Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs

Good afternoon, everyone. Will the Senate Committee on Public Safety and Military affairs please come to order. This is our three o' clock agenda. Today is Wednesday, March 12, 2025 and we're in Rome Conference 225 at the Hawaii State Capitol. This hearing is also being streamed on the Hawaii State Senate's YouTube channel.

Just a few housekeeping announcements in the unlikely case of technical failures. This meeting will reconvene here in Conference Room 225 on March 14, 2025 at 3:00 pm for all testifiers, including those on zoom. We ask that you stand on your written testimony.

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

First up is House Bill 433 HD1 relating to public safety. This appropriates funds to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for re entry services to connect offenders with community based services. First up is Director Johnson.

Good afternoon, Chair Elefante, Member Rhoads, and the rest of the Committee, wherever you are. I am Tommy Johnson, the Director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. I just want to deviate from my testimony. It's short. Just real quick.

We support the intent of this measure and we do thank Representative Vellotti and other legislators that support the $4 million for the budget. But we asked the legislators to consider the $4 million in the governor's Executive budget for the same purpose.

So we'd ask the legislators to support the governor's Executive budget as it relates to the $4 million for DCR. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Mark Patterson from the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission, or whoever might be here, Martha Torney.

I'm a Commissioner with the Correctional System Oversight Commission and we support this bill very much. I want to bring to your attention. It is in our mandate that we are to assist the Department in ensuring that the reentry program is properly implemented. The reentry time is the most critical time for an offender going through the system.

And we need funding to ensure that we have the proper programs that are available to them. So we really support this. It is the department's vision to transform from and the Legislature from a punitive model to a rehabilitated model. This type of paradigm shift requires a significant funding.

Additionally, evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that well funded reentry programs help reduce recidivism, make our communities safer.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Commissioner John K. Ikenaga. Office of the Public Defender. In support. Thank you. Kat Brady. Okay. Standing in support for Community alliance for Prisons, Kerry Anchorota, Policy Director for ACLU of Hawaii, or anyone here from ACLU. Okay. Stand in a testimony in support. Yeah, it says here on Zoom.

Natasha, is there anyone from ACLU? I know there's someone in the room here, but is there anyone not present on Zoom Chair? Thank you. And we also have McKenna Woodward for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. In support, Sherry Manor, President CEO for the Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii. In support, Alan Johnson.

In support, Kimmy Murphy, ID Foster for the Hawaii Women Lawyers. In support, Melissa Pavacek for Opportunity for Youth Action Hawaii, Lauren Walker for Hawaii Friends of Restorative Justice. All in support, Carla Allison and Frank Schultz. In support. Anyone that wishes to testify on HB433, if not Members. Questions. I have a question for Director Johnson.

So in your testimony, you mentioned 4 million. So is the 4 million currently now in governor's base budget, supplemental add, or is that what you're requesting in addition to what was submitted?

No, we're requesting the $4 million in the Governor's Budget now for fiscal. For the next two fiscal years.

Okay, so basically, you do have the funding to do these type of work in progress?

We will. If this budget is approved by the Legislature, yes. Okay, got it. Thank you.

Okay, Members, any other questions? If not, we'll move on to our next Item, which is HB 1045. This is making emergency appropriations for law enforcement personnel costs. Makes emergency appropriations for fiscal year 2024-2025 to the Department of Accounting and General Services and the judiciary for payroll and fringe benefits of the affected Department of Law Enforcement personnel.

First up is Russell Fong from the Department of Law Enforcement.

Oh, good afternoon. Chair Elefante and Vice Chair Wakai and the Members. So this Bill...

if you can just say your name for the record, please.

So my name is Russell Fong. I'm the Administrative Officer for the Department of Law Enforcement. And we, we stand by our testimony in support.

And our numbers that we did put down for the appropriation for the emergency appropriations is actually exactly the same amounts that Budget and Finance is going to be presenting. And if you have any questions, I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Fong. Keith Regen, comptroller for DAGS. In support. Luis Salaveria, our Deputy Director Sabrina Nasir from B&F.

