Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Foreign.

Welcome everyone to the Judiciary Committee hearing this Thursday morning at 9:45. This is our 9:45 agenda. Two minute limit on time. 222 minute limit on testimony both on zoom and in person. And if we have a catastrophic zoom failure, but we'll try again. Let's see today's Friday. We'll try again tomorrow at a time tomorrow.

Let's see, 10 o'clock tomorrow in this room, 016. Okay. First up on this agenda is SB 284. This removes requirements at all wiretapping applications made to a designated judge be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of the Attorney General. First up on 284 is Corey Young, Deputy Attorney General. In person. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Corey Young, Deputy Attorney General for the Department of the Attorney General. We appreciate the chance to be heard on this.

Basically we are commenting on the Bill and actually asking the Committee to abandon the proposed changes that are noted in the Bill and accept are basically revamped, which would create an entirely new section to the wiretapping chapter which would essentially apply to emergency applications orders.

We think that this would be a better structure for the kind of exigent circumstances that might arise that would allow expedited obtaining of wiretap orders without basically compromising any oversight by the Department of the Attorney General. That's about it for me. If the Committee has any questions, I will be available.

Great. Thank you. Next, Jan Hugo for Department of Prosecuting Attorney, City and County. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhodes. Good morning, Senator Chang. Daniel Hugo for the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu.

This Bill arose from a specific case where we had an emergency where we believe that a material witness of a felony had been kidnapped and the police wanted to be able to access live phone data in order to determine the witness's location. We've reviewed the the exception that's been offered by the Department of the Attorney General.

You know, we do still think that the, the relationship between main justice and the county prosecutors is slightly different, I mean, sorry, main justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office is slightly different than that between the Department of the Attorney General and the county prosecutors.

But you know, again, we don't have any objection in principle to making this a specific exception in the statute. This is contemplated for cases of emergency circumstances.

And our main concern is that the police in, in these circumstances are just going to do this without a court order and they would be justified in doing it just as a firefighter is justified in breaking into a house when it's on fire.

But we would prefer to have an effective and efficient lawful way for these orders to be done. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Michael Oliver in opposition, and that's everyone who signed up on SB 284. Would anyone else like to testify on SB 284? Come on up.

Aloha, Angela Melody Young, Safety Coordinator from Kapalama Neighborhood Security Watch, a grassroots movement of the Honolulu Police Department. I'm not testifying on behalf of HPD. Just I wanted to go over my role in public safety, so. The practice of wiretapping dates back in American history when the use of electronic communications played a significant role.

In 1968, when Title 3 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act was enacted to make it legal for police wiretapping under judicial oversight. But the law remained silent on the issue of telecom industry cooperation.

Two years later, a bipartisan vote in Congress quietly ratified an amendment to the Title 3 provisions requiring phone companies to provide the assistance necessary to accomplish interception. In 1977, the United States Supreme Court had a case.

The Supreme Court justices in a 5 to 4 majority ruled government had the authority to compel providers to furnish a warranted wiretap. Capitalizing on the politics of the War on Drugs, the need to conduct routine electronic surveillance was incorporated into the circuitry of new devices and systems themselves. Hearing about wiretapping is like watching a spy movie.

And I feel like I'm watching like a Tom Cruise movie with spies and wiretapping. But it's real life and it's not my intention to scare the Judicial Committee. I just want to point out something from my perspective. In a high profile court case in Hawaii Federal court.

In a crowd of observers of locally famous musicians, elected officials and executives and middle class families, we observe the court proceedings of a judge sentencing a defendant and his ex wife based on the evidence of a wiretap. I'm going to alter the specific identifiers in this case for the sake of anonymity.

The wiretap revealed the defendant's addiction and drug dealings and the intimate details of him and his ex wife's connection in a drug distribution gang across state borders. The man and his ex wife were very poor and had to sell drugs to make a living. After listening to both sides, the judge sentenced them to 10 years.

To remove my own perspective on things because you could just provide resources.

Thank you very much. Anyone else testifying on SB 284? Seeing none, Members, questions? I do have a question for the AG. So how would your proposed exception work regarding a follow up application in order?

So basically what we would be envisioning is the police or the prosecutor, well actually the prosecuting attorney from any of the counties, would be able to go to the judge directly without our oversight. They would obtain the warrant, start pinging the phone or start intercepting the communications immediately.

They could, they would then have 48 hours to work with us, make sure their application, their follow up application was up to the standards of the wiretapping, the, the standard wiretapping requirements that are like required by statute and then resubmit to the judge within 48 hours.

