Senate Standing Committee on Labor and Technology

Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to our Joint Committee meeting. This is the Committee on Public Safety and Military affairs and the Committee on Labor and Technology. We just have one item on our agenda today is March 10th, Monday 3pm when we're conference room 225.

Just a few housekeeping announcement is that the hearing is also being streamed on the Hawaii State Senate's YouTube channel. In the unlikely case of technical failures, this meeting will reconvene here in Conference Room 225 on March 12th, 2025 at 3pm for all testifiers including those on Zoom, we ask that you stand on your written testimony.

If your oral testimony is different from your written testimony, the time limit for each testifier will be one minute. The content including the hearing notice, copies of the bills and testimony can be found on the Legislature's website if time permits. Decision making worker. After we hear from those offering testimony.

First on our list is House Bill 1064, House Draft 2 relating to fire protection. This effectuates the recommendations of the Phase 3 forward looking report by Fire Safety Research Institute on the August 2023 Maui wildfires and further clarifies the role of the state Fire marshal and appropriates funds. First up on our list is Director Butai.

Okay, standing on written comments. Thank you. Dylan R. Chair Don Chang. I hear offering comments the Adjutant General Stephen F. Logan. Okay, DOD stands on the testimonial. We'll go back to DLNR. I think they're online. 0 yes, Mr. Walker, if you can just state your name for the record. Sorry I missed you there.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Walker. I'm the Statewide Fire Protection Forester for DLNR Forestry and Wildlife. And. And the Department stands on its testimony providing comments and we're available for any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you. Jeff Mukalina from Climate Advisory Team in support. We have chair of the Hawaii State Fire Council, Chief Kazuo Todd or Mr. Lum. I did see Mr. Lum on Zoom.

Yes, Gary Lum testifying on behalf of the State Park Council. We stand on our testimony that was submitted and we'll be available for questions.

Okay. Your testimony is in support, is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Long. We have James Abraham, Associate General Counsel for Hawaiian Electric.

Good afternoon. Chairs, Vice Chairs, Members of the Committees. My name is James Abraham. I'm testifying on behalf of Hawaiian Electric in support of House Bill 1064. You have our written testimony that does support this Bill and we'll stand on that. Written testimony available for any questions. Okay.

Thank you so much. I do see the Chief of Staff of the Governor, Will Kane. You have some comments?

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Will Kane, Senior Advisor for Governor Green. Excuse me, Senior Advisor. Not. That's okay. Sorry, bro. No. Anyway, we'll send our testimony with comments here. So we appreciate the attention that Committee has been giving to this. And I know we have a lot of things.

We had some things that we had pointed out in our testimony that we would like to kind of revert back to as far as the original draft, the 1064, but we. I'm here for your questions, if you have any.

Thank you, Mr. King. And then we also have Danica swenson from the AG's office. In support, Chief Sheldon Howe from the Honolulu Fire Department. In support, Kaylee Lopez, state Director for aarp. And support. Leslie Dore for the Hawaii Insurance Council. In support, Kael Duarte for a commitment of schools. In support, David Arakawa from LURF offering comments.

And that completes our list of registered testifiers. Is there anyone else that wishes to testify on HB 1064? Okay. If not. Members, questions? Senator Lee. Questions. Cool. Chair. Good. Okay. If I can call Mr. Kane back up from the office of the Governor. Thank you so much. I did. You know, we do.

We do have your testimony currently in the current draft. This puts the office of the Fire Marshal back in or puts it in the Governor's office. And so you folks have concerns with that, is that correct?

We do. So constitutionally, an office can't be attached for any length of time to the governor's office or Department or any of those things. So we've had this happen in the past where these offices were attached.

And then as we're going through now, we have Office of Wellness and Resiliency and trying to maneuver now, two years later, how we can. We've proposed to move it. There was lots of discussion. So I think if we could resolve that now about where it should go and we propose to.

To place that in Department of Defense would be a lot better for the Department and for everyone involved in this process.

And in dod. That was the original version of the b ill that was submitted? That's correct. Thank you, Members. Any other questions for Mr. King? If not. Thank you. Thank you. Chair. It is Mr. Lum still on Zoom? Chair does have one question for Mr. Lum. Yes, he is present. Chair. Yes. Hi, Mr. Lum. So currently.

Now, where are we in the process of currently on existing statute with the State Fire Council selecting the Fire marshal Is that process underway or is there still waiting to get.

That's correct. The State Park Council has met numerous times in the past couple of months to move the process Forward. They have six candidates scheduled for interview on March 24th.

