House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Wednesday, February 19, 2025 here in conference room 325. Welcome, everyone. Thanks very much for being here. I welcome Members of the Committee and the others who aren't here are probably watching on TV.

So when you testify, I'd love for you to come up to the lectern so that the camera can get you and the mics can hear you so that people who are watching on YouTube can hear you and see you. That's always beneficial for those who are testifying on Zoom. Please make sure that you turn your camera off.

You keep your camera off and mute your microphone until it's time for you to testify. And then after you're finished testifying, then turn everything off again.

I would request everyone, if you could, to keep your testimony to about two minutes, and I'll ask you to summarize at that point and stick around after the Bill testimony is complete so that we can have an opportunity to ask you questions.

If you're testifying via Zoom, please don't use any copyrighted images or trademarked images behind you because it kicks us off of YouTube and we don't want that to happen. If you have any technical issues on Zoom, you can use the chat function to communicate with our excellent IT staff here, and they can help you out.

But don't send me any messages because I don't get them. And if you would, please conduct yourself with aloha and no, don't get all Hoo Hoo about things. We're just going to listen to each other. With respect, it's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable.

We're all in this together here to try to do the best things for the State of Hawaii. Okay, let's go ahead and get started here. First up on the agenda is House Bill 150 relating to firearms.

This measure prohibits a person from lending a firearm to a person who does not have a firearm permit or does not have a registered firearm and it goes on but, that's in general what this is about. First up, we have testimony from the Department of Law Enforcement in support.

Next, we have testimony from the Honolulu Police Department on Zoom. Carlene Lau, please proceed. If you would turn on your camera and unmute yourself, we'd love to hear from the Honolulu Police Department. Maybe we'll come back. Oh, there we are.

Hi.

Oh, hello. Welcome. Please proceed.

Hi. Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Major Carlene Lau of the Honolulu Police Department. I'm in charge of the Records and Identification Division. We submitted written testimony in support of this Bill with some concerns. We stand on our written testimony and I am available for any questions.

Thanks. I usually ask people to summarize their testimony and highlight it, if I could. Your last sentence is a strong one. Finally, although the HPD agrees that the borrowing of a firearm should be for a limited time frame, it would be very challenging to enforce. Do you want to just tell me what that means?

So what that means is that it would. So the borrowing of a firearm. So, like, say, the person lending it would be for a certain time frame and then the person taking the firearm agrees to that time frame but says. Goes over that time frame like HPD would and the person lending it says, oh, that's okay.

There's no problem. There would be very. There would be a lot of difficulty in reporting it and then, like, evidence in trying to prosecute, something like that. So the enforcement side of, like, the time frame of the lending is a little difficult unless you have cooperation.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate that explanation. Thank you very much. If you could stick around for questions, if any Members have them. We'll have those questions right after we complete the testimony on this measure. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next person who said they want to testify is Jerry Yuen. Welcome, Mr. Yuen. Please proceed.

Hello, I'm Jerry Yuen from the Pua Loa Rifle and Pistol Club. I strongly oppose this Bill. First off, as a sportsman, if I were to lend my rifle to hunter friends, it'd be a lot of times hard if I had to demand to see a permit to acquire.

Every time people coming from out of state, they don't need that permit to acquire. Being a service Member in my past life and the President of my club where we do competitions, I've met people from all over the country and the world. I invite them to come shoot in my club. If the Marines let them, I will.

They can't bring their guns unless they're registered here in Hawaii and with the Marine Corps. So I have to lend them guns if they want to compete. That would make me a criminal for doing something like this. So as a competitor and as a sportsman, hunter. Also the term lending guns.

Let's say I go on a trip to the mainland, leave my spouse at home. I take two of my guns with me to compete. The other 18 guns are at home. So my wife doesn't have a permit to acquire. She's not registered to those guns.

Is it fair to say that she becomes a criminal for being in the same vicinity with my guns in the safe at home, which he has access to in case of emergencies. Do I have my two minutes or.

Yeah, go ahead and summarize. You can wrap up.

Okay. Third, as a citizen, this is just unconstitutional. So we do have the right to keep and bear arms. Second Amendment has been, you know, fully examined, and we do have that right. And even President Trump came out, and he's going to protect it best he can.

Thank you very much, Mr. Yuen. And I appreciate you want to be a nice guy and be able to lend your firearm to visitors I may appreciate that for competition and such. Okay, let's move on. The next person that said they wish to testify is Margaret Mejia. Not present on Zoom. Nope, not present on Zoom either.

Okay, next person that said they want to testify is Michael Rice on zoom. Please proceed, Mr. Rice.

One moment. All right, as I stated in my written testimony, this Bill is actually a catch 22 and is a De facto ban on the lending of firearms. Under current law, it's illegal to show your registration to paperwork to anyone other than HPD, so or to the proper police authorities. Even the gunsmiths don't see your permit.

Permit, sorry, registration permits to acquire are usually confiscated by the police once they're expired. Like my handgun permits. I need to turn those in to get my registration. My even the hat the, even the rifle. I'm sorry, long gun permit to acquire. What if I show back up at HPD and it's expired?

They give me that and they destroy it. So they don't let you keep your permits. And as I said, it's illegal to show your registration to anyone other than the police.

So, like I said, this is catch 22, and it would also incriminate yourself because pretty much any crime involving a firearm gets elevated to a felony because of recent laws. This also negatively affects gunsmiths as well as gun stores.

Like, if I need to have my gun looked at, they need to get it done within 24 hours in the 12 hours and get it back to me, which a lot of guys are backed up on work, so they can't get that done feasibly. There's also instances where people simply do not have registration paperwork.

A friend of mine who went through who had to give me his guns because he was kicked out of his house. I acquired them legally before the registration scheme kicked in, so he, he wouldn't have had any kind of paperwork to prove that was his.

I just had to take it for him, put it in my gun safe because that was better than him taking it to the homeless camp he was going to be at, and all he would have is tent and a towel prevent their theft.

If you would summarize please Mr. Rice, that'd be great.

I believe I hit all my points. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Appreciate you giving testimony. Next person said they want to testify is Michael Older on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hello, my name is Michael Older and I'm in strong support of this Bill. I believe that it would strengthen gun safety laws and I feel like under this kind of Bill it would, it would create a more. It'll create a better atmosphere of a better stricter requirement for gun safety.

Though I do kind of worry about what the police has said earlier with the social policing that's needed like to find figuring out how long time frame. I overall think that this Bill is important and warrants its passage.

If all, if only so we could get more responsible gun make gun owners more responsible and keeping our area safe. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now next we have John Terry not present. Next we have Jason Wolford on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon chair Committee Members. My name is Jason Wolford. I'm testifying in strong opposition to this Bill on as my testimony states, I stand on it. But I would like to point out a few things on this is this isn't doing anything to prevent criminal or stop crime or violent crimes of violence.

It negatively impacts law abiding citizen. As a firearms instructor, if I teach a firearms safety class for rifles or shotguns as we do with the youth program here, with the youth rodeo program, I cannot lend that rifle or shotgun to train an individual, especially the youth programs because they're not of age of 21,

to be able to be lent a firearm in order to learn how to safely use the firearm. Second, if an adult decides to purchase a rifle or a shotgun for home defense, they have no desire for a handgun as many people have.

They cannot take a class to acquire a firearm because part of the class is they need to handle the firearm. So unless police departments are just going to be issuing blanket permits to acquire for people to take classes, I don't see logistically how this is going to work or stop and prevent any crime.

So you're actually hindering law abiding citizens. It's not really targeting gun violence or preventing anything other than law abiding citizen trying to follow the rules and get educated. So thank you for your time.

Certainly thank you for testifying. Next. Todd Yukutake. Welcome Mr. Yukutake, please proceed.

Aloha Chair, Committee Members. I'm opposed to this Bill as an instructor, firearms instructor. Firearm instructors borrow firearms all the time. Like, I teach a range safety officer course. And to do that, I have to teach how to operate different types of firearms. You know, everything from lever actions to pump rifles, all kinds of stuff.

And I don't have all those firearms, so I have to borrow them from other instructors. And some of these classics can be one or two days long and some of them are even on the outer islands too. So I wouldn't be able to teach the range safety officer class with all these firearms that I borrow from others.

Same is true for students. You know, people taking firearms classes, sometimes they borrow firearms they don't have their own. Especially like military too. Military want to do outside recreational firearms classes. A lot of them don't have firearms because strict base rules. So they borrow firearms and, you know, friends, family, co workers, loan out my firearms for that and hunting also.

Now, another point is under 21, like on the mainland, parents can actually gift firearms to their children. Handguns, rifles, shotguns, and then the children actually own it. And they don't have to go through background checks in most states because the parent is the background check for their children.

And, you know, in Hawaii, we can't do that and now you're trying to cut off, you know, even loaning firearms to children would be prohibited under this Bill. So yeah, in most or maybe even almost all other states, California and New York included, parents can gift ownership of the firearms to their kids.

Sometimes requires background checks and stuff. But Hawaii would just cut everything off completely, I don't think that's necessary.

If you would summarize, please, Mr. Yukutake.

Okay. Yeah, I'm opposed this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, I appreciate you giving testimony. The next person that said they wish to testify is James Wallace. Not present. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 150, if not. Questions Members? Any questions? If not thank you very much. Thank you to the testifiers. This was a good educational experience.

That's part of why I hear Bills is that I want the Members to understand the issues more. And even if we don't move the Bills out, this is part of the learning process for legislators that have never been on this Committee before and firearms is an important issue that we have within our area of jurisdiction.

So I appreciate your testimony because that helps educate all of us. Thank you. Next Bill. House Bill 186 relating to harassment by stalking. This measure makes harassment by stalking, a class C felony. First up, we have Sonny Ganidan, Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon, Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Ganaden. Sonny Ganaden, Deputy Public Defender. The Office of the Public Defender respectfully requested this Bill be deferred. To be clear, HHS Chapter 7, 1106 Point 4 is a C felony. It's aggravated harassment by stalking.

So when an individual is charged for the second time with stalking within a five year period, and it doesn't have to be the same person, they can be charged with this C felony.

There are many instances under the Hawaii Revised Statutes in which an individual can be charged with a felony, including terroristic threatening, for things that might be considered inclusive of stalking. The point of 7111106 Point 4 is to deter escalation.

So as things get worse, then we want to have sort of an intermediary misdemeanor charge against individuals to stop that behavior before it turns into something worse. And then there is, of course, mandatory jail time for instances of violating a protective order under Chapter 586 and a lot of the things that happen in interpersonal relationships.

