House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. My name is David Tarnas. I'm chair. Welcome, everyone. Thanks for being here. We are very fortunate to have our vice chair, Mahina Poipoi here and our Member, Garner Shimizu.

The other Members are listening intently from their office, and my hope is that they can arrive at the opportune moment to ask questions or certainly to make decisions. So we have plenty we can do.

And I'm grateful that you're all here to help us do that important work of reviewing these bills we have on our Committee agenda today. Briefly, I want to just go over some ground rules. If you would be so kind as to limit your testimony to two minutes and summarize at that point. I appreciate it.

We've recently upgraded the microphone and sound system in our conference room. Just. I would encourage you to speak clearly and loudly. You can use your outside voice, and that would help to carry. If everyone had a voice like our dear friend here, we would all be in great shape. But many of us don't have that basso profundo.

But in the meantime, do our best. Use the stage voice so everyone hears. Welcome, Representative Garcia. This. These two microphones here pick up everything. So your side conversations, even the sotto voce, doesn't always work. We can. It can pick up what's being said, so just be cognizant of that. We don't want to distract people and we don't.

You don't want to embarrass yourself, so just keep that in mind. No clicking. All nervous habits, you can hear it. So if we could just maintain, you know, some. You know what our. Our activity here so that there won't be any distractions, that'd be great.

For those who are on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify. And after your testimony is complete, use the Zoom chat function to check with our great IT staff here to work out technical issues. If you're disconnected, don't panic. Rejoin us as best as you soon as you can.

I'll try to fit you in to finish your testimony. In the event that the power goes out, we may have to reschedule the Committee. We'll post appropriate notice. You know when and where. If you're on Zoom, please do not use trademarked or copyrighted images. Please, everyone, in your testimony, avoid profanity and uncivil behavior.

Make sure you wouldn't be embarrassed if your mother or your great auntie listens to you. So it's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. That would be great. Thank you to Rep. Belatti for joining us and Rep. Cochran for joining us. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Let's move on to our first Bill on our hearing, House Bill 2062 relating to gun violence prevention. This measure appropriates funds to the judiciary for the enforcement of gun violence protective orders. It appropriates funds to the Department of Law Enforcement to conduct public awareness campaigns on gun violence protective disorders.

First up, we have the Judiciary Maderos with comments written only it appears. I don't see anyone here or on Zoom. So I would refer Members to their written testimony which includes a recommended amendment.

They they say that the judiciary is tasked with interpret excuse me, the branch of government tasked with as the branch of government tasked with interpreting laws, the judiciary does not have the authority to enforce laws.

For this reason, they are recommending that we change the Bill so that their testimony says that as the words so it would say including the hiring of personnel in each circuit to effectuate efficient processing of temporary restraining orders and gun violence protective orders in accordance with the hrs. That's their recommendation from Judiciary.

So let's consider that since they weren't here to tell us that next we have testimony, written testimony only, I think from Department of Law Enforcement Director Mike Lambert, and his testimony is in support. And it came in late, so not everyone probably had a chance to see it.

So I would encourage Members to take a look at that if you haven't already looked at it. But the testimony is in support. And this has two appropriations, one to Judiciary, one to dle.

And so, you know, DLE says they strongly support it and DLE is well positioned to develop and implement public awareness campaigns to educate community Members, law enforcement agencies and other stakeholders about these important safety measures. So they're happy with the Bill and they want to move forward.

So that's DLE's testimony, since they're not here to tell us about it. We have written testimony from Heather Kimball, Hawaii County Council in support. And I want to note that this Bill is part of a package of bills coming from Hawaii State association of Counties.

And Council Member Kimball from Hawaii County Council is an officer of the Hawaii State association of Counties. So you'll note in her testimony that she refers to that. So I just want to make sure everyone knows that this is coming from the Hawaii State association of Counties as part of their legislative package.

Both the first two bills are both came from Hawaii State association of Counties. So her testimony is in support and it's coming from White County Council perspective. And so I urge Members to look at that.

Next, we have written testimony from Moms Demand Action, but I see a bunch of folks here from Moms Demand Action and I don't know whether we have others here. I guess we do have others on the list further down that are from your. Your group, so I'll come to that. But Carol Bodner said written testimony.

