House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Friday, yay. Friday, March 28th, 2025, 2:00 PM here in Conference Room 325. We're here for the purpose of considering numerous measures. Thanks to the Members for being here. Thank you to the testifiers for being here.

If you're testifying on Zoom, well, if you're testifying at all, please limit your testimony to two minutes. At that point, I'll ask you to summarize. If you're testifying on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify and after your testimony is complete, turn it off again and mute yourself. That'd be great.

If you have technical issues on Zoom, you can use the chat function to communicate with our stellar technical staff, and they will assist as much as they can. And if you're disconnected, don't panic. Just rejoin us as soon as you can and I'll try to fit you in, if time permits.

If the power goes off in this building, or, heaven forbid, the fire alarm goes off and we can't, and we have to reschedule, we will post appropriate notice, so you know what we're doing and when. If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images. That kicks us off of YouTube.

And that's not good because we want the public to watch us do our work. And if—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. Okay. First up, Senate Bill 1195, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, relating to transportation.

This measure prohibits any vehicle from parking within certain distances of crosswalks with certain exemptions. It deposits fines collected from street parking restrictions into the Safe Routes to School Program Special Fund and specifies that signs or curb markings shall not be required to restrict parking within 20 ft of a crosswalk or intersection, and it designates some exemptions.

First up, we have the Department of Transportation on Zoom. Whoever from DOT testifying on Senate Bill 1195. Anybody taking? Calling once, twice. Okay, we'll move on. Members, you can see their testimony in support in our packet. Next person.

Sorry, I think the audio wasn't going through.

Okay, so we're, we're on Senate—we're on the first Bill for the hearing, Senate Bill 1195, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, relating to transportation. First testimony from the Department of Transportation on Zoom.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Robin Shishido with HDOT Highways and we sent our written testimony in support. You know, for this particular Bill, not having the vehicles, you know, stop at the intersection by the crosswalk will greatly improve the visibility. So, this will be a good bill to have to promote more safety.

Great. Thank you very much. Next person providing testimony is the Department of Health. Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas and Members of the Committee. I'm Lola Ervin representing the Department of Health and the Department of Health supports SB 1195, SD 1, HD 1. And so, we support that all people have the equitable opportunity for quality of life and health.

And this also means that we have to actually reflect upon the way we build our systems, including our roadway systems and designs. And I have the experience of living in Maui and pushing a stroller in front of me and being concerned that the baby's in front of me and not visible at the intersection.

And so, we have over 100 people that were killed on our roadways in Hawaii last year. And daylighting actually is a method by which we create that ability for the driver and the pedestrian to be able to see each other by prohibiting parking from 20 feet from an intersection.

And so, someone short like me can be visible to the driver and someone short like me driving my car can see the pedestrian because of that space.

And so, we do support this as a means of providing safe designs, roadway designs, and also, we do support the funds going to this Safe Routes to School Program, which then would provide programmatic funds for counties to provide then education and also community design opportunities to improve then the roadway designs around the schools so that there will be safe transit for our children.

So, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you very much for your testimony. That's great. We received written testimony in support from Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization and from the Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice. And next, we have Ulupono Initiative.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. Mariah Yoshizu, on behalf of Ulupono Initiative. We stand on our testimony in strong support of this Bill. There's quite a large need of these type of infrastructure projects for safe routes to school across, across the state, and we hope to provide some sustainable funding sources so that we can make sure that our keiki and their communities are able to walk, bike, roll safely in their communities.

So, thank you so much for hearing this measure.

Thanks very much for your testimony. We've received written testimony from two individuals, one in support and one in opposition. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 1195? If not, questions, Members? Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1102.

Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1, relating to the aircraft rescue Firefighting unit. This measure specifies the terms and appointment processes for the chief of the aircraft rescue Firefighting unit of the Airports division of the Department of Transportation. And we have testimony from the Department of Transportation on Zoom.

Yes. Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas. Vice Chair Poepoe Members of the Committee, Kurt Otoguro, the Deputy Director for airports. We stand on our written testimony in support of the measure. We're happy to answer questions.

Could you. Kurt, thanks. Good to see you, sir. Could you just give us the highlights of your testimony? You're the only testifier, so you could tell us why this is such a good bill.