Okay.

Okay. So you are moving along in the process in that sense.

Correct.

Okay, thank you. Just one check, Senator DeCorte, followed by Senator Lee, Major General Logan.

Zero, wait, hang on. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Lum while we have Mr. Lum on? Just. Okay.

Vice Chair Lee. Sorry. Thanks. Thanks. Just had a question with respect to minimum defensible space as we've had it come up in discussions in the last, you know, basically since this event and what that could hypothetically look like for your average community, neighborhood person.

Can you just help us understand, I think, how people can feel like they're going to be helped in the situation, have a property and place to live in that's a little more resilient and a little better protected against some of these kinds of potential events?

Well, as long as the. Are you asking in the situation where Lahaina is rebuilt and it is built according to the current building codes in place now?

I think just insofar as, you know, through this legislation, I think the idea is to provide the authority and ability for not only the Fire Council, but others to work together and figure out what best practices should be implemented not only in rebuilt Lahaina, but just in our communities kind of in General going forward.

I think we've had a number of questions ever since this event about what people can do themselves to address the situation.

So I just wanted to dive into for a second what addressing some of these things here in the context of minimum defensible space can mean in a helpful way for communities to be able to protect against this kind of threat.

Yeah, it'd be tough for me to give you a blanket response because Hawaii, it's made of many different types of communities, urban spaces, suburban, rural. I think that would be best answered once the Office of the State Fire Marshal is implemented and they can come up with a comprehensive fire risk and management plan for the state.

Trace, let me just. I totally appreciate that.

Obviously, there's a lot of moving parts and nothing's one size fits all, but maybe you could just give us a quick what's it look like for an urban community to be a little more resilient in this way, and maybe what's it look like for a really rural area that's more of a greenfield new development or something like that?

Well, for urban space, as far as defensible space for wildfire. We don't think the urban areas, for instance, like Honolulu, is at a significant risk for wildfire, except for the areas of the wildland urban interface.

For other areas, such as rural areas, defensible spaces may include implementation of a vegetation management plan, such as is suggested In, I think, SB11 right now, for instance.

Okay, maybe we'll. We'll circle back later on in this.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Okay, while we still have Mr. Lum. Members, do you have any questions for Mr. Lum? Okay. If not, thank you. The tag. If we could have you come up a question from Senator DeCorte.

Yes, Senator, Major General, thank you very much for being here. My question is, is, do you feel that this position would be better served under the Department of Defense or under the governor's office? In the original Senate Bill, it was originally to have it be under the Department of Defense, according to the governor's testimony.

He, I would assume, feels that it would be better served under the Department of Defense. Do you have a stand on that? Our position?

I do. Thank you very much for the question. I concur with the Governor. And back around October, November timeframe, discussed it with him.

And we felt that by placing it under the Department of Defense, it puts it in a better position so it can be fully integrated into hazardous mitigation plans and also the response efforts that we have. And I'm fully prepared to accept it if in fact, this bill does go through.

Okay, very good. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Major.

Members, any other questions for the tag? Okay. If not, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Okay, Members, what I'd like to do is we're gonna defer decision making on this. Being that there still needs to be more time to work out some. Some issues.

We're gonna defer decision making until Friday, March 14th at 3pm in room 225 for the Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs.

Okay. Same recommendation. We'll be deferring decision making till Friday, same time, same place, as the Chair of Public Safety Military affairs had mentioned.

Okay. Being that this concludes our joint PSM LBT Committee hearing for adjourned.

Good afternoon. We're convening the joint committees on Transportation and Culture in the Arts and committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs on our 3:01pm agenda here in state capital conference room 225. We have several measures up on our agenda this afternoon.

We just asked folks to limit your testimony to make sure that we have time to get to everybody. So we'll be limiting you to, I think, two minutes, right? Yes, to two minutes. If you haven't submitted your written testimony, please do so so we can put that into the official record.

That said, up first is Senate Bill or, excuse me, House Bill 697 relating to transportation, which allows employees of the Department of Transportation and Department of Law Enforcement, in addition to county police departments, to perform actions reviewing recorded images produced by automated speed enforcement systems and does a few other things and testifying first is the Department of Transportation.

Hi, Good afternoon. Chair Lee, Chair Elefante, and members of the committees. This is Robin, associated with HDOT and we stand by our submitted testimony in support. And I would also like to add.

In the bill, it states that the funding would be coming out of the general revenue, but we would definitely support if the funding came out of our Highway Special Fund or the Automated Speed Enforcement.