Sabrina Nasir, Deputy Finance Director. We stand on our written testimony in support.

Ok, written testimony in support. Thank you. Rod Miley, Administrator for our courts, in support, and Frank Schultz in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers for HB 1045. Anyone else that wishes to testify on this?

Okay, if not Members, questions? Okay, we'll go on to our next item, which is HB 1296. This is relating to the Major Disaster Fund. Establishes timely notice and reporting requirements to the Legislature by the Governor regarding the transfer of appropriations to the Major Disaster Fund.

First up is for Budget and Finance is Luis Salaveira or Sabrina, Deputy Director Nasir.

Sabrina Nasir, Deputy Director. We stand on our written testimony offering comments.

Testimony offering comments. Thank you. Will Kane, senior advisor for the Office of the Governor, offering comments. And Frank Schultz in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers on HB 1296.

Anyone else that wishes to testify on this measure? Not Members, questions? Okay, move on to our next Item, which is HB 1002.

This is relating to the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. Beginning July 1, 2025, extends the term of the Oversight Coordinator for the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. Authorizes the Hawaii Correctional System Commission to review the coordinator's performance and make a recommendation to the Governor as to whether the coordinator should be retained.

Clarifies that the Oversight Coordinator has the general authority to inspect agencies and correction facilities without notice. First up is Director Johnson.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Tommy Johnson, the Director of the Department of Corrections Rehabilitation. Again, just to summarize my testimony, we provide comments regarding this matter. We have no issue with extending the oversight coordinator's term or the fact that the coordinator would have access to the facilities.

In fact, we give it to them. Now, I think it is a good idea to put it in statute because future directors may not feel the same way. And I think this would let the community and the Legislature know that we work as a partner. Sometimes we disagree, but work as a partner to better the system.

And that's what we're trying to do with the Commission and the stakeholders and the legislators. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Mark Patterson from the Oversight Commission or Commissioner Tornay.

Martha Torney, Commissioner with Correctional System Oversight Commission. As you have explained, this extends the term of the oversight coordinator from two years to we're proposed four years. We'd like to keep it at four years if we could. But it also clarifies that the Oversight Coordinator has general authority to inspect the agencies at will.

The two year term does not really allow someone to get used to the job and do the job right. So we really need to expend that time. What we do appreciate, though, is that this legislation includes that if we are satisfied with the Commissioner, I mean, with the oversight coordinator, that we can recommend to the government to retain the person and not have to go through that lengthy hiring process.

And then again, we also appreciate allowing making it clear that the coordinator can go in at any time, not just subsequent to an investigation. And that's why we asked for that change. Thank you.

Thank you so much Commissioner. John Ikinaga, Office of the Public Defender or representative.

We stand in support.

Okay. Standing in support. Thank you. Kat Brady.

Strong support.

Okay. In support. Carrie Ann Shirota for ACLU of Hawaii.

Yeah, we're in support. Just in support of the amendment that fixes the four-year term.

Okay. In support and in support of the amendment. So with comments. Lauren Walker testifying for the Hawaii Friends for Restorative Justice. In support on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom chair.

Thank you. Nicolas Leverance for the Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction center. In support on Zoom.

Also not present on Zoom Chair.

We also have McKenna Woodward for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support. Carla Allison in support. And Frank Schultz in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers.

Anyone else on HB 1002, House Draft 1. If not, Members, questions? We'll roll into our next one, which is House Bill 596. This is relating to emergency management.

Clarifies the types of events that constitute disasters and emergencies for the purposes of emergency management. And effective July 1, 3000. First up from HI-EMA, Administrator Barros or his representative.

Afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. So, Ethan Oki, Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. Yeah, we stand on our testimony opposing this Bill and available for any questions or concerns regarding this.

Thank you, Mr. Oki. William Onlson for the Maritime Group in support. Ted Kafalas for Grassroots Institute of Hawaii in support. And Frank Schultz in support. That completes our list of registered testifiers.

