House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Thursday, March 13, 2025 and we are in Conference Room 325 at the State Capitol. We're here for the purpose of considering numerous measures. Thanks to the Members for being here. Thank you to all the testifiers for being here.

If you wish to testify today and you have not signed up in advance, please if you would be so kind as to go outside and sign up on the sign up sheet that Chris has out on the table on the lanai just outside, and that way we'll have your names if you haven't already signed up in advance.

If you're testifying, I would request that you keep your testimony to two minutes. I'll ask you to summarize at that point. If you're testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify. And then after your testimony is complete, turn your video off and mute yourself again.

If you have technical issues on Zoom, you can use the Zoom chat function to communicate with our really smart IT staff here, and they'll do their best to help you out. If you're disconnected, don't panic. Just try to rejoin as soon as you can, and we'll try to fit you in if possible.

If there is a power failure here and we need to reschedule the meeting, we'll make sure to post appropriate notice so everyone knows when we're going to meet and what we're going to do. If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images.

That kicks us off of YouTube, and that's a problem because we want the public to watch us. And please conduct yourself with aloha and refrain from profanity or uncivil behavior. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. Thank you. Appreciate that. Let's go ahead and get started.

The first measure, Senate Bill 227, Senate Draft 1, relating to fireworks. This measure establishes the Illegal Fireworks Enforcement Division within the Department of Law Enforcement and appropriates funds. First up, we have the Department of Law Enforcement. Deputy Director Redulla. Welcome.

Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Jared Redulla, the Deputy Director for Law Enforcement. Our Department is in support of the measure. Thank you.

Why is this an important measure?

Well, thank you very much, sir. What we want to do is magnify the success of the fireworks task force and what we've. In our very short existence. One of the important lessons that we've learned is that fireworks enforcement and managing this effort is a full time job of many employees. Right now it's a task force.

We have two employees that do it as a collateral duty and we bring in the other agencies. But what we really need is a full time focus to really push back on the criminal element involved in this.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that further explanation about the importance of this measure. Thank you, sir. Sir, we've received written testimony from three organizations and looks like nine individuals, 12 in support, six in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in person or on zoom on this Measure?

Senate Bill 227 Senate Draft 1, If not questions, Members? Okay, after you Representative Shimizu, I have a question.

Thank you. Chair Department of Law Enforcement there's an another Bill that we're considering after this SB222 and it is extending the task force which you referenced. So if you had to choose between the two, which one would you choose or do you need both? Because I'm just thinking we have maybe limited funds.

Thank you for that question. Representative the sense that we have is that we need both. Let me sort of explain what that why the bill that we're on now creates this full time effort to be able to keep pressure on the criminal element and to be able to manage.

There's an everyday job when you're dealing with all of the hazardous fireworks and especially in the large amounts that we already have, it's a full time effort to keep everybody safe and to be able to make sure that we're storing correctly.

The difference between this and the fireworks task force is that some of the job of what we have to do involves agencies at different levels. We're dealing with the Federal Government and federal law enforcement agencies.

We also have to deal with the county fire Department and when we need those agencies to work with us, there are things, very expensive things that we have to pay for, transportation, storage, overtime and the efforts of those agencies that we have to pay for in order to accomplish the state's purpose of restricting fireworks.

Follow up question Chair so what I'm hearing is the this bill is more manpower on the ground and the task force is more administrative. Would that be kind of a accurate?

I think that the, the best way to frame it is that the operational the task force is operational monies and monies needed to pay for the efforts of the other agencies and that this current Bill is for us to have that full time state employees working on this every single day, because that's what it's amounted to now is that I have Narcotics investigators who are doing this right now and enforcement on drugs is an equally important thing.

And they're taken from that duty to have to address fireworks every single day.

All right, thank you. Thank you for the work that you do. And thank you, Chair.

Certainly. Thank you. Other questions? And just. The question for me is just to clarify. So this is a division with six new positions and dedicated funding that you're seeking in this measure?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. Let's move on to the next Measure, Senate Bill 222, Senate Draft 1 relating to fireworks. This measure appropriates monies for the illegal fireworks task force and extends the sunset date of the task force until June 30, 2030.

And first up, we have Deputy Director Radula.

Thank you again, Jared Ridola, the Deputy Director. Our Department is in support of this and based on my previous explanation, again, the difference is that we use this type of money in order to fund efforts by the other agencies that we have to work with and the things that we have to pay for.

When those agencies take certain actions, they're related to things like transportation, storage, overtime of other agencies personnel, those kinds of expenses.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Next we have testimony from the Honolulu Police Department. Welcome, sir.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Randall, Major Randall Platt with the Honolulu Police Department. We stand on a written testimony in support of House Bill of Senate Bill 222.

Could you just tell us the highlights about why you think this is an important Bill?

We believe that funding the DLE is worthwhile and will help us as we also we work together with them a lot in this endeavor. So we believe in helping the staff and fund their Department with their task force.

Thank you very much. Next we have testimony on ZOOM from Austin Martin. Please proceed.

Aloha, everyone. I'm Austin Martin, Libertarian Party of Hawaii. I'm really glad to be here today. Thank you. I want to say, first of all, this Bill is not important. It's an absolute waste of our times. We're talking about criminalizing people with serious government power as if they were real criminals, as if they were like drug kingpins.

But in reality, there are uncles, our aunties, our friends, our staffers that are simply setting off fireworks, as has always been done in Hawaii and is not a problem. Prohibitions fail because they take the attention off of the actual criminal enforcement.

Behavioral, you know, focus, like dangerous, you know, setting off fireworks in very populated areas rather than focusing on dangerous behavior. Prohibition focuses on attacking objects, and inanimate objects don't commit crimes. Right. People do. And the possession of an object is not a crime. It's the use of the object that defines the crime.

So again, here we are trying to basically get rid of due process so we can go after political enemies, because, let's face it, it was embarrassing to the Green Administration that so many people defied his laws. This is about trying to control culture. It's not okay. Every fireworks bill should stop. The program should sunset.

It's a big boondoggle. They're stealing our money for it. And I wrote a little song while I was in the waiting room earlier. I didn't quite get it all out in the house, so I managed to add a line here. So we'll see if it actually comes through. I don't know if you guys will actually hear it.

It'll be really embarrassing.

We'd be happy to listen to it for the rest of your two minute time slot. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Takes a spark to light an ember. Though you try to put it out the fire starts we remember up in the sky we'll shoot it out don't change our ways don't touch our culture. Making rules, this is our home this is our land now is our moment make us change, leave us alone.

Thank you. Could you summarize?

Take out all the anger on the people for the fireworks show. What you give is what you get so come on, why not let it go? Our culture is a.

Thank you very much. Music is always good, but we do need to keep going. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Anyone else wishing to testify? Oh, I should say that we received a total of 13 testimonies in support, six in opposition on this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 222, Senate Draft 1.

If not, questions members? Any questions? If not, if. Yep. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Chair DLE, please. Just because this has been such a big issue and, and actually the. The New Year's event occurred in my district, so it's very close to my heart. And I'm just thankful for what you're doing. I'm just a real brief. Because we have time.

What is the update of some of the positives that you folks have been experiencing with the extra effort?

So there is a consequence now, Representative. So we saw that even though there was quite a bit of New Year's Eve use of illegal fireworks, what we're seeing as well is that the street prices are really high. And the way you drive those prices really high is by enforcement.

You know, when people, you know, whoever is investing in these shipments that come into Hawaii, you better think twice because the task force is watching and looking and potentially you're going to lose on your investment.

And that's really what we're one of the goals of our task force is to price people out of the market that if you're not going to stop, then you're going to drive the prices so high that it's not really worth it to get involved in it because right now the prices are really high. Okay.

Thank you. And thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? If not, thanks very much. Appreciate it. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1324, Senate Draft 2, relating to fireworks. This is a more comprehensive bill that amends multiple definitions and penalties for fireworks offenses, heightened penalties if a person is injured seriously or dies, establishes criminal offenses for general fireworks in the first and second degree and distributing fireworks to non-permit holders and others.

So it... And it also sets up a system of fireworks infractions in addition to those other changes in the bill. Similar but different in some respects from House Bill 1483 that we have approved in the House. So first up on this measure, we have the Department of Law Enforcement. Got the Director here now. Thank you, sir. Please proceed.

Thank you. So, Mike Lambert, Director of Law Enforcement. Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. We stand in strong support of Senate Bill 1324. It establishes a broader bandwidth of ability to enforce fireworks, meaning that it's particularly narrow and the definitions become problematic for street enforcement. So with this new bill, we believe that the community will be able to see better enforcement numbers as it pertains to what they're experiencing.

I think some of the frustration of the community is the fact that they're seeing all of these violations occur, and then when the annual reports come out for the enforcement, they're not nearly they're not even close to being effective. So I think that this bill would allow us to go from citation in the field all the way to higher level offenses. And particularly with Aliamanu, we would have harsher enforcements for situations that result in people's injury. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Tricia Nakamatsu in person. Welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Tricia Nakamatsu appearing on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. We are in strong support of this bill. And thank you, Chair, for hearing it.

We'd also like to thank Governor Green, of course, and Representative Matayoshi for their leadership in introducing this and a very similar bill, which Chair mentioned, which is going through the Senate side now. This bill does present a comprehensive approach to strengthening the statutes and our fireworks control laws.

We feel this would give our law enforcement officers and our prosecutors the tools they need to better enforce these laws and keep the public safe to help regulate the black market that has developed here in Hawaii. It is very comprehensive as far as amending definitions.

It's actually one of the most important things that it does because the way that definitions are crafted right now, it makes it very difficult for law enforcement and prosecutors to prosecute some of these cases, especially the ones in which the fireworks actually have gone up in the air, exploded, and there's no longer any evidence to collect.

So we feel this would go a long way to helping that effort. We're also making sure that the penalties go from the very smallest to the biggest types of violations, so that everybody in the chain is going to be affected and will be held accountable, everyone from the importers to the people who are storing it and selling or purchasing or even setting off illegal fireworks.

We feel that all of those present issues and hope that this bill will present a comprehensive approach to... Oh, and of course I should also mention has been noted that the repeat offenders and substantial or serious bodily injury or death would receive enhanced penalties as well. Thank you. Available for questions.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Jon Ikenaga, Public Defender. We strongly oppose this bill and there were two primary bases. So the first is that we believe that it's not necessary at this point to increase penalties, create new offenses in the sense that there already is an existing fireworks scheme that punishes these type of offenses.

Our concern is the enforcement. And as I stated in my written testimony, we have not opposed bills that seek to, for instance, the two preceding bills that seek to enhance enforcement of these of the existing fireworks measures. So what we our argument is is that deterrence is served by actually enforcing the laws, laws on the books.

Increasing penalties does not necessarily deter people if the laws are not enforced. So you can increase the penalties to the maximum if you want to do that, do it in that sense. But it's really when people see people getting arrested, such as the Aliamanu incident, that the deterrence effect starts to come in.

