

If we can do both of them.

Second is from HGEA. And you're going to cover both? Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Tevis, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair. We stand in strong support. As you know, this Committee heard this bill pretty much in its exact form last year, passed out. It unfortunately died in conference. This is a bill that's been three years in the making. Negotiations was with the Attorney General's Office on the language in the bill. Real quick.

This is just to clarify a 2022 law that if the Attorney General wants to withdraw and not represent a professional state employee or certified state employee, they must go to court, file that motion and then judge will have to make the final decision if the state Attorney General will represent or not.

And like I said this language was worked out with the AG last year. We just the bill is back and we ask for your support and to pass it and I'll be here for any questions. Thank you.

Check thank you Mr. Teves. And we received one more testimony in this is in opposition from an individual. Vanessa Otto Is there anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 166 if not questions Members seeing none. Thank you very much. The testifiers let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 278 relating to policing.

This measure requires county police departments and police oversight agencies to collect and report certain data regarding police stops, arrests, uses of force and complaints to the Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance Division of the Department of Attorney General. It requires the division to collect and publish incident level information and an annual report on the data collected.

First up, we have testimony from the Attorney General.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Committee Members. My name is Julie Ebato. I am the Administrator of the Crime Prevention Justice Assistance Division with the Department of the Attorney General. I will highlight a few of the comments provided in the Department's testimony. The current infrastructure in the Department does not include an electronic system or repository to interface with, receive, and process what is anticipated to be massive data sets on police stops, arrests, use of force, and complaints.

The Department, specifically the division named in the bill, collects data on offenses and arrests as part of the FBI UCR, which stands for Uniform Crime Report Program, and is transitioning to the UCR National Incidence Based Reporting System. It's called NIBRS. NIBRS can collect and provide circumstances and context for crimes. Information specific to the use of force and police stop is not a data covered under the NIBRS program. Additional resources and staffing will be required for the division to implement the mandates in this bill.

And we do oppose the section on enforcement mechanisms, which would make the county police departments ineligible to receive any state law enforcement funding or any state administered federal funding unless in compliance with the requirements under this bill. This funding restriction could have unintended negative consequences on the various state and federally funded programs. So thank you for this opportunity to provide comments.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from the Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon again. Hayley Cheng on behalf of the Public Defender's Office. We stand in support of the measure, and generally, of course, our office is always going to advocate for transparency amongst law enforcement. We are sensitive to the infrastructure and resource concern, as outlined by the Attorney Generals. And if necessary to enact something similar, if it needs to be pared down just a little bit, our focus would be on any reports of misconduct, any excessive use of force stops, things of that nature that severely impact our clients.

But generally, what we see just narratively from the Public Defender's Office, is we know there's a lot of police contacts that are not necessarily documented or reported. We don't necessarily want the police not to have the ability to do that and issue a warning without a citation or arrest, but those stops and those interactions should be documented.

Our position is that it also would protect the police if an allegation is made against them or an allegation of misconduct on their part. Documenting the incidents and the details thereof are important for the system, and I think it's something that we owe to our community members. So we will stand again on the comments that we submitted, and I will be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from the Hawaii Police Department in opposition. And we have testimony from the Honolulu Police Department. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee. I'm Brandon Nakasato. I'm a Major of the Professional Standards Office, and I'm here to stand on our testimony. Just voicing some concerns in regards to the bill. And our main concern is that our current records management system, based on the additional detailed information on some of the criteria for police stops, use of force, and whatnot, we do track some of that.

But the additional criteria that is being asked for at this time is not tracked and which would therefore put the department in a position where with the thousands of contacts that we do have, then we would have to divert additional resources just to help maintain and track this type of data. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. We have testimony in opposition from the Maui Police Department in writing. Testimony and support from the Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice in writing. Testimony from the ACLU of Hawaii. Welcome. Please introduce yourself and proceed.

Good afternoon. My name is Nathan Lee with the ACLU of Hawaii. Just want to highlight a few things from our testimony. The first is that, in 2023 or 2022, there was an executive order that basically emphasized that to have public safety, you need trust in the system. You need trust in our law enforcement officers to do so. You need transparency into how they're, how they are operating.

And so I think what's important to emphasize here is, while we agree that some changes might be made, like the Public Defenders mentioned, what's key is it is necessary to at some point invest in a system that allows people to understand what is going on when officers are interacting with the public.

And further, to have a data set that is consistent and interpretable and uniform across the different counties. And that's not the case right now. And without that, and without these kind of much needed first steps, it's going to be really hard to see how officers are interacting with the public. It's going to be hard to do serious analysis on trends statewide. And so again, the ACLU of Hawaii strongly supports this bill and believes that it's necessary to build the kind of legitimacy in our law enforcement systems. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lee. Next, we have testimony from the Policing Project at New York University School of Law. Mr. Parker, are you online? Yes. Please proceed.

Thank you, Chair Tarnas. Aloha, Chair Tarnas and Members of the Committee. I'm Josh Parker, Deputy Director of Policy at the Policing Project at NYU School of Law. My testimony in support of HB 278 draws on our work with different states across the country on enacting and implementing policing data collection laws. Data is essential for identifying the policies that further public safety and those that don't. But currently, Hawaii doesn't require its police departments to collect some of the most basic data many other states have collected for years. Take stop data.

Over 20 states, big and small, already require their police departments to collect stop data, including Alabama, Montana, and Vermont. Hawaii is not among them. Hawaii can follow the lead of a number of states that fight fully fund their data collection programs through the federal Section 1906 grant program, which awards grants of up to over $1 million annually to any state that passes a law requiring the publication of demographic data for traffic stops.

State data reporting agencies in states like Connecticut, Oregon, and Maryland use this funding to, A, hire additional full time statistical analysts, B, to pay third party vendors for data collection software and associated apps and web forms that allow officers and local agencies to report data to the state agency at no cost, and, C, to train and offer any technical assistance needed to local agencies and officers.

Other federal grants besides Section 1906 also may be available to states to fund stop data collection. The reporting burden on agencies and officers is not particularly high. As the Center for Policing Equity noted in its written testimony, Connecticut officers typically take less than a minute to submit stop data similar to what HB 278 requires.

And Oregon ran pre-implementation beta testing of its data collection program to ensure reporting was not too confusing or time consuming for officers. Hawaii can do the same. Passing HB 278 would bring necessary transparency to Hawaii without imposing a significant cost or burden. Thank you. I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Parker. Next, we have received testimony from the State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers in opposition. Testimony in support from the Center for Policing Equity, from Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, from National Police Accountability Project, and from supportive testimony from Michael Olderr and opposition from Nestor Robles.

I know that Nikos Leverenz had been with us earlier. Nikos, are you online, and do you wish to provide oral testimony on 278? Okay, he's left. Okay. So that's everyone that has submitted testimony and said they would wish to provide it. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on House Bill 278? If not, questions, Members?

I have a question, Ms. Ebato. It sounds like that there's federal funding that would be available if we were to pass a law. And are you familiar with the Section 1906 funding? I guess it's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration administer a grant program, Section 1906 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, and it was reauthorized through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in November 21. Are you familiar with the Section 1906 grants?

The Division that I oversee, the grants and planning branch primarily manages state law enforcement victim services monies as well as the federal state appropriated monies. So primarily our funding source is the US Department of Justice. Sorry, I'm not familiar. I did write down the 1906 though.

Yeah. It just seems that if we were to pass the law requiring it, we would be able to access funding that would help you pay for the cost that you would incur, and it would help the police pay for the cost they would incur and even get apps and things like that so the police could get the information easily and wouldn't take too long. Sounds like it's worked elsewhere. I just...

Yeah. In terms of federal funding, I just would like to see what it is first before I can say something we could definitely apply for and run with.

Understood. Understood. And I would... As this, I would like... I'm going to recommend to the Committee that we move this forward. But as the bill moves through the process, I think it would be great if you could check into the Section 1906 funding. If I can gather more information, I'll send it to you.

Thank you. And I'll look into it as well.

Thank you very much. And if I could ask Mr. Nakasato, same sort of thing. If we pass the bill, it sounds like we would qualify to get federal funding, if we're successful in doing so, that it could help provide you with financial support to be able to help make this possible for you. So that's my intention. Does that make sense to you?

Yes, Chair. However, just some concerns, again, is in terms of stops. Right. And the bill is asking for the basis for the stop, if somebody was searched or not, if a canine was used, and all these types of data, which would be documented in the narrative of a police report.

But to extract that data, to look through everyone, unless we do have some type of program or inputter that's gonna be as soon as the arrest comes in where they're looking through the report for all that kind of specific data. Right. We basically track use of force that we do and whatnot.

But some of the specific data that is being requested in the bill as it's written right now, is going to require additional programs or actually somebody looking through our narratives. It's not to say we're not documenting it, but it's going to be a little bit more time consuming to look at.