Is Carol here? Okay. No. So testimony, support in writing and we'll come to other Members of Moms Demand Action in due time. Next we have testimony and opposition from Wayne Assam with the Mid Pacific Pistol League. And next we have testimony and support from Susan Trombley Gifford's Gun Owners for Safety on Zoom. Is Ms. Trombley available?

Yes. Aloha.

Please proceed.

Aloha Chairman Tarnas and Members. I am a gun owner. I am the mother of a school shooting survivor. I am a retired teacher who had a student in my 8th grade classroom with a gun. I am also a domestic violence survivor.

I support legislation for the enforcement of gun violence protective orders to increase safety for all of us. I support legislation to conduct public awareness campaigns on gun violence protective orders. Education is essential for our safety. Protecting victims of gun violence is necessary for the safety of all of us.

According to Gifford's Gun Owners for Safety research, in the United States, more than 125 people die every day from gun violence. 25 million United States adults have been threatened or non fatally injured by an intimate partner with a firearm. Gun violence is the leading cause of death among all children in the United States.

Access to a gun makes it five times more likely that a woman will be killed by an abusive intimate partner. I urge you to continue to keep our community Safe. Please support HB2062. Mahalo for your time.

Thank you Ms. Trombley and thank you very much for taking a traumatic experience and making it into motivation to do advocacy. It's not an easy thing to say what you say and I appreciate your courage. Thank you. Next. Mary Ann Luna with SDM training group Bows and Bullets in Opposition in writing. Next.

Jerry Yuen, Pu Loa Rifle and pistol Club in opposition on Zoom not present. I urge Members to look at the written testimony. Next. We have comments from Randy Pereira, Hawaii Government Employees association and in the association HTEA testimony. Since they're not here to talk about it, they say.

The basically they're trying to get clear on who's doing what what different government employee is being tasked with doing what activity and what responsibility. And there are concerns about outsourcing or circumventing civil service positions and so they were asking a lot of questions regarding that.

I'll refer you to their written testimony for the details, but they asked some questions about those. That Those positions. Next, we have testimony from Teriann Mohiden Mohidine, Hawaii Chapter Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. In support, in person. The floor is yours. Please proceed.

Thank you. I'll try to use my outdoor voice.

Thank you.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas. Excuse me, Vice Chair Poipoi and Members of the Committee. My name is Terianne Mohadin. I'm a volunteer with the Hawaii Chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. I live here and I urge you to support this Bill.

We already have a law on the books that could help prevent firearms suicide here in our local communities, as well as stop someone who is a known danger to others from killing our loved ones with a gun. The problem is not enough people know about it.

The information is hard to find online, and even HPD doesn't have the funds to train their staff on it. Let's get the word out. That is what this Bill would do.

If someone owned a firearm and was threatening to shoot up my child or grandchild's school here or their workplace like we saw back in the Xerox shooting years ago, or a neighbor threatening other neighbors with a firearm, which we have seen horrible cases here on this island.

I would want something to be done about that ahead of time before the tragic loss of life happens. Plus, if people are going to put our brave law enforcement officers in danger and others know about that ahead of time, I would want our police protected, too. This is a law that is already in place.

We are just asking to get the word out to let people know how to use it to save lives here in our local communities. Mahalo for your consideration today.

Thank you, Ms. Mohiddin. Next we have Finley Gonzalez. Students Demand Action in support on Zoom. Not present. I refer you to the written testimony. Testimony in opposition from Margaret St. Vesniewski with the Organization for Liberty and Justice Hawaii. In opposition, not present. Andrew Namiki Roberts from Hawaii Firearms Coalition. In opposition, not present.

Next, Michael Rice, individual in opposition by zoom. Please proceed.

Mr. Rice again, sir. Good to see you. Yes, sir. Happy New Year. Happy New Year. Thank you. I'm against this Bill mostly because I'm against red flag laws or the Firearms Protection orders, as they're called. They're a Fifth Amendment violation, first and foremost. There is no due process. It's like, oh my neighbor has a gun.