Our second issue with this bill is actually the more I I feel compelling is the concurrent trial provision. And so that would mix the civil infraction trial with the criminal trial and do it at the same time or allow it to be done at the same time. And I pointed out numerous problems with that.

The civil infraction process is very different. There's no right to representation by a public defender in that type of case because it's not criminal. And combining it with a criminal offense, which also is subject to constitutional concerns as well, that are not present in the civil infraction, creates a big issue. For instance, you know, like the...

If a person wants to go through the civil infraction process and then send in an admission, that could then affect the criminal trial. Or if during the criminal trials, you know, like or the concurrent trial on the infraction process, the person wants to resolve the civil side but not, you know, be, not the criminal side, it creates an issue as well. Also...

Summarize, please.

Okay, I'm sorry. So those are our two primary concerns. Our biggest concern, though, however, is the concurrent trial. Thank you.

Sure. Thanks. And there may very well be questions. So thanks for sticking around just for a little bit. Okay. Next we have Honolulu Police Department.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Major Randall Platt with the Honolulu Police Department. We stand on our written testimony in support of Senate Bill 1324.

Thank you very much. Next, Prosecuting Attorney Honolulu. Mr. Hugo.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. Our office is offering comments on this bill. And what we just wanted to do is clarify the current enforcement problem and point out a provision in the bill that may improve this.

If you think about the fireworks control law, we really have two issues here, which is the supply. Regulating the supply side and regulating the demand side. Those are two separate issues. On the supply side, we're dealing with unexploded ordnance, which can be chemically tested and in which you can have very precise measurements.

So the requirement, for instance, defining an aerial device on page 41 of the bill. An aerial device has a maximum of 130 milligrams of explosive material. And if it's unexploded and you seize that material, you might be able to prosecute violations on that basis.

However, once the firework has exploded, we have no idea how much explosive material was there. That evidence is destroyed, it's gone. And that's one of the reasons why an officer can see the firework being set off and not be able to issue a citation for anything because nothing can be proven in court.

This bill provides two alternative definitions for aerial device. And one would be useful for cases where the firework has exploded, and the other would be useful for cases where the firework is unexploded and seized. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Myoung Oh, TNT Fireworks.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Myoung Oh here on behalf of TNT Fireworks. We offer comments and offer recommended amendments, primarily on page 35 and its plain reading of the language of consumer fireworks prohibition.

The way I read it is that it ultimately bans the type of consumer fireworks, such as sparklers, fountains, which is currently defined. For the neighbor islands, if you're familiar, sparklers and fountains are permitted, whereas Oahu it is not. So the blanket sweeping and the understanding of that part, it does ultimately create a kind of a ban.

Sections 5 and 7 does strike out authority of the counties like the fire department and the counties to issue license as well as permits. So we're a little uncertain exactly who's going to, where the authority is going to be held. And again, the disparity is on the neighbor islands.

You can actually get your permit with your firecrackers at the retailer. As opposed to Oahu, you have to actually go to satellite city hall, apply, pick it up, and then go to the retailer with your permit. So with that, I stand on my written testimony and thank you very much.

Sure. Thank you very much. Next, Austin Martin on Zoom. Mr. Martin.

Aloha. Thank you again.

Sure.

Yeah. To kind of follow up on this. This bill is an abomination. It needs to be stopped. Doing concurrent criminal and civil proceedings is absurd. Adding the penalties. And again, we're talking about possession. We're not even really targeting use. We're not targeting irresponsible people who are being dangerous. We're targeting your constituents and voters and their families and giving them very good reasons to be angry with you in 2026. This is our culture. We have a right. And I also kind of wanted to finish my thoughts from earlier.

You can finish your song.

Fireworks show. What you give is what you get. So why don't you come on, let it go. Our culture isn't yours to debate on the Senate Floor. So come on and give it up. Your voters already know we come into your districts coming out to knock your doors. Working with the workers, rich men and the student poor. Misbehaving politicians know what is in store.

Cause the people of Hawaii light a fire once more more. Guys, don't throw good money after bad. We have to stop this nonsense. Don't be cajoled into supporting authoritarian dictatorial police powers to enforce fireworks. Don't be the guy who killed fun on New Year's. This is Hawaii and it needs to stay Hawaii. Let's stop the tyranny with allay nonsense and get back to real. Aloha. I yield.

Thank you, Mr. Martin. Appreciate that. Anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 1324? We received 17 testimonies in support and seven in opposition, three with comments. There being no further testifiers, any questions, Members? Yes, Representative Belatti.

I have a question for the Attorney General. Actually two questions. Is there any amendment that we can make to address the Public Defender's concerns about concurrent trial? That's the first one. And then the second one is do you have any problems with the amendment for TNT to have that carve out for what is, I believe, legitimate businesses? So two different questions in two different directions. And if you haven't seen it, then we can pass on that and maybe have you comment later.

Okay. With regards to the concurrent trials, we actually don't think that there is an issue. We thought that this was... Well, so the infractions procedures in the bill closely mirror Chapter 291D, which handles traffic infractions and emergency order violations.

And one of the provisions in there basically says that on page, if you look on page seven, lines 10 to 13, that mirrors Chapter 291D-3 subsection D. So 291D-3 subsection D has already existed and was actually an important consideration in a Hawaii Supreme Court.

Was it a Supreme Court in a prior appellate case that was decided called State v. Kalua in 2019. In footnote 13 and 14, they addressed HRS 291D-3 subsection D to basically say that there is it's fine to have both the infraction and the criminal track, that the infractions don't create a double jeopardy or a double jeopardy issue.

This isn't a double jeopardy issue. This is about the right to not to testify or not testify.

And it... Well, it's also the statutes also say that they can't be used in the criminal case.

All right. Okay. So that's a... So the Attorney General's position is that, if this were to go forward, don't there might be a constitutional challenge, but you will the bill as drafted would would withstand that constitutional challenge.

We... Yes, we basically looked into it, but we thought it was fine.

Other questions? Other questions? Nope. Thank you very much. Any other questions for any other testifiers? Seeing none. We'll move on. Thank you very... Oh yes, Representative Shimizu.

Did the AG answer your second part of the question, Rep. Belatti?

No, no. She may not be able to, though. She might not have seen the testimony.

So I think we'll have to address that.

I see. Thank you.

Chair, can I ask one follow up question to the Public Defenders? So hearing that and seeing your very strong defense otherwise, do you think that there is any way that we could amend this to address your concerns?

No, we will, I think. Well, Kalua, as you correctly stated, was a double jeopardy issue. So they said prostate. I believe they said having the civil infraction and a criminal charge based on the same conduct did not constitute double jeopardy. But this is different than having a concurrent trial with a civil infraction and a criminal charge where different considerations apply. And that's what the issue is going to be. I mean, how, I'm not aware of any cases where they directly challenge this procedure. I was aware of 291D, but I'm not aware. I haven't even come across any cases. I talked to our district where people were, this procedure is actually used even during the emergency infraction period, those kind of things. So.

So maybe a follow up question. If it's not, if we can't solve it, to have it concurrent, would the solution be to make sure that it's not concurrent and one has to come before the other or vice?

Yes. Yes.

Otherwise we will expect a challenge. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Sure. Any other questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the next measure. And I just want to note, I mentioned this earlier. If you have not already signed up to testify when you sent in your testimony in advance, if you would please sign up at the table that's out on the lanai just out here, so that way I can be able to call you. Okay. Let's move on to Senate Bill 308, Senate Draft 2, relating to firearms.

This measure expands the ban on pistols with a detachable Magaz with over a 10 round capacity to any firearm with a detachable magazine with over a 30 round capacity.

It exempts detachable ammunition magazines with a capacity in excess of 30 rounds that are designed for or capable of use with any firearm other than a pistol obtained before January 1, 2026. First up, we have the Department of Law Enforcement.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Mike Lambert, Director of Department of Law Enforcement. We stand in strong support of this bill.

I think it strikes a fair balance in moving in a good direction as far as grandfathering those that already have high capacity magazines and then ensuring that moving forward, we do not, I guess, acquire any more within the state. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next we have Jerry Yuen in person. Great. Welcome. Please proceed.

Hello, I'm Jerry Yuen, President Pulu Rifle and Pistol Club. I am also a citizen. I was. I'm a retired citizen soldier from the Army National Guard. I was one of the people who actually deployed with the Hawaii Army national guard back in 2005 and again in 2009 to Iraq and Kuwait.

My role back then in the first deployment, I was a weapons trainer. My big thing was that.50 caliber. Both the M2 machine gun Browning, which is a heavy bastard that weighs 107 pounds, that in no way has been used in any crime here in Hawaii.

The other weapon that was fielded that only I seemed to know about when it showed up in its package was the M107 Barrett.50 caliber anti material rifle. That one is. Whoa. Magazine. Let me change you. You were telling a great story. I was listening. But yeah, this one.

So during that first deployment, we went to war with the Army. We had with the equipment, we had the magazines. We had issued 30 rounds, but not knowing what to expect downrange outside the wire. In combat, many people purchased their own 30 or 4060 round magazines, 75 round drums, 100 round drums from companies like Magpul Surefire.

Some of them didn't work too good, but we didn't find out till we were actually downrange here. Locally, we can't really load up that much over a coco head. You only allowed five in your magazine at a time. I'm strongly opposed to magazine bans in General, especially since like this one kept changing. We're at SD2 now.

First was all then rifles, and now we're looking at just anything over 30. This to me is what I call moving the goalpost or just throwing stuff at the wall, hoping that stick. So again, I'm opposed to this magazine ban and you heard half my story for the 50 Cal.

Okay, well, I appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Next. Olivia Li, Everytown for Gun Safety on zoom.

Hi, good evening. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee, I'm Olivia Li. I'm Senior Counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, our organization and the Hawaii chapter of Moms Demand Action participate in one of the largest gun advocacy or sorry, gun safety advocacy organizations in the country.

We are delivering comment today because we enthusiastically supported the original version of this bill of SB308 which explicitly applied the 10 round magazine limit that is currently in place for pistols to rifles and shotguns. And we urged this Committee to restore the bill to its original version.

Unfortunately, the changes made to this bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee in their SD2 version expressly allow high capacity magazines that hold up to 30 rounds for dangerous semi automatic rifles like the AR15, which is absolutely going against the original intent of the legislation.

And moreover, we believe that the SD2 version jeopardizes the state's current magazine limit on pistols in that the changes allow 30 round magazines that are compatible with rifles and shotguns. In truth, many kinds of magazines are compatible with both pistols and long guns.

Hawaii already acknowledges that giving shooters the ability to unload dozens of rounds in seconds is an abhorrent danger.

The state should do everything it can to preserve its current 10 round limit for pistols and absolutely not expand to a 30 round limit for other firearms and should instead make sure that its law is clear and uniform and applies to all kinds of firearms, pistols, rifles and shotguns included. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next we have Austin Martin with Young Americans for Liberty. Mr. Martin.

Aloha. This is Austin Martin. I'm here with Young Americans for Liberty today to testify about the right of self defense and the problems with this bill. I'm the musical chair. I strongly oppose this bill. The right to self defense should never be infringed by any good government. The people of Hawaii have a right to defend themselves.