Thank you very much. Up next is the Judiciary. Thank you. Up next is Department of Law Enforcement.

Stand on our written testimony.

Thank you. And we have testimony from one individual in support and one individual in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Please come forward.

Afternoon. Nathan Lee, ACLU of Hawaii. We just want to provide two comments. So we're just comment only here. The first concern is potential privacy violations that come from this bill, especially from having the Department of Transportation officials have the ability to review surveillance footage.

We want to note that groups like the International Association of Chiefs of Police have cautioned against automatic license plate surveillance systems. And I think this caution should be doubled when we're considering giving this responsibility to people outside of traditional law enforcement.

Increasing the number of people who have access to to this information increases the risk of privacy breaches and also the public perception that their information may not be secure.

Second, we want to note some concerns with the extent to which this bill gives the Department of Transportation influence over legal outcomes equal to that of law enforcement when reviewing and verifying traffic infractions. And we believe this inappropriately blurs the line between law enforcement and infrastructure management.

It would also likely require additional training for Department of Transportation employees. And this is the task for which they neither have a mandate or the expertise for. So in conclusion, we believe that having clarity about which arm of government is responsible for maintaining our speeding laws.

Traffic infractions is important for the public and also for efficient government Administration. So those are our comments and we happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on SB or, excuse me, HB 697? If not, are there questions? If not, judiciary. Call you up for just a sec. Just real quick, in your testimony, you noted the volume of potential cases that could come before you.

Are there any recommended steps to take in advance to try and sort that out before we open the floodgates, so to speak?

This bill would shore up the capacity for Department of Transportation and DLE to review the citations. So we would need to also shore up our capacity to receive those citations and process them, not only to receive the tickets and create cases, but also anything that comes after that.

So if anybody wanted to contest their case or their citation, it would generate additional hearings at court or processing written statements. Those are the statements that come in when somebody wants to say I have mitigating circumstances and therefore this should be dismissed. To your question, Chair.

I'm sorry, Vice Chair, we would want to work with Department of Transportation in terms of the expansion of these programs. Currently, I represent the First Circuit. So the red light camera system is already in place within the First Circuit Act 112, I believe last year expanded that to the speeding cameras.

And so we're in the process of that now. I think working closely with dot, dot, working closely with judiciary in terms of any of the expansion plans would help with that. So that's our comments. It's really to encourage DOT and DLE to work with judiciary and unit planning.

Thanks. Just following up on that. If the, if the citations being issued did not have to be recorded on a driver's abstract or for other purposes, is that a function then that would limit the scope of what judiciary would have to go through in terms of its whole process?

No, the citations would still have to come to the courts. We would still have to process them, create cases, and then if anybody wanted to contest their citations, we would still have to hold hearings.

Okay, thank you. Just to follow up to that. And that's all manually inputted, right? By court staff on gyms?

That's correct. Everything is manually inputted.

Thank you, Chair Wakai.

Since the red light camera program went into effect, you have some data on that. Can you tell me, like, like what percentage are contested out of all the red light camera tickets that have been issued?

I don't have the data on hand, but I can certainly submit that to committee. I believe we get about 2000 red light camera citations per month. So I'd have to provide some data on how many of those are contested.

Because then that would provide us guidance as to what we expect the volume of work to be for the tick, speeding tickets. Correct. And how much that would cost the judiciary to have to fill in the data entry personnel as well as the judges and clerks.

Correct. I think there are other factors to consider with the red light camera. It is running through the red light. Others would be speeding. So we don't know.

Based on that data, I believe Department of Transportation may have had some test data that I would not be qualified to speak to at this time, but we can certainly get you that information.

The gentleman before you spoke about invasion of privacy with utilizing these cameras for speeders, but you're on a public road. Right. So there. Is there an expectation that somehow governments can't look at me if I'm on a public property?

I would have to defer to Department of Transportation as to their analysis of that and what their research has been to determine whether that, you know, to answer that legal question.

Yeah. I would just think if you're the public, that's a public right of way and the government has every opportunity to see what you're doing on public property. You're not turning the cameras around and looking at someone's house with these speed cameras. Right.

So that idea of somehow there's an invasion of privacy with this entire effort, I find just kind of hard to understand. Okay, thank you. Any other questions?

I guess, to that point, ACLU. Thanks. So this program has been sort of ramped up in phases, and there's, I think, likely further expansion down the road, let's say.

But to I think the Senator's point, is the concern over privacy in general, or is there more acute concerns over who's doing the adjudication and what that information or evidence is being used for and that sort of thing.