And it sounds like from other states that they even have apps that the police officers can use so that you've got fields that you just, you know, click on and provide the information. So it's from the experience in other states it sounds like it has not taken long for an individual officer who has made the stop and is getting the data.

Very true.

It's something that, as the bill moves forward, if the Committee agrees to do that, I would urge you to, you know, to learn more about it. And we'll provide, if I can get more information on this Section 1906 funding, I'll provide it to you as well. So if I, if you could just provide your email address to our staff here, then I can send it over to you, that'd be great.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. Any other questions, Members? If not, we'll move on. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to House Bill 301, relating to domestic abuse protective orders. This measure makes a second or subsequent conviction for violation of a domestic abuse protective order a Class C felony and increases the sentencing requirements for second or subsequent convictions. First up, we have the Office of Public Defender.

Aloha. My name is Darcia Forester. I'm a Deputy Public Defender, and I'm the Supervisor of our Family Court Division, which includes our Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Division. So I'm here in that capacity. We have submitted our written testimony. We do oppose this bill for a number of reasons.

I'll just highlight that we're concerned that of the harshness of it based on the types of clients that we service, especially for first and second offenses. I want to make it clear that our clients are not cookie cutter or a typical client is not necessarily a man who is abusing a woman.

We have many clients who have a variety of multi-systemic issues, mental health issues, housing issues. We have clients who are embroiled in a custody battle with a partner or a particularly nasty divorce where we have dueling restraining orders and they've weaponized the system to create, you know, negative impacts for other cases.

It is my desire, you know, the Committee might know that there's our three different versions of this bill floating around that I am aware of. There may be a fourth, but I know that there's been at least three because I've had to modify my testimony based on the different things that are being requested.

I'm going to be asking this body to consider deferring this and suggest that we create a working group with all of the stakeholders involved to really look at the data when it comes to first, second, and third offenses and get a better handle on how we can identify issues for the clients that fall in this category. We have parents who use restraining orders for adult children who are mentally ill as a way of controlling them, but they don't want them in jail. They want them to get mental health treatment.

I have for several years been trying to create a mental health court system for this particular category of defendant that really focuses on how we can assist to keep them out of this judicial system, out of jail, where you're going to get zero mental health, and create a way where we can better foster these populations. But I think we need more data, and I think we could benefit from a working group. And I'm more than happy to work with the stakeholders. So thank you very much. I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you very much, Ms. Forester. Next, we have testimony from Vince Legaspi, Honolulu Police Department. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Captain Vince Legaspi, the Criminal Investigation Division of the Honolulu Police Department. HPD supports House Bill 301 relating to domestic abuse protective orders. We stand by our written testimony. I'm here to answer any questions.

Sure. Do you want to highlight anything in your testimony? Now's the opportunity.

Yes, sir. It's important to recognize that a second or subsequent violation often indicates a pattern of disregard to court order and victim safety.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, we have written testimony support from the Hawaii County Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. And we have Ms. Mercado here testifying from the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Welcome. The floor is yours.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Committee Members. I'm Angie Mercado, the Executive Director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And first of all, I just want to thank the Committee for bringing this matter forward. I appreciate the Legislature is taking very seriously the implications of particularly a domestic violence protection order and the impact that it has on survivors, children of survivors, and the community and public safety at large. And I respectfully request that this Committee defer this measure, as the Supervisor at the Prosecuting Attorney. Sorry. Public Defender's Office indicates. Sorry.

It's okay. She's not taking offense.

Indicated earlier. We do have a couple of measures floating around. I note that once HB 176 has been referred to this Committee, HB 383 already has a hearing. We think that the language in those two measures can be sort of, lack of a better word, Frankenstein.

Well enough to really address the needs of the community and what survivors are looking for. And then some of the concerns that we have with the language that's currently written in here is that there's a couple of different places and where changes in minimum sentencing. But first of all, Class C felonies are actually by statute.

Minimum sentencing is delegated to the Hawaii Paroling Authority. So then we're now creating minimum sentencing under one statute, for one thing, but then all other Class C felonies are with the Hawaii Paroling Authorities. And so there isn't there another Committee that is already addressing criminal charges and sentencing.

So I think if the Legislature really wants to do something like that, perhaps that is the place to go. And then really what we're looking at and concerned about and that the other measures do address is a definition of non-abuse and abuse, domestic abuse and non-domestic abuse.

And we really recognize that as needing to be updated to recognize the severity and the complexity of coercive control that we've codified in 586-1 a couple of years ago. And those other statutes also make reference to that. So based on these concerns, we respectfully request that you defer this measure.

Thank you very much, Ms. Mercado. Next, we have testimony from Dara Carlin in support. And finally, testimony from Dyani Cantu in support. Please come on up to the podium and the floor is yours. Please proceed.

Hello. My name is Dyani Cantu. Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. In my time as a domestic violence educator, I reiterated to many folks that repeated violations by a perpetrator and blatant disregard of a temporary restraining order or order for protection is considered a form of abuse, even if not in physical, if it's not physical in nature.

We are not talking about the first conviction of a temporary restraining order or order for protection. We are talking about the second, the third, or fourth violation. A TRO is in place for survivors of abuse, whether that be physical or emotional, to deter their abuser from continuing to abuse them. Many folks in the DV field like to say that a TRO/OFP, order for protection, is just a piece of paper because it is. However, for some, that piece of paper is the only thing preventing an abuser from stalking a victim or killing them.

Domestic violence case managers and counselors do something called lethality assessments with clients. For survivors who have suffered severe physical and psychological abuse, which includes strangling, stalking, being hurt with weapons, and having their life threatened by the abuser, their case is considered lethal. Lethal cases have a higher risk of fatality.

For survivors with lethal cases, a perpetrator spending 48 hours in jail is hardly enough time for a survivor to develop and implement a thorough safety plan, especially if they have children or even pets. After reading written testimony, I understand and appreciate some folks perspective of restorative justice and support the concept overall. However, we need to address how to better keep domestic violence survivors safe first, which unfortunately the system in place needs reform and change in order to effectively do that.

Restorative justice and rehabilitation will look different for folks with petty drug offenses, and it will look different for offenders who have repeatedly abused their intimate partner or former intimate partner. Additionally, for anyone pointing out that abusers can weaponize TROs, that's a valid concern. But that's just another sign that our system needs reform and, more importantly, thorough training to truly understand domestic violence dynamics and how domestic violence professionals conduct assessments.

I will say, as a former advocate and case manager, that yes, I supported some defendants with case management services who were victims of domestic violence. But in two years, in my two years of domestic violence work, I have never worked with somebody who was convicted or arrested convicted of violating a TRO more than once. If assessing victims is a concern, then we need comprehensive training on trauma informed services and domestic violence for HPD and the courts, not leniency when an abuser is violating a TRO repeatedly.

I am usually not an advocate for carceral solutions, but right now Hawaii has few solutions for domestic violence survivors and unfortunately is far from implementing comprehensive, restorative, and rehabilitative justice for abusers. The courts do need criminal justice reform. However, in this case, we are not talking about a possession of marijuana offense or a first time TRO violation.

We are talking about repeated harassment, threats, violence against a domestic violence survivor's life and safety. Regardless of your political affiliation, domestic violence is a pervasive issue in Hawaii. Passing HB 301 won't necessarily solve the root of the issue, but will support survivors of intimate partner violence's path to safety. Mahalo for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 301? If not, questions, Members? Represent Shimizu.

I'm sorry, the last testifier. Can I get your name in?

Dyani Cantu.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Thanks. Thanks very much for coming in to testify. Any other questions? Yes, Representative Perruso.

For the Public Defender please. So on page three of your testimony, you said you discussed implementation of more intensive supervision. Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

Well, we... If you have been... Okay, so if you are pending your trial, you can be subject to something called supervised release, which could require you to do additional things for monitoring. If you have been convicted, you might be on probation, and then we could intensify supervision with additional monitoring. We can add substance abuse counseling.

We can add. Right now, it's mandatory for things like domestic violence intervention classes or anger management classes, but we can strengthen perhaps requirements for mental health assessments and mental health follow up. I just, that's the reason I wrote that in my testimony.

I just really think the support system needs to be a little stronger when it comes to the mentally ill who we work with. Not all people charged with restraining orders are mentally ill, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't benefit from some counseling, parenting, those types of things.

There's many versions of counseling that might be appropriate for a particular situation. Not all of our clients are intimate partners. Sometimes it's parent child, sometimes it's grandparent child. Child meaning adult child. Sometimes we have former partners. We just are seeing a lot more versions of relationships than the traditional system where it was a man and a woman in an intimate relationship.

Thank you. Just a quick follow up question. So with respect to the resources necessary to implement this more intensive supervision, is that something that is available to your office or to you?

It would be something that perhaps the Judiciary would be able to order. Because you see a judge, and it's the judge that orders you to comply with certain requirements, whether you're on supervised release or on some sort of probation. So they decide.

Yeah, I understand. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions, Members? If not... Oh, yes.