For that reason, we believe that this Bill would cause far more problems than necessary. We respectfully requested to be deferred.

And Mr. Gannon, I also want to.

If you could explain your section in here, about to amend the law by deleting a misdemeanor offense, which is punishable by up to a year in prison and a significant fine, would be unnecessarily severe, burdensome upon the court system, burdensome upon individuals who would otherwise never again engage in criminal conduct and would not deter crime.

That's an important paragraph. I want to make sure people heard. Did you have any more explanation on that one?

No, I try to not just read from the testimony.

No, but I just want to make sure those who didn't have a chance to read your testimony got that because that's such an important point, it seems. Appreciate it Chair. Yeah. Okay, thank you, Mr. Ganaden. Next up, we have Thomas Chang, Honolulu Police Department on zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the community. My name is Thomas Chang. I am the Captain for the Criminal. Investigation Division of the Honolulu Police Department. Sorry, can you guys hear me? Sorry.

Yes, we hear you just fine. Please proceed.

Sorry, the video came off. So HPD supports Bill 186 relating to harassment by stalking. We believe that stalking is a precursor to more severe violent crimes. And I think the stricter measures will prevent people from stalking victims, and it will give us a stronger capability measure, strengthen HPD's ability to combat harassment by stalking. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. We've received written testimony from the Hawaii county office of the prosecuting attorney in support, the Domestic Violence Action center in support, and 1,2,3,4 individuals in support. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on House Bill 186? Oh, please, come on up.

Come on up and introduce yourself and proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. I'm Angie Mercado, the Executive Director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. We are the Association of nonprofit organizations doing domestic violence work in the state. And so we're actually going to submit comments to this particular measure. We appreciate the Legislature looking at stalking and its impact on intimate partner violence.

As the public defenders have indicated, we recognize stalking as an escalation. We recognize that especially when there's a relationship they may have ended, we'll see that there are a lot more incidences of stalking. But we also know within a relationship that stalking happens.

Our concern is that aggravated stalking is a class C felony, and this would also increase harassment by stalking to a class C felony. So if we're interested in effective prosecution of these types of cases, I think that there potentially could be a conflict in having two categories of a class C felony.

And so I'm open to having hearing what prosecutors may say about the effective prosecution of these cases.

Okay, so these are comments. These are comments. Got it. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate that, Ms. Mercado. Next, we do have someone on Zoom, April Bautista, wishing to testify on this measure. Bautista not, not present. Okay. April Bautista provide, wanted to testify in support. She was going to be on Zoom, but isn't there at the moment.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 186? Oh, yes. Please come on up. Mr. Hugo, welcome. Please proceed.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Daniel Hugo for the Department of the prosecuting attorney. I'm just going to be offering comments.

In addition to aggravated by stalking, which is currently graded as a class C felony, there is also the offense of terroristic threatening in the first degree, which is repeated terroristic threatening on more than one occasion, that is also a class C felony.

So grading this offense as a class C felony may create some conflicts with other similar offenses.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Hugo. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not. Questions, Members? Yes, Mr. Snooze, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair, for your indulgence. Mr. Hugo, can I ask you a question, please? You know, you repeated a phrase that Ms. Mercado stated regarding the class C conflict, and I'm not really clear about that. Can you clarify that, please?

So if there are other offenses which may be of greater severity but are graded at the same offense, that could create some issues in terms of just whether or not that's a rational grading. So aggravated harassment by stalking is a repeat of the harassment by stalking offense. Grading it at the same level, you know

could be interpreted as at least a strange choice by the Legislature. And then if you have terroristic threatening in the first degree, which is repeated acts of not just stalking, non consensual contact, but also criminal threats, but that is also graded as a class C.

Again, that creates maybe some issues about the rationality of the grading scheme. So it's looking at it as a whole and not just the isolated offense. But we do agree harassment by stalking is a crime and should be a crime.

Follow up, please. Yes, please. Thank you, Chair. So would you comment on office of public defenders comment. That striking misdemeanor, which is a, I guess an option for sentencing or labeling the crime more accurately. Is that an accurate statement or would you comment on that?

I mean, it's ultimately our position that it's the Legislature that decides the grades of offenses. One of the reasons why we are not taking a position on this Bill. Is just that when you look at other offenses, you would want to have a more holistic approach. That's our assumption.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, chair.

Thank you very much and Mr. Hugo, that was another quotable quote. It would be passing this would be a strange choice of the Legislature. That's very quotable. Appreciate that. Okay, anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 186? If not any other questions, I think we'll move on.

We do endeavor to be rational here, so I appreciate the reminder. We do that. Oh, do we have April Batista? Oh, April Bautista on zoom, wishing to testify on House Bill 186. Please proceed.

Okay. Do I need to be on video or.

No, you can just speak and we hear you clearly. So proceed, please.

Okay. Hi, I'm April Bautista. I'm a Kalihi Palama resident and a fourth generation Filipina American in support of House Bill 186. Last year, I was in my first ever domestic violence situation. I had worked at the state capitol. I worked City Council. I worked for the office of elections.

You know, I always was doing constituent relations and I never thought it would happen to me. And it's not because of the fact that I have a college degree. It was the most scariest time of my life. I just had a newborn. I was getting evicted and my stalker, my abuser, he had the key to my apartment.

I had called the police and there was nothing I can do because I was so embarrassed to share that I was in a domestic violence situation. The police officers, the police officers who report to Kalihi Palama have been the most helpful to me, but they're not lawmakers.

They enforce the law that's presented to them and the best they can tell me was I'm sorry. The police officer stayed with me as long as he could, but going to sleep with my 4 month old baby, not knowing if he was going to come through the door was terrifying. I didn't have access to a car.

I called all the support I could. There was no money for transportation to take me.

This was 2am. Again, I live near the Zippies in Puku Hale and it's only taken me now a year to tell people that I was in a domestic violence situation because I was so embarrassed that I had put myself in that situation and I should have known better.

But through therapy and lots of money, it wasn't my fault. I did the best I could to survive two years of domestic violence, both verbal and physical. And it wasn't until I lost my job that it got physical and I had to leave the State of Hawaii.

I don't know if this Bill was a result of what happened to Teresa, but that was such a wake up call for me that I couldn't die. I took the abuse night after night until I begged my parents to come and rescue me. I share this because I'm probably not the only one.

You know, people think that it only happens in places like Waianae or Wahiawa, but it happens in Kalihi all the time. So I keep be honest. I haven't read the details of the Bill, but if it got this far, it's worth passing.

So I strongly urge lawmakers that are in the middle of deciding what to do, you know, to your job and research to make sure this Bill passes through. Because I lost a job from this. I have a college degree, a master's degree. I'm preparing for law school because I don't want this to happen to anybody else.

And you know, thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Bautista. I appreciate your strength and courage for providing testimony on such traumatic experience that you've been through. Thank you for sharing that information with us and you'll make a great lawyer. So keep up your work and I hope you achieve your goal. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 186 if not questions, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I actually wanted to ask a question to Public Defender Sonny Ganaden, but he stepped out of the room. Could I instead ask Mr. Hugo a question? Certainly. And hopefully you have the answer also but in public defender's testimony, he states that a misdemeanor is punishable up to a year in prison and significant fine.

Is that correct? Those are the maximum penalties.

And what is the penalty for Class C felony? The maximum penalty for a Class C felony is. Well, in terms of imprisonment, five years.

Okay, so last question, Chair. Instead of striking misdemeanor and replacing it with class C, would it be a possibility to introduce the range that it go from misdemeanor to a Class C?

So the borderline between a misdemeanor and and felony does implicate many things, like which court it's originally going to be placed in. There certainly are other possibilities for structuring penalties. And you know, our office would be happy to discuss that with any Members of the Legislature.

Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? If not, thanks, we will move on to the next measure, which is House Bill 991 relating to criminal history record checks.

This measure deletes the term agent of the contractor, end quote, in a certain section of the HRS to comply with requirements of the Federal Bureau of Investigation because the FBI deemed the term overly broad for purposes of accessing its criminal history background information. So first up on this, we have Mr. Phil Higdon. Lucky us.

Good to see you, sir. Those knees are working well.

Kinda good afternoon, Chair Tarnas.

Good afternoon, sir.

Vice Chair and Committee Members, My name is Phil Higdon. I'm the administrator of the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center, and the Department has submitted written testimony supporting this Bill with comments.

This Bill intends to amend sections 28-17B and 846 2.7B 49 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes by deleting the term agents of contractors to fingerprint individuals for Non Criminal Justice purposes.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations Criminal Justice Information Law Unit reviews enacted legislation to authorize the submission of fingerprints to the FBI in the receipt of the FBI criminal history information.

After reviewing the sections I mentioned just now, the FBI determined that agents and contractors was too broad and denied the Department the authority to conduct fingerprint based criminal history checks for those needing access to federal tax information. We're talking about fingerprints just not criminal conviction information, but arrest information as well. So currently they don't have that information.

Arrest information. So these minimums are necessary for the Department to conduct fingerprints checks on individuals. Who need access to federal tax information. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Higdon. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 991? If not, questions? Members seeing none, we'll move on. Thank you, Mr. Higdon, for educating us about the need for this Bill. Next up, we have House Bill 995 relating to firearms reporting.

This measure amends the annual reporting requirements imposed on the Department of the Attorney General and the Chief of Police of each county regarding licenses to carry firearms. First up, we have Julie Ebato, Attorney General. Boy, we've got all the heavy hitters from the AG here. Thanks for being here. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chairman Harness. Committee Members. I'm Julie Ebato with the Department of the Attorney General. I'm the administrator of the Crime Prevention Justice Assistance Division. Thank you for hearing this Bill. We strongly support the Bill that you had just highlighted. The Bill does remove the deadline of April 1 for the Department to publish its annual report.

It will basically allow us to complete the report within our given resources. It will still allow us to complete an annual report. I just want to be clear about that.

It does extend the date for the county police departments to provide their data moving the deadline from February 1st to March 31st of each year, again to provide them additional time to complete the report, their report, and submit it to us.

It really is the intent of to complete the report as completely and as well as we could with the deadlines removed versus focusing on the deadline and getting you a report that may not be as complete as you had anticipated. With that, we stand by our testimony. If you have any questions, I'll be here.

Thank you very much, Ms. Ebato. Next, we have testimony from Carlene Lau at the Honolulu Police Department on zoom. Please proceed.