If they couldn't like either come up with a wiretap application that would be sufficient for us or the judge or they simply abandoned it would be a situation where the evidence would be essentially null and the communication interception would be essentially in violation of the statute. So it would conceivably be a class C felony.

Class C felony for?

Illegal wiretap.

So who is charged with that?

Well, probably no one, but theoretically, if the law enforcement agency could not essentially justify it through the follow up application, it would be as if the interception were illegal and the evidence obtained there too would be barred as well as the fact that they could theoretically subject them to prosecution.

So I mean the follow up part of it, I mean I.

The follow up is mainly to make sure that-

Isn't it sort of duplicative? I mean if you've already, if a judge has already ruled it's okay.

What we have found, and this is contained in our testimony, is that a lot of the applications, though eventually they are able to come up to speed, do not in their original versions contain all of the information that would be required to satisfy the statute.

Specifically, the applications often lack information regarding all of the efforts by law enforcement have been exhausted before resorting to wiretapping and basically that other law enforcement efforts would be either too dangerous or unable to be accomplished.

Because those are not part of the standard search warrant applications, most of the officers or investigators do not put that in their wiretap application because they're not, not just not familiar with how to apply for a wire tower.

All right, Members, any other questions for this testifier? Go ahead Senator San Buenaventura.

Any other states approve this?

We actually note that a much broader exception is actually provided for the federal statute. The feds, in the federal statute, the law enforcement officer or agency can actually get the warrant entirely - not the warrant, but can begin the tap entirely without judicial oversight if it's this type of emergency word death, bodily injury.

In the case of the federal statute, it also includes kind of acts of terrorism or extreme danger. They can go and get the- they can go and get the wiretap started and then come back for a follow up order or essentially an initial order, but it's an order after the fact, after the wiretap has already been initiated.

Why we are recommending this after the fact is in our oversight of the different counties, we have found such a high percentage of the applications are in their initial form insufficient that it would be better if they did have to basically come back with a follow up order to the judges that is legally sufficient pursuant to the current standards.

So what happened to all the illegal wiretaps than in the federal.

I'm sorry, I, I, I didn't track that. I, I don't even know if they, if there were wiretaps that were found to be illegal.

But the, essentially what the federal statute does allow for is if they do not essentially get this after the fact warrant, then the same provisions apply that it would, it would be considered a wiretap against the federal statute and the evidence would essentially be inadmissible.

Yeah, but that's only if inadmissible in a criminal case. But I mean civilly then it's we're trusting the government to be able to. I mean what do we do with the illegal, with the illegal wiretaps if it's determined?

Because right now there's no access Bill. There's no probable cause requirement. There is no, there's no judge thing. What is considered imminent danger There, there.

Would be, according to our proposal, the judge would have to make a finding of imminent danger.

Oh, okay.

Yes. What we're proposing is the, because of the statutory requirement that it be the prosecuting attorney or only in his or her absence or incapacity representative. They would have to go to the judge.

They would have to attest to the fact that there is a danger of death or injury, imminent death or injury to someone, if possible, to identify the individual or individuals who are at danger for death or injury.

The judge would have to make a part of their order of finding that there was an imminent danger of death or injury and that that's why the emergency order was being granted.

Other questions? If not. Thank you. Mr. Hugo, do you mind coming back up? So you've I guess seen their testimony and heard their statement here. AG is proposing an exception where there'd be, when there are exigent circumstances, instead of deleting the requirement to provide a memo with a follow up and order.

Will the follow up procedure be okay with your office?

So the, the one procedural issue that might come up is we would just want it clear that the Attorney General has to give a response because what happened in this case was we were just waiting and never actually got the memorandum.

So we would want there to be a clear response from the Attorney General as to either yes or no within that 48 hours.

Because the thing that we don't want is to provide this follow up and then it's just sort of out there in the wind and we don't have any, any actual response and it's suppressed for that reason.

Okay, fair enough.

Chair.

Hang on, just a sec, hang on. Any other questions? Go ahead. Senator San Buenaventura.

Can you give me any specific circumstance why do you need this Bill? I mean, is there and why you just didn't use the Fed statute? I mean ask the feds to go after to get the federal.

So yes, I can answer both of those. In this case, this arose from a specific case where there was a material witness in a felony who had disappeared. We had credible information that they were kidnapped.

We wanted their phone so that - or live location data from their phone, which qualifies as a wiretap because it is the interception of live communications. We weren't trying to get their text messages. This wasn't a standard like organized crime wiretap. We just needed to know where their phone was so that we could track it.