He's talking about killing his wife. You should go check it out. There's other ways to handle that other than just putting in the firearms protection order that are within legal bounds right now.

I can simply make the accusation and I would have a SWAT team shop at his door to take his guns away and this and put fire. Red flag laws have been used in the past and weaponized by individuals to get back on others and have resulted in deaths. You know, 5, 5am, somebody pounded on your door.

You answer, you know, you don't know what's going on. You answer the door, armed. A bunch of cops. They see a gun in your hand, blam, blam, blam, you're dead. Because you had an argument with your niece over Thanksgiving and she knows she doesn't like the fact you had guns. She knows she has guns.

And, oh, he's starting to shoot up his wife and his kids and all this, even though no such threat was made. It's just a simple. He's. She said he didn't get a chance to say, I apologize. I had some things prepared. Again, Fifth Amendment violation.

There are other means to do this in place that I would be all in favor of that don't violate due process. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your insights into the constitutionality of the measure that's being proposed. Next, we have Mr. Robert Pittman in opposition, not present. We have numerous others that have submitted testimony. In total, we have 37 testimonies in support, 103 testimony in opposition, and three testimonies with comments.

And now I'm going to go directly to those who have said they're going to be here to testify, and I'll call on them. I'm not going to name everyone's names of everyone who submitted testimony, but all of these testimonies, if they're submitted, they're posted already.

Because we have great staff from the vice chair's office that post them yesterday afternoon for this hearing. We're setting a high standard. So you're doing great. Okay, let's move on. Tim Hike. Hoik in support, in person. Did I get your name? Yes, Tim Hike.

Hike.

Please proceed.

Aloha, everyone. This is actually the first time I've testified. I'm a nice guy. Everyone here is very nice. I've heard that rumor so far.

We're all nice people. So take a deep breath. You're fine.

My name is Tim Hike. I am a retired police officer. I spent 34 years and in that entire time, I never responded to a single call which a gun in the hand of a civilian helped the situation.

However, I haven't counted them up, but probably hundreds of times I've responded to calls where a gun in the hand of a citizen made a situation worse. Sometimes injured, sometimes dead. So therefore, after all that time, I am a firm believer in gun safety.

So I support any measure that will increase gun safety and I think this will specifically.

I spent most of my career as a city police officer in the state of Washington and there we actually had a law that said any domestic violence suspect, the police, when they made an arrest, were authorized to seize every firearm inside of residence. And this seems to be a similar law. That law worked well.

It was a new law. As far as I know, it's still on the books. So I support a law similar to that.

And this law will add money to a campaign to increase information about that, specifically for police officers to be aware of the law and aware of the opportunity to seize a deadly weapon for somebody who's possibly in a situation where they may harm themselves or others. I'm in complete support of that.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your perspective. Thank you. Next we have John Terry in opposition in person on zoom. Nope, not in person, not present. So I refer your testimony to Mr. John Terry. Next, Dennis Dunn. In support of Mr. Dunn, I refer you to his late testimony.

And I was just informed that Finley Gonzalez with Students Demand Action is now on zoom. Please proceed with your testimony. Finley Gonzalez.

Hi, my name is Finley Gonzalez and I'm a 19 year old volunteer Students Demand Action and a survivor of gun violence. I strongly support passing House Bill 2062. Students show that studies show that states with gun violence protection orders see lower rates of gun violence.

Indiana saw a 7.5% reduction in its firearm suicide rate in the 10 years after passing its extreme risk law. But these laws are most effective when thoroughly implemented. That's what passing House Bill 2062 would help ensure.

This Bill is extremely important to me and other college students in Hawaii because we know what it's like to be afraid at school. A Secret Service study of school violence incidents from 2008 to 2017 found that 100% of perpetrators showed concerning behaviors and 77% of the time at least one person most often appear knew about their plan.

House Bill 2062 could help make sure more people know that there's a tool available for getting firearms out of the hands of similar high risk individuals. With school shootings plaguing our society, it is so common to think not my state, not my school and not me. That's what I believed when I was young.