I guess I'm just really confused because when I hear your testimony and Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, it makes perfect sense to get more information to assess the situation more accurately. And then when I hear Ms. Dyani Cantu's testimony, it's in opposition and she has a very passionate voice. So I'm hearing two opposing voices that apparently care deeply about the situation but in contrast with each other. So I'm kind of confused as far as where it stands.

I fully respect Ms. Cantu's testimony, and actually a lot of what she had to say was true. The reality, though, is in court, when you're handling these hearings, we don't have one type of client. We have such a variety. We have clients who have dementia and are in their 70s who've been arrested because they got confused one day and they had to be arrested because they violated restraining order.

We have just this huge spectrum. So what I think might help you understand is that she, I think, is focusing on the intimate partner violence. But I'm coming from the perspective of our clientele is much broader in spectrum. So we want flexibility for the judge to say, okay, this situation is not the same as this situation versus this situation. So which is the heart of our opposition.

Thank you for the explanation. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Shimizu. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers. I appreciate you very much for coming in. Okay, let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 472, relating to digital identification. This allows for a digitized identification card to be accepted as a valid form of identification under certain conditions.

Authorizes state and county law enforcement agencies to accept a digitized identification card as proof of a person's identity. First up, we have the Department of Transportation with comments on Zoom. Not present. I would refer Members to the written testimony from DOT. Next, we have testimony in support from Jacob Wiencek. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 472? If not, there's no one to ask questions of, so we're going to move on to the next measure. House Bill 894, relating to government.

This measure prohibits state contractors, prospective state contractors, holders of procurement pre-qualification certificates, or principals of these groups from making contributions to or soliciting contributions from their employees or from subcontractors or principals of subcontractors on behalf of certain candidate committees, non-candidate committees, and political party committees. And it goes on.

This is a bill that we had referred to when we heard back on January 28, a Campaign Spending Commission Bill that prohibited state and county grantees and contractors, officers, and immediate family members from contributing to political candidates or non-candidate committees during the contract.

We deferred that measure, House Bill 371, till today so we can make a decision on it. Because I wanted to hear HB894, which is the measure before us now, which is much more comprehensive and based on the Connecticut model. So with that introduction, we have testimony from Robert Harris, the White State Ethics Commission.

Good afternoon. Aloha. Aloha, Chair. Members of the Committee, the Hawaii State Ethics Commission has not yet had an opportunity to review this bill on behalf. So as staff, we're simply offering comments as a General observation.

The Commission has expressed support generally for this concept I think would generally support the concept should this bill move forward or some form this Bill move forward specific to this measure, we do want to make observations about Section 8, which is specific to lobbyists.

Generally speaking, regulations on lobbying have on a national basis been challenged in First Amendment grounds. Typically, those pass to the extent that they're not restraining First Amendment rights, but simply requiring reporting or transparency around those interactions. This measure, however, would potentially be viewed.

As a constraint on First Amendment rights to the extent that it would constrain lobbyists for making solicitations from their clients. In this case. If this bill does move forward, we'd really love to try to understand what the policy basis or what the Committee is trying to achieve.

We'd be happy to work with you on trying to address it. We'd also sort of flag that of. The approximately 500 lobbyists, most of those. Lobbyists tend to be either owners of a business or Executive directors of a nonprofit and relatively speaking may not be appropriate for this type of restriction.

Might be something we'd want to talk about or look at whether or not you want to have some type of, for example, monetary amount of engagement by the lobbyist. Happy to answer any other questions. Appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments.

Thank you, Mr. Harris. Next, we have testimony from the State Procurement Office.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Bonnie Kahui, Administrator, State Procurement Office. The State Procurement Office supports the intent of this bill. However, we did provide several comments, the first one being that we believe that state and county contractors should be held to the same standards.

Secondly, we want to point out the administrative burden this places on agencies. If you're requiring them to report on all contractors and prospective contractors. And I provided some data for you. In FY23, there was 1,164 awards. In FY24, 2,907 awards over 50,000.

If there is an average of three offers for each solicitation, we're looking at 3,500 NAEP contractors, prospective contractors, names, and for FY23, we're looking at around 8,000. So it's a vast number that you're requiring agencies to put this on. The second comment is requiring the Procurement Policy Board to do these pre these certifications.

And I remind you that the Procurement Policy Board is only responsible for adopting rules. They are not the experts in construction or any other area. In fact, the makeup of the policy board can include construction, but it also can includes Health and Human Services, the comptroller. So this is the wrong makeup for what you're trying to achieve.

Thank you very much and available for questions.

Thank you, Ms. Kahui. Next we have testimony from the Department of Accounting and General Services. If they're not here, I would refer Members to the written testimony with comments. Next we have testimony from the campaign spending Commission.

Mr. Kam, welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Gary Kam and I'm with the Campaign Spending Commission. Hawaii Revised Statute Section 11-355 is a provision that currently bans contributions from state and county contractors.

What this bill would do would create a completely new section in the campaign finance law and add language from, I believe, Connecticut's statutes to ban contributions from state contractors and prospective state contractors, but would leave the county contractors in the existing 11-355.

So basically it would be awkward to apply a different law to state contractors and a different existing law to county contractors. And our second main concern is that this bill does not include grantees.

Back in 2023 when the Commission first submitted a bill to enhance the contractors ban, one of the main reasons for doing that is we wanted to Commission wanted to include grantees of the state and Colonies, the grants and subsidies. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from the in support from the Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus. In support, testimony from the Hawaii alliance for Progressive Action and testimony in support from Lynn Matasaw. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in House Bill 894? If not, questions. Members, I have a question for Ms. Kahakui.

Thank you very much for being here. The State Procurement office. I recognize that this was built on the Connecticut model, which is very different from Hawaii. And we're seeing what those differences are. So a lot of things don't fit.

But I wonder even if we contemplate adopting House Bill 371, we're asking for a list of state and county grantees and state and county contractors, their officers and immediate family Members. Do you have that information?

No, we don't. We would have to get that information. We do obviously have that information of the contractor himself, but nothing beyond that at the present time.

But we do put in our solicitations, at least in the state Executive branch solicitation, a clause that reference that about the campaign spending and the prohibition that they can't donate during this time period.

So you inform them of the restriction?

Yes, we do.

But if we were to adopt HB 3711 of the recommended amendment from the Campaign Spending Commission is to add provision that says each state and county agency shall report to the Commission the names of any state or county contractor or grantee, and the names of the contractors and grantees, officers and adult immediate family Members.

Then the Commission shall periodically publish the names of the state and county contractors and grantees, their officers and adult immediate immediate family Members on its website as reported by the state and county agencies. That's what the campaign spending Commission is suggesting that we include in their bill. If we adopt that.

Is that something that you think we could do?

It would take additional steps. We don't. We only collect information about the contractor himself. We don't collect information about family Members or other officers. It might be available if they send us the articles of incorporation for other, for other means. But we don't collect that now.

So you'd have to change your form so you get that data.

Right? So we're required right now to post. Executive branch is required to post all awards over $2,500. But all it requires that they post the name.

So, so we would have name of the contractor, name of the contractor.

So if this is, I guess, is it the intent to keep this information public? Because right now all awards are public. Yes, they're all public. And so we would have to redesign the awards, our awards database to include not only your contractor's name, but everyone else that you're asking to be done.

But then that would be public information. It'll be posted on our website, so it could be done. It'll just take more effort on the agency's part to collect that information from the vendors and then post it.

And in that respect, perhaps we can work with the campaign spending so that we don't have to transfer that information to them. They could get it themselves from our database.

Okay, thanks. Thanks for that information. Appreciate it. Any other questions, Members?

I have a question.

Yes, Representative Shimizu?

I'm sorry, I should have asked the question while you're up there, but can you explain what is a pre qualification certificate?

Well, that's what we don't really know. It's not defined. We're assuming that you're talking about and I did read the Connecticut law a little bit, very high level. And they asked her about your financial ability, your manpower, how long you've been in, how long you've been, your experience. So the Connecticut bill is very.

They have their own section, they have a whole pre qualification division and they only ask for five things in the state for procurements. Each division or each agency will identify what's their qualified.

And we have a form, form 21 that assists them in identifying that Whatever their qualifications are, what they're looking for, the financial ability, we ask for other kinds of financial. But then that's up for the agencies to make the determination that that person is qualified to do that job.

If I could respond, Representative Shimizu. So I drew this language from the Connecticut law. Well, it turns out Hawaii doesn't have that set up here. They don't pre qualify vendors in the same way Connecticut does. So this is one of the parts of the bill that just don't translate well to our Hawaii system.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Chair, can I ask one more question? Can I ask a question for campaign spending Commission? Excuse me. Currently, my understanding, just having been a candidate, there's just a blanket question asking a donor, do you have state contracts? And they just answer yes or no.

And I mean, that's my understanding is that that's the extent of the investigation of whether a donor has they're able to donate or they're not because they have state contracts. Would we be able to just make a blanket question similarly saying your relatives have not donated and answer it in a blanket fashion?