Hi. Good morning. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Carlene Dao of the Honolulu Police Department, Major of the Records and Identification Division. We stand in support of this Bill and the reason is that we continue to support and facilitate the effective reporting of statistics for firearms.

And it's our commitment to transparency and accountability to the Members and citizens of our state. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Major Lau. We've received testimony from numerous individuals. Bronson Texera in opposition. Michael Older in support. Willie Colt in opposition. Ryan Willis in opposition. And we have one individual said they'd be Here, John Terry, providing testimony in person, not present. Okay. That's all that said they would testify.

Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 995? If not. Questions Members? Yes, Representative Belatti.

Just a quick kind of curiosity question. Are you folks prepared-

For Julie Ebato, the Attorney General?

Attorney General's. Just guessing. Sure, thank you. If this Bill weren't to pass, is the Attorney General prepared to provide a report on April 12025?

Okay.

Yes.

In fact, we actually provided a report for last year for the prior calendar year. And so this would be our second report. We do post it on our website.

I'm just wondering for, I mean, purposes of policymaking, if we're able to reset the timeline anyway, if the deadline were to be made so that the data would be available, the most fresh data would be available to policymakers. If that's not a better timeline to work with. It's just a suggestion.

I guess another way to ask this question is what other agencies are looking for this information to make decisions?

To tell you the truth, I don't know. We're providing this report more to meet the statute requirements in terms of who's downloading and who's accessing it. I haven't received any queries asking for clarification or questions relating to the report, so I'm not sure who's benefiting from the reports to tell you the truth.

As I look at the data, it seems that it would be something that legislators would be, would be, would find interesting for policy making purposes. Thank you for answering my questions. Thank you, Chair.

Certainly. Thank you. Thanks very much. Ms. Ebato. Any other questions Members? If not, thanks very much. We'll move on to the next measure, House Bill 998, relating to the contents of citations.

This measure clarifies that the omission of certain information or any error in a citation does not constitute ground for dismissal of a charge or for reversal of a conviction if the omission or error did not prejudice the defendant. First up, we have the Attorney General, Mark Tom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department is in strong support of House Bill 998. So specifically 80-6 of the Hawaii Revised Statute. That is the section that covers and governs issuance of citation, and it also provides guidelines of what needs to be in a citation.

Some of that information is impractical, impossible to get, such as a Social Security number if the individual is not willing to provide that they don't have a Social Security number. So just, you know, quoting Mr. Hugo,

it would just be a strange choice when you're not able to get that information that the remedy would be dismissal or a reversal. And because of that, this Bill would just ensure that there's consistency among the courts that what the remedy is when a situation like that arises. I will be here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Tom. Next, Mr. Hugo, Department of Prosecuting Attorney.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Daniel Hugo for the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney for City and County of Honolulu. We support this measure. And I just want to illustrate an example of how this would work.

If you have someone who does not have a Social Security number right now, strict plain reading of the statute says that is required for a citation. So an officer does not have the option to cite what are their other three options?

Their first option could be that they could issue a penal summons, which is a long, lengthy process in which they will be playing possibly hide and go seek with this person because the minute that summons is or the complaint on that summons is filed, the Rule 48 clock is ticking. They could potentially go for an arrest.

Warrant, which is also another lengthy process, but which will result in the arrest of that person. Or they can arrest them on the spot without a warrant. That person will likely be arrested on the spot without a warrant because the officer sees that as a matter of law they cannot issue a citation.

We think that's an absurd result. We think this language is already implicit in the statute. But you know, we do have appellate courts that are taking a very literalist approach to statutes and if this is what's needed to clarify it, we would support that. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Hugo. We have written testimony and support from the State of Hawaii, Organization of Police Officers and from an individual, Ruth Love, all in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 998? If not questions Members? Seeing none. Thanks very much to the testifiers.

We will move on to the next measure. House will 457 relating to civil rights protections. This measure requires state and local law enforcement agencies to notify an individual of their rights when a law enforcement or when in law enforcement agency custody before any interview with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement on certain matters regarding immigration violations.

First up, we have Mr. Gannaden, Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon. Vice Chair Sonny Gannon, Deputy Public Defender. The Office of the Public Defender is in support of this measure. Federal detainment by Ayes agents or Immigration Customs Enforcement agents or other duly charged enforcement agencies. These are not criminal detainments, and the federal courts have not really weighed in on the constitutionality of these detainers.

But for the people who are detained, this is a significant thing. They are not immediately given a charging document. So unlike for citizens, for most of us here, it is not legal that they are being told why they're being held in attainment. We are in uncertain times right now with regards to immigration law.

Who is enforcing, what they're going to enforce, and the changes that are going to happen in the next few months. For that reason, we believe that there should be some certainty here.

Under state law, it is possible to do these warnings to an individual who might be charged with a detainer through some sort of policy by the county or by different versions of law enforcement or other nonprofits.

But we believe it's the role of the state to step in, create some uniformity, create some certainty here in these uncertain times. For that reason, we support.

Thank you, Mr. Gannadin. We received written testimony and support from the Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission, Kathleen Odell. And we have written testimony and support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii County Councilwoman Kaji Wada, the Oahu Filipino Community Council, Pride at Work, Hawaii Stonewall Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii. And then we have on Zoom, Ms.

Jamie Detwiler. Hawaiian Islands Republican women not present. zero, this is LGBT here.

I'm here.

Okay. Kathleen Odell, please proceed.

Hi. Dr. Kathleen Odell, chair of the LGBTQ.

Could you speak up? You're very quiet.

Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, Super. We stand in strong support. The LGBTQIA community, particularly those who are undocumented or seeking asylum, face unique challenges and vulnerabilities, including heightened risks of violence, discrimination, and inadequate legal representation.

By passing House Bill 457, Hawaii can set a precedent for humane and just policies that protect all residents, regardless of immigration status. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Jamie Detwiler. I mentioned she wanted to testify, but she's not present in opposition. Next, Sandy Ma from the legal clinic. Welcome, Ms. Ma. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Sandy Ma for the Legal Clinic. The Legal Clinic is a direct legal services provider for our immigrant and migrant communities. We've all seen recently what is happening at the national level and also here in Hawaii.

These are deep, dark, and troubling times for not just only our immigrant and migrant communities, but for all of us here. This bill, HB457, is to install some guardrails or is to protect everyone, is to protect people from federal overreach. It is very important this bill.

We understand there are some concerns with HB457, but these protections set forth in HB457 again is to protect everyone because everyone could be under attack. These protections are permitted under state law and are currently protected. Allowed under federal law.

We ask you as our legislators, as people who are public servants who are elected to protect us, to act in our best interests, to protect the most vulnerable amongst us.

We are willing to work with you, to work with counties, to work with our law enforcement, to support our immigrant communities and to work everyone to work with everyone who's under attack. I'm sorry, I'm emotional about this. I am an immigrant. My family are immigrants to this country.

We love this country and it's just disheartening at this time. Thank you. I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Ma. I appreciate your testimony. Next person that said they wish to testify is Liza Ryan Gill with the Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. Please proceed.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Liza Ryan Gill with Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. We're a coalition representing about 30 immigrants serving in lead organizations across the Paina. And I just kind of want to bring this back to the logistics of what this Bill gets at. Right.

So any of us who have watched a cop drama know that when somebody is arrested, you get Mirandized, right. You are told that you have the right to remain silent, that you have. If you don't have counsel, one will be appointed to you. Those same rights apply to anybody who's on American soil. Right.

So anybody who's here in the United States also when you are detained, even if you are outside of status or your status is an issue and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement wants to see you when you are in a jail based setting setting all this Bill does, it doesn't keep Immigrations and Customs Enforcement or Department of Homeland Security from doing anything of their job.

You just let the person know who is already detained that they also they still have rights. Same as like those Miranda rights that they have the right to refuse an interview.

And what we're asking for anything coming out of the Federal Government that is targeted towards the, this extension of just helping people to understand what their rights are. There are other limit, there are other issues that the feds are looking at as far as like lack of cooperation.

This is not included in anything that we have seen at this point in time. But we are always willing to work with the Legislature and the counties to figure out what's the best way to make sure that everybody understands what their rights are. Given this moment that we're in. Mahalo.

Thank you very much, Ms. Gill. Next, Veronica Mendoza. Roots reborn. Maui in support. Not present. Next, Amy Agbayani.

Thank you very much. This bill is actually an effort to provide protection. It requires state and local law enforcement agencies to notify an individual of their rights. That seems okay.

So I don't have much more to say than we need to make sure that we provide as much protection and support for every individual in Hawaii, including those who are immigrants. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Michael Older on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hello, Chair. Hello. Hi. I'm in strong support of this bill. I feel like a lot of immigration law is unfairly balanced and I feel like the bare minimum of keeping those detained informed is informed of their rights is just the bare minimum that we should be doing.

There's a lot that's pretty much the summary of the testimony I submitted. So I support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Mr. Older. Next, Michael Goliuch.

Good afternoon. Michael Golouli Jr. President of Private Work Hawaii. Pronouns he himself. On behalf of Priority Work Hawaii, we want to thank you for hearing this bill. It's unfortunate that this bill is even necessary.

The way we view it here at Priority Work is that this is just enforcement and reiteration of what's already enshrined in the Article 14 of the US Constitution to ensure that everybody has their rights, and especially not just immigrants.

But we as we've seen the overzealousness or just not caring on the continent when they are swooping up Navajo as well as other indigenous, other indigenous Members and Puerto Ricans into these Ayes sweeps, that this is definitely something that needs to be done and making sure that we protect immigrants, immigrants make this country stronger.

And so we encourage you to pass this to. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next.

April Bautista, hello.

Yes, we hear you. Please proceed.

I'm April Bautista. I'm a Kalihi Palama resident and I'm actually a longtime community organizer around immigrant rights since 2008, since UE to Manoa when people thought there were no Mexicans in Hawaii, which doesn't matter. This bill, I think, continues to show strong support to already existing legislation that have passed years before, such as driver's licenses.

I don't know if you're at the Capitol before, but I used to host lunch and learns actually in the conference rooms inviting community Members to learn about the immigrant community and not just undocumented immigrants. You know, I read some testimony there are the statistics there, but a lot of families in Hawaii lived in mixed status residences.

And what that means is one person is a US Citizen, the other is not. Again, I've been doing community organizing around Immigration and have been trained in D.C. California, from one of the top community organizers in our country around immigration.

So I think this Bill needs to pass, not just for continuity and support for immigrants, but also in support of the law. Right. We want to make living in Hawaii easier. This is just another thing that we need to do because like people had said, we live in different times. We don't know what's going to happen.