However, I'm proof that it can be your state, it can be your school, and it can be you. Unfortunately, this realization came to me when I was still in elementary school. If we do the right work early, prevent firearms from being misused, and protect our neighbors in Hawaii, I give full support to House Bill 2062.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2062, first here, and then we'll go to you. Please come on up and introduce yourself.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Walidn Christian. So I'm opposed to this Bill. However, I am in favor of education. I am a gun owner.

And unfortunately, a lot of the crimes that are happening or because individuals who are holding the tool, whether it's a firearm, whether it's a knife, whether it's a machete, which we've seen recently, it's not because of the tool, but it's because of their mindset and their mental illness.

And I think that's where the state has to really grasp it. It's the mental illness of the person or persons that are holding those. And I say a tool because it's a tool until it's used in violence or protection. So it could be either or. I really do believe in education.

I did lose a family Member to gun violence, and that is why I am in. I'm an advocate for it. However, I also am an advocate for freedom, the freedom of the people. And what they. What we. What we need to realize today, everyone, is that everybody's been affected somehow in crime here in Hawaii.

It's just getting crazy as far as the crime level. But we do need to look at the constitutional rights of each individual, whether we agree or disagree on it. That's what we have as an American citizen, and we need to fight for that as well. So I am in opposition. However, I am in favor of more education.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And I appreciate you moving forward from the tragedy of losing somebody, because that's just a huge weight to carry your whole life. So thank you for standing up and the courage to do that.

Use it for the good.

Use it for the good. Yeah. If you would be so kind as to provide your name to our staff, just since we didn't get that so that we can keep it for the record. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Anyone else wishing to testify? Yes. Ms. Young, please proceed with your germane comments.

Angela Melody Young, testifying on behalf of Kapalama Neighborhood Security Walk, where we do emergency team training with our neighbors, and so I'd like to propose an amendment. So the legislation as written assigns the Department of Law Enforcement with an appropriation of funds to conduct the public awareness campaign for educational purposes.

And if Moms Demand Action has mentioned that HPD is already overburdened with training, then perhaps an amendment to seek assistance from appropriate public, private and nonprofit agencies to be employed as consultants as necessary to implement this section for training can assist with managing and effectuating the purposes and the intent of this legislation.

Because, for example, a non profit that does assist with training for public safety initiatives is Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center.

Trains HP to work with individuals with disabilities. And so to have a non profit legislated into statute or nonprofits can help facilitate this process with strengthening public safety initiatives. So for example, Hawaii has some of the strictest laws when it comes to firearms.

In Honolulu County, I debated for sensitive police places legislation to assist with legal challenges of constitutional rights relating to common regulations to include restrictions on transit sensitive areas. I think if you have a firearm to protect others, to protect your family, then you're fine. But this legislation is to provide a Law to regulate those who are dangerously armed. And the influence of people on families in Hawaii is heartbreaking, and needs these legislations to manage that.

Yeah, I agree. Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Ms. Young, anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2062? If not questions, Members. Representative Cochran, did you have a question?

Yeah.

Please proceed.

I guess maybe for you, some of the comments from Behavioral Health, if we're going to take that into consideration. Do you want to discuss that time of decision

Ask questions.

Oh, okay. I'm just. Who? Is there somebody here from the Deputy Attorney's office? AG is here. Are they here? No, no, no.

I had to read out their testimony. They were not here.

Okay, sorry. Never mind then.

I don't have anyone to ask a question to.

Okay.

Okay, I understand. Yeah. Other questions? Judiciary is not here either. Yeah, unless they showed up. No, I mean, I, I, I read out the testimony for those who, Judiciary, Department of Law Enforcement. The AG did not submit testimony, but it was Judiciary and Department of Law Enforcement that submitted testimony. But they're not here.

Okay.

I just, you know, you have to refer to their written testimony.

All right, thank you, Chair.

Any, anything else? Any other questions that people may have of those who are here?

No.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. If not, I, I say thank you to everyone who testified on this first measure and we'll move on to the next measure. Next measure HB 2061 relating to firearms. This measure appropriates monies to support the state's gun buyback program, including at least two gun buyback events in each county.