Is that instead of asking for specific names and, you know, which might be privacy issues, but address that concern that way, would that be sufficient in your eyes?

Well, not if the ban is applied to family. Immediate family adult immediate family Members of an officer of the contractor, because the band would apply to each adult family Member. So if you don't ask for the names, you'll find you'll.

I don't know what you're going to discover that yes, I do have family Members, so that wouldn't identify who is part of the band. So I guess you can ask for whatever information you want to, to make sure that your contributor is in compliance. But if you're just asking for, well, do you have family members?

Or maybe I misunderstood what you said. I don't know if it would help in this particular case with the wording of the bill.

Yeah, I guess it would be putting the burden on the contractor to self report that he's not having any state contracts and validating that his adult relatives also don't have any, are not doing any contributions.

So under the amendment, in my test, in the Commission's testimony on 371, we suggest, and we took this language from the Bill that's being heard right now to have the contractors grantees work with the contracting agencies and provide that information to the contracting agencies, who will then give that information to the Commission.

And we can post on our website another idea we're looking at comes from a Senate Bill that may be crossing over where we would make that information available on a password protected site.

So only if you have a password, like for example, you're a candidate or Non Candidate Committee and you want to screen the contributions, only those people would have access to the information.

Okay, so you're saying HB371 is the preference at this point? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Chair.

Certainly. Thank you. Any other questions Members? Thank you very much for your testimony. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 225 relating to squatting. This measure establishes a working group within the Department of the Attorney General to study the issue of squatting in Hawaii and provide recommendations and report to the Legislature.

First up, we have testimony from the Department of Human Services with comments. We have testimony from the Attorney General in opposition on zoom. In person, oh there you are. Better than zoom. Thank you. Please proceed.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Erin Yamashiro. I'm a deputy Attorney General. The Department of Attorney General opposes this Bill. If this Bill moves forward, we ask, we respectfully ask the Committee to consider as an alternative to a large task force which would take a considerable amount of time organizing and meeting.

Instead, we asked the Committee to consider having the Legislature Commission a report from an entity, a single entity that has the capacity already to conduct such a study and then have that entity report or submit a report to the Legislature. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next we have testimony from the statewide office on homelessness and housing solutions in support. Next we have testimony from the Hawaii Realtors. Next in support. Next we have testimony from the mortgage bankers Association of Hawaii in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 225? If not questions?

Members seeing none, we'll move on. Thank you very much. The testifiers. Next Bill House Bill 306 relating to water code penalties. This measure adds a minimum penalty and maximum penalty per violation of the state water code and makes each day that a violation exists or continues to exist a separate offense.

Establishes factors the Commission on water resource management must consider when determining the amount of the penalty and increases maximum fines in five year increments from 2030 to 2045. First up, we have testimony from the Department of land and natural resources. Welcome. Please proceed. Introduce yourself.

Aloha chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Ciara Kahahane. I'm the Deputy Director for the Commission on water resource management on behalf of the Department of Land and Natural Resources today. We support this Bill because it will support us in carrying out our duty to protect and preserve Hawaii's precious freshwater resources.

The last time that the penalty was raised, it was raised in 2004 from $1,000 to $5,000. It is time now to raise the penalty again in order to effectively deter violations of the water code. In particular, we appreciate the amendments to clarify the types of violations that constitute a penalty.

These will amend, these amendments, align this Bill with our Administration package Bill, House Bill 1142 and further increases to penalties will ensure that they continue to have a sufficient deterrent effect going forward. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much and thanks for taking the job. Glad to have you aboard. Glad to have you there. Okay, next, we have written testimony and support from Hawaii alliance for Progressive Action. We have testimony and support from Maria Yoshizu Ulupono Initiative.

Hi. Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, Mariah Yoshizu, on behalf of Ulupono Initiative. Currently, CWORM is the deputy.

The Commission on Water Resources Management.

Yes, it's a long title, so CWORM is a more fun one to say. Hey. Yes. So they can impose a maximum fine of the 5,000 per violation of the state water code. In contrast, other jurisdictions like Arizona, California and Texas can.

They have the authority to issue fines of $10,000 per day for violators for water users who violate their permitted allocations. Even within our own state, the Hawaii Department of Health can charge a maximum penalty of 60,000 per water pollution violation.

In order to protect our valued water resources, we need more effective compliance and meaningful, meaningful enforcement that this Bill can help provide. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much for your testimony. We've received testimony and support from Kauai Climate Action Coalition and testimony from. I'm looking like about 30 individuals in support. Is there anyone here or online that wishes to testify In House Bill 306? Yes, please. Mr. Lau, welcome. Please introduce yourself and proceed.

Thank you. Thank you Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair poepoe Members, Ernie Lau, Manager and Chief Engineer for the Honolulu Border Water Supply. I missed this Bill on this hearing and actually I want to say that I support this measure.

Providing important tools to the Commission is very important to keep on protecting our VI and be consistent with our state constitution. I would suggest that the dollar numbers which are currently blank in the Bill, take the dollar numbers from the Administration Bill. House Bill 1122. 1142. I stand corrected. Mahalo.

Thank you very much, sir. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 306? If not questions, Members? zero, I guess I should say we did receive late written testimony from the Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii with comments David Arakawa. Anyone else wishing to testify? If not, questions, Members? If not, thank you very much, the testifiers.

If there are no questions, then let's move on to the next Bill. Next Bill, House Bill 595 relating to recordings of law enforcement activities. This measure establishes the right of a person to record law enforcement activities and establishes a private right of action for any violation of the right to record law enforcement activities. On this measure, we have first up, the testimony from the Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon again. On behalf of the Office of the Public Defender, we do support this measure. I want to highlight a couple of things. At the last time that I appeared before a Committee on this Bill, I was asked why there was a need to codify it, if it is technically a First Amendment right.

And the reason that I provided to that Committee was that I do think it's important that we codified and create a private action more for the education of our law enforcement officers.

We have as the Office of the Public Defender who review evidence in countless of cases every year, including body worn camera footage, regularly see officers directing bystanders or witnesses to stop recording. Put your phone down. Give me your phone.

And I want to make it clear we support the provision in the Bill that does not allow for any interference with law enforcement duties. That is something that of course we support as well.

However, you can imagine as a citizen who does have a right to be doing what you're doing, if a law enforcement officer tells you to put away your phone, stop recording, most of our citizens are going to comply and it is a violation of their constitutional right. And we believe codifying it will protect that.

One of the other questions that I was asked was about the current HPDS or Police Department's use of body worn cameras. And does that not already capture what may be going on?

And I just want to clarify that while we have been supportive of the use of body worn cameras and do believe it has created more transparency, the cameras in and of themselves are activated by the officers. Oftentimes those cameras are not activated in the heat of the moment or, you know, given the situation.

And also all plain clothes officers do not wear body worn cameras. So our crew units do not wear body worn cameras. And basically any other officer who is in plain clothes is not going to wear a body camera. So those are some of the reasons that were not articulated in our written submission.

And we just do believe it is the right of our community Members to do this. And we think codifying it will hopefully impact the training that the officers receive and that they'll know that that is not something that they are able to tell the citizens when they are lawfully recording police activity. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from in support from the League of Women Voters of Hawaii. And testimony and support from the Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii. And testimony and support from Derek Carlin and Cheryl Burkhart. Anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 595 if not questions, Members seeing none. Thank you very much.

To the testifiers. Let's move on. House Bill 280 relating to the Community Outreach Court. This measure permanently establishes and appropriates funds for the Community Outreach Court as a division of the District Court of the First Circuit. First up, we have testimony from the Office of the Public Defender, thank you so much for being here.

I was very busy with you guys last week, so I'm glad to be back again. And this will be the last Bill I am appearing before you on today. I was happy to see you. Thank you. I know the Committee is very familiar with the Community Outreach Court and we have submitted our testimony in strong support.

We have seen the very positive impacts of meeting our community members where they need to be met and to clear up a lot of things that have been very burdensome on the judiciary and on law enforcement.

One of the biggest benefits of the Community Outreach Court is we meet people in the community and our office is able to clear up a lot of outstanding bench warrants and penal summons and things of that nature and get it so HPD does not have to go and arrest them for things like warrants on park closure or homeless related offenses, which is traditionally what we see for for many of our clients who are in the Community Outreach Court.

So we of course are supportive of this measure. We do appreciate the portion of the Bill that outlines positions for our office because it is necessary anytime we are adding a courtroom or a program. Our office does need the resources and the personnel to be able to staff it. So I will be available for any questions. But again, we cannot convey enough the benefits of this and we hope eventually to see it in all of the circuits statewide. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony of comments from the Attorney General on Zoom, Mr. Tom. Oh, you're here in person. Lucky us.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department provides comments on House Bill 280 House Draft 1. Department first would like to just make note of all the amazing work that the three agencies have done to this point.