And instead of being reactive, this here is a proactive Bill. And furthermore, I suggest that in addition to verbally saying what the rights are, perhaps partnering with the ACLU to distribute Know your Right cards.

I don't know who's in charge of ACLU now, so I don't want to put them on the spot, But I know 15 years ago they had Know youw Rights ready cards. I did a lot of organizing work on Maui and the big islands. There's a lot of farmers. You know, that's where the Mexican labor workers are.

If you've ever taken flights, you've seen the paniolo looking cowboys, which are. I don't know if they're called Mexican cowboys. They're not, but they work on the farm. They contribute to our society.

If you could summarize, please, that would be great.

Okay, so this is just a reminder that we need to support the Bill so that we can, you know, keep doing what we're doing, and that's protecting everybody. Thank you for the chance to testify.

Thank you for your testimony. Last person that said they wish to testify is Mary Healy on Zoom. Not present. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 457? Yes, please. Dr. Lewin.

Thank you.

Jack Lewin, Administrator of SHIPTA. Thank you. Chair Tarnas. You'll have to tell us what SHIPTA is. The State Health Planning and Development Agency. And Vice Chair Poepoe and Members. Although we're focused on healthcare, clearly the immigrant issue here is an impediment to having immigrants in Hawaii seek healthcare services out of fear. It's a big concern.

So I just really wanted to say, aside from the testimony that we submitted, that this is. This kind of notification is a minimally essential part of protection of. Of immigrant rights. And it's also essential if we're going to maintain our tradition as the Aloha State. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Dr. Lewin, I don't show us receiving your testimony. Maybe you could provide it to us again. That would be great. I apologize. Okay. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 457? If not. Questions. Members represent Bellatti.

I didn't see anyone from Chopo or law enforcement community. That would have been who my questions would have been directed towards. Unless there's someone from Attorney General's Office who can speak. If not, I'll. I'll yield.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Rep. Belatti. I had the same sentiment, but I'll shift gears. And could I direct a question to Ms. Gill? Is it was Ms. Gill. Yes, right here. Can I ask a question, Please. Hopefully you can answer.

You brought up an interesting point that wanting to assure that the person in question understands the communication.

Yep.

So I'm wondering, would that happen or is that happening? Is that happening across the board to even regular people who are citizens and they have language barriers? You think that is possibly happening already?

Well, to some extent it should be. It is under federal law, under Title six, there we have any time somebody isn't engaging meaningfully with a state agency that receive federal funds, they should also be. They should be told the information that is pertinent to them in a language that they can understand.

Which is why, like, if you go to the fourth floor and you. You say you want to even vote, you. You're allowed to vote in another language or that information is. Is given to you that's under the same federal law.

Okay, so what I'm hearing is that it shouldn't be happening, right?

That it should be happening. I'm not sure exactly.

It should. I'm gonna say it shouldn't be happening. The language barriers should not be happening because they should have provisions to communicate in the person's language.

Okay, so what you're saying. And what you're saying this Bill does is assure that provision for someone in question that is not afforded that provision right now, and then I'd welcome Sandy if she has anything to share on that as well.

Yes.

But right now, if they're detained, it would include. There is, like, a form that you can show the individual. I'm not sure. We have had conversations with Chief Logan and hpd. They were really amenable on this Bill and said, you know, they actually brought up the issue of not all folks being literate.

And so we're like, okay, well, if we gave it to you in multiple languages, and they're like, but not everybody reads. And we're like, okay, well, what if we get it? You know, do it auditory so that you can just play it and somebody can designate their language. So. So they've been very supportive.

But if you wanted to speak to that. Sandy, thank you.

Rep. Shimizu. You're bringing up some really great points. So right now, when Ayes wants to interview someone, and then that is the person who's being sought to be interviewed is not notified at that time, again, of their constitutional rights. And so they could just automatically be brought to be interviewed by Ayes.

And so that is the disconnect that we are trying to address, that the person can be told in language, whether orally or in writing, that they still have the constitutional right to have an attorney present, to remain silent, or to speak if they want to speak directly with Ayes.

So would you say that's the only difference that would possibly happen is the language provision, it's the notification.

And then there is a second part to that Bill in which if Ayes seeks to transfer the person to Ayes custody, a lot of times that transfer happens automatically if the state and local law enforcement decides to honor it, and that when that transfer happens, that person's designated representative, whether it's an attorney or someone else, is not notified, the person has been transferred out of state and local custody to Ayes.

So then people do not know where the individual has gone. And so that is a great concern, too. Like if. If I'm representing somebody who is in Stoke state or local custody, and that person gets transferred directly to Ayes, I don't know where my client has gone. And. And so that is a big concern, too.

What you just described is beyond the initial. Initial point of time, time element that we're talking about in this. This Bill, correct?

No, that's in the Bill, too. That's the second part that's also in the Bill.

Okay. I guess what I'm trying to establish is when I look at Chopo's testimony, which is our first responders, police officers, their testimony states that everyone has the right and they're not going to be treated differently, even if they are an illegal immigrant.

So I'm just trying to weigh their testimony that states it's not necessary because they do treat everyone equally. So I'm just trying to establish facts at this point. Thank you.

And we are so glad that our police union has come out and stated that, and we have no reason to dispute that or doubt that.

We've also spoken with our Police Chief, Logan, and he stated, or his representative, because we were all in the room together, saying that when someone is in custody, they often do not understand the language and often do not read in language as well. And so we're trying to bridge that disconnect and make sure people's rights are protected.

Everyone's rights are protected.

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair, thank you very much. Thank you to the testifiers. Any other questions, Members? If seeing no more questions, we'll move on. Thanks very much. Next bill, House Bill 729 relating to marriage of minors.

This measure raises the minimum age to enter into marriage from 16 to 18 years of age and repeals the authority of parents and the family court to consent to a minor's marriage.

Repeals spousal cohabitation after the parties attain legal age as an exception for an annulment based on non age and repeals exemptions for sexual assault of a minor if the perpetrator is married to the minor. First up, we have testimony from the Department of Health.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members of the Committee. Lauren Kim, Department of Health Planning and Policy Officer. The Department submits comments. Just to provide some context and give you a sense of scope. We did a 10 year look back and during that time there were 216 people who got married to each other.

In General, the large majority of them were Hawaii residents. So Hawaii teens marrying other Hawaii teens. There were some outliers where a 50 year old man married a 17 year old girl or a 45 year old woman married a 1616 year old boy. So those are onesies and twosies, but they are there and they do raise eyebrows.

That being said, the the next cohort would be mainland teens marrying mainland teens and they're for one particular state, Utah. I'll just name them. So that's the information we wanted to provide the Legislature just to give some context to this proposed amendment. So I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kim. Next we have testimony from the Department of Human Services.

Hi, good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Daisy Hartsfield on behalf of Director Yamane. I'm the administrator for the Social Services Division. The Department appreciates the intent of this Bill.

We provided some comments and we also defer to the Department of Health and the Department of Attorney General, who I'm not sure if they submitted testimony for this current draft, but the prior draft they did submit testimony and it was accepted by the prior Committee, their recommended amendments. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from Barbara Hastings on zoom. Please proceed, Ms. Hastings.

Hello. Hello, I'm Barbara Hastings. I'm calling in from Hilo, Hawaii. I'm testifying on behalf of the Zonta Club of Hilo. We're part of an international organization that empowers women and girls in Hilo. We have been involved in that mission for 75 years. There are also groups on Oahu and Kauai that work on the same effort.

We are supporting this bill. We urge you to pass it. And we thank you so very, very much for hearing it.

Thank you very much, Ms. Hastings. Next, Juliet Tuleng on Zoom. Not present. Also in support from the Zonta Club of Hilo. Next, Dre Fields on Zoom.

Hello.

Hello. Please proceed.

Yes. Chair, Tarnas. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for your time today. My name is Dre Fields and I'm here representing Unchained At Last, the only survivor led nonprofit dedicated to ending forced and child marriage in the United States through direct service and systems change. I stand before you in strong support of HB729.

Let's be clear. Hawaii's current law is dangerous. Right now, a 16 or 17 year old can be entered into marriage with nothing more than parental consent. And even more troubling, a 15 year old can be married off with judicial approval. Now, as direct service providers, we know the reality behind those legal loopholes.

When someone is forced to marry, it is almost always a parent who plays a central role in making it happen. Parental consent too often means parental coercion in the judicial approval process. It provides no real safeguard. A judge isn't even required to interview the 15 year old. But even if they did, let's be honest.

When a child is forced into marriage, they're also forced to lie about it. The dangers don't stop here. Under the current law, marriage automatically emancipates a minor, regardless of their financial Independence. That means a child can be left financially dependent on their spouse, a well documented risk factor for domestic violence. And here's something even more alarming.

The law doesn't just put minors at risk. It undermines Hawaii's own statutory rape law. It creates a loophole, a get out of jail free card that can be exploited by child predators. It also opens the door for human trafficking. Right now, a gap in federal law allows marriage to be used as a cover for trafficking minors.

And the Federal Government has yet to close that loophole. That leaves states like Hawaii responsible for stepping in. But beyond the flaws in the law itself, let's talk about the brutal reality of child marriage. It is a legal trap. Before turning 18, a child who is married faces almost insurmountable barriers to escape.

They may not be able to leave home, access domestic violence shelter, hire a lawyer, or even file legal Action. That's why the United nations considers all child marriage to be forced marriage. And let's not sugarcoat this. When a girl faces a forced marriage.

When girls facing forced marriage reach out to us and learn of the legal the few options they have, some fall into despair. We have seen some turn to self harm. We have even seen some suicide attempts. And the damage doesn't end at childhood.

Studies show that child marriage devastates nearly every aspect of an American girl's life from their health, their education, their economic opportunities and their physical safety. That's why the US State Department calls marriage before 18 a human rights abuse. That is not a rare problem. Between 2000 and 2022835 minors were married in Hawaii.

The vast majority, 82% were girls wed to adult men with an average age gap of four years. The simple solution, it's common sense. Set the marriage age at 18 with no exceptions. It costs nothing. It harms no one. It ends a human rights abuse. Hawaii has the opportunity and a responsibility to take action. Let's get this done.

I ask for your favorable consent. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Fields. Next we have testimony from Lasman Chain, Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. Welcome.

Hi, Chair. Members of the Committee. Yasmeen Cheney, Hawaii State Commissioney. Mispronounce your name? No. This is like 5 million times a day I have this conversation. No problem.