Anyone else on House Bill 596, if not Members questions? I have a question for Mr. Okey.

So currently now, in the Bill that the House brought over, it's 21 days, is that correct? Would the agency be opposed to. If we were to increase the amount of days, say, 30?

I believe we're opposed to anything that would limit the governor's ability to kind of work through the response phase. Okay. And the challenge is the unknown not being clear of what exactly could happen and what. Yeah, I'm just trying to preserve that sense of autonomy, so to speak.

Okay, understood. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. If not. Thank you, Mr. Okey. And then our last item on the agenda is HB 128, House Draft 1. This is relating to criminal justice reform. This establishes factors under which officers may, without warrant, arrest and detain persons for petty misdemeanors.

And violations requires officers to record the factors that justified the warrantless arrests. First up on our list is Johnny Kinaga, Office of the Public Defender. Mr. Ganadan, welcome.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Sonny Gannon, Deputy Public Defender. The Office of the Public Defender is in support of this. In my testimony, as well as the previous testimony of Taryn Tomas that we note some information I think is elucidating. 87% of municipalities around the country already do this. This is rural countries.

This is rural parts of the country. This is urban parts of the country. This does not disallow or negate an arresting officer's ability to arrest for any reason. They just have to state the reason. I'm going to testify now as my experience as a former Legislator, I was a. As a Member of the House.

I was sent to various parts of the country through the National Coalition of State Legislators and the Arnold foundation to learn about what happened after the George Floyd incidences. This was one of the major pushes.

Municipalities decided to really take a look at what is on the table and what can arresting officers do to avoid violence while also mandating that people show up to court. Thank you, Mr.

Banana. Good times, though. Thank you. Okay. Attorney General and Lopez in opposition. Deputy Attorney General Nakamatsu.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Church Nakamatsu, appearing on behalf of the Department. We do respect fully oppose this bill, ask that it be deferred. We would note that our interpretation of the language is somewhat different from what the public Deputy Public Defender was noting on page three, line three.

I believe it specifically says, and the officer is reasonably satisfied that the person meets one of these four criteria. And thus we do feel that it would be very limiting to officers who otherwise have the discretion for reasons outside of these four listed items. Currently, they do have the discretion to arrest when needed.

We feel that this may be too restrictive, may be lead to unintended consequences. We understand that the language came from Section 803. 6. At least three out of the four factors did.

But there's a big difference between allowing an officer to issue a citation in those recent instances and restricting them to only arrest in those three, plus one other type of incident available for questions, if any.

Okay, thank you so much. Deputy Attorney General Nakamatsu. We have Manuel Hernandez, Major. Major Hernandez.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Manuel Hernandez, Major, with the Training Division of the Holland Police Department. We also respectfully oppose this bill in addition to what the AG said on our side of it. Although those criteria do appear, criteria could be argued to be arbitrary versus probable cause.

Warrant list arrests all across nation, including Hawaii, are made every day based on the probable cause. Decades of court rulings exist regarding probable cause. This would restrict this arrest more, just as the ags said. So we stand in opposition. I'll be available for any questions. And thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Major. Next up is prosecuting attorney for the County of Hawaii, Prosecutor Waljan on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom.

Chair for the Honlu, prosecuting attorney Steve Alm or Mr. Hugo. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. And we strongly oppose this bill.

The first thing that we note, and as Major Hernandez has noted, is that this is not necessary because every arrest comes with a judicial determination of probable cause that sets out the facts and circumstances and which comparison with the statutory requirements here would probably justify it in every case.

The second thing that we should note is the flood of litigation that will emerge because there's nothing in this bill that says what will happen if some lawyer believes that these requirements have not been complied with.

And so what you can expect is standard challenges in every domestic violence case, in every drunk driving arrest, because those are the cases where officers will be making arrests. If anyone on this Committee believes that those are the sort of cases that need to be made harder to prosecute, I would be very interested to know why.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hugo. Angela Mercado, Executive Director for, for the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Okay. Written testimony offering comments. Thank you.