I've had the blessing when I was at the prosecutor's office to be the assigned deputy since 2016 when it was unfunded through Covid through Act 55. So I can say to ensure the streamlined effectiveness and the efficiency of this courtroom, the department is just requesting that the Attorney General is removed from the definition section.

Just make note that this does not mean that the department is not actively participating, actively helping, trying to assist individuals that have cases that qualify for Outreach Court.

When we're saying to take out from page four, line four through six, the Attorney Generals, we have been working on mechanisms with the prosecutors and the public defenders when those cases do come in.

So I can say that I don't believe that any cases have slipped through the Cracks where we have cases shared by the Attorney Generals or by the prosecutors that are not allowed to come into Community Outreach Court just because it's a state initiated case.

We also are sitting at the stakeholders meetings and participating actively to ensure that everybody, whether state initiated or hpd, is still qualified for Outreach Court will be here for comments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Glad to have you here. I miss your father. Your father used to chair this Committee and I served with them before, so it's great to have you in the room, sir. Let's see. Next up is testimony from the Judiciary.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee, my name is Tina Ann Alva'a. I'm the Section Administrator for the Specialized Program Services Section, which includes the Community Outreach Court. The Judiciary stands in strong support of House Bill 280. The community outreach Court addresses the legal needs of Hawaii's vulnerable populations, including those experiencing poverty and homelessness.

Operating as a mobile court in non formal community oriented settings, it resolves non violent cases through alternative sentences like community service, while connecting participants with social services to help them regain stability. Currently, we hold court in Kakaako, Waianae Kaneohe. We started Waimanalo last year and in a few weeks we will have our first Makali Moili'ili Library hearing.

To date, we've assisted over 600 participants, cleared nearly 11,000 cases, lifted more than 7,000 driver's license stoppers, and recall over 900 bench warrants. As Chief Justice Recktenwald emphasized in the State of the Judiciary address, the judiciary must evolve to meet society's changing needs.

Committee Outreach Court exemplifies this mission by bringing justice directly to the communities where people live, ensuring that individuals have access to the legal system in a way that is accessible, equitable and responsive to their unique challenges. The Judiciary strongly supports passage of House Bill 280. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from the Department of Prosecuting Attorney. Welcome. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe. We support this Bill. We just had some added amendments. We want to make sure that the there's a distinction between the cases that come to us through HPD and the cases that may come to the Attorney General through the Department of Law Enforcement.

Thank you. If you could stick around for questions after we finish the testimony. Because if I take the recommended amendment from the Attorney General, I wonder how we deal with your recommended amendment. So if you could talk to each other. Okay. And in the meantime, let's continue and we'll take testimony from the next person.

Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction center testifying in support. Please proceed.

Yes, thank you so much. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee, Heather Lusk, I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction center and we strongly support this measure.

We have been blessed to be involved with the Community Outreach Court since the beginning because this amazing collaboration has partnered with agencies like myself, IHS and others to ensure that there's case managers, outreach, medical, legal partnerships and other services co-located with the court. Most recently we are actually the site of the Kaka'ako Community Outreach Court.

I believe in this program so so much that we support once a month having the Community Outreach Court take over our community room and again are able to provide many needed services to the folks that come into the courtroom.

In addition to providing these much needed services and helping people resolve these cases, we also are able to house people much easier when they don't have these offenses on their record. So this seems to be a win, win, win for our community, a win for the judiciary, the prosecuting attorney, public defender and ag.

And it definitely helps get people off the streets and into housing. So thank you for the opportunity to support this measure again very strongly.

Thank you very much. And finally we have written testimony and support from the Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify In House Bill 280 if not questions Members, I have a question.

The Attorney General has requested that we remove the Attorney General and a Deputy Attorney General of the Department of the Attorney General from the definition of prosecuting attorney.

So while the two of them talk to each other to figure out how we deal with that, I want to ask the public defenders if you had a chance to look at the prosecuting attorney's testimony and their amendment and whether you're okay with that or is there an issue that you want to bring up?

I believe at the last hearing it was a different representative from the prosecutor's office, but they raised a concern about wanting to not have to take on cases or representation from the Attorney General's Office. To be completely honest, we will defer to the prosecutors and the Attorney General's Office.

Our main issue is we don't want there to be barriers upon to the entry.

So I guess my concern to the AGs would be if there is somebody that's charged or has AG cases because it's a split in offices and their representation, I don't want the lack of a person who has the authority to allow someone to enter Community Outreach Court to not be able to do so because there's not an active AG and the prosecutors don't have the authority or the jurisdiction over an AG related matter.

So as long as that can be worked out and there's some sort of mechanism to allow us to wrap up, because a lot of the AGs represent DLNR matters, things that our clients in Community Outreach Court may need to have resolved.

So as long as that issue can be resolved, we don't have a concern, I guess, on how they do it. We just want to make sure it's open to everybody.

Okay.

If that helps. Yeah.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This may not be something we can solve really quickly today. I may recommend to the Committee that we defer it till tomorrow and decision making then, to give you a chance to work it out, because this, the Community Outreach Court is very important and I want this to work, but it depends on multiple agencies to coordinate.

And before making changes in here, I just want to make sure you're all on the same page. So that's my inclination, because I don't want to rush this. We could probably just defer it till tomorrow. If that's something that you think you can work it out and get me some information by tomorrow.

Does that sound like it's a possibility? And I would like the public defenders, the Attorney General, the Judiciary, and the Prosecuting Attorney just to make sure we're all okay with this. So if that's something that you're amenable to, that's what I would like.

I think I plan to recommend to the Committee we'll defer till tomorrow for decision making. You could work it out. Let me know what it is that would work for all you, and then we could recommend that tomorrow. Okay. Any other questions, Members?

Tomorrow.

We're meeting tomorrow, right? Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. If there's no more questions, we will move on. Thank you, to the testifiers. Next, we have House Bill 29 relating to the counties.

This measure authorizes counties, after adoption of an ordinance, to sell private property after all notices, orders, and appeal proceedings are exhausted, and to use those revenues to pay unpaid civil fines related to that property and requires the county to remit any amounts in excess of the unpaid civil fines to the property owner.

First up, we have testimony from the Hawaii Bankers Association, Ms. Mihoko Ito.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Mihoko Ito, on behalf of the Hawaii Bankers Association. We just had a what we hope is a friendly amendment to suggest to this measure as drafted. It seems to suggest that the counties could come up with their own power of sale procedures.

So we really feel like that should just be tied to the existing power of sale procedure in HRS Chapter 667. We did speak with the introducer also who understood and I think was amenable to that amendment. So just wanted to note that. Thank you very much.

Would it be helpful if the Judiciary and the public defender and the AG and the prosecuting attorney just meet outside for a little bit before everyone leaves just to make sure we have a chance to chat? That'd be great. I appreciate that. I appreciate your agility.

We are so nimble.

Yes, you're very nimble. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay, let's move on. We have testimony with comments from the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii. And then we have testimony in opposition from Choon. James, you're next.

Aloha. I was going to keep quoting Chief Justice Gimbard, but I think I'm going to change it a little bit and tell you, share with you some of the institutional knowledge that we have. I have been at the City hall for over 30 years and I can tell you a lot of things. Some of the information we're going to share with you is better than the Korean drama. So the first question.

Got to make it short though, you only got two minutes.

Oh, the first question is, can we trust the city and counties and not just here, but all throughout Hawaii to be the police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner? That is a lot of tyranny and that is a lot of power to be had to given away. Let me just share with you a few experiences.

I have a friend, he's now become my friend, Uncle Matthias. He has a 5,000 square foot lot and the city fined him for overgrown weeds and his fine came up to 15.3 million. And you know what?

Uncle Matthias was a Hawaiian veteran, amputated leg, had cancer and he didn't even know about it till he saw his 5,000 square foot overgrown wheat on the Star Advertiser. I have more information in my written testimony and also I have one in Hau'la which the city has used as a poster boy.

Unfortunately, this is an immigrant family who had had some violations on his farm, like containers on his farm tarps and this and that. And he was willing to work with somebody, but no one would help him.

And one of the City Council Members who was running for Governor at that time used him as her scapegoat and true all the kitchen sink and everything at him and referred him to the EPA, to the Department of Health.

James, I'll have to ask you to summarize.

Okay. So anyway, he is still trying to deal with it today. And may I just add also a simple case, an older Kupuna who had a ramp and he did not have a permit and they made him tear it down just over a little permit.

So what I'm saying is that we will all become sitting ducks and scapegoats because we don't know who they're going to prefer and who they're going to protect and who they're going to help. So I really think that you need to kill this Bill. You have so much to read and so much to do.

This Bill is one of the most earth-shattering and paradigm shift for all the islands. It really deserves so much more dialogue and so much more energizing on it. So please, I am asking you to please kill this Bill. Thank you.