So I stand in support of this measure given that girls ages 16 through 19 have an increased risk of experiencing intimate partner violence, that minors cannot file for divorce if they're stuck in these abusive relationships. And then women who marry before age 19 face higher health risks.

And it's for these reasons I urge this Committee to pass this measure. Thank you. I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Lazmeen Cheney. Next we have testimony from Michelle Hanash on Zoom. Not present in support. Next we have Michael Older on Zoom. Please proceed. Yes.

Hello, Chair. My name is Mike Older and I'm in strong support of this Bill. This Bill I believe is very essential for the protection and safety of our Keiki all over this country. As other people before me has said much more elegantly that, that this is just an absolute danger that, that travel. That's.

That affects everyone in the nation especially so. So I wholeheartedly support this Bill. If I may add that one comment is that we to enshrine that there is no religious exemptions for, for this Bill can be added just. Just to be made in. No exemptions to be made for the child's for a child's marriage. That's just.

That's another loophole that has been added that a lot of other states with child marriage laws have used to get around it and I would better say than sorry. Just to recap, I think this Bill is essential to the health of our chil of the keiki here and please support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Older. We're going back to Juliette Tulang with Zanta Club of Hilo. Please proceed, Ms. Tuleng.

No, I'm not sure I'm in there.

I hear you. So please proceed. That's just. That's another loophole.

Okay. I just want to say thank you for this opportunity, Chair, and we are in support of this bill from the Zonta Club of Hilo. As you heard from Barbara Hastings.

I do want to raise just one concern that I heard from someone that said is, you know, if teen girls raise a concern that teen girls would not have spousal benefits without health insurance here in Hawaii, we know that we have health insurance that can be provided for teen girls for prenatal care and other services throughout.

And there are other options.

So please proceed. If somebody has their audio on, if you could turn it off. If you could turn off your speaker, Ms. Tulang.

We have HB 1499 HD1.

Okay, thank you. Okay, so in. In conclusion, I want to say that, you know, there was a time where teen pregnancy or illegitimate child were like a family, brought shame to the family, and young people were forced to get married. But times have changed and the stigma is not there any longer.

And we want our children to complete high school, to go on to education or a career that they're interested in. And so our goal is that, you know, just one child getting married in Hawaii before age 18 is one child too many. I thank you for your time and for supporting this Bill.

Thank you very much, Ms. Tulang. Next we have testimony from Alia Abbas on Zoom. Please proceed.

Yes. Yes. Hi. I will choose to keep my camera off so you guys could hear me clearly.

We hear you. Please proceed. Yes.

Yes. And also because I do not want to cry on camera. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and distinguished Committee Members. My name is Aaliyah Boss and I'm a child marriage survivor and activist. To end child marriage.

I request you all to vote yes on HB 729 to eliminate the loopholes which allows the human rights abuse of child marriage to continue, further devastating the lives of girls forever. I have provided my written testimony as well, which I hope each of you will take the time to read.

As a survivor, child marriage is personal, very personal. And I will not rest until it is eliminated across all states, all loopholes included. Voting yes on this Bill would mean saving lives, lives of the most vulnerable. Our girls, our children. Loopholes of parental consent and judiciary approval must be eliminated. Parental consent is most. Is most often.

Excuse me, parental coercion, as was in my case. And judicial approval allows for scared and helpless girls to be stuck in a lifetime of abuse, trauma, physical and Mental health issues, marital rape, domestic violence, poverty, missed out opportunities and education. Marriage before 18 is detrimental to the lives of girls. Please, please. I speak as a survivor.

I've done this many many times. But every time I have to testify, I am completely overwhelmed. I get depressed. Four days before and after I please ask you to do the right thing and vote yes on HB729 banning child marriage completely without any exceptions. Children have no business getting married. Absolutely not. A minor.

It's absurd that minors can enter. It can enter. Excuse me, a contract that they cannot leave, they cannot get help legally. It's Please just do the right thing and vote yes. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. Abbas. We really appreciate it. Finally, the last testifier is Elena Ayoso on zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha. Chair by chair. Members of the Committee. My name is Elena. I'm a BSW at the University of Boy at Manoa. We are always told to advocate especially. For those who cannot for themselves. So I'm here in support of this bill. This bill is crucial step in protecting the rights well being and the future of our keiki.

In this state. Child marriage has long term consequences, often. Limiting educational and economic opportunities while increasing the vulnerability of abuse for these children. And I strongly urge you to pass this Bill especially because it harms the keiki of our state. Mahalo.

Mahalo. Thanks for your testimony. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 729? Seeing none. Questions, Members? No questions. Thank you very much to the testifiers. We're going to move on to the next measure. House Bill 994 relating to the offense of promoting pornography for minors.

This measure authorizes the offense of promoting pornography for minors to be instituted by written information. First up we have the Attorney General.

Mr. Cook, welcome. Please proceed.

Vice chair, members of the committee. Deputy Attorney General Albert Cook from the Criminal Justice Division of the Department of the Attorney Generals. Department is in strong support of this bill.

We do have an Internet crimes against children task force who regularly does undercover operations mainly looking for adults who are looking to have sex with children by using the Internet.

The common charges that we charge from those operations are electronic enticement of a child in the first and second degree as well as commercial sexual exploitation of children, which is this class C felony.

The promoting pornography for minors comes up as a lot of these individuals will use adult pornography sent over the Internet to minors as a means of grooming. And when that happens we can charge that, but we can't do it by filling information.

So if that conduct results in a charge, we have to take it to grand jury, which takes a lot more time and subjects the grand jury to having to hear testimony about some sordid thing.

So the department would rather it be able to be charged through felony information, which the other two crimes already are able to be charged.

Thank you very much, Mr. Cook. We have written testimony and support from the Hawaii County Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. And we have testimony from Mr. Hugo, Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu. Please proceed. Sir.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. Daniel Hugo, from the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. Within our office, we typically see this charge in two contexts. One is, as Mr. Cook said, sting operations, and the other is in grooming cases where there is an actual child and typically there are felony sex offenses.

Now, the felony sex offenses do need to be taken before the grand jury. There's no option to charge that by information. There's a finite number of grand jury slots, and we would prefer to have those reserved for cases where there is a real victim, a child, as opposed to operations where we've intercepted and stopped.

And typically, the witnesses in those cases would be police officers. So this would allow us to more effectively and efficiently use a very finite number of grand jury slots.

Thank you very much, Mr. Hugo. We have also received two testimonies from individuals in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 994? If not, questions, members? Seeing none, thanks to the testifiers, we're going to move on to the next measure, House Bill 963, relating to crimes against elders.

This measure establishes strict liability for crimes against elders with respect to the attendant circumstance that the victim was 60 years of age or older. First up, we have the Office of the Public Defender. Mr. Bento, please proceed.

Thank you Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is William Bento. I'm a Member of the Office of the Public Defender. We do oppose this Bill, and we've explained our reasons in our written testimony. I just want to highlight a couple of things. I've heard the prosecutor's office testify on this Bill and other committees.

They say that it's difficult to prosecute these cases, but when you choose to give a group of people specific protection, there has to be language in the statute that identifies those people so that they can be given that special protection. And I say that to you as a member of the group that's protected by this particular statute.

The next Bill that this Committee is going to hear talks about special protections for another special group of people. In all of those types of cases, the defendant is supposed to know that that person is of that group. By the language in this proposed Bill, it takes that away.

It also removes the deterrent effect of the law because it was written so that people would not target people who are 60 years of age or older. Now, part of what the Bill does here is, I think, inadvertent.

There's a special section in the law that says that if you commit a felony offense or crime and somebody who's 60 or older is injured, there is enhanced penalties for that particular crime.

This Bill might undo that because the way that the statute is written in 706, which deals with sentencing, does not speak to the defendant knowing or reasonably should have known that the person was 60. Yet there's other language that deals with disabilities and the knowledge of that disability for other individuals protected under the same statute.

So by passing this, you undo that. And I think the whole purpose to protect this group of individuals, people 60 and older, is that if you do something like that, maybe you should face a more serious penalty.

So by passing the Bill, we might be undoing what's already in the law to give special protection to people who are 60 or older. I'm available for any questions as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bento. We always learn more by listening to your testimony. Thank you. Next up, we have Mr. Daniel Hugo, prosecuting attorney, City and County of Honolulu.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Daniel Hugo for the Department of the Prosecuting attorney, City and County of Honolulu. We're in support of this Bill and our testimony focused on the context where this is most problematic, which is first and second degree assaults.

If you're dealing with theft or forgery, those are often crimes where we can show planning, but assaults. I'll just take a common example. I did elder abuse cases immediately before coming to the legislative team. Common example is that someone's attacked from behind, stranger. Now, there's no question that an assault occurred.

And we can probably prove that the reason why that person was selected was because they looked weak and they looked like an easy target. But this person will still have the 59 and a half year old defense, which is to say, I thought this person was 59 and a half years old.

So it is a regular misdemeanor assault that doesn't appear to comport with the intent of the Bill, which wasn't just to look at people who are selecting and targeting, but actually to consider the extended harm that is present when elderly people are attacked. And just briefly on the sentencing provisions, because I've charged sentencing enhancements as well.

There is a requirement to know or should know. And we think that that's appropriate when you're looking at extending the sentence beyond an enhanced grade. But strict liability with respect to age is appropriate because of the greater harm that is present to the victims.

We have a similar view in cases of sex assaults against children where you don't get the I thought they looked like they were 16 defense. And you don't get that because of the greater harm that is present to the victim. That's the same harm that's present here.

And so it's not just a matter of target selection, which is bad and also should be enhanced, but it is a specific greater range of harm and danger that is present to elderly people when they are attacked. A broken bone for someone in youth, you can probably recover pretty fast.

Broken bone to someone who is 65, 70 that is a much more devastating level of harm. And we believe that the law should recognize that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hugo, for that explanation. Your testimony. Last person said they wish to testify as Sandy Wong. Not present. On Zoom? Not on Zoom. Okay. Not present. She wanted to testify in support. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 963? If not, question, members? Mr. Shimizu.

Thank you Chair, I have a question for Attorney General, please. You know Mr. Bento from Attorney General,

No, Public Defenders. Mr. Bento is Public defenders.

Yeah. Attorney General. Right.

We've got prosecuting attorney.

Or prosecuting attorney. My mistake. Thank you. Sorry about that.

Okay. We're all learning who's with whom? Here we are.