Nathan Lee for ACLU Hawaii. Vice Chair, Nathan Lee, ACLU of Hawaii in support of this bill on the changes that bill makes to 8003 5. We believe that, you know, establishing basic standards for how officers operate, especially considering that they only deal with petty misdemeanors and violations, should be a standard practice.

We believe they provide some check on absolute police discretion. And so we urge you to move this forward for further consideration on 8003.6. We also believe that providing clarity and encouraging the use of citations instead of arrests is in alignment with the 2018 Judiciary Criminal Pretrial Task Force.

And so we wanted to recognize that and also we wanted to point out that research suggests that using citations decreases the amount of people who are held in jails without exacerbating crime.

And finally, we want to note that encouraging the use of citations will free up officer time to deal with much more pressing issues than the ones covered by the statute. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Lars Troutman on Zoom in support.

Good Afternoon. We stand in support of HB128. An arrest is a powerful, useful tool for law enforcement, but they frequently come with incredible costs and consequences that are often disproportionate when dealing with a situation that only involves a low level offense.

That's why first the common law and then later, many states have enshrined into statute limits on warrantless arrests for low level offenses.

These limits include restrictions based on whether occurred in the presence of an officer, the seriousness of the alleged offense, as well as restrictions requiring that there be a public safety or flight risk rationale to justify the arrest.

Notably, this isn't just states that you might think of as more reform minded who have these kinds of limitations on the books, such as Minnesota, Washington State or Vermont, but also those that are known for having an unwavering support of law enforcement, Florida, Georgia and the like.

HB128 follows in this tradition, putting relatively modest limits on arrests that nevertheless still allow for them whenever public safety or the interests of justice demand it. Thank you.

Thank you. And if you can just identify yourself for the record, please.

Yes, sorry. Lars Troutman with the Policing Project at NYU School of Law.

Thank you. Tina Yamaki, Retail Merchants of Hawaii in opposition on Zoom. Not present on Zoom. Chair Dennis Dunn, in opposition. Good afternoon.

Chair Elefante and Vice Wakai and Members of the Public Safety Military Affairs Committee, the Retired Director of the Victim Witness Kokua Services. I've worked with many victims of so called petty misdemeanors over the years. Many petty misdemeanors are not really petty crimes.

They could be assaults that are knocked down to a harassment that involve an individual with many violent tendencies and have committed many violent crimes prior. Could be an individual involving offensive touching which could have started as a attempted sexual assault, or could be someone making harassing calls repeatedly terrorizing and frightening people in all of these situations.

If they have additional requirements for the officers that are procedural only in nature and do not involve the actual evidence or witnesses, you're putting an obstacle and discouraging officers in some cases where we should be encouraging to make arrests. And I thank you very much and Mahalo. Thank you, Mr. Dunn.

Mike Lambert, Director for DLE in Opposition Andrew H. Martin, prosecuting Attorney from the County of Maui. In opposition we also have Kauai County Police Department Chief Raybuck in opposition. Rebecca like for the Kauai Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. In opposition Greg Okamoto for Maui Police Department. In opposition Sikimo Alameda well, Mayor Alameda from Hawaii county in opposition.

Chief Moskowitz from Hawaii Island County Police Department in opposition. Stephen Mulkett, testifying for League of Women Voters of Hawaii. In support. Andrew Crosland, in opposition.

From the Hawaii Patriot, Republican Steve Santos testifying for Calvary Chapel, west side, in opposition Robert Kovaco, President of Chopo, in opposition and Arki Cole, public policy chair for Mad Mothers Against Drunk Driving, in opposition. Alica Valdez in support. And we have 39 individuals in opposition. That completes our list of registered testifiers.

Anyone else On House Bill 128 House Draft One, if not Members questions? I have a question for Mr. Hugo. Thank you for your for your testimony. Can you share to the Committee and the public, you know, how the bill would impact in terms of petty misdemeanors and what would sort of be a petty misdemeanor?