This measure, first up, we have Department of Law Enforcement in support. Anyone here from Department. Oh, you know Mr. Dunn. Hi there. Yes, we, we just finished 2062 and I called you and you weren't around. That's the first Bill.

Gonna give me two seconds?

I'll give you. Members, would you accommodate the testifier? That'd be great. Mr. Dunn, please come on up. House Bill 2062. Mr. Dunn is- Nope, at the podium okay. Or as using an old term, it's the rostrum.

I remember that.

Yeah. Right. Because. And that's the. The prow of a ship was the noes of the ship, and they had a whole bunch of them on the speakers podium. And so that's how we started calling it a rostrum, even though it means nose. Isn't that curious? That's what it's about. So you're at the rostrum, Mr. Dunn.

Senate- House Bill 2062 relating to gun violence prevention. It's the ones that gives appropriations to Judiciary to enforce gun violence protective orders and appropriates funds to Department of Law Enforcement to conduct public awareness campaigns on gun violence protective orders. Mr. Dunn and I took Latin in our high school.

A long time ago. Especially for me. Yeah, yeah. Basically, what this Bill is about, we have a good tool already to help protect people from situations where people have guns and shouldn't have them, either temporarily or permanently.

It does allow the courts to be able to get involved and to put an order in place that will remove firearms from situations where they could be dangerous. I know that most of the time we think about.

In a situation where someone is threatening someone else and may use a firearm, I think we got to think about this in terms of our suicides. I believe that is the highest rate of gun deaths in Hawaii. Suicides. It's something that's been hidden, and people don't talk about it.

But I think we really seriously put the tools in place to make this work, and I will think it will save lives. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Dunn. Okay. There being no further testimony on HB 2062. We've already had questions.

Since DLE is here, though-

I said DLE.

Oh, sorry. That was.

Yeah. Mr. Dunn is a private individual.

Oh, sorry. I thought you said DLE.

He does a lot of volunteer work now. He used to be in the Victim Witness program.

Thank you.

That. But no longer, he's retired.

Sorry, I thought you said DLE when he walked in.

That was on to the next Bill.

Oh, gotcha. I-

And just as I said DLE- Mr. Dunn came in.

I see. Then that's why I thought. Oh he's here.

Ta Da. Sorry for the confusion. Mr. Dunn is not DLE.

All right.

Mr. Mike Lambert is the DLE representative. He's the Director of Department of Law Enforcement. He is. He sent in testimony in support of 2061, and as far as I know, he's not here or on Zoom. So I refer you to his testimony and support for 2061.

Next, we have written testimony and support from Heather Kimball, Hawaii County Council, from Rebecca Likke, county of Kauai, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney and support opposition from Wayne Assam, Mid Pacific Pistol League. Support from Nahi Parsons, Nahelani Parsons with Hawaii State association of counties on Zoom. Ms. Parsons, good to see you. Please proceed.

Good to see you. Aloha Chair and Members of the Committee, Nahlani Parsons, testifying in support on behalf of the Hawaii State association of Counties. I understand, reading the testimony, the concern raised that the criminals do not necessarily come forward and hand in their guns.

Public safety, however, is not only about enforcement after a crime occurs, it's also about prevention. Programs like this are voluntary, not mandatory. And they recognize that mental health challenges, family stress and access to unsecured firearms can turn into a difficult situation, turn a difficult situation into a permanent tragedy.

By providing a voluntary option that helps individuals act responsibly before the crisis escalates, we are making our communities safer. If we can reduce that risk even one time, especially when children are involved, it's definitely worth doing so. Mahalo to the Committee for hearing this important measure.

Thank you, Ms. Parsons. Next we have testimony in opposition from Mary Ann Luna, SDM Training Group, bows and bullets. Testimony in opposition from Jerry Ewan, Rifle and pistol club on Zoom not present. I refer you to his written testimony. Next, testimony from Mr. Michael Rice on Zoom with comments. Mr. Rice, please proceed.

Aloha again, Senator. Rep. Tarnis, thanks. I'm sure you remember my comments from last year when a similar Bill was like this was done. I'm against gun buybacks on principle just because I believe the money can be better used else and other means. I laid out the example in my written testimony.