I heard Mr. Bento's comment that if this Bill passes, it will undo current laws or current law that protects senior class. Are you familiar with that? Would you comment on that?

We just have a different view of the law. Those sentencing enhancements already can be charged. And we don't believe that this change in the law will affect those specific sentencing enhancements. What this will probably actually do is just lead to settlements. In cases where there's no dispute about whether or not an assault occurred.

There's just a dispute about whether or not the defendant knew the victim's age. We have a lot of trials where there's no question an assault occurred. It's on video. Everyone can see it. It's not a self-defense issue. The only thing that the jury is going out to deliberate is does this person look like they're over 60.

And quite frankly, we don't think that's an efficient use of judicial resources.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Anyone else, any questions? If not, we'll move on. Thanks very much. Next measure, House Bill 1098, relating to crimes against protective services workers. This specifies that intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to a protective services worker who is engaged in the performance of the worker's duties is a class C felony.

Clarifies that a protective services worker is a public servant for the purposes of terroristic threatening in the first degree. First up, we have Department of Human Services.

Good afternoon again, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Daisy Hartsfield, again, on behalf of the Department of Human Services. This is an administrative measure that we are asking to go through so that we can protect our workers.

Currently, the statute does allow for a variety of protective classes that include educational workers, firefighters, mental health caseworkers, and even sports officials. And this would add protective services workers to another category of protective workers.

And so we're hoping that this will serve as a deterrent, this enhanced penalty, and that it will also allow our workers to feel safer and allow us the ability to also build the workforce knowing that this enhanced penalty does exist if they are threatened to the level that would meet the what this bill is proposing.

And I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Thomas Chang, Honolulu Police Department, on Zoom.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members of the community, I'm sorry, committee,

Welcome.

My name is Captain Thomas Chang from the Criminal Investigation Division of HPD. HPD supports this bill. We believe that protective service workers like Child Welfare Services or social services will- will check on the elderly. They should be protected. And we strongly support this bill.

We have measures already in place to protect educational workers, correctional workers, and emergency workers. They're just as important as us. So this measure will definitely strengthen the penalties for people who commit crimes against our public servants. Thank you. I'm here to answer any of your questions.

Thank you, Captain Chang. And finally, Daniel Hugo, Prosecuting Attorney, City County, Honolulu.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Daniel Hugo, for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office.

We're in support of this bill, and I- I do want to emphasize why this should be treated as a target selection case, which is that, you know, if the protective services worker is assaulted by a neighbor and it has nothing to do with their job, then it's rational to treat that as just another assault.

But if that person is targeted because of their job, that doesn't just present heightened danger. We pointed to some cases of quite serious assaults. But it also has a chilling effect on other people who are trying to do the same job.

And so it is appropriate that it's not just their status as a protective services worker, but the fact that they were targeted because they were a protective services worker. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And we do have one more testifier on Zoom. April Bautista, please proceed.

Hello again, April Bautista. Kalihi Palama resident, but also former worker with the State Office of Elections. I work the 2018-2020 elections for the State of Hawaii. My job was to train the volunteers and as a worker, help manage polling places across the state that. Polling places, as you know, in 2016, it was a very divisive election.

Volunteers, if you remember, at polling places across the state, especially neighbor islands, volunteers would call me and say, I don't want to volunteer. I see what's happening on the mainland. I don't want to be in the middle of it again. I'm not speaking on behalf of the State Office of Elections.

I'm speaking on behalf as a former employer with the State Office of Elections. And for me, we would get so many calls during trainings. We don't have security. We don't check people like, what's your political party? I had several people come up to me. Men point their finger. Security say they weren't going to do this.

For example, in elections, we trust our citizens, right? If they say they live at this address, they sign an affidavit. We say, okay, I had a chair of a polling place tell me I'm going to require they show me a photo ID. I said, no, sir, that's against the law.

Ms. Bautista, we've lost your signal. Sorry, We've lost your signal. We'll need to move on. Thank you so much for your testimony and I appreciate your support for this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on HB 1098? If not, questions, members? Seeing none, we'll move on. Thanks very much to the testifiers.

Next measure, House Bill 359 relating to covered offender registration. This amends covered offender registration laws to include offenders who, while acting in a professional capacity, commit either the offense of sexual assault in the fourth degree or sexual assault in the second degree against a minor who is at least 16 years old. And it goes on to others.

But that's the summary. First up, we have testimony from the Attorney General.

Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. My name is Lauren Haugen. I'm a deputy with the Honolulu, excuse me, the Attorney General's Office. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on House Bill 351. As indicated in our testimony, we're basically providing comprehensive updates to the enclosed gaps in the covered offender registry.

That's Chapter Hawaii Ride Statutes 846D. And to provide the Committee with a brief background as to what that is. Hawai'I Criminal Justice Data Center. It maintains our sex offender registry.

And if someone's convicted in Hawaii of a sexual offense or possibly convicted in another State of a sexual offense and decides to return or come to Hawaii to live, they need to be tiered and they need to be classified whether that offense is a covered offense under Hawaii's law.

The tiering is important because that will allow the states to determine whether how long that person's on the registry and if they're able to terminate that or petition to terminate their names off the registry. So our recommendation is to make sure that addition of those offenses are properly categorized and tiered.

We're looking to other offenses to make sure those tiers are appropriate fits for those offenses. We also made some suggestions as to other offenses that may have been missed in on our sex offender registry and to fix our penalty stats and sections. And ladies and thank you very much, Bill, for testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Hogan. Next. Carlene Lau, Honolulu Police Department on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Carlene Lau, Major, of the Honolulu Police Department's Records and Identification Division. We stand on our written testimony in support of House Bill 359 in hopes that it will reduce the access to minors and assist the state in reducing sexual recidivism. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Major Lau. Next. Daniel Hugo, Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Daniel Hugo, from the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney for the City and County of Honolulu. We're in support of this Bill. And I would just note two things.

First of all, estimating the incidence of sexual assault is an extremely difficult thing because this is a crime that occurs in secret.

If you look to some older studies, there was often a belief that the reported incidents of sexual assault must be an exaggeration because there were so many more sexual assaults reported than there were offenders who were being caught.

However, now that we have digital evidence, now that we have DNA, what we're finding is that in fact there is a very small number of extremely prolific predators. And by one estimate, before first arrest a sex offender has 50 to 150 victims. So it's very important to be able to have identification of these people once they're caught.

And the second point is that oftentimes sex offenders are able to access people because they look like pillars of the community, because they occupy positions of trust, because they are people who no one would suspect. You know, the world would be so much better if you could just look and identify a sex offender.

Unfortunately, we can't do that. It's very important in cases where somebody's been convicted, where it's been proven that they've abused their position of trust in order to access minors and commit this vicious crime, that that person, that the public has access to that information as well. Thank you. I'm available for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Hugo. And next, Lasmine Chaney.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Yasmeen Cheney, Executive Director for the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. I think we need to pass this bill and give additional mechanisms for youth serving organizations to make sure that sex offenders aren't put into another position of power and able to abuse again.

So I would urge this Committee to pass it to keep our children safe and support protective environments in which they can thrive. Thank you very much for this opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you, Ms. Cheney. Next final testifier, April Bautista.

Hello. Sorry about earlier. So for HB 359, I do testify in support. I think anything with dealing with the minors takes extra precaution and I think well thought out responses on how to address it. And I thought this measure had already been talked about in the past, but I'm in strong support that there should be protections.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 359? If not questions Members? Thank you very much to the testifiers. We'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 389 relating to uncrewed aircraft offenses, increases the penalty for using an uncrewed aircraft in the furtherance of the Commission of a felony.

Thank you.

First up, we have Mr. Bento, Office of Public Defender.

Good afternoon once again Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is William Bento from the Public Defender's Office. We do oppose HB 389. We've expressed in our written testimony our belief that there could be some absurd results that don't even have to do with the actual use or the flying of a drone and that's problematic.

We have. But we do recognize that the prosecutor's office has a concern about what is called a Modica issue and the way in which cases get prosecuted. So we have proposed language that we believe would get rid of that Modica issue and keep the law the way it is.

Our belief is that the way the law is written now was meant to be a catch-all. So if you commit certain crimes using a drone, it would be of a serious nature, a little less serious, and then there would be a catch-all for using a drone for any other non enumerated felony offense.

And that's fair under the law. But to then take that Class C felony and try to upgrade that into a Class A felony means that a person could commit a Class C felony but use a drone to do so. And now they're also charged with a Class A felony.

So to alleviate the problem and this possible Modica question, we have proposed language we think takes care of that, and I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bento. Next, Daniel Hugo, Prosecuting Attorney, City County of Honolulu.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo for the Department of the Prosecuting attorney, City and County of Honolulu. We're in support of this measure. It's part of our legislative package and we do point to the Modica issue.

But there is also a second issue which is that there is a lot of criminal innovation with drones. And we believe that having a Class A felony for using a drone in the Commission of a felony is a strong deterrent against that sort of innovation.

We point to ways that, you know, people are thinking of ways to use drones in ways that, quite frankly, we cannot necessarily anticipate, and we would want a deterrent against that. The danger that is posed by drones is that you can extend the reach of operations and you can also.

There's a greater potential for acting anonymously because of that. And so that is the greater harm that is posed by this new technology. And so, you know, we hope that people will use drones in lawful, productive ways. But.

But criminals are going to have access to drones and we want a strong deterrent against them thinking of new ways to commit new crimes with them. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Hugo. We've received written testimony and support from four individuals. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in HB 389? If not, questions Members? Seeing none, we'll move on. Thanks very much to the testifiers. Next measure, House Bill 979 relating to summary possession.

This measure requires that a current general excise tax license number for any rental income be filed with the complaint to the court for summary possession proceedings. And the judiciary needs to submit an annual list to the Department of Taxation of- with certain information regarding summary possession cases. On this measure, first up, we have the Department of Taxation.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Clinton Piper, Department of Taxation. I don't have anything substantive to add to our written comments other than to note we do not have a revenue estimate due to this possible speculative nature of what would be uncovered in such a list.

We don't have an estimate to give to the committee at this time.

Thank you very much. Next we have Michelle Acosta, Judiciary, providing comments. Next, Susan Le, App- Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice.

Excuse me. Hello. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and members of the committee. My name is Susan Le and I'm providing testimony and strong support for Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice.

I also don't have anything to add apart from our written testimony, but I did want to reiterate a couple of our key points in our testimony, one of which is that this bill requiring the GET license number when filing a complaint for summary possession really addresses the issue of non compliant landlords.