And the police ended up actually doing that. They just did it without a court order. And in, you know what that would mean is that any evidence that was recovered from that would be suppressed, but it wouldn't be a felony because of the choice of evils exception.

So you know, the principle that this should be limited to circumstances of death or bodily injury, we don't have a problem with that. That's the case that we're contemplating.

This is not a, you know, if you have time to do it for a racketeering case or an organized crime case, then the written memorandum and those sort of controls, you know, we might dispute the analogy, but the, the controls are at least rational.

But in cases where it's an emergency and we're trying to get this, we just want it to be a process that is lawful, that is orderly, so that the police are following the rules rather than just seeing exigent circumstances and operating outside of the legal framework.

So in that circumstance, who could have gotten the consent of the spouse or something to look into the cell phone? I mean, because usually those are joint accounts.

So. Well, you know, in, in some cases a spouse may be a suspect. In some cases that we may not be able to contact. And of course, some people aren't, aren't married.

I mean, I just want to know the genesis of the...

So, I mean, if there are cases where we can do this without having to resort to that, that's one of the requirements of the wiretapping statute. You have to be able to exhaust other lawful methods in order to obtain the wiretap. And that's already implicit in the statute. That's something that's part of the application.

Because this is an extraordinary thing. It's just in this particular case, there wasn't a realistic alternative.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Young. If you want to come back up, I have another question for you and I think you wanted to make an additional comment. So go ahead and make your additional comment and then I'll have a question.

To be clear with the Committee. There was an incident with the Prosecuting Attorney's Office for the City and County of Honolulu. They sent a application to the Surveillance Review Unit. It was reviewed and sent back to them for further information and further additions to be made.

They sent back a copy and we were trying to contact them regarding further changes that needed to be made before it would comply with the requirements of the statute. They did not get back to us.

I finally got the deputy who was applying or working on the application on the phone and that deputy indicated to us that they had abandoned their attempts to get the wiretap application done. That was the last we heard from them. We had basically handed the ball off to them to complete the application in a legally sufficient manner.

Right. Or you can, you guys can fight that out amongst yourselves. With regard to the, the amendments you recommend, the prosecuting, prosecutor's office is supposed to make the follow up application within 48 hours. But then there's no, I don't see anything that says then you, then the AG has to respond within a certain length of time.

We, our practice is to basically have the surveillance review be open at all hours because of the fact that we realize that even absent exigent circumstances, sometimes law enforcement is trying to get taps in before a drug deal can go down.

So as noted in our testimony, if it is a legally sufficient application, we can generally turn it around in one or two hours with a memorandum-

Would you object to a provision that said it has to be done with the response to their application has to be done in 24 hours.

Oh, absolutely. We would expect to have a response well within 24 hours.

That's sufficient. 24 hours? Okay.

We would also note that the ping of location cell phone generally doesn't implicate the wiretap statute. So why that was engaged in in this case is interesting. But...

Okay. All right. Other questions, members? Okay. If not, thank you very much. Thank you. We'll move on to the next bill, which is SB 295. 295 increases the penalties imposed on individuals convicted for violation of a temporary restraining order in order for protection and does some other things as well. First up on 295 is Diane Naderos for the Judiciary, Judge Naderos or her designee. Oh, with comments. Darcia Forester, Deputy Public Defender. Good morning.

Aloha, Chair Rhoads and members of the committee. So I did submit testimony and this is I think the last of the several bills that have been floating around on this topic. So I just want to highlight a few things. First of all, it is false to believe that the only people who are coming to family court for violating restraining orders are involved in intimate partnership situations where they're victims of domestic violence, because I know we're going to hear a lot of testimony today about domestic violence.

That is one category of person who shows up in family court for violating restraining orders. Our biggest concern is the 15 days is going to impact people that are not involved with domestic violence. We have people coming to the eighth floor, which is where we do all these cases for misdemeanor level stuff, who are siblings fighting over property where someone gets a restraining order to force them off the property so that they can have a better claim in the probate court.

We've got grandparents and grandchildren because the grandchild is an adult now and maybe needs mental health services. And they use the restraining order as a means to get them to comply with mental health resources. But it's not really a domestic violence situation. We've got people using restraining orders to get a better advantage in child custody battles, in divorce proceedings. It is standard practice for divorce attorneys to have a restraining order as part of the package that they set forth as a way to kind of get a better angle.