I mean, certainly law enforcement officers can stop people. They can issue speeding tickets. I think the concern is when it's not law enforcement. And so the traditional expectations of who is stopping you or able to evaluate you change.

And I think when you're dealing with cameras, where that data is being stored and evaluated at a later time, that's a little bit different than just observing somebody driving down the highway. And so I think those are some of the concerns. Again, we'd have to do more legal research, as noted.

I do know off the top of my head that there was a. The Supreme Court of Missouri struck down a red light ordinance because for due process reasons, because it failed to distinguish between the owner of a vehicle and the driver and the information they were collecting based on the image that's being used inappropriately.

So I think that there are, you know, a slew of concerns related to identity and who is in charge of the vehicle, who is in the vehicle. But that's all that I can only say at this time.

Thank you. Any further questions. All right. If not, thank you, everyone. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 277 relating to vehicular pursuit, which establishes a vehicular pursuit policy. The law enforcement agencies. And testifying first is the Attorney General.

Good afternoon. Chairs, Vice Chair Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department provides comments on House Bill 277. House draft 2. First we just note to the court that note to the Committee that this might be premature at this time. Back in 2018, the Legislature enacted Act 220, which established the Law Enforcement Standards Board.

That board, among other things, provides programs, standards, training and certification of law enforcement agencies. In 2020, Legislature enacted Act 47, which expanded that powers and duties of the Law Enforcement Standard Board. And it allowed them to, quote, review, recommend state policies and procedures relating to law enforcement, including the use of force.

Because of that, I think allowing the Law Enforcement Standards Board to review this policy to create a comprehensive and collaborative policy that will apply to all agencies would be in the best interest at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next is the Office of Information Practices comments Department of Law Enforcement, Stand on our written comments. Thank you. Law Enforcement Standards Board. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee, Chair Elefante, Vice Chair Wakai. Members of the committees, deputy Adrian Dhakhwa, on behalf of the Law Enforcement Standards Board, we would ask the committees to defer this Bill at this time. Let the standards board give the standards board an opportunity to do its job. There are problems with the Bill as currently written right now.

I've pointed some of those out in my, in the board's testimony. At the last hearing, the comment was made that the board can only review and recommend policies that doesn't have the doesn't carry the force and effect of law.

I think with all of the shareholders at the table, we'd be coming up with something a little bit more palatable for all the agencies involved. I'd find it hard to believe that the board would pass something and the agencies while represented, would not subsequently adopt them.

So for all of those reasons, we would ask the committees to hold this Bill. Thank you. I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you. Next is Hawaii County Police Department.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chairs, Committee Members, we appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony respectfully in opposition to House Bill 277 HD 2 relating to vehicular pursuit. The Hawaii County Police Department values the sanctity of life and recognizes that motor vehicle pursuits are among the most dangerous actions an officer may undertake.

With this in mind, our own existing policy, pursuit policy already aligns with many of the elements outlined in this Bill, including guidelines for initiation, operations, termination and reporting. Rather than codifying pursuit policies through legislation, our agency believes that the appropriate avenue for establishing statewide standards is through the Law Enforcement Standards Board.

Additionally, specifying particular crimes for which pursuits are permitted is both unnecessary and potentially confusing as it could create ambiguity in critical time sensitive situations. The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, which is our credentialing authority, has a robust standard on pursuit of motor vehicles, which we adhere to.

The standard also addresses much of what the proposed Bill attempts to codify. The proposed law removes the law enforcement officer's discretion, which is an essential tool in enforcing the law and preserving peace.

Each county Police Department already has motor vehicle pursuit policies that prescribe the law enforcement officer's responsibilities, which if not followed, can subject the officer to potential criminal and civil penalties as well as as well as administrative sanctions. For these reasons, the Hawaii County Police Department respectfully opposes HP 277, HD2 and we thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you. Up next is the Honolulu Police Department. Thank you, ACLU of Hawaii.

Again, the ACLU of Hawaii. I think the testimony largely agrees that police pursuits are violent. So I'll highlight the parts of our testimony that might be relevant in support of this Bill. We want to note that many jurisdictions around the country are moving towards greater transparency and oversight when it comes to police activity and specifically pursuit.

But in Hawaii, current Department policies, as mentioned, have largely been redacted from the public, and it makes oversight from the public incredibly difficult. The standards for police use of force should be made explicitly clear to the public.

And while officers will certainly need to make decisions that the public may not always agree with, the basis for their decision making should be something that the public is aware of and can hold them accountable to. And the lack of strong and consistent policies has real life consequences.