With non compliance, they're avoiding tax obligations, but as well, they're usually using their rental properties as they'll rent their units informally. And because of that, it operates outside of our normal legal framework and makes the tenants very vulnerable to unsafe living conditions, potential to be exploited by poor rental practices and unlawful evictions.

And I think the most important thing to consider is that with the requirement of the license to do a summary of possession through the courts, you're prevent- you're preventing landlords who don't already have their license from using the legal system and state resources to enforce evictions while evading their own legal responsibilities to their tenants and the state.

So thank you and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. And finally, Tom Yamachika, Tax foundation of Hawaii, not present with comments. That's all the testimony we received. Is anyone else wishing to testify In House Bill 979? If not, questions, members? Representative Belatti.

We had testimony from David Chee.

He's. Yeah. Not present.

Okay, if I for Appleseed?

Not present.

Sure.

You know, I think this issue of non compliant landlords actually got spotlighted during the pandemic. To what extent is there is this a problem?

Oh, of non compliant landlords?

Yes.

So it's incredibly hard to get that number we've tried in the past. And so for the numbers of just like of those who have tried to get summary possessions before without having a formal lease, that's the number that we've tried to receive before and we can't get them through the court. So that number is very. I don't know.

Just cur- This legislation just highlights a curious problem. Thank you. Thank you, chair.

Sure. Thank you very much. Any other questions members? See none. We'll move on. House Bill 463 relating to eviction records. This measure requires that the courts make a good faith and diligent effort to seal all court records of any eviction proceeding within a reasonable time if certain conditions are met and the summary goes on.

But that's the essence of it. First up, we have the Attorney General with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas. Vice Chair Poepoe, Deputy Attorney General Alyssa Kau on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. So the Department of the Attorney General stands on its comments, stands on its testimony with comments. However, we would like to highlight a few points the committee. So our testimony focuses on part two of the bill.

And part two- part two would mandate that the judiciary would seal all records for eviction proceedings where the judgment is not in favor of the landlord.

So if we require the judiciary to impose a blanket ceiling on all court records, it may interfere with the strong presumption of public right to access under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

However, we do recognize that a tenant does have constitutional and statutory rights to privacy, and that's a compelling interest that may justify sealing a particular record. However, we do not think that a blanket sealing would be appropriate or considered as constitutional. Rather, selective redaction could protect the information that the tenant seeks to protect.

So in order to balance the tenants privacy interests with the presumptive right of public access under the First Amendment, we believe that state courts are in the best position to decide on a case by case basis which records contain a privacy interest for tenants to protect.

And so therefore, to address these constitutional concerns, we Recommend Amending the first sentence on page 3, line 7 through 12 and to- or- or to address those concerns. And I'm available if the Committee has any further questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony from Mihoko Ito with comments Hawaii Realtors. Next, a testimony from Deja Ostrowski. Welcome. Please proceed.

Aloha. Thank you. Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Poepoe, members of the committee. My name is Deja Ostrowski, I'm representing the Medical Legal Partnership. We are a direct legal services organization that provides free legal services similar to a legal aid program. But we work specifically with folks at Kokukalihi Valley and Kapiolani Children's Hospital.

So folks who may have a lot of big needs. You have my testimony, but I just wanted to thank you for hearing this measure and I'm hoping that it's something that we can push out and still talk about. These are the stories that I think never get heard or talked about.

A lot of the testifiers talked about these extrajudicial cases. So things where things happen outside of our judiciary system. And that's honestly the bulk of my cases. I do not deal with tenants who even- can even dream of taking their their landlord to court or dealing with some of the issues I highlighted in their testimony.

They may have a ledger that they disagree with. It happens way more often than you think. They may have a landlord who's trying to evict them for lease violations that I gave you. Examples are real. Feeding the feral chickens, leaving slippers outside the house, the color of their curtains as lease violations.

These are things that folks see, they prejudice them for the rest of their life. This is longer than folks who have a criminal record. They- These are the folks that you see on the street. These are the folks that are not qualified for any kind of public housing program or voucher because they have an eviction record.

And I think for those who are not rentals or work in this field, you do not understand how fast this happens. If you are late, we have no statutory period for a grace period for getting your rent. If you're late more than five days, your landlord sends you a letter and they can take you to court.

I don't know any other debt or action or anything that will prejudice you to this long to be able to find housing. So the original part of this bill talked a lot about testifier- testifiers are talking about the privacy interests of tenants.

And I think also we're asking you as legislators to consider our community, the folks who are on our street who cannot find housing. We are looking for a way to have tenants be able to push back against landlords who are doing things that are illegal and they have no recourse.

We do not have an agency, the Department of Consumer Affairs, their enforcement powers were taken from them in the 70s. This is one tiny step that we as tenant advocates and attorneys who represent these folks every day, are trying to push the balance of power.

So thank you so much for considering this and we really ask you to consider amendments that are not asking each individual tenant to do this for good cause. And if you're talking about good cause, you take your power as legislators to say this is the good cause for our community. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Ostrowski. Next, Susan Le Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice.

Hello Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, Susan Le with Hawaii Appleseed. And again, we're just going to stand on our written testimony in strong support of this measure.

And just to highlight a couple of things from our testimony, I think this bill really addresses just the lasting negative impacts of eviction records on how they impact an individual. And especially it's just the mere filing of an eviction case, regardless of merit or outcome, it could be done completely, not lawfully.

And just the fact that they've been filed with a tenant's name on it is what stays in the tenants records long term. And that impacts their housing, which has had numerous, numerous research on the lasting impacts, lasting negative impacts on tenants.

It creates cycles of housing insecurity and economic insecurity for generations, not just for them, but for their children and anyone else in their homes. And I also just wanted to say that we've heard from- from those who are against this measure, and they argue that the eviction filings- sealing eviction filings eliminates crucial insights into damaged rental histories.

But if you go into the research of eviction filings, you'll see that there's largely an ambigui- ambiguity of how the case is resolved. And it's also can be falsely represented. And so it doesn't actually provide a an accurate depiction of a tenant's ability to be a good tenant.

And so I would argue that this bill actually supports landlords in making more informed decisions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. April Bautista.

Hi, I'm April Bautista, Kalihi Palama resident. I support and I support this bill. I also the words said by Deja and those from Hawaii Appleseed, I think are spot on. And I'm here because I lived it.

If you're a renter in Hawaii, no matter if you have a college degree, no matter if you work two to three jobs, to get a safe place is hard. So when I was in the process of getting evicted, Catholic Charities and the Honolulu county could do nothing.

I had to fight for five months for them to look at my application or else me and my newborn daughter would have been on the streets. And you can already hear the shakiness in my voice because having to bring this up is just awful.

I don't think if people or if domestic violence survivors had a choice, they would not want to keep sharing their story. I only do this because I worked at the Capitol for so many years. I've worked in City Council. I know how it goes. So this bill is necessary. It's not-

Not all landlords, we can't rely on their good faith. That's not the kind of world we live in. There are good people, there are evil people. Luckily, when I got evicted, my landlord, she patiently waited until Catholic Charities five months. And again, she lives in Waipahu. She's not a property manager. She's not living on the mainland.

She doesn't understand that every day I worked two jobs and I still got let go from my job because I couldn't tell them I was in a DV situation. So imagine other people who don't have the college degree, who don't have the experience I had working in government to see what can be done. At the end,

I support this measure because the policies that are currently there had failed me. I would have loved to stay in Hawaii. I can't afford it again. I'm fourth generation Filipina. My family had lived in Hawaii, Kalihi, the last three generations. And yeah, I gave up. And I'm not the only one. I'm 38 years old.

There's a lot of people like me who will, one example, stay in an abusive relationship just to have housing. And with that, you get. I had my document, I had everything taken away from me. I couldn't even call my employer and tell them I can't come to work because I've been hit in the eye.

The police did the best they could. Again, they don't make the laws. They see this every day. And I hope that. I mean, I didn't finish reading the testimony, but I keep seeing this word good faith of the realtors. They're all not- again, not all realtors have that good faith. They're in it for the money.

And there's those like my landlord who lives in Waipahu who does this as a supplemental income in addition to being interpreter for the ports because she has to live here.

Thank you. Ms. Bautista, if you could summarize, that'd be great.

Yeah, I could. Please support this bill. It's necessary. And again, if we live in a democratic state country, and we need this because we just can't trust good faith of landlords, again, they're not evil. They're just some bad ones out there. And the ones that live in Hawaii that use it as supplemental income deserve- deserve this.

So thank you for the opportunity. Bye.

Thank you very much. And finally, Ben Creps, Public First Law Center.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Ben Creps. I'm with the Public First Law Center. You've got our written testimony in opposition, but we do support the intent of this measure. So we'd like to see it keep moving. Excuse me. So basically, we oppose the automatic sealing provisions of this bill.

And that's something that's been flagged as a constitutional issue by the Attorney General's Office. So we do agree with them that there is an issue with that. But the proposed amendments from the Attorney General's Office, in our view, does not address that situation fully.

It provides a good cause standard for ceiling, but the constitutional standard is much higher than that. And the AG's proposal also seems to fall short of the intent of this measure to provide tenants with a streamlined way to not be connected with a failed or an improper or incomplete eviction.

So what we've offered in our testimony, and we've been offering this proposal in previous committees is a technical solution. So this would be in lieu of sealing records, it would be on the judiciary side to disassociate a tenant's name from their eviction case. So the case would still be searchable by landlords. Records are still available offline.

But what this does is make it so you can't just look up a tenant by their name and find- find the case. And I do understand that the judiciary is looking at that to try to determine if it's technically feasible. I just don't know where they're at with that determination.

But we have provided specific language in our written testimony to- to- to make those changes. And we also recommend focusing the prohibited discrimination on the defendant's or the person's status instead of their court records. And we've provided further explanation in our written testimony and also a proposed amendment, available for any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Creps. That's all the testimony we've received that people want to provide in person. Is there anyone else wishing to testify? HB 463. If not questions, members?

A quick question for Mr. Creps.

Yes, please go ahead, Representative Belatti.

Are there other jurisdictions that are using this disassociation process?

I do not know.

Okay.

Because it is amazing what you can find out about people through the ECOKUA system.

It is, and I believe I put it in this round of testimony. But you can still search someone's name and even if a case is sealed currently, it still pops the case up. It's case title redacted. But because you search their name, you still know that they're associated with that record.

Sure. And one last question.

Certainly.

Have you been in conversation with the groups in support of this to- to think about some of these technical issues where the person's name is still revealed or healed?