And no one has a right to deprive themselves of this right. To even attempt to do so should be considered a criminal act. In support of my position against this body's ongoing assault on liberty and the Constitution, I would sincerely offer this remark from C.S. Lewis.

Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons. Cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated.

But those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult.

To be cured against one's will and to be cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will to be classed with infants, imbeciles and domestic animals.

I strongly oppose this bill and every bill like it. We need to give the law abiding citizens of Hawaii a chance to defend themselves. We would not have to incarcerate so many extremely violent and dangerous offenders if we allowed people the right to defend their own homes, their property and their persons from violent attacks.

The fear of the government, of the people is a good thing. And I really think that safety ism is truly a mental disorder and we need to reject those voices which would use fear in order to stop the freedoms and limit the choices of otherwise free individuals.

It is critical that Hawaii's right to the second amendment to be able to arm ourselves is allowed. And right now the entire state government is doing everything they can to disarm the innocence which only empowers the criminals.

I yield. Thank you very much. Next we have Michael Rice on zoom. Please proceed, Mr. Rice.

Aloha. Mike Rice, speaking as an individual in opposition to this bill. As others might not have mentioned yet, this bill is unconstitutional. It violates the Heller decision as well as the Caetano decision and is backed up by Bruin. I apologize. I was prepared for the 50 Cow Bill. There's.

Even with the stipulations made now there with the grandfathering and the exemption for 30cals. Not 30cal. 30. 30 round magazines, it still goes too far. There's some guns that only sell higher capacity magazines as their standard, like the Steyr Augment, as well as the PS90, which I believe starts off with a 50 round magazine.

Just because the bullet is so small, like it's. It's about this size. And there's also other issues with the grandfathering. How is. If I get stopped at Coco Head, how is HPD gonna know that I didn't buy this the day before, after it's. After it's been banned. There's no.

There's only a lot number and a manufacture date on this. And I have several of these that date back to the 1970s, the late 70s for their lot code where they. When they don't even have a date on them. There's also other issues like what they mentioned with magazine compatibility. This is a 30 round 5.56 magazine.

If I. I can also use it for 550 Beowulf, which. But that only limits it to 10 rounds for that weapon. There's other capacity issues as well. One of the previous testifiers stated that this would be a backdoor to allow high capacity pistol magazines because they can fit into rifles. That's simply not true.

Under current law if it fits in a pistol, it's illegal if it's over 10 rounds. I'd also add that in the past HPD says that they've never been able to really enforce this law because they catch guys all the time. Prosecutors just toss it out whenever they catch somebody with a high passing pistol mag.

It's one of the first things to get plea bargained away. So it's like.

And like I mentioned in previous testimonies about the shooter who shot two police officers as well as his wife or ex girlfriend and he was caught six months before with literally a machine gun and a high capacity magazine and was still out on probation to do his shooting and wild goose chase. So it's not really enforceable.

The only thing this does is punish after the fact, after there's a mass shooting after somebody shoots a bunch of cops or does something terrible. It's rarely ever helps before. All right, I believe that's all I had that I don't have written down. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Rice. Next we have Oscar Gonzalez on zoom. Not present in opposition. Next we have Rosalynn Marie Erickson in person or not on zoom. Okay, not present in opposition. Next. John Abbott, Welcome.

Please proceed. Thank you. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, My name is John Abbott. I am the chief plaintiff in Abbott v. Connors. The lawsuit is going to overturn the pistol magazine limitation here in Hawaii. Passage of 308 is going to is ridiculous. There's over.

I can't tell you how many tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands of these magazines exist in this state already. Passing this law would do nothing to increase safety. Most of the gun crime that have been in the news lately has all been done with pistols. And most of those pistols are illegal.

As you notice, HP never tells you where they got the firearm. It's because they weren't supposed to have them in the first place. As you know, under Hawaiian law, no 1 under under 21 supposed to have a firearm, supposed to be a pistol. And most of these shootings are between people who are in their teens.

So all the excuses and the bluster that people have testified here saying this will improve gun safety or safety in the state is not true. All it's going to do is basically harm lawful citizens who have a right to own these firearms.

This has been reified under not only the Supreme Court Bruen statuses, but also Heller and a Couple other more Non Supreme Court cases. If you guys do pass this, my biggest concern is that right now the grandfathering clause is in this current version, but that's not to say it can't be stripped out later on.

And if, if not just for that reason, if you guys pass this, we will be suing you. We'll be adding this law to our current lawsuit. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Jay Franzone.

Thank you. Chair Members of the Committee. My name is Jay Franzone. I study violence and how to prevent it at Johns Hopkins. Gun violence is a public health crisis. We know that. And high capacity magazines, to be clear, meaning those with 10 or more bullets present a clear factor and a clear risk for the deadliest shootings.

In fact, magazines with 10 or more bullets result in six times as many people shot per incident. The law should explicitly ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for any type of firearm to ensure our existing protections remain intact.

And in fact, a 2024 survey of registered voters across the islands, not just on Oahu, showed that Hawaii voters support this, support less than 10 rounds per firearm in a magazine.

The people you're hearing from, the testimony this Committee is hearing is that mostly from extremists, mostly from folks who may frankly have a financial benefit from the gun industry. And that's fine. But at the end of the day, we need to know that that doesn't keep Hawaiians safe. That doesn't keep our state safe.

Please restore this to its original version. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Next. Todd Yukutake.

Welcome, sir. Please proceed. Aloha, Chair Committee Todd Yukutake. I oppose this bill. I think I consider myself a patriot. I don't get paid to promote magazines, but I just do it for my appreciation of the second Amendment and the rights our founders provided with us.

And I think this does fall under the Second Amendment as far as not only self defense use, but also militia use, which we might not necessarily have a need as much as we did 200 years ago, but it's still in the Constitution and it's still America's tradition.

I appreciate the changes that the Senate made to increase the magazine limit to 30 rounds and allow grandfathering. However, I still think this bill is unconstitutional and it should be removed. As was said before, this still does affect pistol magazines. That part hasn't changed. As far as the law goes.

It says in the bill, under number three, line three, manufacturer, position, sale, barter, trade, et cetera, of a detachable magazine with a capacity of excess of 10 rounds that are designed for capable for use with a pistol is prohibited. So that part is still in the law. Again, I don't agree with that part.

I think even pistol magazines should be unrestricted. But that should at least absolve your concerns about the its use in the handgun. But I am opposed to the spell. Appreciate your time.

Sure. Appreciate your time. Mr. Yukatake. Thank you very much. Noella Van Wygant on Zoom, not present in opposition. Mary Healy on z\Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha. Thank you for hearing my testimony. Mary Healy. I'd just like to also state I do this not because I'm being paid or because I have some interest in the firearm industry. I do this because I worry about the safety of our citizens in Hawaii and the United States.

I understand that there is fear around guns, but guns historically protect people. And our founding fathers would 100% stand behind those who are in opposition to this bill because at any given time we could face a real threat. You know, Hawaii is in the center of the Pacific. It's the most remote island chain in the world.

And at the end of the day, the individuals who know how to operate firearms are some of our strongest citizens in case something was to happen. And it's not the law abiding citizens who are the problem, it's the criminals who use firearms who are historically the ones to put people in danger.

And so I'm against banning any family of firearms. I see the power and strength that firearms give us. And at the end of the day we all need to be very mindful considering any geopolitical landscape that might come up, that these firearms are tools to protect ourselves. So that's why I stand in opposition to this bill.

I don't believe in limiting anything under the second amendment. I believe in protecting our country and that means voting no on this bill. So thank you all for hearing my testimony and God bless.

Thank you very much. Ms. Healy. See we have Mary Ellen Williams. Welcome. Please proceed.

Hi. I'm here to reinforce the comments that I've that you've heard from Jay in every town that we would like to go back to our original intent of limiting it to a 10 round capacity. And there is not evidence that actually having a gun protects you.

The truth is that guns are not typically used in self defense and those living with guns in the home are twice as likely to die by homicide and three times as likely to die by suicide than those that are living in a gun free home.

I'm not for banning guns, I'm just for more gun safety in a safer home. Environment, safer, civil environment. Also, children, teenagers, they, they mimic what they see at home.

You know, if we care about our safety and we care about our neighborhoods and we care about our town and we talk in a way that is about safety and caring for our neighbor, I think that modeling is much more positive than saying that we're scared of our neighbors and we need a gun to protect ourselves.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Chris Marvin, Aloha Chair, Vice Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. Chris Marvin, representing the Veteran Voice Foundation. I am submitting comments only. Similar to others, I was supportive of the original bill, the 10 round limit, but the expansion to 30 rounds is unnecessary and something that we cannot live with. Look, I too am a army combat veteran.

I was wounded in Afghanistan. I too was there way back in the day, 2004, with 25th ID and the Hawaiian National Guard. And I had an M4 and an M9. I had a semiautomatic rifle and I had a pistol. What I didn't have is a magazine that was more than 30 rounds. We did have 30 round magazines.

That's what is necessary in Afghanistan. That is not necessary in Honolulu. Okay, so if we're going to, you know, going to war, we can have that level of magazines.

But if we're talking about self defense, if we're talking about marksmanship and gun safety training at the range, I think somebody mentioned they're limited to five rounds at the range here at Cocoed. Right? There's a reason, right? It's for safety.

We've seen shootings in the last week or two at Ala Wana beach park and a drive by shooting in Kapolei. Right. Just imagine if those shooters who are willing to expel rounds from their guns at humans, Imagine if they have more bullets. They're going to expel more bullets.

They're going to expel as many as they have because they've already made the decision to shoot. So that is why it's this Legislature's job to limit the size of magazines to keep our state safe. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else in the room that wants to testify in this measure? Yes. Come on up. Introduce yourself, please.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you. My name is James Wallace. Thank you for this opportunity. And I just wanted to say I'm fully against the SB308, fully opposed and it will not bring down crime. And I said that probably hundreds of times. And that's the whole purpose of you guys making bills. You guys should have bills.

That brings down crime. This is unnecessary. And number two, it'll give criminals advantage. And I said that probably 10,000 times because a criminal would not listen to it. So that testimony that I just said, if the guy had a magazine and if he had an expansion magazine, 30 rounds, he'd be shooting more.

Well, of course he's not going to listen anyway. If I was a criminal, I wouldn't listen. I would be like, I'm gonna grab a 30 round. Who's gonna stop him from getting a 30 round? It's all us law abiding citizens that's gonna listen. So that doesn't make sense. Where. zero, if they had more rounds.

First of all, most of the people right now committing crimes in the past 35 years, they don't. They're not supposed to even have guns in the first place. So second, the reality is constitutional people are against this bill while criminals are for it. Criminals. They want you guys to ban these bills. No, ban these magazines.

They want you guys to expand more. More gun bills. They like that. They're not going to go against it. I guarantee you most of them are. If they were to do testimony right now, they'll be for this bill. And lastly, let's have laws having severe punishment on smashing grabs. That's the crime that is rising. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace. Michael Golou.