In 2021 for Honolulu Police, officers were involved in a vehicle pursuit that injured six people, causing harms including paralysis and a coma. And HPD at that point said it would revisit and renew its pursuit policy. In January 2024, a bystander was struck by an HPD vehicle during a chase causing serious harm.

And so when we're talking about the need for change, the Law Enforcement Standards board started in 2018 and still we have no policy from them. And they're asking you to take their word for it here and now that they will do so. But has made no significant efforts to do that.

Nor is it likely to do so without prompting from the Legislature and from the people. It's difficult to expect meaningful oversight to come unbidden from the very actors on the board who are those who would be overseen. We believe the Legislature is fully within its rights and responsibilities to set forth HB 277.

And we also believe that it respects the expertise of the board by involving it while also providing necessary safeguards to public safety. So we ask that you support this Bill and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next is the policing project on Zoom.

Aloha Chairs and Committee Members. I'm Josh Parker from the Policing project. We support HB 277 because ample national and Hawaii data cited in our written testimony shows far too often pursuits that are started over Low level infractions seriously injure or kill officers and community members.

Because of the danger of pursuits, states and departments across the country have enacted laws and policies only permitting them for violent crimes and sometimes reckless or impaired driving. A working group of police chiefs and lieutenants recommended just this in the recent DOJ Police Executive Research Forum report on pursuits.

The only substantive problem with the Bill that the LESB the Standards Board, identifies in its testimony is that it may not allow pursuits for certain serious crimes because of the physical injury requirement. We agree that's absolutely an issue and one that can easily and be easily and completely fixed by the simple suggested amendments in our written testimony.

Most of the other testimony in opposition agrees statewide standards are appropriate but asserts reform should be done first by LESB and not this Legislature that gets things backwards.

The LESB only has authority to recommend Department policy changes and has neither the authority to acquire such changes nor do you establish the data collection and transparency measures in the Bill. Moreover, a dangerous vehicle pursuit is just like a serious use of force. Both are intended to further public safety but too often unnecessarily endanger lives.

This Legislature has recently and repeatedly passed legislation requiring departments statewide to adopt particular use of force standards, and it is equally appropriate for this policymaking body to require that Department statewide adopt pursuit standards especially since HB 277 already takes advantage of the LESB's expertise, tasking the board with developing a model pursuit policy consistent with the Bill and completely deferring to the board to issue rules on important subjects like pursuit intervention tools and tactics.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's all the testimony we have for HB 277. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair. As Police Chief of the Honolulu Police Department and a Member of the Law Enforcement Standards Board. Some of the testimony here is not completely accurate. We do not redact our policy as it does to pursuits. It's online and it's available. We have one of the most restrictive online pursuit policies in the Department.

It was recently updated as of August of 2024 since I came on board. So we do take - we do take it very seriously. We monitor all police pursuits when they happen, when they incur. We have a policy review board or a police pursuit review board.

In that review, we take a look at all the factors that pertain to that pursuit. We look at if any disciplinary action needs to happen, we take that action. We create different or separate investigations that may be outcropping of the pursuit if policies weren't followed properly.

And so we take this very seriously and we do everything we can to ensure the public safety at all times. Yes, there have been dangerous actions that have happened as a result of police pursuits.

But don't confuse between a legal police pursuit that an officer is doing, following the policies and something that is off and not appropriate within our Department that doesn't follow policy. That's not the same in a pursuit. And so police officers take this very carefully. And we do.

As a matter of fact, there are police pursuits that happen quite often. Many times they don't. There's no dangerous or creating a situation where there's motor vehicle collisions and people are hurt. A lot of people will stop once they get into an environment where the police are pursuing them. There are other times when they don't.

And so the officer has that full discretion as well as his supervisor has that discretion to stop that pursuit when necessary.

And so I think for those reasons that we have this most comprehensive police pursuit policy and the fact that it's on International Association of Chiefs for Police, major city chiefs, their policies, their best practices is what we've incorporated in our policy as well as perf that was mentioned online. And so we. We take care of.

Chief Summarize your time is.

I just adamantly opposed the the Bill let the Law Enforcement Standards Board and the police departments figure out the problem.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure this afternoon. If not other questions.

I have a question for Chief Logan. Hi, Chief. Thank you for your verbal testimony here. So in the Bill, it prescribes certain reasons and sort of provisions of what would basically be a vehicle pursuit. Right.