And gun buybacks are also potentially a source for black market guns. They've been documented cases where guns have been stolen by corrupt law officials or even the people who are supposed to destroy the weapons themselves. I've seen some of the buybacks, how they were set up here.

It had cars lined up around the block just waiting to get in. So like if a criminal knows what's going on, oh, he's got guns in his trunks. Jack is Jack. A car run off and now they got guns. So it can be that simple.

I, I think that it would be better if as I said yes previously, if we had a program that was year round you can just go into a gun store, say hey, my, my dad passed away. I, I have his guns I don't really know what to do with them.

Okay, yeah, just bring them in, we'll hold them for you, and then we can figure out, like, if you wanted to, if you want to sell them, we can figure that out. If, if they're poss. Can figure that out, let HPD handle it, you know, that sort of thing.

Because like I, as I mentioned my testimony, I had a friend from Texas. You imagine where he stands on guns. His father in law passed because while he was living here.

So he, he and the rest of the family were trying to do the proper thing, you know, get their permits, all that, so they could take possession of the guns. And, you know, so somebody became aware of the guns that he did not trust at all. So it was.

He still had like at least a month before he could take custody of the guns. So he took some. So he had. Was forced to take family heirlooms worth, you know, thousands of dollars. And.

Could you please summarize, Mr. Rice?

I'm sorry, I believe that's. That'll do. Thank you very much. I need to go myself.

It was a good anecdote and I'd like to hear the rest of the story, but maybe we can talk offline.

It's in my written testimony.

Okay.

I need to head out the door myself.

Okay. It's in the testimony. I Refer Members to Mr. Rice's testimony. And thanks for making time for us. Mr. Rice, good luck on your next.

Thank you very much.

Yep. Okay. Next testimony from John Terry in opposition, not present. No. Next. Dennis Dunn in support. Mr. Dunn, welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you again very quickly on this. Strongly support this. The amount of money we put into it is well worth the lives that we're going to save. I can't tell you how many different people are in situations where guns have been sitting around and they just don't do anything about it. This provides incentive for people to.

They know they're going to get something to return.

And just as my own anecdote, and I'm sorry I didn't put it in here, but as a boy growing up in Michigan, there were two different people in our neighborhood within a few years where the kids found a gun that people didn't realize forgotten about and young boys got killed, lost their lives, someone had the gun sitting around that they probably could have easily gotten rid of.

Too bad we didn't have buyback programs in those days.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Dunn. Okay. That's all the testimony we received. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Yes, please you first. No, you first. I get to decide. Please introduce yourself again. For the record.

For the record, we'll end. Christian. Again, I'm in opposition of the gun buyback. However, it is a voluntary thing that people can do. I get that. I like what the testifier said of bringing it to a gun star. The reason why I'm against it. I saw the last two buybacks and I often wondered, even though it's amnesty.

I often wondered how many of those. Guns possibly was used in the crime and we did not identify who last held that gun. And that is a problem because now we have unsolved crimes, whether it's a murder or a shootout or whatever. And possibly we could have found out answers to that.

That's my main reason for being against it. I am a gun owner. Like I said before, I think that a lot of people who have no use for a gun, they have the option to sell it to other people that they know or for a safer reason, going to the police station or going to a gun store.

However, when we have those lines and. It'S possible that they could get hijacked, I'm hoping that that doesn't happen. Unfortunately, though, my biggest concern is if it's amnesty and we don't know where the gun came from and it was using a crime, now we just lost another opportunity to solve another crime. And that with that I hear.

Thank you. Well, I appreciate that. And make sure that we've got your name again. This one. That'd be great. Valid questions. And I. We don't have anyone here from the Police Department to ask them about that, but I will endeavor to follow up afterward. So thank you for bringing that up. Yes. Ms. Young, please proceed.

Angela Melody Young, CRAES or actually Kapalamani would who scare you up?

You have to speak up. Articulate.

Yes, yes.

Outside voice.

Yes. We're very involved in public safety initiatives across Oahu where we train with the Citizens Patrol and neighborhood security walks from District 156 and 8. So we're very involved with kind of managing from the bottom level these aspects of violence.