Good afternoon. Michael Golojuch Jr., President of Pride at Work, Hawaii. He/him pronouns. We support the original intent of this bill. We cannot support the bill in its current form. The grandfathering in does not make our, make our state safer. I want to thank the great work of every town for gun safety for their advocacy on this issue.

We encourage you to revert it back to the bill to its original form. As somebody that has grown up and lives on the west side, we are awash in gun violence. And that all came about. We've only seen the rise of that after the horrible Supreme Court case ruling.

These 30 round cases are only there for people hunting. That's, that's the end of story. That is it. That is what it's there for, for going out and hunting down people. I will agree with the ammosexuals this one time that this bill does nothing in current form because of everything.

Get rid of the grandfather clause, get rid of the high capacity magazines. Let's make Hawaii safer and get back to and with a, with reasonable gun safety laws. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. That's all the testifiers that said they want to testify. We have a total of 28 testifiers in support, 268 in opposition, and eight with comments there being no other people who wish to testify. Any questions, Members? Questions? None. Thank you. Thank you very much to all the testifiers. I appreciate that.

Okay, let's move on to the next Measure, Senate Bill 401. This also relating to firearms. This measure includes any firearm with the capacity to fire ammunition of 50 caliber or higher, excluding antique pistols and revolvers, muzzle loaders and shotguns in the list of prohibited weapons.

It exempts firearms with the capacity to fire ammunition Of.50 caliber or higher legally obtained before January 12026. First up, we have Department of Law Enforcement.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Member of the Committee, Mike Lambert, Director of the Department of Law Enforcement. We stand in strong support of this Bill for the same reasons as the previous mag Bill.

Again, we acknowledge the middle ground to find balance in limiting the amount of 50 cal or larger weapons into the future by grandfathering those that are in. Again, it would take time for it to make a difference because of the grandfathering, but we feel it at least meets common ground with all parties. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next. Honolulu Police Department on zoom. Please proceed.

Hi, good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Carlene Lau Major of the Records and Identification Division of the Honolulu Police Department. We appreciate the intent of this Bill and we offer the following concerns.

We actually prefer the language in Senate Bill 600 relating to firearms, specifically pertaining to the .50 caliber and higher firearms where it allows for the ownership of 50 caliber firearms on private property controlled by the person, private property not open to the public with the permission of the property owner.

Property of a licensed dealer for repair while engaged in legal use at at a licensed firing range and while traveling to and from the above mentioned locations. I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Olivia Lee.

Sorry. Good afternoon, I'm Olivia Li, Senior Counsel for Policy at Everytown for Gun Safety. We speak today in support of SB 401, which would prohibit a specific type of military grade weapon, firearms that are capable of firing .50 caliber or greater ammunition.

These rifles were designed for military sniper use and to have the capability of, and have the capability of piercing an armored vehicle from a distance of over a mile away. To be clear, we believe Hawaii should join the other nine states that prohibit the sale of all assault weapons.

But we also support efforts to ensure that these types of exceedingly dangerous weapons aren't available for civilian ownership. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Michael Rice. Mr. Rice, please proceed.

Aloha. Mike Rice again, testifying as an individual. This Bill is overly broad. It doesn't just ban high power sniper rifles. It bans anything That's .50 caliber. It was written by somebody who knows nothing about guns except what they see on TV. As an example, this is a .22 bullet. This is also, sorry, this is also a .22 bullet.

There's a big difference between this one penetrating armor and this one not being weak enough—being strong enough to take out a rabbit. This Bill bans everything That's .50 caliber or greater. In its original form, it banned shotguns because they can fire .50 caliber rounds.

There are numerous .50 caliber rounds, ranging everything from small little pea shooters like this that are just a half inch wide to things that make this look tiny. This, this is a solution in search of a problem. Ask HPD and Department of Law Enforcement, how many .50 cals. they catch criminals with.

That answer is going to be a big goose egg unless it's something like a Desert Eagle and even that scores more of a hood ornament. There's also other problems with this Bill. Even though the language says it exempts shotguns, it's still unclear for that. It still doesn't exempt it in the actual language of the Bill.

As well as flare guns, which can also shoot .50 caliber ammunition. Not a good idea, but you still can. Again, this Bill needs to be deferred. It is a solution in search of a problem. Nobody is walking around with bare .50 cals. in the hood. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next, Mary Ellen Williams. Welcome. Please proceed.

Hello. I just wanted to say that I'm in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Mary Healy on Zoom.

Hi. Thank you for my testimony. Mary Healy. I'm in opposition to this Bill for the reasons that were stated earlier and also, I just don't believe in infringing on the second Amendment. I believe that people have the right to practice sportsmanship or on their private property.

And I think that interfering with that in any way, shape, or form is wrong. I think that this Bill has clearly been shown to have a lot of issues with it, and I'm greatly opposed to it, as well as many other.

I've reviewed the written testimony for both bills actually that I testified for today and it seems pretty congruent. And I understand gun safety advocates' concerns, but at the end of the day, it's criminals who have these guns and use them against the population, which happened quite recently in Waianae and a gun owner was able to actually stop the criminals.

So, we need to protect our gun owners in the State of Hawaii and in the nation, and I'd also like to say that states that have assault weapons bans, they still have gun violence, and they still have it, especially from criminals.

So, I don't want anything, any Bill, to pass in the State of Hawaii that gets in the way of law-abiding citizens using firearms, practicing firearms, being prolific at firearms, in all ways, shapes, or forms, because that education moves people forward, protects our communities, and continues to strengthen America.

So, thank you so much for hearing my testimony and I appreciate each one of you. Mahalo.

Thank you very much, Ms. Healy. Next, Dennis Dunn on Zoom. Not present. In support. Next, Rosalind Marie Erickson. Opposition. Not present. Next, Jay Franzone.

Thank you, Chair, Members of the Committee. .50 cal. is pretty big. It's bigger than a Sharpie. Something that used to write on a sign, right? We're talking about a bullet that can pierce armored vehicles, aircraft, concrete walls from over a mile away. No civilian needs this for self-defense, hunting. It doesn't make sense.

Please move forward to this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. John Abbott. Welcome back up to the rostrum. Please proceed.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I oppose this Bill simply because the previous speaker said that it's not used for hunting—.50 caliber rifles and larger are actually used for hunting. Specifically, if you look at your testimony, there's actually a very nice letter written by Safari Club.

A lot of the rifles that they use to hunt big game, you cannot use any gun that's used for North America. You will die, the Animal will kill you. 50 caliber and larger is actually a very common caliber. A lot of the .454 Casull, .50 caliber, and bigger are used for hunting big game and long-range game.

As for the use in self-defense, I personally can't afford a $7,000 to $20,000 rifle for self-defense. And that's what you're looking at. These rifles are about average, about $15,000 in cost. So, your average criminal is not walking around carrying a bare .50 cal. This is really just a Bill looking for a problem.

And these guns are protected on the second amendment. So you're basically again just going after lawful citizens and doing nothing to prevent crime. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Abbott. Next, Todd Yukutake. Welcome back to the rostrum, sir. Please proceed.

Aloha, Todd Yukutake. I oppose SB 401 because it's unconstitutional. Also, I don't believe there's been any crimes committed with a .50 Cal rifle in Hawaii ever, I believe. And even across the nation, I don't think there's been any crimes done with the .50 cal, or if there were, it's extremely, extremely rare.

Some people have .50 cals for different reasons, for collections. Some people do sniper competitions on the mainland with .50 cals. Some people do, do some hunting on big game, like John said, or some people just use it for enjoyment. But it also could be used for militia use, like traditionally under the second amendment.

Again, maybe not as relevant today as it was 200 years ago, but it's still in the Constitution. It still protects us from foreign and domestic threats, right? Also—yeah, I guess that's it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Noella Van Wygant on Zoom. Not present. Chris Marvin.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee. Thank you. Chris Marvin for the Veteran Voice Foundation, in strong support of this Bill. As I mentioned, I'm an army veteran. I've been to combat, I've been to Afghanistan. Like .50 cals are heavy weapons. We use them over there. We use them for long range targeting.

We use them for anti-vehicle operations. The Navy uses them for anti-piracy operations. So, you know, they're stopping boats with these anti-bunker, anti-fortification and sometimes anti-aircraft. I flew Blackhawks. I don't think a .50 gauge could bring me down, but I wouldn't want to mess with it. It is a big gun.

None of those things make sense here. They make about as much sense as passing this law so that people in Hawaii can hunt all the lions and water buffalo that we have on the state, right? We are not making laws for Safaris. We're making laws to protect the people of Hawaii.

And I support this Bill because it is constitutional, and it will stand up to scrutiny. Since 1934, we have put bans on weapons like this. 1934 National Firearms Act banned fully automatic machine guns. It banned sawed off rifles and shotguns. This is in that category. So, this is—and this is, they're banned in many other states.

The one catch here is that, you know, these, in the Senate vehicle last year, .50 cals were included with semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, assault weapons. And that is included in the House vehicle this year. We'd like to see HB 893, which also bans these weapons as the, as the Bill that goes forward.

Other than that, I strongly support banning .50 cals in Hawaii. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Okay, why don't you go first, Mr. Yuen, and then we'll come to you, Mr. Wallace.

Okay. Do you want to finish my .50 cal story? Okay. So, first deployment, yes. I would train people on the .50 cal and machine gun and anti-material rifle, which some people call a sniper rifle. But basically, it was made to take out vehicles, aircraft, radar, and other material mechanisms, vehicles. It was a semi-auto rifle.

It weighed 37 pounds. Not something you'd use for a crime. That first deployment was interesting. Todd was there with me, just on the other side of the compound. Come the second deployment, I'm no longer one of those ground pounders. I'm what they call a staff weenie. During the night shift, our job was to provide convoy escort security.

And yes, we trained on the .50 cals. I remember one night, one of the convoys got hit. They said they fired rounds. They fired 100 rounds. Emptied the belt of that 50-caliber machine gun from the top of their Humvee. I asked him what the battle damage assessment was. He said zero. All his rounds missed.

The .50 cal is not a death ray, Death Star, kind of blow up planet things. It takes a lot of training. Not everybody has the capability, the knowledge, the skills to operate that, or the physical strength. So, banning that .50 cal wouldn't do anything. Big game hunting. How many people remember Tyke the Elephant?

HPD was looking for a big gun that day to take down that elephant. They had to borrow somebody's. The other 50 caliber rounds, specifically, everybody's thinking 50 BMG, Browning Machine Gun, BMG. It was developed in 1918. The other calibers are a lot smaller.

Pistol calibers of—yes, the .55, .545 Casual, .50 or .500 Smith & Wesson, .50 Action Express for the Desert Eagle. Another rifle round that Mike Rice brought up was the 50 Beowulf. That fits in the AR platform. So, if you're going to ban something, ban the right thing.

Not everyone's as well trained as you are, sir. Thank you for—yes, thank you for training people. That's important. Next up, Mr. Wallace.