And more importantly, we have had clients who were themselves the true victim of domestic violence, but the perpetrator of the domestic violence gets a restraining order to further abuse them with control issues and to use the threat of incarceration. So I'm not denying. Okay.

Thanks very much.

I'm available for questions if you have any. Thank you.

Next is Daniel Hugo for the Department of Prosecuting Attorney. Morning again.

Good morning, Chair Rhoads and members of the committee. The Department of the Prosecuting Attorney is in support of this measure. And I just wanted to point out a couple of things. First of all, we're talking here about 586 orders, which are orders that are issued by the family court.

There's usually for a temporary restraining order, there has to be a petition that's reviewed by the judge. It's an ex parte petition. They at least review to see whether there are some allegations. There's also then a follow up hearing that is set and that's for protective orders.

And at that hearing, the party, the respondent, has an opportunity to contest the allegations. So that's the issuance of the order. What we're talking about here are subsequent violations of the order where somebody has already had a clear court order saying stay away from this person and they continue to contact and violate that order.

This is distinct from the restraining orders that are automatically issued in divorce cases which are under a separate chapter. These are cases where at least there's been some judicial review and an indication of, you know, some allegations of abuse.

And so when we're talking about these sort of violations, I think it's important to understand that what may appear to be very trivial things, you know, somebody just showing up to someone else's work, when you look at the context of the relationship, that can actually be quite frightening.

You know, somebody shows up with flowers, that might be a great thing unless you have a long history in which that person has battered you. So we do have our own bill that we've introduced that just wants to make the penalties uniform and abolish what we think is a very unwieldy distinction between non-domestic abuse and domestic abuse. This bill has those features and so that's why we're supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Andria Tupola, council member for City of Honolulu County Honolulu in support. Kelden Waltjen for the Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney in support. Angelina Mercado for Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, committee members. I'm Angie Mercado, the executive director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. We are the association of domestic violence violence service providers throughout the state, representing 25 programs. So I just, you know, we've heard a lot already.

So let me just give you some of the interesting facts that I think perhaps this committee has not heard. So in last year, there were over 4,586 temporary restraining order petitions filed statewide. About 1200 of those were granted by the courts.

And then when we look at the data about how many violations of protection orders were actually resulted in convictions, 18. How many resulted in fines? 13. And when we think about these fines. So I looked at that. These fines go into a special fund. And I had to question. I called people in the judiciary.

I was like, wait, I'm used to seeing some financial statements where it's implied. You add three zeros after the number. So it implies thousands. No, it's $279 last year was deposited into this account. And so what this really shows. And I've spoken to victims and I've spoken to their families, and they've come to me and they've asked me, watching the time, so why are we even doing this? And it's true what the public defenders have said. We have a myriad of people that are caught in this, but it's a chilling effect when survivors of domestic violence keep coming to us and we get the calls and saying, it's just a piece of paper.

How can we make a difference for those people where we need more than just a piece of paper, where we need to have the prosecutors have the ability to be able to actually sentence people, sentence people who have multiple criminal cases and past histories, where this would actually make a difference and where the evidence shows that if you have longer minimum sentencing and higher fines, it actually has some difference. In addition to domestic violence intervention services, other services and other assessments that we've already supported in this statute. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up is Monique Ibarra, Domestic Violence Action Center. Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair Rhoads and committee members. My name is Monique Ibarra. I'm the director of the Domestic Violence Action Center, which is an agency that has 100% work for victims of domestic violence. I'm here today to express my strong support of SB 295. Legislation like this serves to be.

Serves to be effective and reliable for orders of protection for survivors of domestic violence. Domestic violence is a pervasive issue that affects individuals, families and communities and is crucial that survivors are provided the tools and resources they need to feel safe and supported in rebuilding their lives.

One of the most important tools a survivor may have is an order for protection which can provide immediate relief for restricting the abuser's access to the victim and their family. However, it is essential that we create an environment where survivors feel confident and these orders will be enforced and that they will be supported by the legal system.

Without this trust, many survivors may hesitate to pursue orders of protection, Fearing that the legal system will not take their safety seriously and that the abuser will face no real consequences. For these orders to be effective, survivors must have confidence that law enforcement will respond appropriate to violations, the courts will take these matters seriously, and that there will be real accountability for those who violate these orders.

Trusting in an order of protection gives survivors the courage to seek justice and peace of mind that they are no longer alone and in this fight for safety. In solidarity with the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, of which DVAC is a member, we do support SB 295, but with some suggested amendments, which is on the letter that I submitted. And would you like me to talk about the amendments?

16 seconds.