Thank you, Chair. It's really. As you know, the airport system has its own firefighting unit, and we're there to support the needs, obviously, in compliance with faa. First of all, there are needs to support airfield activities within so many minutes. And so it's an essential, essential operation for us. They also.

Could you explain why this Bill is important? I understand why the position's important, but why is this Bill important?

Well, this bill's important for a couple reasons, Chair. It. It provides us or the Director with the opportunity to select leadership on a term basis. Things change, as you very well know. And so we believe that having an opportunity to interview and look at new candidates periodically is a good thing for leadership.

It's a good thing to also adapt to emerging needs in this industry. And so we. We just feel that change of a fire chief and allowing the Director to have that opportunity to make that selection is. Is good for the state and good for our operations.

Excellent. Thank you for that summary. I appreciate it. Questions, Members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you, Chair. Question. Obviously to you.com you just mentioned, the term limits is important. So what is the current mechanism of someone that is hired in that position and does not perform up to a certain standard? What would be the process of replacing.

That person in its current situation as a civil servant? Great. The process has already been established in the state, as you know, so we would document the performance. We hold everyone accountable, regardless of your status. But there's an involved process to go through that performance with a civil servant.

Consult with the unions when necessary, and the process would take longer, really. But in essence, when you have an appointed official, they're held to the highest standards as. As we all hold everybody in this entire state to a standard.

But this allows the Director to Ensure that this position, the chief is moving in a direction that's necessary for the best interest of the state. So it allows the Director some authority, some much needed latitude to make changes as you see fit.

Okay. All right. Thank you for answering. Thank you very much.

This is by no way any, any knock on the current chief at all. Chief Martinez Jacobs is, is an extremely talented individual and has done well over many years for the airport system. So this is the minor way saying that he is inadequate or anything of that nature.

This is looking at the future of the program and the needs of the state as we would continue to strategize how we fight wildfires and other things necessary in the airport system.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Thanks. Very good work there, Mr. Otogor. See you. Thanks, Kurt. Okay, next Bill, Senate Bill 1216. Senate Draft 1. House Draft 1. Relating to Transportation. This measure conditions the issuance of a certificate of inspection upon a vehicle not being equipped with a noisy muffler or exhaust system.

Requires rules regarding safety check inspections to ensure that a motorcycle, moped or motor vehicle is not equipped with a noisy muffler or exhaust system. And the description goes on, but that's what this measure is about. First up, we have the Department of Transportation on Senate Bill 1216, noisy mufflers. DOT all yours.

Robin, with DOT. And we support the intent of this measure. You know, right now the Hawaii Administrative Rules already has things in place for, you know, not issuing certifications for bullpeds that don't have the current safety standards needed.

However, the issue you do run into is that after folks may get a safety inspection, they can switch out the muffler after the fact that we don't have control of. But overall we support intent, but there's already rules in place.

Okay, thank you very much. We've received written testimony and support from Windward Coalition, Waikiki Neighborhood Board 1,2,3,4 individuals, and then testimony from three individuals in opposition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 1216, House draft one? If not questions. Members, I just have one question for dot. What is the status of.

In your testimony you mentioned that DOT is launching the noise detection camera pilot later this year. Could you just give us a description of that pilot and when you hope to get it started?

Yeah, so this pilot allow us to put noise detection cameras and we will collect data to see how enforcement could be done with future legislation. And right now we're in the process of finalizing the contract. And you know, once we issue the contract, which we hope to do within the next month or two.

Then we'll start installing these noise cameras around the state or around on Oahu. Action.

Yeah, I understand if we passed this legislation in previous sessions, and I think it was to be here on Oahu in particular. And have you selected your locations or is that part of what you're doing now?

Yeah, we have, I believe it's 11 locations, you know, throughout the Waikiki area is majority of them. There was one location on H3 where, you know, we've gotten complaints of a lot of motorcycles racing and, you know, with those loud mufflers, like early in the morning. But we have about, I believe it's 11 locations.

Got it. We. Well, we're very interested in keeping track of this, so thanks for that update and we look forward to hearing more later this year. Thank you. Sorry, Chair. Representative Shimizu, thank you.

I understand the reason for this bill. My question is for someone to pass and get a permit and then they replace it with the noisy one. How would we address that and allow HPD or yeah, I guess HPD to enforce the requirement of this permit? Requirement.