Kill this Bill for now because there is way so much to talk about. We do not want the city. Thank you, Ms. James. We do not want the city to become the police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. And thank you so much. Thank you for your patience.

Appreciate your testimony.

So please just kill the Bill.

We got that message. Thank you very much, Ms. James. We have also received testimony and support from four individuals and testimony and opposition from two additional individuals. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in House Bill 29? If not questions Members seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers.

Let's move on to HB900 relating to Child Welfare Services. This establishes a working group for legal services for youth in the child welfare system within the Judiciary and appropriates funds. First up, we have testimony from Department of Human Services. Aloha.

Aloha. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Daisy Hartsfield. I'm the Social Services Division Administrator with the Department of Human Services. This is the second hearing for this Bill. Unfortunately, the department did not submit testimony when it was first heard.

And thankfully we did submit testimony this time around because we are requesting an amendment. We do support this Bill. We will defer to the judiciary, but we do offer comments and you know, we've experienced that a work group can be effective.

And we acknowledge that especially for Child Welfare Services, there are a number of stakeholders that need to be at the table so that changes can be made. And our amendment is requesting to include a representative from the Department of Human Services, Child Welfare Services, to be part of this work group.

We noticed that we were the one stakeholder that was missing and we believe that our participation in the work group will contribute quite a bit and hopefully succeed with the intent of this Bill. So thank you for the opportunity.

Sure. Thanks very much for being here. Next, we have testimony in writing from the Judiciary, Office of Wellness and Resilience, Office of the Governor. These are all in support. Testimony in support from the Hawaii Coalition for Child Protective Reform. And then we have testimony and support from the National Center for Youth Law, Dana Matsunami.

Aloha. Chair, Tarnes Vice Chair, Poepoe, Members of the Committee. My name is Dana Matsunami. I'm a child welfare attorney at the National Center for Youth Law. I live here in Hawaii and I work on issues related to child welfare in our state.

On behalf of the National Center for Youth Law, I'm testifying in support of House Bill 900 which creates a working group to explore models for legal representation for foster youth. The working group will be made up of stakeholders from across the state to ensure the representation model that is culturally responsive and effective for our unique context.

And really importantly, the working group will have youth Members who are lived experts in Hawaii's child welfare system, meaning they themselves were in foster care as children. We applaud this language and we urge the Committee to consider amending it to require that the working group be composed of at least 50% lived experts.

That's essentially how it's written now, but we just like to ensure that no matter what, at least 50% of the working group Members are lived experts to ensure a balance of power in the room. We all know that youth in Hawaii foster care can experience truly terrible and sometimes tragic outcomes. Child welfare cases determine nearly every critical aspect of a young person's life.

Where they live, who they live with, whether and how often they see their parents, siblings, extended family, and community where they go to school, whether they may participate in extracurricular activities, what medications they may or must take, what services they may or must participate in and ultimately, whether their legal relationship to their parents and their family of origin is permanently severed.

And right now, within that court process, there's no one who has the responsibility and authority to advocate for what the young person wants and needs in their case and life.

In listening sessions and community meetings over the past two years, in part through the Malama Ohana working group, young people have shared their experiences in their Hawaii child welfare case that can be summed up in this quote from one youth. How can you make decisions that change our lives forever without ever hearing from us?

Another former foster youth described foster care in Hawaii as a system of luck. Some are lucky and have an adult in their case who goes above and beyond to listen and advocate for their needs. Many are not. This Bill is a vital step forward to ensuring that no young person in Hawaii's future is left to chance.

Research has shown that appointing lawyers to youth in child welfare cases approves outcomes for the young people across nearly every metric. Compared to youth without lawyers, they're 40% more likely to leave foster care within the first six months and 45% more likely to reunify with their parents.

They also experience 30% fewer placement moves and 60% fewer unnecessary school moves. The National Center for Youth Law is in support of this Bill as a necessary step to ensuring foster youth in Hawai'I have a voice and choice in decisions about their lives. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony and support from Hawaii Children's Action Network speaks on zoom. Not on zoom. I refer Members to their written testimony and support. And we have testimony and support from six individuals, one of whom might be here. Dara Carlin? Yes. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Dara Carlin. I'm an independent domestic violence survivor advocate and I support this measure. But I'm asking like Ms. Hartsfield for an amendment and that would be for a representative from any of the state's domestic violence agencies. Agencies.

It's kind of important when we have working groups or task force going forward that there is domestic violence representation at the table. Otherwise that voice is lost for the victims, the survivors and their children. So I'm asking for that inclusion in the invited list of stakeholders. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 900? Yes. Please come on up. Introduce yourself.

Hi, I'm Andrew Park. I'm a judge in the Family Court of the First Circuit. We submitted our testimony as written only. I had a court docket and I was able to finish it sooner than I expected, so I wanted to appear. Good afternoon, Chair, Thank you, Vice Chair Poepoe.

We signed on our written testimony in support of this measure. I was going through the testimony which is a part of the public record in this Bill and I want to clarify that there was a testifier who cited a very long 297 page report that's on the website of the Administration for Children and Families.

That report does in fact have a table that seems to indicate that 50.5% of child victims in our cases receive representation or a CASA which is a court appointed special advocate.

I just want to put the Committee at ease that we understand 587A16 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes reads that the court shall appoint a guardian at litem for a child to serve throughout the proceedings. And we do in fact do that. The the table says what it says. The the testifier cited it like accurately.

But I haven't had a chance to read the whole 297 pages yet. I'm curious as to why it reflected that when we are compliant with our statutes. So I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you very much. If you have any questions, I'm here.

But thank you very much Judge for dashing over here after your docket. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 900? Not questions, Members? Not. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the last measure, House Bill 129 relating to youth fees and fines.

This measure prohibits the assessment of any fees, fines or court costs against a person who was adjudicated for an offense committed during the person's minority or against the person's parent or guardian and discharges all related debt obligations assessed before the effective date of the act.

It limits court ordered community service for a minor to no more than 72 hours and repeals certain penalties imposed on parents, guardians or other persons associated with unaccompanied children in streets and unmarried minors in dance halls. First up, we have testimony from Darcia Forester.

Hello again. Hello. This time I am testifying in my capacity as the supervisor of our Juvenile division, which is included in our Family Court division. So we are in full support of this measure.

This Bill has been around for several years and it's been modified a couple times and it is a pet project of program at Berkeley Law School. There is a national movement to remove debt for juveniles in the criminal justice systems across the country. We join in the call to remove debt for juveniles.

I just would like to specifically say that the majority of the clients that we represent at the Office of the Public Defender are living in poverty. We have clients who are homeless, solo homeless with their families and in the housing projects. We just see so many impacts of poverty on our youth. And I will like to.

I do want to acknowledge that it is very unusual for a judge to fine a child in the First Circuit. I cannot speak for the second or the other circuits or the other for our neighbor islands. It's very unusual because poverty is very real for the clients that we service.

But we are joining in the call to abolish fines and fees for youth. So thank you very much and I'm available to answer questions.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from the Department of Education with comments. Next we have testimony from the Judiciary. Welcome, sir.

Good afternoon again. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Honorable Members of the Committee, I'm Andrew Park. I'm a Family Court judge in Kapolei. I apologize again. We submitted this as written, only not knowing if I could make it. Here we stand in our testimony offering comments. This Bill's been worked on a lot in the past.

It's come through here a couple of times ago. I remember the Committee next door with at the time, Chair Mizuno did a lot of work on this. It didn't end up getting passed here. Here it is again. So there's been a lot of hard work on this. We recognize everybody's efforts and all the testimony.

And I'll stick around for any questions.

Great. Thank you very much. Next, we have testimony from the Attorney General, Mr. Tom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Sir. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy. Attorney General Mark Thom for the Department. Department just provides comments. We really do appreciate all the thoughtful. Amendments made by the prior Committee. We would just re emphasize the potential constitutional issue. But we'll be here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have testimony from Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support. Testimony from Cap Brady Community alliance on prisons in support.

Good afternoon, Committee. We really support this. We know that Hawaii generally, most of the judges don't fine and we are happy with that. All across the country, as Darcia said, there's a big movement to just get rid of fines and fees because of poverty. We definitely support this measure.

We like that the sanction would be only 72 hours of community service. Let's help our next leaders. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from ACLU Hawaii, Mr. Lee.

Good afternoon again, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, we send in our testimony. I want to underscore just two things. The first is a 2023 report from the Department of Justice that says that children should be presumed indigent, unable to pay fines and fees, and doing doing so is in the interest of justice.

And so as an update to what the national standard is. The other is the data suggests that imposition of fines and fees are not profitable for the state. So oftentimes there's greater cost in actually collecting and trying to enforce fines and fees and the revenue brought in.

And second, fines and fees are proven to be ineffective for helping youth to decreasing recidivism and also to not punishing their families. And so there have been studies that study not only fines and fees, but also fines and fees separately. So both of those two independently.