And yes, so I think this legislation does come at a good time where you're getting an appropriation of funds for the judiciary to enforce the firearm violence protective orders.

We're talking about the gun buyback program.

And the gun buyback program. So these comments remain to the Bill. I think work well together. So I do support this legislation. And to get food, land, gift cards for those who return the firearms, I think is a good idea.

Key aspects of this program is to Help reduce firearms related assaults and then to prevent stolen firearms from entering the black market and helps to facilitate safety amongst youths and teens who would otherwise perhaps they could get their hands on a gun.

And you know, in New Mexico there are two boys, elementary school level, they're playing around with a gun. And in New Mexico they have very relaxed laws. In Hawaii we have restrictive laws and so we keep our children and our Kiki safe.

Thank you. Appreciate you keeping your comments germane to the Bill. Thank you. Okay, anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2061? If not questions, Members, no questions. Thanks very much. Thank you to all the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure and I'll follow up to try to find some of those answers.

And Mr. Rice comments about, you know, the cars getting broken into while they're in line. I'll find out if there's been any incidents about that. I'll try to find out how the police follow up on these guns and determine whether or not they were used in a crime previously. So they're not.

So they're taking advantage of any kind of evidence, you know, that might be available to them from this because I frankly not sure how they handle that. So I'll have to follow up and get more details on it. Thank you for your question though. Yeah, sure. Questions. Yes, representative Cochran is HSAC.

Is that Noel Nahelani?

Parsons, are you here? Ms. Parsons, please. We have a question if you are Nahi available? No, she must have stepped away.

All right. I was just curious about. They want to roll it out to. The other counties, right? That's the idea.

Okay.

Yes.

This is if you. This two. Is this includes funding for two gun back events in each county at least and if not more, each county.

Yes. Good.

Okay. Ms. Parsons, are you there?

Yes.

That's fine. The question from Representative Cochran was you, are you planning to roll this out? Is the intention to roll this out in each county? And I said yes. The Bill says at least two gun buyback events in each county. Is that accurate?

Yes, that's accurate. And it's up to you guys if you want to scale it back from that. But that would be the ideal goal modeled off of what Honolulu sitting county did.

Okay. And a follow up chair, please go ahead. Thank you for being here. I support all HSAC because fellow council Member. But I'm just curious if there was. Any discussion about gun accidents or intentional. Killing of livestock germane to the Bill.

Germane to the Bill.

I mean it's about trying to, you. Know, the buyback to not have such occurrences happen. You know, I mean, get it off the street.

Ask your question, make it germane to the Bill and that'll be great.

Yeah. I mean, in your, I guess, in your deliberation to pursue this Bill for. A gun but gun buyback program, you. Know, to, to prevent, hopefully take it. Off the, you know, the streets for. For suicides and, you know, crimes and what have you, I think wasn't discussed. In relation to other things that could.

Occur with the guns without getting the guns out of the hands of people.

I guess, I guess is one of the motivations for this, not just the suicide issue, but also use of guns against livestock? Is that one of the issues?

Thank you, chair. You know, the question, the discussion was around making communities safer, period. So you could draw the inference that that expands out to livestock as well, but. Or animals. But we haven't, we didn't have direct conversation on that.

Okay, thank you. I was just curious.

That's a valid question because Duke's law is in place.

Yep. Valid question. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much, Rep. Cochran. Any other questions, Members?

Thank you, chair.

Certainly. Thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 2414, relating to the Administration of Justice. And this is a major bill that-- basically following up on a Penal Code Review Committee that the Judicial Council convened because the Legislature asked them to.

And it comprised 61 members, including 16 judges representing all courts, all four judicial circuits, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Labor, the chair of the House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee, representative from the Department of Attorney General, director of Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, representative from the Department of Health, prosecuting attorneys or their representatives from all four counties, the Public Defender, representatives from Honolulu and Maui Police Department, representative of Office of Hawaiian Affairs, member of the Judicial Council, representatives of the Criminal Defense Bar, crime victim advocates, and community advocates.

So all of these organizations were part of this Penal Code Review Committee that had multiple subcommittees dealing with various different parts of the statutory-- of the Hawaii Revised Statutes that relate to the Penal Code. Very complicated, and I have to say good job to the Judicial Council for doing this.