Yeah. So I think there are the current laws and I probably have to check with HPD to get more specifics, but, you know, they could pull over folks and issue citations for noisy muffler.

But, you know, I think it'd be based on just for them listening to the muffler itself and recognizing that it's, you know, a secondary installed muffler and not what the. What it came as an oem.

Second question, Chair. So when you get, when you permit it, is there a way of labeling the muffler or kind of referencing the serial number of the muffler to the permit so that if and when they get pulled over, they can, they can check that as an easy violation?

I don't think there's anything in place like that right now. I don't know if there's actually, you know, maybe serial numbers on the muffler itself, except just recognizing that maybe it's the OEM part and not a third party muffler that they added on.

Okay, fair enough. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the testifiers. This may be a project for future legislation for you as an engineer. You can help us out here. Noisy mufflers have been a big issue for many sessions. So any help that you can provide to deal with it is welcome.

Okay, if there's no further questions on this, let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 30, House draft 1, relating to mopeds. This measure prohibits persons under the age of 16 from driving a moped and persons under the age of 21 from driving a moped without a helmet. First up, we have Department of Transportation.

Hi, Robin, again, and we support this Bill. You know, studies have shown that wearing helmets reduces fatalities or major injuries by 37% in Hawaii. Of the 15 moped crashes we had recently, seven of these folks have not had helmets on and they sustained face and head injuries.

So, really support this Bill.

Thank you. Next person that said they wish to testify is Stacen Tanaka, Honolulu Police Department.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee. Major Stacen Tanaka of District 7, East Honolulu. HPD supports Bill 30, relating to mopeds, as it contributes to the safety of all moped riders. Safety helmets worn by moped riders also help to reduce the severity of injuries in the event of a crash.

And it's also been shown that they prevent serious brain injury and death. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And final testifier, Manabo Sato on Zoom. Not present. Testifying in opposition. We've received a total of six testimonies in support, six in opposition for this measure. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 30, House Draft 1? Seeing none. Questions, Members? Nope? Thanks.

We've already had some questions already, so this is good. But if there's no further questions, we will now go on to the next measure. Senate Bill 344, Senate Draft One, House Draft One relating to highway safety. This measure requires all skateboard users under the age of 18 to wear a helmet while operating a skateboard.

On this measure, we're going to hear from the Department of Transportation.

Hi. Robin, again. We stand by routine testimony in support. You know, similar to the other bill, you know, wearing a helmet provides added safety for the users and prevents, you know, any more serious injuries.

I have a question.

Yes, Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. We've also. We have also received testimony and support from the prosecuting attorney and from one individual. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 344? Seeing none. Questions, members?

Thank you, Chair. This bill is just for skateboards, and I'm sorry, I don't know the answer, but what about other things like scooters or motorized wheelers, segways? Do they require helmets, also?

Department of Transportation, would you be able to answer that question?

I think I might have someone online. Carrie, are you online? Would you happen to know that? I don't know offhand myself.

Yes. This is Kari from Department of Transportation. There is a requirement for passengers and those using either a motor what's classified as motor scooter that would have a white license plate, not a yellow one, and a motorcycle if they're under the age of between the ages of 16 and 18.

But as far as there are different, there's a new measure that's also floating through the legislature about e-bikes and the different modes of mobility. So I don't know which of those is going to pass.

But currently, if you're on an e-bike, for example, and you are 15 years old, you do have to wear a helmet, but as soon as that person turns 16, they no longer have to wear a helmet. Same applies to foot scooters as well.

There are some other out-of-class type devices that we don't have current definitions for. Hopefully, by the end of this legislative session, we will. But that's so far what we have.

Okay. Thank you for answering. Thank you, Chair.

Chair thank you very much. Thanks very much. Any other questions? Members? If not thanks to the testifiers, let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 1095 Senate Draft 1 House Draft 1 relating to license plates. This measure increases the decal size restrictions for special number plates. First up, we have the Department of Transportation.

Robin with DOT, and we have some concerns about this bill. As you know, with the decal size increasing, it may inadvertently affect the letter sizing on the plates. And you know, with just recognizing or reading a plate, human eye, license plate readers and now with our automated enforcement, it just may have an impact on that.