And they found consistently that as fines and fees increase or are imposed, chances of recidivism also increase. And so again, ACLU of Hawaii supports this Bill and we're here for questions as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If I could ask the conversation to move out into the hallway. Ms. Carlin, if you could move out in the hallway, that would be great to have your conversation. Thanks. Next, we have testimony support from Ekolome Nui and support testimony support from. Are they on zoom? Miller. Okay.

Next, testimony support from Aubrey Kealoha and Zoe Martinez with Naopio Waivai. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. We are a Youth Council of Ikoloma Nui. We are called Naopio Waivai, a collective dedicated to uplifting Native Hawaiian youth and ending intergenerational incarceration through culture and advocacy.

As young leaders grounded in the values of aloha, Ina and Ohana, we aim to empower justice impacted communities and transform harmful systems. My name is Aubrey Kealoha and I'm a 10th grader at Kamehameha Schools.

Aloha, my name is Zoe Martinez and I'm also a 10th grader at Kamehameha Schools.

Reduces recidivism by focusing on support, not punishment. Fees and fines hurt youth, increasing recidivism by causing debt and hopelessness. Focusing on support can break this cycle. HB129HD1 is a key step in prioritizing help over punishment.

Today we are submitting testimony and strong support of HB129HD1. Fees and fines punish families, not just youth.

KL Today we are submitting testimony and strong support of HB129HD1.

This Bill reflects Native Hawaiian values of hooponopono and Ohana. As Native Hawaiian youth, we value the principles of hooponopono to make right and Malamo Ohana caring for family. HB 129 HD1 reflects these values by shifting from punishment to restoration. Financial penalt Penalties Penalties Penalties harm youth and families. We need policies that promote healing and strength in communities.

This Bill reflects Native Hawaiian values of hooponopono and Ohana. As Native Hawaiian youth, we value the principles of hooponopono to make right and Malamo Ohana caring for family. HB129HD1 reflects these values by shifting from punishment to restoration. Financial penalties harm youth and families. We need policies that promote healing and strength in communities.

Unequal Outcomes the assessment of fees and fines leads to different outcomes for kids depending on how much money their families have. If they can afford a fine, they pay and move on with life. For those who can't, they are weighed down with debt or required to spend days, weeks or even months doing service work while wealthier individuals move on freely.

HB129HD1 is a step toward a more just system where youth are not penalized for their financial circumstances. We urge you to support HB129HD1. Mahalo for your time and opportunity to testify.

Mahalo to both of you. Thanks very much. Next we have testimony support from Opportunity for Youth Action Hawaii, testimony support from Drug Policy Forum, Hawaii and from Naomi Manuel. And we have also testimony from Debt Free Justice Hawaii, Cameron Clark on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha Mai Kako Chair Tarnas Vice Chair Poipoi and Committee Members. I'm Cameron Clark, Co-coordinator of Debt Free justice, the national campaign to eliminate Court ordered fines and fees against youth. On behalf of the Debt Free Justice Hawaii Coalition of Youth and Community Advocates, we respectfully ask for your I vote on House Bill 129HD1.

We stand on our written testimony and thank the Chair, Vice Chair and Representatives Perruso and Takayama for your sponsorship and leadership on this critical issue. This project began with and is rooted in the advocacy of Native Hawaiian researchers and community Members all committed to improving outcomes for the most impacted youth in the state.

This Bill is a culmination of engagement with the State Judiciary, Administrative Director of the Courts, Juvenile Justice Advisory Council, Office of Youth Services, Public Defenders and Prosecutors alike. The Bill is substantively identical to last year's HB2722, which passes Committee with a super majority vote.

We wish to offer only brief comments in relation to other testimony submitted to this Committee. We thank the Attorney General for their comments and engagement on this issue. The bill's title quote relating to youth fees and fines does not subject it to constitutional scrutiny.

In their testimony, the Attorney General bolds the word and as if to indicate that this subjects the Bill to scrutiny, in 2013's Villain v. Marriott Hotel Services, the Supreme Court of Hawaii validated a Bill relating to wages and tips of employees in the context of subject title requirements in Article 3, Section 14 of the Hawaii Constitution.

The Supreme Court held, quote, every enactment of the Legislature is presumptively constitutional and to nullify it on the grounds that it was enacted in violation of the subject title requirements of the State Constitution. The infraction should be plain, clear, manifest and unmistakable.

An infraction rising to this level is one in which the title tends to mislead or deceive the people of the lawmaking body as to the purpose or effect of the legislation or to conceal or obscure the same.

An infraction rising to this level was found in 2005's Talmi vs Lingle in which the Hawaii Supreme Court invalidated a Bill, quote, for an act relating to sexual assault, unquote, because of a constitutional amendment added to the Committee draft that was not reflected in the title.

The majority of states across the country, including Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana have taken action to achieve debt free justice for youth. We respectfully ask for your aye vote Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Ms. Angela Young?

Angela Melody Young, testifying in strong support. So we want to kind of raise awareness about the disproportionate effect of juvenile offenders that are low income households. And we really want to kind of ask policymakers to kind of notice the racial and wealth disparities and the disproportionate effect upon Low income demographics in Hawaii.

So if you look up the Sentencing Project, we're going to provide data points from the Sentence Project which Provides a national basic overview of this topic to help Hawaii policymakers focus their decision-making.

So this brief suggests practical steps that advocates, system leaders, and in some cases legislators can take to address disparities in diversion and the early stages of youth justice. Process arrests and the decision whether to formally process in court rather than divert delinquency cases are plagued by large and consequential racial and ethnic disparities.

Although available evidence suggests little difference in offending rates for most law breaking behaviors, black youth were arrested 2.3 times as often as white youth nationwide in 2020, while tribal youths were arrested 1.7 times as often as white white youths. So this data points should help policymakers to notice the disproportionate effect in racial disparities of people of color.

Although I could not find data for Hawaii, we can oversimplify and say this set of data points can, can. It's possible that it could correlate to Hawaii's demographics of the underlying issues of racial disparity in youth offenders. Yes. So we want to be considerate of the low income households and their inability to pay fees and fines.

So thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 129? If not questions Members represent Shimizu.

Question for the office of Public Defender. What is the current maximum work hours that can be sentenced?

It is discretionary with the judiciary, so the judge can decide. We've sometimes it might be 30 hours. I've seen 30 hours. I've seen 50 hours. It just depends on the type of offense, the child's history, their background. Their age is a factor as well.

There's a big difference between a 13 year old and a 17 year old in terms of their options like transportation. All those things are taken into consideration. There's no cap.

So when the Bill says 72 hours, is that a harsh penalty or is that a lax penalty?

That is a reasonable penalty for most of the types of offenses that we deal with in juvenile court. But it will, I think it depends on the charge, so.

Yeah, of course.

Yeah, I think it's reasonable.

Okay. Because it seems like it could be slate.

I think it depends on the charge we have in juvenile court. We deal with everything from truancy all the way to murder. So it really just depends. And there's so everything in between. So it really depends on what the charge is and why the ch child is facing the judge for what purpose.

Right. So I mean, if you go to murder, that's the maximum, the 72 hour.

Yes. But usually if you're charged with murder, you have bigger problems that you need to be thinking about than whether you're going to be doing community service. It really depends on the level. It would be very appropriate for a petty misdemeanor or a misdemeanor. I would concede that it might be slight if you're dealing with a felony.

So it really just depends.

Okay.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? Representative Garcia, thank you.

Chair for Judge Park.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you, Representative Garcia.

Yes. So question, how often. See, so you're with family court, so you do deal with minors and, and, and issuing these types of, I guess, fines or fees. How often are fines issued here in Hawaii? It was mentioned that it's rarely ever used.

And when you do, that's question one. Question two. When you do use community service hours as a sentence, do you often go over 72 hours of sentencing?

Thank you, Representative Garcia, for your question. I no longer sit on the juvenile offender docket, although I did for three years up until last year. It is not common for judges here in the First Circuit.

I was, as was indicated, nor is it common for the other judges that I've spoken to across the family courts in other circuits to impose fines on youth unless it is mandatory, for example, driving without license. The statute requires that we impose either a fine or that they lose the ability to drive until they turn 18.

I would give them the choice because if they are 17 and they're working and they're hoping to support their family, they might need that driver's license and otherwise they can't keep their job. And then they would choose the fine and I would give them the fine.

Outside of circumstances like that, it would be a rare occurrence for, for me or the other judges that I've spoken with to impose a fine in terms of community service work.

Like Ms. Forrester said, the dispositional options for family court judges are kind of wide and varied, taking into consideration that each child is different and has different circumstances.

Once you're getting to the point where you're looking at something like 72 hours or 100 hours or whatever of community service, it is possible that community service is not actually the appropriate disposition for that child. And there might be something more intense like they may be in need of treatment or services.