Thanks again, everybody. Thank you, and I'm opposed to SB 401. And I'll repeat what the guy said about the crimes in Hawaii. I mean, how many crimes was there with a .50 caliber? I don't remember anything or in the United States. So, that's a wasted Bill. And I mean, what's the point of that Bill that's wasted?

If we're gonna ban something, let's have laws having severe punishment on smash and grabs. That's the crime that is going up. That's the rising crime. And the true problem. If we find laws to ban not to have severe punishment on smash and grabs, then that's, that's more likely going to be effective.

Banning .50 caliber, that's not going to be effective. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr. Martin, on Zoom.

Aloha. Hey, thank you. I'm here to testify—oh, sorry, let me put my hand down. I'm here to testify on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, in opposition to this Bill. Hats off to the other testifiers, they really hit it on the head. This Bill is a solution in search of a problem.

There is significant financial interest to waste the people's time with initiatives like this, and it's part of the reason why I say safetyism is a mental disorder. But all that aside, this will create a constitutional challenge and will accomplish absolutely nothing.

But there is a valid use that I want to just bring to this conversation about .50 cal. Does anybody remember when the Japanese emperor was asked why they didn't just invade America, why they chose to go the route of Pearl Harbor? It was an interesting answer.

He said it was suicide because there was a gun behind every blade of grass. Perhaps someone more educated in history than I could, you know, correct me on the details of that. So, I'm open to that. But I think the point is, is a good one. There's nobody better to defend Hawaii than our people.

And when we take away those choices in the name of safety, we make everyone less safe and less free. It doesn't help anybody. It just hurts Hawaii and there's just no good reason for it.

The better way is to be effective at going after people who actually commit crimes, rather than trying to take away choices from people who haven't committed crimes. Thanks—I yield. Much love.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 401? If not, question—Mr. Golljuch, please proceed.

Hi, Michael Golojuch, Jr., President of Pride at Work Hawaii, he/ him pronouns. We stand in strong support of this Bill. There is no reason that a, a citizen would have need for a .50 caliber gun. It is my understanding there's nowhere you can legally fire this for training, unless you are the military in the State of Hawaii.

I wish these homosexuals would want to hug kids more than their guns because the number one killer of kids in this country is gun violence. And so, I would encourage these homosexuals to go out and spend time and advocate for things that will make us safer. Advocating to kill this Bill was not one of them.

So, I encourage you to pass this Bill along with—in support of good sense gun laws. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify either on Zoom or in the room? Nope, there's not. Questions, Members? Any questions? No questions. Thanks, we'll move on. I really appreciate everyone's testimony. I've circulated the testimony with everybody. They got it in advance, and I made sure to publish the testimony early.

So, it was yesterday afternoon. And I think that's just an important thing that we do in this Committee to make sure everyone has a testimony because we pay attention to all your testimonies. So, I do appreciate that. Okay, let's move on.

Or I should say that in total, we received 135 testimonies in support, 247 in opposition, and two with comments. Okay, we're going to move on to the next Measure, Senate Bill 112. Senate Draft 2 relating to police reports. Bless you.

This measure allows surviving immediate family Members of deceased persons for whom law enforcement initiated an investigation to receive a copy of the close closing report prepared by the investigating Police Department after a specified period of time. First up, we have Prosecuting attorney Mr. Hugo.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poipoi, and Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. We're testifying in opposition to this Bill, but I do want to start by acknowledging the humane intent of the Bill.

As prosecutors, we are painfully aware of the permanent void that families of homicide victims have and the many questions that they have. However, we would point out that there are four issues that will be raised and that could compromise the fairness of any prosecution for these homicides.

Once a police report is released to the public, this Legislature will not have the ability to recall that or to control its circulation. And that has four implications.

First of all, you may have cases where there are people who are named, especially in a very thorough homicide investigation, people who are named, who are suspects, but who turn out not to actually have anything to do with a homicide and who could be subject to harassment and invasions of privacy because of that.

Second, there is the potential for police reports to circulate to the juror pool, in which case we have issues of tainting the jury pool. Third, family Members are often witnesses in these cases. And there is a witness exclusionary rule that cabins off other evidence that's presented at trial.

And so it could compromise the ability to call those family members as witnesses. And finally, in some very sad cases, family members are themselves suspects. And so if they are suspects and the police reports are released to them, that could create problems for enforcement. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We've also received written testimony from the Office of Information Practices with comments from the Hawaii Police Department in opposition. And two individuals in support. And two individuals in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 112, Senate Draft 2. If not, questions, Members? Oh, yes, please go ahead.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you for hearing me. Austin Martin, on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, this Bill is definitely well intentioned and I support it. Though obviously some of the concerns raised previously sound meritorious.

I couldn't think of anything that wouldn't already kind of be within the discretion to either redact or ask for a protective order, which means that, you know, the failure to do so could be a violation of due process if someone is entitled to that information. I think family members are.

I think open information practices would, would kind of make that a no brainer. Frankly, I don't see a pressing state interest that would grant the need for, for opacity in this. Like we should have transparency, we should have openness. And for family members, that's a huge problem.

But I also want to bring up one other angle because I've been a victim of prosecutorial misconduct in the State of Hawaii, where they've admitted on the record that they prosecuted me for a long time with zero evidence that they never had anything to go on in the first place.

And in fact, they spent a lot of that case trying to hide evidence from the court rather than come forward with the items that were being requested and that kind of behavior.

You know, if, if the law allows for them to do this or at least doesn't prevent it, this seems like an attempt to try to stop that kind of game of hide the extrinsic evidence which can get Hawaii seriously sued.

You know, the fact that I couldn't find a good lawyer to be able to take on the case. You know, we were talking about that earlier, I think in the House.

I really feel like it's important that we allow the data to flow and not allow the state to make a habit of keeping things secret. Especially from people who ordinarily for the vast majority of them would be entitled to. So again, I think they could ask for a protective order, they could ask for redactions.

They can do things that will protect and deal with those. Those outlying situations as brought up a moment ago. But I think that it's more important that this transparency be promoted. And I think it's a good idea. I yield.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Please come on up.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Corey Young. I'm just testifying in a private capacity. I point out that 92F allows for family members to make requests of these police reports and for the prosecutors to basically bring the reports in front of basically a non biased party to make a determination.

If the police or prosecutors wish to block the turning over of these reports, they're going to need to prove or show that there's some state interest in doing so. Some reason, some government function that would be frustrated and. And oftentimes it's going to be the type of information that Mr. Hugo mentioned, tainting of the jury pool.

And in extreme cases, even turning over these records could turn it over to the potential suspects or defendants. Chair, you'll remember Peter Boy like his parents were the ones.

So in that case, what this Bill would do is turn the reports over to the suspect so they would know exactly what the police were thinking, exactly what the strategies would be employed by law enforcement. That's not really an acceptable outcome.

I would ask that you look back at the SD1 version of the Bill that allowed for the turning over of these reports after the conclusion of all criminal proceedings. If you do it that way, the concerns raised by Mr. Hugo are void already.

The ability of whether whatever suspects or whatever jury pulled to be tainted won't be concerns. The family members can get their closure, but they'll get their closure after whatever justice can be obtained for the victim. Thank you.

Thank you. If you could please provide your name to over here for the record so we can keep that straight. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure. If not questions members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to confirm that the last testifier your position was in opposition or. I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? I have a question for Mr. Hugo. Is there a difference between a police report and a closing report?

Yes.

And if there is a difference, can the closing report be written in a way that does not disclose the things that you're concerned about?

Probably not, because what a closing report does is it's the detective summary of the investigation so far. So they're basically pulling together all the different elements and summarizing it at a particular. At a particular stage. We typically will get a closing report

In a homicide case referred to us first just to show that different leads have been run down. That doesn't mean that the case is done. There can be additional police reports after that.

And in a closing report, we may often have, as I mentioned, some of those early suspects, just to give one concrete example, because this case, the defendant is dead. It's a closed case. In the Tudor Chirila case, the victim in that case was found stabbed to death.

Shortly before she was stabbed, there were some cutlery salesmen who visited her. That was part of the report. And of course, if that sort of fact gets out, we could expect that, you know, all sorts of armchair detectives would be making lurid speculation about it. As it turned out, they had nothing to do with the homicide itself.

The DNA match to someone else who subsequently attempted to take his life when he was confronted with that. So there is a huge potential here to cause harm to innocent parties by the premature release of that information.

The next question is, could the closing report be redacted in order to remove information that would be, would compromise your work?

Well, and so then that gets to what Mr. Young just pointed out, which is that under the existing procedure, Chapter 92F, if that sort of accommodation could be made, that exists under the law already. You know, so the. But Chapter 92F has a provision where if there's a legitimate government fund function, one of.

And one of those things would be ongoing investigation into suspects or invasions of privacy, that information can. The agency can decline to release that information. So in other words, a redaction. So that exists in the existing law already.

What we're concerned with is that this provision will make it overly broad and could result in the premature release of that information.

Is 92F used on a regular basis?

So 92F it's the General information. It's the General way of requesting information from a government agency. And yes, our office gets it, HPD gets it.

But there is a balance that's written into the statute. That balances these different competing interests.

I guess I should be more precise in my question. Are there requests for a final report on a case using 92F? Yes. So that already occurs.

That occurs. But it, but it occurs within that framework of balancing.

Of course. I understand. I understand. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions, Members?

I have a question.

Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair, Prosecuting attorney, thank you for being here. So the question is if this Bill allows the surviving members to receive the information after the case has been closed. Is that a problem?

Well, and so that's Mr. Young pointed out that there is a Senate draft Bill, one which our office did not submit any comment on because we believe that drafting would not present the same sort of problems.

So if this Committee went back to that earlier Senate draft version, then we would not be commenting on this Bill.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you very much to all the testifiers on this measure. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 601 relating to law enforcement.

This measure requires law enforcement to post notice that a warranted or warrantless search has been conducted on a property, requires a law enforcement officer to secure any entrance used by an officer in the search, allows the breaking of any doors, gates, other bars to the entrance closets and other closed places during a search when reasonable and other means of entering the space are not reasonable.

And it requires law enforcement agencies to develop a policy for securing the entrances to a house, store or other building designated as a place to be searched after a search. First up, we have the Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, we stand as a of this bill. This bill, what it seeks to do is improve transparency and accountability in the execution of warrantless or warranted searches.

So the information that's required to be posted is important not only for the property owner who's affected, but also in the event that they hire an attorney at some point, it's easier to track down the officers involved, time in place of the search, the basis for the search.

The second part of the bill, which requires the police to secure the premises that were searched, it's kind of self evident.

They should, you know, if they break into a place, they, you know, break a lock, break a door, they should be, they should have to secure that when they leave so that it's not in an open dwelling, an open building, which can then be entered illegally or trespassed upon.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next. Honolulu Police Department on Zoom.

Hello. Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. I'm Major Hunter Alu of the Honolulu Police Department. HPD supports the intent of Senate Bill 601 SD1. We have concerns regarding the requirement to secure any entrance. The term secure can be very subjective. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you. Noella Van Vigant on Zoom. Not present. In opposition, Mr. Glenn Murray. Welcome, Mr. Murray. Thank you for being here, sir. Please proceed.