So we would we have some concerns on this bill. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1095? If not questions, members? Seeing none. Thanks very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 1522, House draft one relating to vehicle title transfers.

This measure clarifies that proof that a transfer has filed required notice forms serves as a complete defense to any action brought against the transfer for an act of omission, civil or criminal, arising out of the use, operation, or abandonment of the vehicle by another person. First up, we have the Judiciary with comments.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Michelle Acosta here on behalf of the Judiciary, thank you. Judiciary stands on its written testimony with comments. Our comments pertain to section two of SB 1522 HD1.

Section two requires the court to create new forms permitting transfers to respond to actions arising out of the use, operation, or abandonment of transferred vehicles. All the district courts and all the circuits judiciary wide already have a process for this, which includes a written letter to the courts.

It's a simple form, and it's not required of a formatted form, which we have concerns about whether people would have easy access to that specific form. And so we're requesting that that language either be modified or changed. We do understand that instructions are helpful for people who are trying to do to complete this task within the course.

So we're welcoming of providing those instructions to court users. In addition, Section two also requires that the judiciary or the courts take additional measures to assist transfers as necessary to facilitate the appropriate dismissal. This gets us into the court into perhaps providing legal advice which is not in, our, our scope and our responsibilities to do that.

So I am available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that, Ms. Acosta. And we also have written testimony and support from the Department of Customer Services, City and County Honolulu. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 1522? If not, questions, members? Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. So, Judiciary, if your concerns are amended in this bill, would you support this bill?

We don't have any position on the merit of the bill, but we do have concerns about how it's written in section two.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Sure, thank you very much.

Sure. Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? If not, we'll move on to the next Measure, Senate Bill 597 relating to administrative driver's license revocation.

This measure extends the time restriction in which the Hawaii Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office is required to issue a written review decision of a notice of administrative revocation of a person's driver license. First up, we have Attorney General Mr. Mark Tom.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee, Deputy Attorney General Mark Tong for the Department. Department provides testimony in support of Senate Bill 597 HD1. This bill essentially extends the statutory deadlines for the ADLRO, which is the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office, for their review decisions.

It's very this extension would be very key for OVUII cases, which is operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant when it's dealing with chemical testing specifically because we have such a small am toxicology labs to do this.

In addition that neighbor islands also have to send their specimens over to Hawaii, which takes time and then to be sent for certain specimens to be to the mainland for testing. It would be very key to have proper testing and chemical testing for these cases when issuing these review decisions. I will be here for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next we have testimony from the Department of Transportation on Zoom.

Thank Good afternoon, Robin. Again, we stand in support of this Bill. As you know mentioned earlier that having more time so the test results can come back to the ADLRO before they make their decision is, you know, going to be increased from eight days to 22 days. So we support this bill.

Thank you very much, Members. We've also received written testimony support from the Department of Law Enforcement, the Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney, Hawaii Police Department and Keiki Injury Prevention Coalition. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 597? If not questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure.

Senate Bill 1285, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1, relating to highway safety. This measure amends the administrative process at the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office, establishes a tiered administration revocation period of a driver's license for those arrested for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. First up, we have the Judiciary with comments. Oh, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Poepoe and Committee Members. I'm Alexandra Scanlon. I'm a Hearing Officer at the ADLRO. I'm here on behalf of Carrie Lee Harada. She had a family emergency, couldn't make it. So, please bear with me. I wasn't expecting...

Sure. Thanks for pinch hitting.

We don't really have a position on the tiers. We are against amending the current statute to take away the automatic review before a license is revoked. And our concern is that it would—there would be due process issues that would arise.

Under the current bill, the revocation would only occur at the—after a review hearing has taken place and a review officer has determined that there is a reasonable suspicion, probable cause, preponderance of evidence, and that all of the proper documents have been submitted.

If this Bill were to go into effect, there would be an automatic revocation of all licenses at the time of the arrest. So, there would be no review before a license is revoked.

And you know, we've had this—the ADLRO process has been reviewed by the Hawaii Supreme Court and when they did the review, they first determined that a driver's license is a property entitled to protection under the due process clauses of the United States and Hawaii constitutions, and that as a constitutionally protected interest and due process must be provided before one can be deprived of his or her license.

So, clearly, there's going to be challenges if the review process is taken away. The court then considered whether due process was afforded to protect against erroneous deprivation of that right.