We haven't. But we're more than happy to work with folks on this. We do support the intent and we really would like to see it keep moving.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Certainly. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kreps. Any other questions, Members? If not, let's move on. House Bill 981 relating to attorney's fees. This measure limits the accrued attorney's fees and costs in matters relating to or actions brought as a result of construction defects to 25% of the recovery amount. Testimony first from Chris Akita. Welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you. Hi, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Chris Akita. I'm an attorney and partner at the law firm Kasdan Turner Thompson Booth. We represent homeowners and associations who are trying to recover for construction defects in their homes. I oppose this Bill.

The contingency fee structure is a very important tool in Hawaii to allow homeowners and associations to get representation and construction defect matters. Contingency fees allow homeowners who don't have the funds to pay for litigation to get an attorney who would cover those costs and take on the risks of the case.

HB 981 would eliminate that fee structure by saying that attorneys are only entitled to accrued costs, meaning that the attorneys must work on an hourly basis. The Bill also creates a conflict by putting both fees and costs under the same limitations.

So it forces attorneys to limit their costs on a case even where those expenditures would not be in the best interest of their clients or they would forfeit legal fees that they would be entitled to. The biggest problem with this Bill is that it will affect homeowners and associations right to contract with an attorney.

This is important because each and every case that's out there is different. And there are numerous situations where it's not feasible to keep fees and costs lower than 25%. I go through some of those in my written testimony.

It is important to note that associations also have separate counsel that reviews attorney contracts and oftentimes these attorneys fees are subject to negotiations. I would note that attorney fees are more of a concern in the class action context because there are no contracts between the attorneys and individual class members. So while we object.

While we oppose this Bill in total, I do have. If this Committee were to pass this Bill, I have some proposed amendments that would address the class action context of this Bill while leaving individuals, parties freely to contract freely.

My proposals will make clear that attorney's fees in those class action cases must be approved by the judge and that those fees are limited to a maximum of one third of the total recovery. And that's only if the judge finds that that attorney fees amount is reasonable.

I wasn't able to submit it with my written testimony, but I do have copies if that's okay to give it to.

Yes, you provide it to our staff over here. That'd be great.

Thanks. And I'm also available for any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Akita. Next testifier. Graham Lipsmith.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee. I am not Graham Lipsmith. He is my partner. He was unavailable. We submitted the testimony on behalf of our firm, Lipsmith LLP and he got caught up in a travel situation and could not attend by Zoom. We thank you for the opportunity to be here and we stand on our testimony.

We echo a lot of what Mr. Chris Akita just offered. I'll highlight some of the things in our written testimony on behalf of our firm, Lipsmith LLP. We all know that Hawaii is vulnerable to massive damage because of vulnerability to winds, hurricanes, flooding. Hurricane Iniki and the Maui wildflowers are very real.

And unfortunately, a lot of builders are using cheap products and those products cannot withstand Hawaii's tropical environment. And so many of these components are structural in nature. Homeowners cannot see them, homeowners cannot maintain them, homeowners cannot access them.

And so we are often representing many homeowners in large, expensive and long ranging class actions related to these construction defects. So our main concern is that a cap on fees and costs together at 25% of the recovery will make these cases so difficult to bring and will not fairly compensate attorneys. Therefore, the cases will not be brought.

And our issue is safety. We're worried that these construction defects will continue to exist and that people will not be able to find counsel to represent them. And that puts everyone in the State of Hawaii at risk.

And I would also like to highlight that there are already guardrails in place to protect against outsized attorneys fees in class actions, which is what we do. A court already approves a settlement to determine that it's fair, adequate and reasonable and also reviews the attorney's fees to make sure that they are fair.

In our cases, in our experience, we have represented over 4,000 homeowners and we have been able to negotiate repairs for them, a full settlement that includes repairs to have their home fully repaired. So in the cases where we have represented our clients in Hawaii, we have not seen a situation where they're coming up short because of attorney's fees.

We have been fairly compensated and their homes have been, you know, fully repaired. So we otherwise stand in our testimony and I am available to answer any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to participate.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, Lee Tokohara, DR Horton, Hawaii. In support. Not present. Next, William McKeon on Zoom. Not present. In opposition. Anyone else wishing to testify on HB 981, if not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers.

Let's move on to our last measure, House Bill 22, relating to collaboration with the federal government. This measure allows state and county law enforcement agencies to collaborate with the federal government for immigration purposes in only limited specific circumstances. First up, Kathleen O'Dell, Hawaii State LGBTQ Commission.

Thank you, Dr. Kathleen O'Dell, chair of the state LGBTQ.

Could you speak up? We can't hardly hear you.

So sorry. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Chair of the LGBTQ plus Commission, we stand in strong support for this bill. Many LGBTQIA individuals who immigrate to the United States, often fleeing persecution, violence, and discrimination in their countries of origin, face unique vulnerabilities within our immigration system. So we stand in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Office of the Public Defender. Thank you. Next. Pride at Work. Michael Golojuch.

Good afternoon. Michael Golojuch Jr. President of Pride at Work. He/him pronouns. We want to thank you for hearing this bill. There's definitely a need for this, especially given the overzealousness, as we've seen back on the continent, and the violations of constitutional and civil rights of our fellow immigrants in this country.

So we do encourage you to pass this bill. I do want to let you know that the Pride at Work Hawaii does take umbrage with the term illegal. Nobody is illegal on stolen lands built on a country built by stolen labor. So happy Black History Month, and we hope you pass this bill. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, Sandy Ma, Legal Clinic.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Sandy Ma, for the Legal Clinic. The Legal Clinic is a direct legal services provider for immigrants and migrants in our state. Thank you for hearing this bill, and we hope you pass HB 22.

This bill again will provide guardrails for overreach by federal government, and this bill will provide much needed protections for citizens and non citizens of the state. This bill will ensure that people are afforded the necessary protections under law, that families are not separated, and that communities are preserved.

I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. And again, thank you for protecting our communities.

Thank you. Ms. Ma. Thank you for your good work. Next, Jamie Detwiler, Hawaiian Islands Republican Women on Zoom. Not present. Testifying in opposition. Next, Tuyana Scanlon, in person. Not present. Testifying in support. Next, ACLU Hawaii, Nathan Lee.

Good afternoon chair, vice chair, committee members, just want to really quickly summarize our testimony. I think first, we want to be clear that regardless of your citizenship status, people located in the United States do have due process protections. And this has been well established.

Second, we also want to make clear that the reason why bills like HB 22 have been passed in other jurisdictions is because oftentimes there have been incidents where people's due process protections, their constitutional rights have been violated through collaboration with ICE and other local agencies. And so courts have also found right that when-

when localities, states, counties, when they choose to enter into detainer agreements is completely voluntary, and they have found that there is no obligation to enter into these agreements.

And so we think HB 22 just codifies what has already been tested and shown in the courts that there is no need for states, counties, localities to enter into these agreements and to assist in ICE operation. This is also consistent with the 10th Amendment, which precludes the federal government from

commandeering state or local governments to enact federal policy. And so we think that this- this bill falls squarely within the legal responsibilities and abilities of Hawaii as a state government and think it will provide protections against overreach and abuse of the rights of residents, regardless of their citizenship status. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lee. Next, Liza Ryan Gill, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Liza Ryan Gill with Hawai'I Coalition for Immigrant Rights, representing 30 immigrant serving and led organizations across the Paina. I always like to explain just kind of how these things work in real life.

So if you are arrested, say Liza Ryan Gill is- is pulled over on the side of the street, and maybe I was driving erratically, and I'm arrested- arrested for, like, reckless driving or something. I don't have my license on me. They have my name. They put my name into the database.

That data database is connected with other federal law enforcement agencies. My name goes into that database, and it goes to the FBI, it goes to Department of Homeland Security, and they get, you know, searched to see if they have somebody that results potentially in what is called a ping.

And then ICE gets a ping and they go, oh, we have Liza Ryan Gill that we've been looking for. I go off. I'm in jail. Maybe I'm released of my own reconnaissance. I found my license or whatever. Charges are dropped, and then I'm allowed to leave.

Right now, what could have happened in that time is that ICE was like, we're interested in Liza Ryan Gill. We're going to send a detainer request to HPD to hold me and say- and say, hey, would you hold this person? They're a person of interest to us. And then HPD can decide whether or not they honor that request.

Like, oh, okay, we'll hold them in our jail for you a little while longer. And then ICE may come. Now, noted, when an arrest is made, all that information is public. Right. So the Police Department is not withholding any information because it's already got shared.

And then, so that request, at that point in time, that detainer request, the problem with that is that I have not committed a crime and now the police is holding me, but I'm legally releasable. So that is a violation of my Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.

So what is the problem that the ACLU was pointing to is that jurisdictions can then be successfully sued for violating somebody's due process rights for holding them without that person having committed a crime. Now, we don't see this happen very often here.

These detainer requests happen here in Hawaii because the federal detention center and DHS is actually quite close to- to HPD, so they're able to communicate much more, you know, quickly and pick somebody up. And so they don't often hold people after they're legally releasable.

But what this bill does is actually trying to protect our counties from being sued for violating people's rights. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that explanation. Next, Veronica Mendoza in support, not present. Next, Amy Agbayani.

Thank you very much. I'm representing the Hawaii Friends of Civil Rights. I think some of the earlier testimonies provide good information as to the kind of protections that we think this Bill would provide.

But I'd just read a couple of sentences to give the context and size of the immigrant community in Hawaii because it's information that I think will be useful. We have over a quarter of a million immigrants and about 50,000 are undocumented.

And the top countries of origin of the immigrants are from the Philippines 45%, followed by China 9%, Japan, 8%, Korea 6% and the Pacific island nations, 4%. Most ICE arrests were from China and the Marshall Islands recently. Significant numbers of these immigrants live in mixed status households.

So either their spouse is an American citizen or a permanent resident or their children are. And so it's very likely that we are. Many of these families could be separated. So immigrants are part of our community and contribute to our economy and cultural fabric and should be afforded necessary protection and due process. Thanks.

Thank you, Ms. Agbayani. April Bautista.

Okay. Hello again. April Bautista, Kalihi Palama resident and longtime community organizer around immigration. This Bill is necessary. Back that I was doing the work before it became really popular again. We couldn't even get meetings with our local Police Department at the time.

The only ones who would communicate with me and other mixed we were a mixed status group. So Maui County, I don't know who was in charge of the police then, but they were the only county to listen to us talk about undocumented immigrants in Hawaii.