This is my bill, my journey, my story. All I'm. All this bill is saying is that when the police enter a residence or private property to conduct a warrantless search, they be required to post notice regarding their actions and secondarily secure entrances you know, they use.

And probably the most important one is please remove your shoes when you enter the residence. That's a joke.

I appreciate after all these years, you can joke about it, sir. You've gone through a lot.

You know, a warrantless search is the major invasion of our Fourth Amendment rights. So give the people the courtesy, the dignity, respect, and the transparency they deserve. And that's all the bill. I saw a lot of stuff online and whatnot. Testimony. We don't have those rights right now.

We're just trying to make it equal with what a regular search warrant by a judge does. You have to post notice on a search warrant and do all the things that this bill is requiring, except this is not a warrant. This is a warrantless search.

And, you know, for the Police Department to say, well, we post notice, then the criminals will see that, you know, we're interested in this place. A warrantless search is based on exiting or emergency conditions. It's a small window. You have to act quickly or you lose it. And then the alternative is to get a search warrant.

So anybody crybabying about that, they don't know what they're talking about. It's spontaneous occurring. Right at the moment there's a fire in this apartment. I need to bust that door down and get in there. The police have the power to do that under the doctrine of exiting and emergency circumstances.

So we're not taking away any rights of the police either. We want them to do that, but we want to be notified, especially if we're not home, that they did this. You know, in my case, it was two weeks later. It caused me a lot of stress and anxiety.

So let's eliminate that and be upfront, be pono, and do it right away. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And I appreciate you sending in your testimony, which was the article written back in 2022 about your story that was very illuminating for Members who aren't familiar with your story. I appreciate you doing that.

My pleasure. Thank you for. Obviously, somebody wrote. Read it.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly. We've received a total of three testimonies in support, 47 in opposition, one with comments. And I would. I've read all the testimony, and a lot of the opposition was because they didn't think. They thought the bill was authorizing warrantless searches. They're already authorized.

Police are already authorized to do warrantless searches in certain circumstances. So I just want to make sure that the public and the testifiers who sent in testimony understand that. And this Bill just deals with having to post notice after they've done that warrantless search.

And we don't say that, but it'd be good if they took off their shoes. But I think it's also that they secure the things that they broke the entrances to come in. So that's what this Bill is about. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 601, Senate Draft 1.

If not, questions Members, if I may. Hello. Is that Mr. Martin?

Thank you. Sorry. I hope the rain is not interrupting me here.

No, no, no. Go ahead. Mr. Martin.

On behalf of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii, I want to speak in strong support of this bill. This is absolutely essential for upholding the Fourth Amendment and for making sure that there's accountability for the actions that police take without a warrant.

Without this bill, there's actually an incentive to try to bypass Fourth Amendment protections because they can do so basically in secret and not even let people know that they've been searched. This is a huge problem and opens up all kinds of different possibilities of abuse.

And really, it's kind of unthinkable that we would allow the police this narrow, exigent circumstance in which a warrantless search can be provided and then give them carte blanche to not even document the fact that they did so. So I strongly support this bill and I thank you so much for taking the time to hear it.

And a big thanks to everyone who brought it this far. Aloha and much love.

Thank you very much, Mr. Martin. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 601, Senate Draft 1.

If I would just also like to briefly say,

Ms. Healey, is that you?

Yes, I'm so. I'm so sorry.

Please proceed.

Mary Healy. I just like also to. To show my support for this bill, especially listening to the testifier who had his home opened and he had no knowledge of it for over two weeks. That's really, really sad.

I just think that, you know, we have to provide the citizens with some notification when something like this happens. And, you know, as he stated, you know, warrantless searches are usually granted when we think that there's an emergency.

You know, there's numerous examples I could bring up like emaciated child that's found and you want to search the property immediately to find their siblings. You know that that's happened, that's happened throughout the United States.

And I just want to say thank you all for hearing my testimony and thank you to the earlier testifiers and, you know, looking forward to seeing this Bill pass.

Thank you very much, Ms. Healey. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 601 if not questions, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Chair. Question for HPD, Mr.

Mr. Ah Loo?

Major Ah Loo, I'm here.

I'm here. Thank you. HPD. Thank you for your service. I just had a quick question. What happens now when you do break in as required? Do you just leave it open or how do you secure it or what is the current procedure? I'm just curious.

Yeah, so we try and secure it as best we can. Whether that's trying to put the door back in place. If we're going through a door, trying to as best we can. I mean, I guess the issue with, on our side is we're not contractors, we're not trained for this.

We don't have the equipment or I guess, professional skills to secure it. So that's our concern with the bill. What do we mean by secure? But we try to make every effort to secure. We try to make every effort to notify, and that's why we support the intent of the bill.

Again, our concern is only with the secure part.

Follow up question. Sure. Okay. So is HPD financially responsible for allowing the owner to repair it as needed?

So there's a process. If there's damaged property that was caused by hp, they would go through Corporation Console and try to get reimbursed for that. That's the current process that's in place.

Okay, Appreciate that. Thank you very much. Chair.

Certainly. I have a question to follow up on that, Mr. Alou. The Bill has in Section five that each county Police Department shall develop a policy for securing the entrances to a house, store or other building designated as a place to be searched after a search.

Do you think that by since that's going to be up to you and the other police departments to come up with a specific policy, that you could write that policy in a way that would allow you to keep doing what you're doing now to secure, you know, a building that you had to break the door to get in.

Yeah. Again, it depends what the definition of secure.

But you get to write the policy. That's what I'm saying. According to this Bill, you get to write the policy.

Right. So the way we feel, we secure it as best we can. Now, sir, if you're saying what we do now, we can write a policy based on that and we consider it somewhat secure, then I feel we can. Whether that is going to please what everyone else considers secure, I don't know.

Okay. All right. But that's helpful to know that you already have a standard procedure that you use. There already is a process for an individual to seek compensation, to repair it. So it just sounds like that you've got something to start with, at least, and I appreciate you explaining that. Other questions, Members? No, thank you.

Thank you very much to all the testifiers. Thank you very much, Mr. Murray, for continuing your persistence with this measure. Okay, let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 283 relating to bribery. This establishes heightened penalties for the offense of bribery under certain circumstances. First up and only testifier is Mr. Hugo, prosecuting attorney, City, 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. I will say that it differs somewhat from the original bill that was introduced as part of our legislative package, but we're not going to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

We think that the intent here to recognize that there are certain circumstances of aggravated bribery is a good one. I would just note, however, that under the current wording of the bill, there are two provisions. So first, it would only apply to elected or appointed officials.

But second, it talks about an aggregated amount of $50,000 and then three or more acts with an aggregated amount of $50,000. We believe that these provisions essentially become redundant. And so if this Committee would consider just picking one of those, it would make it a clearer bill. I'm available for questions if the Committee has any.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Senate Bill 283, Senate Draft 1. If not, questions Members? Representative Shimizu.

Yes, I may. Is that. Mr. Martin, please proceed. Be so talkative today. I'm concerned. I just want to offer some comments. I'm concerned about the broadness of the language here, that it could very easily be enforced in a very selective and political way. And that's my main concern. Obviously, Hawaii has a huge problem on the record with, with corruption.

But so often it seems like, at least to the average person, that those who most obviously seem to be embroiled in such situations seem to avoid any kind of prosecutions. It's very hard to imagine that this bill will actually address that because it leaves so much to interpretation.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to try to, you know, go much further than that in my descriptions, but I have some serious hesitations about what this might mean for people in politics who maybe go against the majority. And with that, I yield.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 283, Senate Draft 1, and also on zoom? No. Okay. Questions, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chairman. You know, I don't have a copy of your, your written testimony, Mr. Hugo.

It's on. It's, it's right there. I don't know if you've updated your red leaf, but it's on there. Yeah, but go ahead and ask your question.

Yeah, I'm sorry. So can you, can you please briefly summarize your, your testimony again?

Yes. So the, the current bill, what essentially. So bribery is a class B felony already. And what this bill does is it recognizes that in some circumstances it will be charged as a class A felony.

Those circumstances are when first the defendant is either an elected or appointed official, and then in addition, either the aggregate amount was $50,000, or I believe the provision is that there's three or more occasions within a two year period and there's a $50,000 aggregate.

It's just our testimony that we believe those last two conditions essentially become redundant, and so the Committee should choose one of those.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Chair. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Questions? Okay. No, thanks. Thanks to the testifiers on this one. Let's move on to the next measure.

Senate Bill 284. Senate Draft 1, relating to interception of wire, oral or electronic communication.

This measure requires the Department of the Attorney General to provide a written memorandum recommending approval or disapproval of an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication to the Prosecuting Attorney within 24 hours of the prosecuting attorney's request from the Department. And it goes on, but that's the essence of it.

Senate Bill 284. First we have Kory Young, Deputy Attorney General.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Kory Young, on behalf of the Department of the Attorney General. I'm here from the Criminal Justice Division, Surveillance Review Unit. We actually had made the suggestions that are included in this version of the Bill.

The original version, we felt did not have adequate safeguards regarding abuse, but this one should. There should be essentially no. There should be no orders granted under the emergency provisions that are provided for in the new section that would not have been originally with the original safeguards in place.

So this should be a Bill that both helps law enforcement respond more quickly to emergency situations, but at the same time protects the public from any abuse. I will be available for any questioning.

But you also have recommended amendment. You want to explain that, please.

We had recommended amendments and they had been adopted previously. At this point, the only amendment we were looking at, I believe technical matter.

Section 2 of the Bill, which adds a new section to the HRS, should be moved before Section 1 of the Bill which amends the current section of the HRS. It's really a technical amendment.

Yeah. Just. Yes. Okay. Not. It doesn't change the contents. Just.

Just a technical amendment. Okay. Yeah. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Young. Next, Daniel Hugo, Prosecuting Attorney, Honolulu.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Daniel Hugo. We're in support of this Bill. I just explain briefly what, what this Bill would change.

So what it allows is in cases where there's an emergency application for a wiretap, the Attorney General does not, or the prosecutor can apply for that without the written memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General. The judge can review that and then choose to grant it.

However, there's a follow up review process where the judge would have the benefit of the Attorney General's memorandum and then could decide whether or not to essentially ratify that decision. We believe that this pragmatically balances the need to act quickly in emergencies with the need to ensure that these applications are granted in a lawful manner.

And as prosecutors, what we're committed to is public safety. But we're also committed to doing that under the rule of law. The alternative if this doesn't pass, as we said before the Senate Committee, is that police officers may just act in an emergency and go ahead and do these without getting a judicial warrant.

And in those cases, they'd be acting in an emergency. They would not be liable to criminal prosecution. But we would prefer that there's a lawful process to do this.

Thank you, Mr. Hugo. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 284, Mr. Martin

Aloha. Thank you for hearing me again with the Libertarian Party of Hawaii in strong opposition to the idea of allowing yet more erosion to our Fourth Amendment. The process in place is already adequate. And the reality, as they already said it, is that they don't technically need this.