And when they considered the process, they included the automatic review process and held that the interest in a driver's license is not so great that more than an administrative review and contested hearing are needed to comport with the requirements of due process. So, this would take away one of the safeguards that the court was looking at.

And our main concern is that, you know, if there is a challenge in it, however long it takes to go through the appellate process, meanwhile, you know, all of these licenses are being revoked at the time of arrest. We handle 4,000 to 5,000 cases a year.

And if the Supreme Court finds that there was not due process, all of those cases would be reversed, and that would be terrible for public safety.

Also, you know, the court will part of the due process that the court would be looking at is the effect on the property right. And you know, when they initially did this review in the 90s, you know, the revocations were three months, six months. Now they're a year, two years longer.

I understand there's a current bill working its rate through to extend times under certain circumstances even longer than that. So the they would be looking at, you know, the property, the effect on the property interest is even greater than it was back then.

They would also the another thing they need to look at when they're considering due process is whether there is erroneous deprivation of the right or whether there are additional or subject or substitute safeguards. And the review process, which has been in effect for decades is it runs smoothly.

We don't have any problem getting the review decisions out within eight days. And again, taking that away, it would be clear to them that there is another way of doing it because that's the way that's been in effect for decades. And just from a practical standpoint, the ADLRO is not requesting this.

Changing the process to lessen the due process rights currently afforded and then jeopardizing the constitutionality of the program is very concerning to us. There's also concerns about whether the written decisions issued by the review officer, you know, how that information would be relayed to all of the drivers.

It specifies the revocation period, the procedure for getting IIPs, you know, how to request a hearing if they want to, what needs to be done to get their license back. You know, the written decision is very detailed that is mailed out to each driver when their license is revoked.

So we're not sure how that would work if it's done at the police station. And finally, the current system is fair in that it provides an automatic review for everyone, regardless of their socioeconomic background or citizen situation.

If the bill puts the onus on them to request a hearing after their license has been revoked, then that means that obviously people who can afford attorneys will undoubtedly request reviews and request hearings.

People who cannot afford an attorney will most likely not know what to do or how to do it and you know, will be affected disproportionately. So thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Sure. Thank you very much for your testimony. Please tell Ms. Harada I hope things are going okay and tell her that you did a great job testifying. Any. Let's see. Next we have Department of Transportation.

Hi, good afternoon, Robin. Again, we signed in support of this bill in 2022 we had 37 alcohol impaired driving fatalities and in 2023 42% of the drivers involved in fatal crashes tested positive for alcohol or drugs. And you know, anything that can enhance safety of our roadways, we're in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next Hawaii Public Health Institute on zoom.

Yeah. Good afternoon Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poipoi and Members of the Committee. My name is Rick Collins. I am the Director for the Hawaii Alcohol Policy Alliance and we are a program of the Hawaii Public Health Institute. I'm here standing on our written testimony providing comments to this measure.

I first just want to say that we really appreciate your Committee's attempt to address the issue of impaired driving on our roads. It is an issue, as was just mentioned by DOT while we looked at the current I will say this though, and this is where I think our comments are geared toward in our testimony.

While we appreciate your attempt to try to reduce DUIs on our roadways, there just currently isn't any scientific evidence to show that mandatory license revocation as a standalone policy will reduce DUIs or fatalities on our roadways.

And so there may be a missed opportunity here with sort of a lack of evidence that this would have any impact on those crashes or fatalities on our roadways.

However, there is a large body of evidence and recommendations from numerous organizations showing that lowering the per se limit for alcohol impaired driving from 0.08 to 0.05 blood alcohol concentration would significantly reduce DUI related crashes and fatalities on our roadways.

And so in our comments testimony and what we would recommend to this Committee is that language be placed back in this Bill that includes the new definition for driving while driving a vehicle while impaired, which was in the previous bill draft version. So here for any questions that Committee Members may have.

And thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you very much. We've received total of five testimonies in support, none in opposition, two with comments. And you heard the testimony from the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office with serious concerns. Anyone else wishing to testify In Senate Bill 1285 House draft one? If not, questions members? If not thank you very much.