16. Okay. So on page two, there was some amendments. And we did that because we wanted to ensure that there were that the measure would go through and that there would also be the least amount of unintended consequences for the survivors of domestic violence as well.

Okay, thank you very much. Next is Ilima DeCosta for Hui Malama Pono Hawaii on Zoom.

They're not present on Zoom, Chair.

In support Noreen Kohl for Hawaii Children's Action Network speaks. Also in support, Lucita Ani-Nihoa for Theresa's Pu'uwai Legacy. And support, coach David Tautofi for Aloha First Athletics in opposition. Ha’eHa’e Ani in support on Zoom.

They're not present on Zoom, Chair.

Jesse Nihoa on Zoom.

They're also not present on Zoom.

In support, April Bautista.

They're not present on Zoom.

In support, Michael Olderr. In support Jan Baldado. In support, Erica Reed. in support, Tanya Baker. In support, Ginger-Lei Lagat. In support, Yvonne Alvarado. In support, Kylie Manaku-Kalili. In support, Ruben Ongos. In support, Devie Tavares. In support, Serena Harris. In support, Keikilani Ho. In support, Kylyn Kalili. In support, Gioia. In opposition, Esther Gonzales. And support. That's everybody who signed up on SB 295. Does anyone else want to testify on SB 295? Okay. Seeing none. Members, questions? Senator San Buenaventura,

So I noticed that Ibarra had amendments, proposed amendments from 15 down to five. And I introduced this bill as a companion to a Waipahu representative. And I was hoping for a justification of the minimum sentence as to why we need to increase it from 48 hours to at least five.

Thank you for the question. And I know that the committee has also read Lucita Ani-Nihoa's testimony. So we've worked with her and she's the mother of Teresa Cachuela. And so we've been working with this particular minimum sentence.

And so our rationale is when you have something like this happen, what actually happens in practice is when the clock starts, even though the minimum sentence is 48 hours, they actually get often get released after 24 hours. And so what we're looking for is more time in these particular domestic violence situations for people to either be able to find shelter, emergency domestic violence shelter, shelter with other people, other services, and...

So you believe that five days is enough.

Yeah, I mean, I think that. We think.

Repeat your answer. Five days is enough.

Five days is enough. It is what we recommend. And in our testimony we have that amendment because we recognize that it could also have unintended consequences also for those survivors who may be caught in this and they may lose their jobs, they may lose their housing. We don't have enough child care for people. And then we have this sort of tumultuous situation. So we're trying to come to a middle ground that.

Okay. So I just want to make sure. Because when I did introduce it, I thought 15 days was too much. Okay. But I wanted somebody to justify. It sounds like five days. You folks would be okay with that?

Yes, we are okay with that.

Okay. My request chair would be to amend it to what D backs recommendation would be as well as the judiciaries. Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions. Okay, thank you. Could I have City and County back up? I'm sorry, Mr. Hugo. So I guess I'm a little fuzzy on your. You view this as eliminating. You want to eliminate the distinction between violations of domestic abuse and non-domestic abuse protective orders or.

Yes, we would, we would want it to be.

This bill does that.

Yes. Yes. So it would provide a uniform and efficient way. Because the thing is that if it falls into that category of allegations involving domestic abuse, there's usually another crime that we're able to charge. Either an abuse or criminal property damage.

However, it makes it very unwieldy in terms of making charging decisions, particularly since many of our charging decisions are made between 11am or, sorry, 11pm and 2am because we have to have a charging decision before the morning arraignment. And that also coincides with the time that JIMS court records are shut down, which isn't so much of a problem if all of the domestic abuse occurred on Oahu, because then we can consult our own records.

But in those cases where we might be looking at court records that are from Maui or Kauai or Big Island that are involved in this, we will not have access to that during that period from midnight to 4am when JIMS is shut down. So that's just one thing. But you know, in general the distinction between domestic abuse and non-domestic abuse we think is better handled by having separate charges for actual crimes.

Okay, Okay, I think I understand. Let's see. HC HSCADB. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Hugo. So you've already. Senator San Buenaventura has already kind of gone through the five day part, which I understand where you're coming from. Your second requested amendment doesn't match up with the page and line number in your testimony. The bill currently proposes 30 days.

Oh, yes. So actually what we're looking for in page six, line two, what we want to add is. So sorry, hold on a second. My testimony. So Section 21, line two. Sorry. Page...

We were looking actually at line, page six, line one.

Page six, line one.

Very first words.