This is about emergency wiretaps, which are kind of a strange, kind of make me raise an eyebrow there. Look, if we're talking about ratifying a decision after the fact, right then we have already the inertia of state movement against someone that might not have passed the due process test at the beginning.

This is going to open us up for suits, bad ones, because there's no way that the federal courts are going to uphold that process the same way, especially if it turns out that there wasn't good reason and the Attorney General's made a mistake that a judge maybe wouldn't.

And I'm not trying to insult anybody here by that, but there are. There is a difference in the way that an AG might look at a situation and a judge might look at a situation with respect to the law and their jobs.

And so it's really important that we have this check that protects people against the arbitrary use of government force or against the unfounded or unwarranted search and seizure of their property. This falls under that this is a wiretapping that we probably should involve the courts in more and have more transparency about, not less.

So that's just my two cents. Again, I'm not an expert, so you guys probably know more than I do about how that will affect the various sections of the law.

But to me, from my perspective, it looks like this is an attempt to skirt around and circumvent our Fourth Amendment rights, which is why they need you guys to say yes to it.

I yield. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 284, Senate Draft 1? Anyone on Zoom? Ms. Healy, please proceed.

Hi there. I'd also like to stand in opposition to this Bill. I think that I have some concerns also about an infringing on people's rights. And I just think that at the end of the day, we have to be very careful not to eliminate the checks and balances that we have.

And so, you know, especially with the abuses that have already happened where, you know, visa warrants have been abused. And I think that, you know, the history of this kind of spying has. Has been proven throughout the United States history like to be a problem.

So especially in a time where everything is digital, our data is supposed to be safeguarded by you also because there's just so many loopholes where, where the data can be used against an individual. So I just, I think that I stand in opposition to this Bill and I thank you for hearing my testimony on why.

And I hope that all of you also vote no or at least register my concerns.

Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 284, Senate Draft 1 on Zoom? No. No. Okay. Any questions? Members, seeing none. Thank you. I want to just express my appreciation to the Attorney General working with the prosecutors on this to figure out something that works for both of you.

So that's very helpful. Okay, let's move on to Senate Bill 1231.

I'm sorry, last minute. zero, sorry. Thank you, Chair. Sorry for the brain fog.

But right now, are you asking a question or something?

Yeah, the question is to AG. So kind of similar to our previous build the testifiers that are opposing it and wanting to clarify that this process is. Yeah, the process already exists and we're just trying to speed it up. Right.

So what happens currently is even in an emergency situation, if the prosecutors want a wiretap warrant or an electronic communication interception warrant, they come to us, we review it. The surveillance Review unit reviews it. We tell them whether we think it's legally sufficient or deficient.

And if it's not, we issue them a memorandum saying, hey, this should be approved. That they can show the judge. If it isn't sufficient, though, we will work with them to try and get it to the point where it's legally sufficient.

Because usually what happens is the police officers who write a wiretap warrant are used to writing for search warrants, and almost nobody in the State of applies for wiretap warrants. I think in our original testimony before the Senate, I think there have been about eight wiretap applications made to us in the last eight years.

So it's around one a year, and that's including all of the county Police Department. So this is rare for the prosecutors to do this.

Is rare for the judges to review, which is why we submit our memorandum and we'll tell the judges, basically, according to the statute, what we're thinking, whether it's sufficient, exactly what's missing, if we think something is missing. So the judges, who are generally not really familiar with the wiretap statute, have something to go by.

What this would do is for the. For the temporary 48 hour period or until the danger has passed. In situations where someone is in danger of immediate death or injury, the prosecutors go directly to the judge.

The prosecutors get the warrant from the judge, start the tap, try and either alleviate the danger or address whatever concerns they have about death or injury. But within 48 hours of that emergency, they still have to come to the AGs.

We still work with them, we still get that memorandum out, and they still have to take it to a judge if it doesn't pass the judge's muster.

On this second evaluation, where we actually had our input, where we can tell the judge whether we think it should be granted or not, any evidence that was obtained during that original period gets thrown out.

The judge, as part of the normal duties for wiretapping, will inform the party that had the tap placed on them that a tap was placed. And basically any. The information that was obtained in that original tap, if the subsequent wiretap is not granted, would be thrown out. It would be inadmissible.

So it should fully protect, in a way that exists now anyone who's getting wiretapped. It just basically gives a temporary ability for the police and for the prosecutors to get it quicker so they can respond to emergencies faster.

Awesome. Thank you for the explanation. And thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions? See? None. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1231, Senate Draft 1 relating to parentage. This measure repeals the Uniform Parentage Act of 1973 and updates laws relating to parentage, including enacting portions of the Uniform Parentage Act of 2017. First up, we have the Department of Health.

Welcome, sir.

Please proceed. Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee, my name is Lauren Kim. I am the policy and planning officer for the Department of Health, and I've had that responsibility for 17 years.

And this is probably one of the most consequential bills that the Department has determined has the privilege of testifying on for Hawaii's families. I was the Department employee that convened the first working group when tasked by the Legislature to resolve a very specific problem regarding parentage. And that working group Met assiduously. They were three hour meetings.

This was at the height we were just learning to live with COVID But so I still have to find a meeting room that could accommodate 15 people sitting six feet apart. And we had senior civil servants, like sitting judges. We had downtown lawyers who aren't making money. This is not billable hours for them.

And everyone showed up and there were very serious discussions. And we made our recommendation to the Legislature, but we didn't have model law. Second working group was convened. We expanded the membership, brought in real smart and sharp experts. And there wasn't always universal agreement.

Once in a while there would be tense, emotional exchanges, but everyone would come back at the next meeting understanding that this means a lot to people on the Committee or people. People on the working group or people that they know. And the working group persevered.

There's a lot of Legalese and the product of all that work is before you. So I just want to give you a sense of how earnest the working group Members were.

To spend all that time over all of these years makes me reflect on my own, my own experience being a dad, how easy it was and how cheap it was. And some of our Ohana in Hawaii can't say that or can't say that at all.

You know, they have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to adopt their own child. So I'll leave the legalese to the attorneys. But the Department of Health is in strong support of this. A lot of work went into it.

Not exactly perfect, you know, there was some pilikia on the Senate side, but there is so much good in this measure that the Department believes it should move forward as drafted. So thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Certainly. Thank you very much for that historical perspective and how meaningful this is. Next, the Judiciary. Judge Hall on zoom.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee. I am Jesse Hall, Family Court Judge here in the First Circuit and was also a member of the task force both times, actually.

The judiciary is in strong support of this bill as it will update our statute as well as create desperately needed law for surrogacy and assisted reproduction. Nothing currently exists in our statutes. I've also also been able to review the testimony provided today. I am [unintelligible].

We are also in support of the amendment suggested by the Attorney General's Office and I am available for any questions.

Thank you. And thank you for working on this all these many years. And I appreciate your work as a judge. Thank you for being here today. Next, another expert. Lauren Chun, Deputy Solicitor General. Attorney General.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Lauren Chun. I am the first Deputy Solicitor General with the Department of the Attorney General, and I was also the chair of the Act 156 task force that originally drafted the bill before you. But I'm presenting my testimony on behalf of the Department today.

The Department strongly supports this bill, and our written testimony offered some suggested amendments. Basically, we thought that the new confidentiality provisions in SD1 are unclear, but we think they could be revisited, and we suggested returning to the original language in the first version of the bill.

But we're more than happy to work with the Committee on any revisions that it wants to make to those provisions. And to be clear, we're not opposed to any language that would clarify that children conceived via assisted reproduction have access to the records.

Again, we just want to make that language clear, and we're willing to work with you on that.

And we also had a suggestion that the Child Support Enforcement Agency staff be added to the list of individuals who would be exempt from liability for, you know, helping people fill out their voluntary acknowledgement of parentage forms or providing information on those, and that was suggested in our previous testimony as well. So I.

I'm available for any questions that you might have. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Chun. Next. Pride at Work, Hawaii on Zoom. Michael Golojuch.

We just did a Commission instead. Since I'm. My background. Sorry. Anyways, I'm. I'm authorized to testify on behalf of the LGBTQ + Commission. I'm the Vice Chair. And you have our written testimony on this. Prior work is going to stand on it, their testimony and strong support. But for the Commission, we want to spend.

We want to thank everybody on the task force for their. For their due diligence on this. This is something that's been long overdue. We need this. We need this law. It's not just for the. The LGBTQ+ community. This is for everybody that avails themselves of IVF or surrogacy. Our parentage laws are way out of date. That.

This is. Now is the time to do this. We encourage you to pass this bill. We're going to stand with the Department of Health and pass this bill as it is drafted, and we encourage you to do so. And thank you for hearing us.

And we again thank everybody on the task force for all their hard work in making this happen. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next. Blake Oshero, Commission to Promote uniform Legislation. Testifying in support on Zoom. No, not present. Next. Libby Snyder, Uniform Law Commission on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hi, yes, thank you. Chair Tarnas Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Libby Snyder and I am an attorney at the Uniform Law Commission and I work with Blake Oshiro, who is a Member of the State Uniform Law Commission. We are in strong support of this bill.

We're so grateful to the prior task force and this current task force that drafted the bill. We think that it's really great that Hawaii is working to repeal the Uniform Heritage Act of 1973 that you all enacted in 1975.

This updated version has been enacted in eight states, with four states currently working on bills with a few more states that are going to hopefully introduce bills for this legislative session. As Judge Hall mentioned, this bill will put in place some clear and comprehensive statutory provisions regarding assisted reproduction and surrogacy that are very needed in Hawaii.

And I think that it will also provide clarity for children born to same sex couples by making many of the provisions gender neutral where needed. And I'm here to answer any questions the Committee may have. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next Jeff Esmond, Hawaii State Commission on Fire Fatherhood Welcome. Please proceed.

Chair and Members of the Committee Good afternoon. I am the Chair of the Hawaii State Commission on Fatherhood. I represented the Commission on the Act 156 Task Force. One of the goals of the Commission is to provide advice on laws and bills that relate to children and to be clear, children are the priority of the Commission.

The Commission is made up of a variety of Members with different political viewpoints whose common objective is to improve the life of the Keiki of Hawaii. The Commission has been discussing the topic of donor identifiability for about a year as I have brought them updates from the task force.

In our last meeting we focused just on the birth heritage topic and more specifically donor identifiability and its implications on all parties involved. We did not have the opportunity to go into depth about the bill as a whole, so we offered just comments today.

We felt that the most significant parties in the process include the donor, conceived children, their parents, and even the donor. These are also the voices that you should be listening to today and prioritizing in focusing on Keiki and their Ohana.

And in line with the recommendations of the Senate report from the last hearing to amend this bill, the Hawaii State Commission on Fatherhood believes that Hawaii will be best served by inserting Article 92024 into Part 10 of SB 1231 SD1. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next Mihoko Ito, Hawaii Women Lawyers.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you for sticking it out this afternoon. It's been a long afternoon and a long hearing. Just a few brief points. I actually was also one of those. I think you referred to me as a downtown lawyer doing this for free. That is true.