The testifiers we're going to go on to the final measure on our agenda. Senate Bill 97 Senate Draft 2 House Draft 1 relating to motor vehicles. This has three parts. First part increases penalty for third or subsequent offense of excessive speeding to a class C felony.

The second part establishes penalties for non compliance with a maximum speed limit under an automated speed enforcement system. That's the cameras that identify if you're speeding. And that specifies that summons or citations resulting from non compliance shall not be recorded on a person's traffic abstract and used for insurance purposes.

The third part requires a person who was convicted of certain traffic offenses or granted a deferred acceptance of a guilty or nolo contender plea or a conditional discharge of the offense to be ordered by the court to report for identification processing. So those are three parts to this bill. First up, we have the Department of Transportation.

Thank you. Definitely Robin with DOT again. And we support this measure. You know, nationally, almost nearly half of all fatalities. Speed is always a major contributor. Same thing here in Hawaii. You know, over the last five years, we average about 105 fatalities. And in most cases, speed is always a major factor as well.

So this bill, you know, to enhance safety again and provide more stricter measures on speeding, especially excessive speeding, is greatly appreciated.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next we have the Office of Public Defender, Mr. Ganaden.

Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe. Members of the Committee, happy Friday. Apologies for our late submission. You know, upon reading the SD2 HD1, we are suggesting that you delete the first three parts and just keep the part that suggests people get identification when they have a deferral. The reason being this escalation penalty is fairly significant.

A sea felony is a major charge. That is for people who are watching something like a secondary felony, terroristic threatening. These are major charges. I imagining a sort of dystopian experience where individuals are housed at Oahu Community Correctional Center. Say five people to a cell designed for two people.

And one man turns to another and says, what are you in for? Said, zero, assault. The other guy says, speeding. The AI robot caught me for speeding. This is fairly dystopian. And so for that reason we are suggesting that there's no increased escalation in penalty. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next.

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

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and community Members. I'm Acting Captain Blake Aredo, Honolulu Police Department Traffic Division. HPD stands by its written testimony in support of Senate Bill number 97. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And the next person said they wish to testify is Michael Older with comments not present. Okay. We've also received written testimony from Hawaii Police Department, Pearl City Neighborhood Board and three individuals. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in Senate Bill 97? If not questions, Members seeing none. Thanks.

Thanks to all the testifiers. Appreciate you helping us out with your testimony. Members, let's go ahead and go to decision making. Top of the agenda, Senate Bill 1195, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1. On this measure, Members, I would like to make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

And then, I need to clarify some existing language.

On page five, line 11, we're just going to add a few words so that it will read, "The signs or curb markings shall be official signs and markings, and no person shall stop, stand or park any vehicle in violation of the restrictions stated on the signs or markings, except as otherwise provided by law."

I want to add that. And then, I would like to adopt the amendments from the testimony from Appleseed. And what they suggested was that we reduce the penalties from what is now no less than 100 and no more than 500 and we'll just say it'll be $50 for each violation. That's my recommendation. Questions or concerns, Members? Nope?

Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next Measure, Senate Bill 1102, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1, relating to the aircraft rescue firefighting unit. On this measure, we need to make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. And that's it. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 1216, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, relating to transportation. On this measure, we need to put, I'd like to propose we make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style and then some corrections for clarity on page two, line 21, what is now the phrase "motorcycle, moped, or motor vehicle," I think it should be changed to "vehicle or moped" so that we're consistent with the language in this section and the definitions of the those terms.

And similar amendment is also needed on page four, line 18 and 19, and then on page five, line 20 to page six, line seven. The way this is written is unusual.

The existing penalty structure is unusual. So, it's not clear what the penalty is for the second violation committed within, you know, several years after the previous violation. And it's also not clear what the penalty would be for a third or subsequent violation committed within the previous period of years. So, I want to amend this section as follows.

So, this is on page five, line 20, to page six, line seven, it would read, "Violation of this section shall subject the violators to the following penalties. One, for a first violation or any violation not preceded within a three-year period for a violation under this section, the person shall be fined no more than $150."

"For a second violation committed within three years of any other violation under this section, the person shall be fined no more than $350. And three, for a violation of a third or subsequent offense committed within three years of any other violation under this section, the person shall be fined no more than $950."