No, we're going to keep that because it's for the first conviction of the violation for the protection order. It actually should be page five, line 21 should be changed to five days from 48 hours.

Okay, so, all right, so on, starting on line—on Page 5.

Yes.

In Line 19. So, you're striking out—there's part of the line that struck out and then it says, "The person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum jail sentence of no less than," and currently, it's 48 hours.

It should be five.

But then on the next page, where you fill in the blank, it says 30 days. And you want that to be five days?

Yes, it should—the whole line should just read, "Shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum jail sentence of no less than five days." So, the original language was 48. The added language was 30, and we're adding five.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions, Members?

Okay. I think we can go ahead and—let me just double check something here, so.

Okay, let's go back up to the top of this agenda, which is SB 28—oh, Senator Chang, you want to take the works for us? Thanks. Mike is still sick. SB 248 is the first one.

This is removes requirements—all wiretapping applications made to a designated judge be accompanied by a written memorandum from the Department of Attorney General recommending approval or disapproval. The recommendation here is to go ahead and pass with amendments.

So, based on the Attorney General's recommendation, we codify the practice for exigent circumstances by waiving review of applications by the Department, only in cases where the prosecutor swears or affirms to the judge that immediate action is required in order to avoid death or injury, and the judge, after reviewing the facts and circumstances provided in the application, agrees that immediate action is warranted and makes—and makes express findings.

So, then we will require a follow up application for an order that's issued in that way and the application would have to be made by the prosecutors within 48 hours. And then, the, the AG would have to respond to that application within 24 hours after that. And there would be some conforming amendments as well.

Questions? Concerns? If not, Senator Chang, the vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.

Next up is SB 295. This increases the penalties imposed on individuals convicted for violations of temporary restraining order in order for protection.

Clarifies that the court shall not sentence a defendant to pay a fine for violating a temporary restraining order or order for protection if after conducting a financial review, the court determines the defendant is or will be unable to pay the fine. Recommendation here is to pass with some amendments.

So, we'll change the mandatory minimum of jail sentence to five days instead of, I think we had, there was both 15 and 30 for the first, for the first five—five days for the first violation. And then, the court violations. Count the count violations of TROs as repeat violations of orders of protection. That's on Page 6.

And then, also accept the judiciary's proposed amendment regarding ability to pay provided the add language that says, "Provided that the court shall not sentence a defendant to pay a fine if the court makes an on-the-record determination that the defendant is or will be unable to pay the fine."

Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Okay, so Ms. Oshio, we're—we'll just go ahead and roll into the 10 o'clock agenda, if that's okay.

Yes, that's okay.

Okay, great. So we had one deferred measure from a few weeks ago that's SB 1310. I'm sorry, for those with us here on Zoom, this is our 10 o'clock agenda. It's decision making only from a Bill that we'd heard previously. So that Bill is SB 1310.

This deletes the term "agent of the contractor" in Section 28 to 17 and 846-2.1 to comply with requirements of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The federal - the FBI deemed the term overly broad for purposes of accessing its criminal history background information.

Clarifies that contractors, employees who have access to federal tax information held by the Department of the Attorney General may be subject to fingerprint based on background checks. So the recommendation here. So we did confer with the Attorney General's. Well, it's not technically the Attorney General with the people who keep these records.

Like to pass with an amendment. Some amendments. Replace all instances of current proposed language in the Bill with the following: "current or prospective employee, contractor, contractor's employee or subcontractor."

And this is based on several other state laws that have been on the books since 2018 or 2019, apparently without issue. And Mr. Higdon did approve of that language. And. No, that's it, that's it. Okay. Questions or concerns? Hopefully this will work. Senator Chang for the vote.

Chair's recommendation for SD 1310 is pass with amendments. So the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you. That concludes our 10 o'clock agenda. Let's see, we'll go. We'll go ahead and roll right into our 10:01 agenda, which is also a decision making only agenda.

First up on the 10:01 agenda is SB 330 relating to invasive species prevention. Authorizes the Department of Ag to enforce quarantines issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Our recommendation is to pass it as is. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Here's a recommendation for SB 330 is to pass unamended. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Thanks very much. Next up is SB 822. Authorizes a landlord to petition a district court for a temporary restraining order, permanent restraining order, injunction to compel a tenant's compliance with section 521-51HRS.

Establishes a working group facilitated by the judiciary to conduct a conference review and recommend updates to the residential landlord tenant code and requires a report to the Legislature. Okay, so we do have prior concurrence for the amendment I'm going to suggest which is...