And I did serve on both task forces and before that was engaged in conversations with the Legislature through resolutions and other things. Basically, I've been trying to fix this since my kids were born.

We really support, as Hawaiian women lawyers, you know, the chance to write this law and make sure that the provisions that the law provides for equal opportunity for all families, including especially through the court proceedings and through the parentage process at Department of Health.

Just on a personal note, my kids, I actually researched the laws before my kids were born. And because I had to use a surrogate, I decided because the laws were so uncertain here that I spent a whole bunch of money doing this on the mainland.

So I was one of those people that was affected and I vowed to fix it ever since. I really echo the comments of everybody here. The task force spent hours and hours poring over every single word that you see in that, in the work before you, product before you. And so we support this bill.

We support the Attorney General's suggestions for amendments and urge you to pass it. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your work on this. Gail Abrena Agas, Lambda Law Hawaii. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon. Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Gail Abrena Agas and I'm here on behalf of Lambda Law Hawaii, a law student Association at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law. Our mission is to advance equal rights for LGBTQ individuals in our community. Lambda law strongly supports SB 1231.

Hawaii's current parentage laws need a much needed update because they do not explicitly protect all types of Ohana, including those with Keiki born to LGBTQ parents through assisted reproduction and surrogacy.

That includes my Ohana, which is why my wife and I spent thousands of dollars in 2017 and 2022 to adopt our own donor conceived children, even though we're both named on their birth certificates. We needed to safeguard our parental rights in court and ensure that the validity of our non traditional family would never be challenged.

I'm glad we were able to do it. Not many have the means. LGBTQ Ohana should not need to take in additional financial and legal burdens to protect themselves. We deserve the same legal recognition and protections afforded to traditionally structured Ohana. Please pass SB 1231. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next. Caitlin Bowler on Zoom. Please proceed.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Caitlin Bowler and I'm speaking on behalf of US Donor Conceived Council, a nonprofit that advocates for the well being of donor conceived people.

We support the current version of Senate Bill 1231 because modern parentage laws offer security to all families, including those with donor conceived children. Children. We sincerely thank the past Senate Committee for removing harmful language from the bill that would have codified anonymous gamete donation.

However, in the current bill, donor conceived people still do not have access to the information about their genetic origins. Because records about donor conception are controlled by gamete banks and fertility clinics, donor conceived people are unable to access information about who we are through court records like other parentage cases.

So for this reason, we respectfully request that the Committee revise the bill to include the updated 2024 Article 9 of the Uniform Parentage Act. This would ensure that donor conceived individuals have the legal right to access information about our genetic origins from a gamete bank or fertility clinic.

Thank you for the opportunity to share our support for this bill and for considering protections for donor conceived individuals included in the 2024 Article 9 of the Uniform Parentage Act. That language is attached to our written testimony and I'm happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next. Laurel Johnston on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, Mr. Chair. Yes, I'm Laurel Johnston. I also was one of the Members on the two task forces regarding this Uniform Law and Parentage. I very much support family equality. This, this law needs to be updated. I wanted to thank you, Mr. Chair, and also represent B. I don't know if she's there today.

You have been supporting moving this bill forward and, and supporting the task force. So thank you for your efforts on that. I am testifying today as an individual, though not on behalf of the task force. And I do stand in my written testimony in support of the Senate draft one.

I was a little bit confused when I saw the Attorney General's testimony. And so I'm glad that Solicitor General Chun clarified that they're not opposing the amendments, that perhaps they can be fixed because these are very important amendments, I think, in addition to the uniform law.

And you know, as someone who used to work in the Legislature and drafted plenty of bills, I was very aware that bills can be proposed, but the Legislature gets to decide what the final versions of these bills are. And the task force did work very hard and many people had input on this bill.

But I think the Legislature needs to take a turn at it, and perhaps they will find some ways to improve it.

Finally, I would advise the Committee that if you still have some concerns about our work or about the original Uniform Law, that you talk to either Blake Oshiro or Elizabeth Kent, who are are our Hawaii Uniform Law commissioners, because they both have been involved with this at both the local and national level.

Thank you so much for your consideration and time today. Mahalo.

Thank you, Ms. Johnston. Next, Mark Diebel on zoom.

Okay. I hope I'm in.

Yes.

We hear you. Please proceed.

Aloha.

I'm Mark Diebel. I'm a retired Episcopal Priest. I come from Hawaii. I live in Kentucky and was born in Colorado. My grandfather came to Hawaii in 1919 when he was 16 and became a Pastry Chef at the Royal Hawaiian.

My father came from Cuba to do his residency at the Kapiolani Hospital and my mother was a nurse at Tripler. That's why when I come to Hawaii, I feel like I'm home. People look like me and think I am local. And this is the only place that happens to me.

I was raised in Colorado and was taught that it didn't matter that I was adopted. State law wasn't helpful; it was a wall. I waited until I was 49 to tear down that wall to find out who my original parents were. Learning their names made me feel real, and it made them real to me.

I felt grounded in their histories and their families. I visit my family in Hawaii, finally, I'm like everyone else. I know where I come from. This legislative body is using its power to define the future for children yet on board. You will affect them for their whole life.

Some of them will always look in the mirror and wonder about their eyes or nose, the color of their skin, the shape of their hand. And our body comes from our ancestors. This Legislature has the power to affect how our society thinks about ancestors.

Ancestors don't tie us to the past, but they can set us free when we know them. It's an epistemic right to pursue the truth of our existence. You can make a generation of people free from hitting walls when they ask logical and natural questions. Everyone asks about their past and where they come from.

This Bill says, in effect, it should be easier for certain people to have children than for their children to know where they come from. This Bill isn't finished. You need to make up your mind whether everyone should have a legal right to know where they come from. Mahalo for listening.

Thank you very much, Mr. Diebel. Next, Rachel Hefner, on Zoom. Not present. In support. Next, Carole Lieber-Wilkins, on Zoom. Please proceed.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Carole Lieber-Wilkins and I'm a Marriage and Family Therapist in the world of infertility and reproductive medicine and have been practicing as such for about 40 years. I'm here in support of SB 1231 with the amendment that removes language that would perpetuate secrecy for donor conceived people.

I'm the author of a book called let's Talk About Egg Donation, as well as multiple articles about family building, which can be found on my website. I'm also the mother of a 38-year-old son who was adopted at birth in an open adoption with ongoing contact with his first family.

And I'm the mom to a 37-year-old who is one of the first people in the world born through egg donation.

Although at the time I did not know the woman whose eggs I received, we've been privileged to have had a relationship with her for the last 30 years, and there have been numerous times when we've had to reach out to her about her and her family's medical history to address a potentially heritable issue that arose in my son.

I was and am committed to the fact that both of my sons deserve to know everything knowable about their origins and the people to whom they're genetically related, and I question why should the son we adopted know more about himself and his origins than his brother simply because it was donor conception and not adoption?

The law needs to treat each equally in that the son who was adopted could access his records, although he doesn't need to because he has information, whereas my donor-conceived son would have no recourse for information without my ability to know the egg donor.

I'm a mental health professional and I can tell you that it is normal and natural to be curious about one's origins, and I think Mr. Diebel just emphasized that. Approximately $70 million.

May I ask you to summarize please?

Yes. I urge you to support SB 1231, SD 1, and respectfully request that you amend the Bill to include 2024 Article 9 of the UPA to provide donor-conceived adults with information about the people who helped to create them, as adoptees are able to do in family court. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, Kay McGlone on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha. I wanted to comment on the AG's comment about the amendment so that the child—can you hear me?

Yes, we hear you. Please proceed.

That the child created through assisted reproduction would have access to court records. That language came from the Uniform Parentage Act of 2017 and 2024.

And I hope that if the clear—it's amended to be more clear—that that part of it remains that the child still could have access when they're grown up enough to know about court records, which will make it parity with the adoption laws.

Sometime in elementary school, I asked my mom if she knew anything about my parents. She said no and was silent, as if I asked the wall. I thought it must be something really bad to get no information. I believed her that she didn't know anything, so I never asked again.

However, in my 20s, I suspected she was hiding family secrets. As I eventually figured out the truth, I didn't like being lied to by the people I trusted. My family was caught in the shame and stigma of that era about premarital sex and birth out of wedlock.

And many years later, I found out that many extended family members figured out the secret too. My mom just thought she had hidden the truth. I understand the immense difficulties some may have faced to have children. The cost-assisted reproduction, outdated laws that don't match with today's relationships or identities.

What those of us who have grown up not knowing our origins are trying to share is that we want your children to avoid that same pain and struggle. I want people to learn from the mistakes of the past and not subject more children to spending energy and resources just to find out the basics of their identity.

From my dissertation study of the Hawaiian cultural practice of Hanae, children raised with openness about having two moms understood the very different meanings of each of these moms and were relaxed about it. Some parents of donor-conceived children have testified how helpful it was for their family to have made contact with donors. They sounded positive.

It may be uncharted territory, but like many fears, it's not so scary once faced. So, secrets are not good for families and living with openness and transparency help children grow up healthy and accepting who they are.

May I ask you to summarize? Please.

Thank you. I'm finished. Thank you.

Oh, thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Next, Carol Lockwood, on Zoom. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and Members of the Committee. My name is Carol Lockwood. I'm an Attorney in private practice. I'm one of those unpaid downtown attorneys that were referenced. I'm Hawaii's only member of the Academy of Adoption and Assisted Reproductive Technology Attorneys.

And I was also the family law—private family law attorney representative to the task force, although I'm testifying in my own private capacity. And not the least, I'm the mother of two donor-conceived children. So, this is all issues close to my heart. I won't reiterate my written testimony.

I tried to provide what I thought would be a unique perspective for you all in that I've been practicing assisted reproductive technology law in the State of Hawaii for the last 15 years without much guidance from statutes, but with, thank goodness, the help of very supportive family courts judges.

I summarized briefly in my written testimony the types of situations that arise from the current lack of guidance in the law, including things as generalist confusion about what the law is and how it applies to people being told by attorneys that things that they are hoping to do cannot even happen, when that's not the case.

Dissemination of harmful misinformation, people making other people parents without their knowledge or consent, or people being told they cannot become a parent because of the way the current laws are written.

So, in general, we really, really need a statute that addresses these issues and provides clear guidelines for how infertile and LGBTQ families can be created in a way that is clear, that is readily understand, that will be consistent, and that will be equitable.

On the issue of Article 9, I would say as a member of the task force, there was a lot of discussion, there was a lot of testimony out there available to you all.

There are a lot of concerns both about the importance of children being able to access their background, but also concerns about perpetuating unequal treatment of LGBTQ and infertile people by imposing standards on them that we cannot impose on fertile couples. We can't make sure that one night stands don't happen.

There were concerns about unprecedented governmental intrusion into procreative decision making that does not happen in any of their contexts. There's a lot of issues.

Ultimately, we came to the conclusion that because we were not aware of any licensed sperm banks operating in the State of Hawaii that had any anonymous donor banking, that this statute does not apply right now, and therefore, it was not a decision that had to be made.