So, it's just more clearly written that way. Those are my recommendations, along with the technical amendments. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next measure, Senate Bill 30, House Draft 1, relating to mopeds. On this measure, I recommend we make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and that's it. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Senate Bill 344, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, relating to highway safety. On this measure, even though we passed out House Bill 706 which does the same thing and it's moving through the Senate, the Transportation Chair would like us to move this Bill out as well.

So, I will do so with technical amendments needed for clarity and consistency and style. That's my recommendation to the Committee. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Senate Bill 1095, Senate Draft 1. House Draft 1, relating to license plates. I carefully consider the Department of Transportation testimony. I passed it on to the Transportation Chair who shared it with the Senate Transportation Chair. They feel that this can be addressed in conference, and they asked me to move this along.

So, I will defer to their recommendation, and I recommend to the Committee we move this forward as is. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next measure, Senate Bill 1522, House Draft 1, relating to vehicle title transfers.

On this measure, I recommend we move this forward with some amendments. On page 9, line 14 and 15, rather than citing to the penalties under subsection A, I want to specifically list the penalties so the language would read, "A transferor who submits false or fraudulent information to complete the provisions of this section requiring action by the transferor shall be fined no less than $500 and no more than $1,000."

And then, I'd like to adopt the recommendations from the Judiciary on their testimony on the second page where they asked that we modify the Bill to allow the Judiciary to create a court form if the court finds it necessary, or to modify the Judiciary website to provide more information regarding vehicle transfers.

We'll also adopt their recommended amendment that Section 2, line 20 on page 9 continuing to lines 1 and 2 on page 10 be deleted and that if the court decides that they need to create a new court form or modify the website, they do so by July 1st, 2026. That's my recommendation. Questions or concerns, Members?

If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 597, relating to administrative driver's license revocation. On this measure, I'd like to move this forward with technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. Questions or concerns, Members? Yes.

I just have a lot of concerns about the constitutionality issue. That's this one, right?

Oh, the next bill is the one that's got constitutionality issues. This one, we didn't hear any constitutional issues on this one.

I'm good. Good.

You're okay on this one. Okay. This one just extends the time restriction, which we understand would be very helpful. Okay.

No problems.

Okay. Any other questions or concerns on the Senate Bill 597? Technical amendments only. Any other comments or concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Senate Bill 1285, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1. On this measure, we did hear serious concerns about that this may violate due process concern concerns expressed by the Administrative Driver's License Revocation Office. They already have a system that does meet due process requirements with an administrative review and an appeal process.

I don't think this Bill is a good idea, so I recommend we defer this measure. Any comments or concerns? If not, thanks very much. Let's move on to the last measure, Senate Bill 97 Senate Draft 2, House Draft 1, relating to motor vehicles.

This has three parts to it, some good parts and some not so good parts, that I'm going to recommend we move out this with amendments. We'll need to have technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

And we need to—yeah—we need to include in part one, we have passed a Bill that increases penalties for a third or subsequent offense of excessive speeding to a misdemeanor, and it increases penalties for a second offense within five years of excessive speeding. And so, we passed it. It's called House Bill 54, House Draft 2.

So, what I'd like to do is replace part one of this Bill with the language in section one of House Bill 54, House Draft 2, because it's, I think, a much better way to deal with it, not creating a Class C felony, but just upping it to a misdemeanor. So, that's the first part.

The second part, part two, keep section two as it is, but section three, we need to make conforming amendments to HRS 291L-5 to align it with the red light camera provisions in HRS 291J-6.

What this will help do is allow for the setting of the offense so that it's not what it is now in the law, which is five miles over the speed limit. So, they could actually increase it to 10 miles over the speed limit, which I think is more palatable.

I still have concerns about expanding this system of red light cameras because I think it's going to add a lot of processing for DOT for the courts. And so, I'm cautious about expanding it. But I think what this would do was actually help make it more reasonable.

And then, the third part of this Bill I don't think is something that we should keep. So, I recommend we delete part three. So, my recommendation is part one, replace with HB 54, HD 2, part two, keep section two and amend section three as I described, and then delete part three, and then technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style.

Questions or concerns, Members?

Chair, thank you for your changes. I was going to vote no, but with your changes I can support the Bill.

Thank you. I appreciate your discernment. Any other comments, questions, or concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. There being no further business before this Committee, we are adjourned. Hey, before three o' clock.