We've heard testimony and written testimony, but if you could just share a little more about that, what could be impacted?

Right. So a petty misdemeanor, as Mr. Dunn said, could be something like a harassment where somebody hits someone, but maybe they don't necessarily feel pain because of that. You know, someone spitting on someone is a classic example. In those cases, what we would expect to see domestic violence.

By the way, I should note, there's an abusive family household member's petty misdemeanor offense. So that covers all of those abusive family household Member violations.

What we can expect in these cases is that just as a standard practice by defense attorneys and, you know, it's their job, right, to find any sort of legal challenge that they can make to the case. And oftentimes the most successful ones are procedural challenges because they don't have to rely on the evidence.

It doesn't matter what the facts were. If you can argue that there was some sort of procedural defect. We had to deal with many of these challenges recently with felony informations where there was just repeated challenges to the way in which the felony information was filed.

If we have those sort of challenges on all of these cases, that is going to cause massive backlog in the courts. It is going to encourage plea bargains that may not effectively or justly represent what should be the outcome in that case.

It will also in many cases, delay things and so that defendants who might have a factual defense don't get to trial because the court is dealing with all these procedural challenges.

We just see a mess coming out of this, and it's a mess that's not required because as I said, every single warrantless arrest comes with a judicial determination of probable cause where the officer has to set out the factual circumstances or that justified that arrest, and which in almost every circumstance would meet the sort of criteria that we're looking at here.

I don't think that they can name one case where this would actually improve one arrest that would not have happened because of the statute. I would be very interested to know of a single arrest in this state that would have been avoided under the language of this statute.

So thank you, Mr. Hugo. Members, any other questions for Mr. Hugo? Vice Chair Wakai, followed by Senator Rhoads.

The gentleman from the ACLU said that citations work as a deterrent. Do you find that to be the case?

So the model that we have right now is that citations are discretionary. And oftentimes, if you think about just your normal police officer working a shift, a citation is probably the first thing that they will think of doing.

I've seen citations issued on assault Thirds, right, where the officer decides that, you know, it's a bar fight, that guy's already gone.

There's no need to do an arrest here because what an arrest means is that the officer's probably going to be taking out, minimum, another two hours of their time to do the arrests, write up the reports, process the person, book them. And so there is a strong bias for officers to issue citations already.

Personally, I resent the comparison to places like Missouri or Maryland where the policing practices are very different from Honolulu. I don't think that we have a George Floyd problem in Hawaii. And I think that while maybe there are other constituencies or other places in this country that could do with less.

Less intrusive policing, I don't believe that that reflects how our police conduct themselves.

Yeah, I was thinking the retail merchant's testimony, and they're concerned with, you know, people who are just constantly shoplifting at various retailers out there. And give me an idea, like, if I were to steal, like this cheap $30 tie from Macy's, what would my citation be for that?

Probably a theft 4, which is petty misdemeanor and which likely the citation would be issued if the person gave their real name. And if the person shows up to court, then you can actually begin the process. But oftentimes what happens is we get citations where people give fake names. So we have other problems with that as well.

So citation doesn't come with automatic fine. There's no, like, schedule value of whatever stolen. You pay this much as a. As a fine or penalty.

Well, regardless of citation or arrest, a theft for conviction does come with certain penalties. So the maximum penalty would be 30 days jail $1000 fine. But the. That is something that the court would levy upon conviction.

So you're saying that citations, if you're kind of smart, understand the system as the perpetrator, you can game the system. I just give you Elephante's name, Kunala's name. Right. They don't know if I'm one of those people.

Right, yeah, happens all the time.

Senator Rhoads.

Well, Senator Wakai covered quite a bit of what I was thinking about. But I mean, the argument that if this bill was in effect, that it wouldn't change who was arrested and who wasn't arrested, that cuts both ways. So what difference does it make then? If we have it in effect, then nothing changes.