If you have reasonable suspicion to believe a person is attempting to commit or has commit the following a felony, sexual offense, assault in the first degree list is all that. And I'm sure you're aware of that. So in the Honolulu Police Department's training, do officers go over and review that.

You know, I mean, how are you to know unless you pull someone over, that someone would meet these conditions in order to do a vehicle pursuit?

If I understand your question, if we are if an officer is patrolling an area and he sees a crime happen or even a traffic violation and he attempts to pull the car over and they flee.

Part of your law, I think in number two, it suggests in the Bill it says that if I need to identify or apprehend an individual, then we can chase them. According to the to the way it's written in your page two. Number two, a vehicle pursuit is necessary to identify or apprehend a person.

That's a very generic term. Correct, and that's so in the first part, within our policy, our officers are required to know and understand what every vehicle, whatever policy is within the parameters of the Honolulu Police Department. And so that's a requirement.

And if they don't act in the nature and the content of how the policy is, then that's a violation.

But then going back to the training, each officer is trained on what would be vehicle pursuit and what you could do.

That's correct. And that doesn't also, that allows their supervisors to have in service training during days when they come to work in the morning or start their shift where they cover certain areas that they would like to reinforce those trainings.

And then they have once a year annual recall training where there are also another opportunity to make sure they're up to speed.

Last question I have chair is so is the concern coming from HPD more on how prescriptive the Bill is in terms of provisions on what would be vehicle pursuit.

Well, I think the Bill is asking to make a law that what the Law Enforcement Standards Board was designed to to do, and when it was enacted. And I'm also as the chief a Member of the Law Enforcement Standards Board.

So the preference would be to go to The Law Enforcement Standards Board rather than make it in statute.

Correct. Okay, yes. And if anybody has concern what our policy says, it's online, it's on our website and explains, there might be a per people, there might be a reason to redact something, but not in this current policy when it talks about operation.

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

Further questions I've got for the Law Enforcement Standards Board. Thanks. Yeah, similar I think to the Chair's questions in your testimony.

I think it was your testimony that had cited a couple examples where for example, had this Bill moved into law or bin law right now, an officer under the law might not be able to pursue someone like if they're kidnapped or if there's a kidnapping because there's not a clear indication of physical harm under the provision here, that sort of thing.

Right, Correct.

So I think to the point the chair brought up about the prescriptive nature of what constitutes an arguably legitimate reason to engage in a pursuit versus one that is not would seem to be like the chief issue that you guys have raised. If I'm reading your testimony right.

I don't know if that's the chief issue, but that's one of the issues. For example, there are other offenses that would not allow for pursuit, say promoting prostitution, sex trafficking and Waikiki. Those are not enumerated within that list, but other as well.

And I don't think the director can correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the data requests should probably come to the Standards Board as opposed to DLE. So little things like that I think make a big difference.

And especially if you're being force fed what this policy is as opposed to being able to craft it yourselves, I think it would go a lot, a lot farther.

Thanks. And so the way I read the Bill, there's like four components. There's what we just spoke about, which specific provisions authorize a pursuit under whatever related circumstances.

The provision that would require the consideration of potential harm should someone not be pursued versus potential harm if there is a pursuit initiated reporting requirements and ultimately the standardization of pursuit procedures across the state.

Correct.

I presume the rest of those things are not sort of the General subject of your opposition, but more kind of what we just talked about and all of that. Sure.

So the reason I bring that up is because, you know, I was here when, when we passed this in 2018 and then I was Judiciary Chair in the House at the time. Subsequent few years we tried to get the Law Enforcement Standards Board, to stand up and take action and make recommendations on a number of things.

And it was a little bit frustrating that it's taken, you know, this long to, to get here for a number of reasons. I understand the funding issues and things like that. But nevertheless, here we are.

And I think we've been since in a void where we've been trying to figure out policy on a host of different criminal justice fronts. So I raised that because the timelines for these things, I think, as some of the other testifiers had alluded to, can take ages.

Is there a in your mind, like clear, like when are we doing this and when is it available.

Absolutely. I share your concerns. Created seven years ago. We got funding in the last three. We finally hired our first administrator last year. We met last week. The board met last week regarding this issue. I'm hoping to gather the troops again next month as well. So it is under active consideration.

So is it fair to say there's going to be some sort of agreed upon policy in the next. Are we talking about months or years.

I hope so, sure. Like I said, the policies for all the respective agencies have been disseminated to all the board Members we met last week. We're meeting again hopefully in next month.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further questions. All right. If not, thank you. Let's move on to the final measure on our agenda. Thank you for everyone's patience on 277. We had been through testifiers, but if you can be quick about it, we'll add your testimony to the agent. If you just state your name for a minute.