They may be in need of some amount of time in terms of incarceration or something like that. And then obviously, as Ms. Fleister said, we have a wide range. It maxes out at, you know, the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility as an option for children who are a danger to themselves in the community. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions, members? If not, thank you very much to all the testifiers today. We're going to go now to decision making. Back to the top of the agenda, House Bill 1324 relating, huh? Yes. House Bill 1324. We had done decision making on at the very beginning of the agenda.

So for the public who joined us after that, we've already made the decision on that moved it out with the house draft 1 on House Bill 126 relating to property forfeiture. I recommend that we move this out with the house draft one defect, the effective date to July 1, 3000. That's the only change I recommend. Questions or concerns?

Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 126 with amendments.

[roll call]

The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 166. I recommend we defect the effective date to July 1, 3000 and pass it along to finance. So my recommendation is pass it with amendments. Questions or concerns. Members, if not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 166 with amendments noting the absence of Representative Cochran. Are there any noes or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next measure, House Bill 278. I recommend that we move this out with a house draft one defect the date July 1, 3000. I would like to adopt the Attorney General's recommendations. On page 13, line 12 to 15, we'll delete the words. Quote.

In order for a county police department or police oversight agency to be eligible to receive any state law enforcement funding or any state administer federal grant, end quote. I also. So section 52D enforcement mechanisms will state.

The county chief of police shall certify annually in writing to the division that the agency complied with all of the requirements set forth in this part in the previous calendar year. I would like to adopt the amendments recommended by the New York University Policing Project, Section 52D, subparagraph B, subparagraph 17.

Add the words for vehicle stops before the word whether the officer ordered any person to exit a vehicle. That's to require data reporting for both vehicle stops and stops of pedestrians. That's in section two of the bill. Page eight, lines four to five.

I would like to amend on page seven, line 19, change the word conducted energy device to electric gun, because that's defined already.

And then on page 8, lines 11 and page 10, line 13, make it clear that if the encounter occurs at or near a specified residential address, officers shall include either the nearest cross street or a block number in order to avoid revealing the identity of the person whom use of force was directed or the person who filed the complaint.

That's on page five, line 15 to 19. And finally page 12, lines 12 to 13 and 15 to 16 make it clear that the personal identifying information should not be reported for persons stopped whom use of force was directed against and who submitted the complaint or the complainant. We would make technical amendments as well.

And I want to note in the Standing Committee Report the reference to the funding source, which is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Grant Program under Section 1906 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act as a possible source of funding. Those are my recommendations. Questions or concerns, members? Represent Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I recognize the intent, the good intent of this bill and also recognize the burden it might place on HPD. So I will be voting with reservations.

Thank you. Understood. Any other questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 278 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Noting with reservations from Representative Shimizu. Are there any no's or additional reservations? Okay. No vote for Representative Garcia. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. The next Measure, House Bill 301. I'd like to take the recommendation of the. Of the public defenders and we'll defer this measure. And I would like to encourage the introducer of this and the other bills to work with you to come up with some sort of working group as you suggest.

So we'll follow up with you on that. So I'm proposing to defer House Bill 301. Questions or concerns, members? Thank you. Next up, House Bill 472 relating to digital identification. You know, I never knew this was a thing. A mobile driver's license. Apparently if you have an iPhone, you can get one.

If you have an Android, you can't get it yet. Apparently they're talking to Google and Android to try to make that happen. I think this is something that it's. I'd like to move this forward.

There's still some questions about how this would work, but I would like to move this forward with an HD1, house draft one, just by making technical amendments and defecting the date to July 1, 3000.

And I'm sure going to try to learn more about this and I would encourage others, maybe our caucus leader would know more about it, being a techno guy, but I don't know much about it. So. House Bill 472, I recommend we move it forward with an HD1, defect the effective date to July 1, 3000 and make technical amendments.

Questions or concerns, members. If not Vice. Oh yes, represent Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I. I have some uncertainties about this bill and making it codified. So I'm going to be voting no.

Okay.

Thank you. Other questions or concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 472 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused, noting the no vote of Representative Shimizu. Are there any additional no's or reservations? Okay. No vote for Representative Garcia. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 894. I appreciate everyone taking a look at this bill and trying to understand it. It is a bill modeled on the Connecticut Program which prohibits state contractors and their immediate family members from making donations to political candidates.

It's clear that this is not something that could be transplanted directly to Hawaii for a number of reasons, but I think it was useful as a conversation on how to address this issue. I'm recommending to the committee that we defer HB 894.

And instead when we come to it, I'll recommend we move out House Bill 371, which is later in the agenda. And I'll describe that then. Questions or concerns, members? Not. Thank you. Moving on to House Bill 225 relating to squatting. Establishing a working group.

I recommend that we take the recommendation of the Attorney General and defer this measure. And I will encourage the introducer to write a House Concurrent Resolution asking the Legislative Reference Bureau to do a study then that would be more efficient than setting up a working group in the AG's office under this bill. Questions or concerns, members?

If not, thank you. Moving on to House Bill 306. On this measure, I would like to move this out with amendments. So it would be a house draft two. We'd make some technical amendments. And I would like to include in the Standing Committee Report the language that, you know.

I would like to include in the Standing Committee Report the recommendation made by the Department of Land and Natural Resources in their testimony recommending a fine of at least $25,000. And. And then I want to include the language from House Bill 1142 relating to the continued increases in penalties and what I'd like to.

Basically, the language that I would like to include said the fine shall be no less than $50 and shall not exceed $25,000 per violation. So let me just make it clear.

In the Standing Committee Report, I want to include the words that the Finance Committee should consider that the fine in this bill shall be no less than $50 and shall not exceed $25,000 per violation. And the maximum fine per violation pursuant to subsection B shall increase to $30,000 beginning January 1, 2030. $40,000 beginning January 1, 2035.

$55,000 beginning January 1, 2040 and $75,000 beginning January 1, 2045. And these were drawn from House Bill 1142, which is the administration's Bill on this matter. I think it's time that we do this and it's been a long time since these changes were made. In addition, we would make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

Okay. That's my recommendation. Questions or concerns members?

Comments?

Comments. Please.

I think the amendment is good and it's addressing some of the questions that were raised in Waterline. So I appreciate the work that was done on it.

Sure. You can. You can thank Vice Chair.

Thank you.

Any other questions or concerns? If not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 306 HD1 with amendments noting Representative Cochran as excused. Are there any no's or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to House Bill 595. I recommend we move this out with technical amendments only. Questions or concerns, members? If not Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on House Bill 595 HD1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any no's or reservations?

With reservations.

Reservations for Rep. Shimizu. Okay. Hearing no others. Recommendation adopted.

Thank you. House Bill 280 relating to community outreach courts. I think the plan is to defer. Oh wow. You are good. So what I. Members, what I've asked is that I asked the prosecuting attorney, the Attorney General, the judiciary and the public defenders to work out their differences and come up with an agreement.

And they've done that in the short time period they've been given. If you could tell us what that is.

Certainly. Thank you. If I could just refer to our testimony, our written testimony.

So this is the prosecuting attorney's testimony that you have before you. Please go ahead.

Thank you. If we could delete in section B our suggestion and. Or the Department of the Attorney General. So delete that right there and end it at prosecuting attorney.

Okay.

Return the page for subsection D. Take out. Oh, that's us. To leave that there. Take out subsection E and F amendments. Just delete those. And then on the last page. That last sentence wasn't intended to be there. It's supposed to be a sentence below it. The some versions of this might be useful to determine the future out.

If we can just take that out and keep that the rest of it.

The sum appropriated shall be expended by the judiciary for the purposes of this act.

Yeah. The judiciary may enter into governmental agreement or memorandum of understanding with the da da da da da. That very last sentence. Take that out that was a mistake. The sum version of this might be useful to determine future allocation of the funds.

Oh, I see. Oh, the very last sentence. The very last sentence. Proposed amendment that would be taken out.

Yeah. Okay.

Okay. And then would we still. So we don't need to do what the Attorney General. They're removing Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General. That's right.

Yes. We still need to remove that from the definition.

Okay. So. And everyone else has agreed to that. So I will, I will explain it again to the committee so we know. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

So my recommendation is to include the first Attorney General amendment from their testimony which removes quote, removes the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General and Department of the Attorney General from the definition of prosecuting attorney on page four, lines four to six. So we're removing that.

We are going to adopt as well the prosecuting attorney's recommended amendments with a slight modification, their first amendment on page one. We would take it all the way up to the prosecuting attorney and make that a period. We would not adopt the words and or Department of the Attorney General. We would adopt paragraph B in full.

We would not adopt paragraph E or F. And then we would adopt the final recommended paragraph but end it at community outreach court, end quote. And not include some version of this might be useful to determine future allocation of funds. Those and let's see. We also need to make technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

And I did receive prior concurrence from the previous committee chair to make these changes. Okay. That's my recommendation. Questions or concerns members? Thank you for the vote. Vice Chair.

Voting on House Bill 280 HD1 with amendments. Representative Cochran is excused. Are there any no's or reservations? Hearing none. Recommendation is adopted.