Well, right, so what does not improve is maybe a more compassionate targeting or more intelligent targeting of who should be arrested. What does change is the litigation outcomes and the administrative burden on the police. So I don't think we get any of the benefits.

I'm, I'm a little lost as to why. Because so what? So the officer has to. They do the citation and then they have to pick one of these four categories as to why they didn't just let them go with the citation.

And it would be a form, and you would just check off 123 and or 4, and that would be that.

Right. So what could happen, for instance, is that, say that the form is misfiled or that it. Or that there's an incomplete xeroxing of it. Right. You could have a challenge.

Sorry, go ahead.

Right. You could have a challenge that's entirely based on those, those sort of procedural obstacles as opposed to anything substantive.

But couldn't that happen right now with whatever form? I mean, I think that's one of the complaints that police officers often raise, is that they have to do so much paperwork, it's hardly worth prosecuting the lower end criminal activity. But that could happen on anything.

It could happen with a parking violation or a citation for driving too fast, or the paperwork can get lost or something can go wrong.

That's correct, Senator. But every marginal addition to paperwork increases the chances of procedural errors, which increases the chances of litigation on procedural errors. And given the volume of citations that we deal with.

But I think this would probably actually be easier paperwork because you'd be doing the citation and then you check off one of these four boxes. You wouldn't have to go through all the other stuff that you have to go through when you're normally arresting someone, correct?

No. The judicial determination of probable cause still has to be filled out. There are other things that remain the same with an arrest process. That this bill does not change and that the addition of this increases the administrative burden, increases the litigation risk.

Okay, thanks, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any other further questions? Okay. If not, thank you, Mr. Hugo. I'm ready to roll into decision making. Okay. First up is House Bill 433, House Draft 1. This is relating to public safety. Chair's recommendation on this is to pass with amendments. Pass with amendments.

We're going to require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide an annual report to the state legislature no later than 20 days prior to the start of the legislative session on number of individuals released with services provided beginning with the 2026 legislative session.

And in the committee report, we're going to note that DCR would need four million dollars, which is covered in their submitted budget to the legislature for this session for appropriations for this. That's a recommendation. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair Wakai for the vote? Chair votes aye.

Aye.

Chair, your recommendations adopted.

I vote yes. Senator Fukunaga.

Aye.

Senator Rhoads.

Aye.

Senator DeCorte.

Thank you. Next item on our agenda is House Bill 1045, House Draft 1. This is making emergency appropriations for law enforcement personnel costs. Recommendation here is to pass as is. And in the committee report, we are going to list the amounts contained in Budget and Finances' testimony. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Chair votes aye.

Aye.

Senator DeCorte.

Aye.

I vote yes. Senator Fukunaga.

Senator Rhoads.

Aye.

Thank you. Our next item is House Bill 1296, House Draft 1. This is relating to the Major Disaster Fund. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. We are on page two, line 16. We're going to delete 21 days and insert 30 days. It does still have a defective date, so we'll keep that defective date that's listed. Any discussion?

If not, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes aye.

I vote yes. Senator Fukunaga.

Aye.

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Senator Rhoads.

Aye.

Aye.

Senator DeCorte.

Thank you. Next item is House Bill 1002, House Draft 1. This is relating to the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. Recommendation here is to pass with amendments. And the only amendment that we will do is change the effective date to July 1, 2025. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Senator DeCorte.

I vote yes. Senator Fukunaga.

Senator Rhoads.

Aye.

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you so much. Next item is House Bill 596, House Draft 1. This is relating to emergency management. A recommendation is to pass as is. Any further discussion? If not, Vice Chair for the vote. Chair votes aye.

I vote yes. Senator Fukunaga.

Senator Rhoads.

Aye.

Aye.

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Senator DeCorte.

Aye.

Thank you so much. And for our last item is House Bill 128, House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to defer and noting the opposition from the AG and prosecuting attorney's office in law enforcement agencies, there's a lot of concerns and unintended consequences. What I do appreciate the introducers of this measure. So recommendation is to defer.

That completes our agenda for today. We are adjourned.