State your name for the record.

My name is David Thomas. I'm a voter in District 17 Senate and I've been voting in Hawaii since October 2013. That's when I moved here. I'd like to know the position of the Hawaii State Police Department.

Thank you very much.

All right, moving back to...

Why isn't there a state police force in this state? Where are the state troopers on the highways, in the federal H1, H2, H3s?

Thank you very much. Moving back to the agenda, to our final measure, SCR 23, requesting Department of Transportation and Law Enforcement and Department of Law Enforcement to study the possibility of Highway Patrol and speed cameras along major freeways and highways. And testifying first on SCR 23 is the Judiciary.

Sean Costa, here on behalf of the Judiciary. We stand on our written comments.

Thank you.

Up next is the Department of Law Enforcement.

Stand on everything, sir. Thank you.

With comments. Department of Transportation. There you are.

Hi, Robin...with Department of Transportation. And we stand by our written—submitted written testimony in support.

Thank you. We have testimony from an additional three individuals in opposition. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure this afternoon? If not, are there any questions?

Question for Director Lambert. Hi, Director. So, I know this resolution, you know, asks DLE to determine possibility and study possibility of state highway force. You did mention comments. Can you elaborate comments? And if this were to pass, what would DLE study specifically?

Sure. So, basically, what we want to do is we would support it in the fact to determine whether or not a force would be necessary. I personally believe that it'd be good to have layers. Not necessarily do we want to duplicate, but definitely if there was a state force, we would work with the different chiefs.

For example, in that procedure corridor where there's a lot of racing, if perhaps there's not enough support that can be given due to other priorities, the state, if it had an enforcement unit, could fill that void.

Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? If not. All right, thanks. That's the last measure on our agenda. We're going to go into decision making on our 3:01pm agenda here, beginning with HB 697 relating to transportation.

I'd like to recommend moving forward with amendments to address the concerns from the judiciary about sheer volume of cases that could potentially come to them.

Like to raise the minimum speed limit for citations issued to a minimum of 7 mph over the speed limit, which should narrow the scope of number of folks that are going to be processed. And I'll note this measure is a work in progress. Have to go on to ways and means in judiciary.

So we'll see if we can get some better clarification on exactly on the judiciary's part, what else might be helpful. Secondly, for DOT, like to adopt their recommendation to switch the funding source from general funds to highway funds.

And then thirdly, just in light of the ACLU's discussion, we to limit the scope of the bill to the DLE but remove DOT staff so it's all law enforcement. Hopefully, we can get a good discussion going in the next set of committees. I'll note this does have a defective date on it.

So with that, are there any questions or comments? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

For the Committee on Transportation and Culture and the Arts, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments.

[roll call]

Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Okay. For the Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs, same recommendation. Any further discussion? Okay, if not Senator Wakai for the vote. Chair Votes I.

I vote yes. Senator Fukunaga.

Senator Rhoads.

I.

Senator DeCorte.

I.

I.

Chair, your recommendation is adopted. Thank you.

Thank you. The next measure is HB 277 relating to vehicular pursuit. I appreciate everyone's patience as we went through that fairly robust discussion. I would like to try and address some of the concerns here while also providing opportunity, I think, for some of that further discussion. So I'd like to recommend this goes on to the Judiciary Committee next sitting behind me.

Some of that falls into, I think that purview better than this one. So but we would like to move it forward for that for that consideration chiefly because obviously this is a conversation that's been going on for some time.

We'd like to see if we can get more information out of it, but with amendments to address the concerns that were raised.

First of all, for the Law Enforcement Standards Board and some of the other law enforcement folks, amend the proposed 139A1 such that reasonable suspicion is sorry that law enforcement can initiate a pursuit if there's reasonable suspicion that someone is attempting or has committed or is committing a crime and removing the list of qualifiers for which crimes may or may not be committed.

Secondly, adopting the recommendations from the Policing Project to replace DLE as the data analyzing agency with the Attorney General so that there's a little more of a or I should say a little less conflict of interest and hopefully more more objective approach and finally noting there's a defective day on this as it goes forward.

But appreciate everybody's considerations that we can further discussion and see if we can get some more information out of this. Chair.

Yes. So I'll be voting support. However, I do have still concerns regarding and hearing the testimony from the Law Enforcement Standards Board.

I believe that would be the better avenue to go and seeing that Honolulu Police Department already has a standard in place but understanding the context of where we are and being that you are part of that from 2018 and it does have a defective date.