...We'll just, we'll accept the judiciary suggestion to let the working group assess enforcement mechanisms for landlords and tenants and will delete section one of the Bill. So it's. It will be a working group only. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for SB 822 is to pass with amendments. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations?

No, no.

Noting Senator Awa's objections, the recommendations adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 1276. This extends the offense of false labeling of Hawaii grown coffee to include roasted coffee. And and it imposes a $10,000 fine for each separate offense of false labeling of a Hawaii-grown roasted coffee. Recommendation here is to pass as is. Questions or concerns? If not Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for SB 1276 is to pass unamended. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Thanks very much. Next up is SB 1343. This amends the quorum requirements do business and validate acts in the Small Business Regulatory Review Board. Our recommendation here is to pass as is. Questions or concerns? Seeing none. Senator Chang.

For SB 1343, the Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendations adopted.

Thank you Members. Next up is SB 405. This allows neighborhood boards to discuss and receive information from third party reports by any government official not included in a publicly noticed agenda. Requires boards to make decisions on matters raised by third party reports from government officials at a later event with the agenda.

Gives notice of decision making on the matter. Recommendation is to pass as is. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for SB 405 is to pass unamended. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Thanks very much. Next up is SB 639. Clarifies the level of environmental restoration and owners and operators of underground storage tanks or tank systems must satisfy in the event of a confirmed release of jet fuel. Again, recommendations to pass as is. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for SB 639 is to pass unamended. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 1651. Requires board packets to be posted three days, sorry, requires board packets to be posted no later than 7:45am on the third business day before a public meeting. Requires boards to provide notice to persons requesting notifications of meeting at the time the board pack is made available for public inspection.

Recommendation here is to pass as is. Questions or concerns? If not, Acting Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation for SB 1651 is to pass unamended. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 1433 relating to harm reduction. Amends the distribution system of sterile needles and syringes under the Sterile Needle and Syringe Exchange Program from a one-to-one exchange system to a needs-based one. Authorizes non-injection drug users participate in the program and modifies liability for program participant staff and law enforcement officers.

Okay, so this one, Senator, Chair San Buenaventura.

Yeah, I'm okay with your composition.

Okay, thank you. So the recommendation will be the path of amendments. We'll make some of DHS's requested amendments, we'll remove the rulemaking requirement for DHS pertaining to authorized objects drug paraphernalia by removing the phrase by rule from page 5, line 18 and page 10, line 8.

This is so the DHS can move more quickly respond to emerging substance use trends and public health issues.

We'll change the definition of residue to mean a controlled substance as that term is defined in Section 329.1 in the amount remaining in a syringe and needle after the plunger stopper is fully depressed, and would reduce the period of time during which a program participant is not liable for a drug possession offense due to needles and syringes containing residue to two months down from six.

Questions or concerns. If not Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for SB 1433 is to pass with amendments. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations?

No.

Noting objection from Senator Awa. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 25. This authorizes a county to reduce the number of housing units that may be built with any portion of the county only if the county increases the number of housing units that may be built elsewhere in the county. The recommendation here is to pass just with a defer, a deferred date. April 23, 2057.

Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for SB 25 is to pass with amendments. To the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 38. This prohibits the legislative body of a county from making modifications or imposing conditions to housing development proposals that would increase the cost of the project. Recommendation here is also to simply put a defective date on it. April 23, 2057. Questions or concerns? If not Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for SB 38 is passed with amendments. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations?

No.

Noting objections from Senator Awa. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 1425. This amends the quorum requirement for the State Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee. After having looked at the testimony and discuss the Bill, it, it's an important enough Advisory Committee that I think they need to operate with quorum like other boards have and the request they're making.

What this Bill would do is set the quorum at 7 out of 20 Members. And that would mean that four Members could move something forward. And I just think that's just too small a minority to be a fair representation of what the board as a whole would think of the matter. So I'm going to defer this one.

Next one is SB 1520. This establishes an exemption for mediation and paternity proceedings where there are allegations of domestic abuse. Clarifies exemption from mediation and divorce proceedings as it relates to domestic abuse.

Our recommendation is to pass with amendments, with an amendment suggested by Elizabeth Kent of the Uniform Law Commission.

Be sure there's no conflict conflict between various provisions on this topic. The parties, so that the language would be: "The parties may be accompanied by attorney or other individual of the party's choice pursuant to section 658 H10". If that's all right with the Chair of the Human Services Committee. It's just, it's already defined somewhere else.

Okay. That's fine.