So to further continue the conversation, I'll still support it, but I still do have serious concerns. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Vice Chair.

For the Committee on Transportation and Culture and the Arts. Chair's recommendation is to pass HB 277 House Draft 2 with amendments.

Chair Lee.

I.

Vice Chair will be voting I, but also with the concerns that I have and I'd like to see what the final decisions after the committees, after judiciary works on this measure and we'll see how the votes I mean how I'll feel at that time as well, but I will be voting I.

[roll call]

Measure is adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Okay. For the Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs, same recommendation. Any further discussion? If not, Senator Wakai for the vote? Chair votes I.

I vote yes.

[roll call]

Chair, your recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to the final measure, SCR 23, requesting DOT and DLE to study the possibility of Hawaii patrol and so forth. Our recommendation is to pass as is any discussion. If not Vice Chair.

The Committee on Transportation and Culture and the Arts on SCR 23 is to pass unamended.

[roll call]

Measure is adopted. Mr. Chair.

Okay. For the Committee on Public Safety and Military affairs, same recommendation to pass unamended. Any further discussion? If not, Senator Wakai for the vote? Chair votes I.

I vote yes.

[roll call]

Chair, your recommendation is adopted. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And with that, we are adjourned. Good afternoon, everyone.

We apologize for the delay. This is our 3:05 agenda. It is Monday, March 10th, 2025. This is our 3:05 agenda. We're in conference room 225. Just a few housekeeping announcements. Today is March 10th, 2025. This meeting is being streamed on the Hawaii State YouTube channel. A few housekeeping items in the unlikely case of technical failures.

This meeting will reconvene here in conference room 225 on March 12th, 2025 at 3:00pm. For testifiers, including those on Zoom, we ask that you stand on your written testimony. If your oral testimony is different from your written testimony, the time limit for each testifier will be one minute.

The content, including the hearing notice, copies of the bills, and testimony can be found on the legislature's website. If time permits, decision making will occur after we hear from those offering testimonies. First up on our list is SCR 20.

This is requesting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to comprehensively reevaluate its policies regarding in person contact visitation at correctional facilities throughout the state to best support incarcerated persons and staying connected with loved ones who can help them on their journey of rehabilitation. First up on our list is Chair Mark Patterson or Kristen Johnson. Aloha and welcome.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee. My name is Kristen Johnson. I'm the oversight coordinator with the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. We have done quite extensive reporting on. This and so we are in strong support of this resolution.

Thank you. Thank you so much. And then we have Jordan Smith in support. That completes our list of testifiers. Anyone else that wishes to testify on SCR20. If not, we'll go to our next Item, which is SCR21.

This is requesting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to make available to correctional facilities staff Members throughout the state clinical counseling services that are separate and distinct from the existing mental health resources available to inmates. First up, Chair Patterson or Coordinator Johnson. Okay. Stand on written testimony. In support. Okay. In support. Thank you.

That is all of our list of registered testifiers. Anyone else on Ser 21? If not Members questions, move on to our last Item, which is SCR26. This is requesting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Planning and designing the new Oahu Community Correctional center in Halawa to include circuit, circuit and district court facilities.

And establish a release procedure under which detainees or inmates upon release, are transported to a site other than residential communities or public spaces. First up on our list is Coordinator Johnson. Okay. Stand on written testimony support. And then we also have Rod Miley, the admin Director for the courts, testifying for the judiciary State of Hawaii in support.

That completes our list of registered testifiers. Anyone else that wants to testify on SCR 26? If. If not Members questions? Okay. If not, I'm ready to roll into decision making. Okay. For our first item for SCR20. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is any further discussion. If not, Senator Wakai for the vote.

[Roll call]

Thank you for SC. And our next one is SCR21. This is requesting Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to make available to correctional facilities staff Members throughout the state clinical counseling services that are separate and distinct from the existing mental health resources available to inmates. Recommendation is to pass as is any further discussion.

If not, Senator Wakai for the vote. Chair votes I.

I vote yes. Senator Canal. Senator Rhodes. Senator to court. Aye. Recommendations adopted.

Thank you. And our Last item is SCR26. This is requesting the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Planning and designing the new Oahu Community Correctional center in Halawa to include circuit and district court facilities. And establish a release procedure under which detainees or inmates upon release, are transported to a site other than residential communities or public spaces.

Recommendation is to pass, as is any further discussion. If not, Senator Makai for the vote.

[Roll call]

Thank you so much. That completes our agenda for today.

We're adjourned.