Okay, that's it. Other questions or any questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for SB 1520 is to pass with amendments. Of the Members president, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 1323 relating to healthcare. This adopts the Uniform Healthcare Decisions Act with amendments to replace chapters 327e and 327g of the HRS.

Pretty complicated Bill, as I recall. I think we're just going to make some technical changes and we'll leave the defective date on and move forward. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for SB 1323 is to pass with amendments. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

Okay, Moving on to SB 228. Prohibits excited delirium from being recognized as a valid medical diagnosis or cause of death in the state. The recommendation here. So there are two prior committees. Senator Elefante is okay with the changes we suggested and Senator San Buenaventura. Have you had a chance to look at them?

I can describe them if it's helpful.

I'm looking at the Judiciary's recommendation. No, I do not concur.

Okay. Right. That was a bad date. Okay, we'll just move it forward unamended then. Questions or concerns? If not Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation for SB 228 is to pass unamended. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Next up is SB 1285. This establishes the offense of operating a vehicle while impaired and penalties. We're going to defer this until Friday, February 28th, 10am in this room, 016. So it's deferred until a week from tomorrow.

SB 1648 establishes requirements for compensation to utility customers following a power outage. The recommendation here is to pass unamended.

I'd like to put in the Committee report that this is not about assigning blame necessarily. It's about who pays for the, the outage. There are situations where no one's at fault, but somebody still has to pay.

And that's why I would like to move this Bill forward. But we'll put that in the Committee report. So unamended. Questions or concerns? If not Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for SB 1648 is to pass unamended. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 951. This requires mandatory reports of child abuse or neglect to include the military status of the child's parent or guardian if known. Recommendation here is to pass with technical amendments. Questions or concerns? If not, Acting Vice Chair.

SB 951, the chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 79. This requires Department Land and Natural Resources to determine the effect of any certain proposed of certain proposed housing project within 90 days of a request for determination.

Establishes historical review requirements based on the project areas known history, culture, and archaeological resources. Recommendations is to pass unamended. questions or concerns? If not, Acting Vice Chair.

Of the Members present. Are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 312 requires the use of current auto reverse warning systems backup beepers on state and county owned vehicles purchased on or after January 1, 2028 with more effective broadband reversing alarms. So they're not just the piercing one tone backup beeper but a more broadband reversing alarms are called.

Recommendations is pass as is. Questions or concerns? Yes.

I don't suppose the DOT is here to give a demonstration. Nobody from DOT. from what I read. It's. It's from the "beep beep, beep" to "pssh, pssh, pssh".

I refer to them as quackers. It sounds like a duck quacking kind of but it but it's not that just intense one tone thing. But you can still hear them. It's just yeah. Other questions, comments? If not Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for SB312 is to pass unamended. Of the numbers present, are there any objections or reservations?

No.

Noting Objection from Senator Awa, the recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Next up is SB 1522. Clarifies that a transfer shall not be liable for any violation resulting from the operation of a transferred vehicle if the transfer OR complies with proportions of the statute requiring action on the transfer OR's part. Recommendations passed as is questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for SB 1522 is to pass unamended. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much Members. Next up is SB 1032. This prohibits foreign entities and foreign influence business entities from making contributions, expenditures, electionary communications or donations for election purposes.

This one is still need to do some work on it. So we're going to go ahead and just defer it for a few days here. We'll defer it till Thursday, a week from today, February 27th, 10am here in 016.

Moving on to SB 1195. This establishes buffer zones that ban street parking within certain distances of crosswalks under certain posted speed limits. Recommendation on this one is to pass unamended on 1195. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Recommendation for SB 1195 is to pass unamended. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations?

No.

Noting objections from Senator Awa. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 1216. This conditions the issuance of a certificate of inspection upon a vehicle not being equipped with a noisy muffler or exhaust system. Recommendation here is to pass as is. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

For SB 1216, Chair's recommendation is to pass unamended. Of Members present, are there any objections or reservations?

Noting objections from Senator Awad. The recommendations adopted.

No.

Okay, thank you. Next up is SB 1321. This, beginning July 1, 2025, extends the term of the oversight coordinator for the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. Clarifies that the oversight coordinator has the General authority to inspect agencies and correctional facilities without notice.

Okay, we have prior concurrence to move the, the term of the Oversight Hawaii Correctional Oversight Commission Coordinator from...to a four year term. And that would be the amendment. Questions or concerns? if not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for SB 1321 is to pass with amendments of the Members present. Are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

That concludes our business for today. We have more agendas tomorrow. Thanks for being here.