Very difficult, but they did a great job including everybody. It was a collaborative process. You know, as I say, you know, Department of Health was involved, the Attorney General was there, you know, very involved, and I want to say thank you to the honorable Paul Wong, Circuit Court, First Circuit, who's providing testimony on this today.

It was well-facilitated and well-organized, and it was not easy to do. So that's where this bill came from is through that collaborative process. So with that in mind, I would like to move into testimony on the bill. First up, we have the Department of Health, who is in support. Please come on up and introduce yourself and tell us why you think this is a good bill.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. I am Brenda Bauer-Smith, on behalf of the Department of Health. We stand on our written testimony in support of this bill, offering amendments and questions if necessary.

Okay. Thank you for that offer to stand on your testimony. We all benefit from hearing you highlight why this is a good bill and what amendments you want to make, and it's not just because you've got a great voice that you want to use, but it's because we need to hear it and the members of the public need to hear it because not everyone read your testimony, sorry to say.

Sure. So our testimony was brief, and here is-- as a representative from the Department of Health. So specific-- I think the department was just focused more specific to the matters in the bill that relate to Chapter 704 and mental health.

The amendments suggested we're just clarifying and expanding telehealth evaluations and how they can be conducted at places where a defendant has been in the custody of the Department of Health or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

There might be instances where somebody is in the custody of, let's say, the Department of Health, and they might be at Kona Medical Center. So we just wanted to expand it such that we could also enforce telehealth opportunities for those other locations.

The other amendment offered was just, again, broadening our ability as-- I'm a forensic examiner for the state, and so broadening our ability to be able to review records that are relevant to the case and that are up to date for defendants who are held at a correctional facility or a hospital, to review the records at that location.

Thank you. Oh, that's very helpful. I really appreciate it. So there's two amendments you're recommending to us for those reasons, and your explanation is helpful. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next we have Tricia Nakamatsu, the Attorney General. There you are. Welcome. Glad to see you. Please proceed.

Thank you. And good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Deputy Attorney General Tricia Nakamatsu, on behalf of the department. We are largely in support of this bill. We just note three areas of concern, and I apologize; there's a typo. It says two, but there are three areas of concern.

The first is in Section 17, which would decrease the standard probation for large swaths of Class C felonies from four years to three years. We just felt that that was a little-- or perhaps there are certain offenses for which four years as a standard probation would remain appropriate. These are rather dangerous and/or violent offenses.

Those are enumerated in our testimony. We'd also note that the court continues to have, already has, and will continue to have the opportunity to impose shorter probations or essentially any for most types of sentencing situations as long as they enter the reason therefore on the record.

With regards to Section 25, we had a relatively simple suggestion to clarify the new offense of consenting to unreasonable noise on premise. That is also-- our suggested language is included in our testimony just to-- so people have a better idea of what they're allowed to do or not allowed to do in order to comport with that statute. Our most serious concern is in part nine of the bill.

We actually ask that part be deleted from the bill. That would amend the existing offense of promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree, which is essentially possession of the lowest quantities of a dangerous drug, such as methamphetamine, fentanyl, those level of drugs.

It would split that offense into two different parts, one of which the smallest amounts would be misdemeanors, which can only get up to a maximum of one year in jail or probation. And then the existing-- the other portions above that would continue to be a C felony, which would get up to five years or four years probation, depending on if jail is imposed.

So our concern is that the longer length of probation is actually more important for people to receive appropriate treatment and oversight to help them get out of the cycle of addiction or substance-use disorders. And the shorter period is not going to be effective for people to get that length of treatment.

We'd also note that there are already multiple ways that people who suffer from substance abuse are being deferred, either diverted to treatment or when they come up, rather than get a conviction, they're getting their cases deferred, which means if you go to treatment, you stay arrest and conviction-free for a certain period of time.

That charge would be wiped off of your record. There's conditional discharge, there's first or second first-time drug offender sentencing provisions, as well as second-time drug offender sentencing provision, which, again, then in that case they would be on probation, they would have to go to treatment, and if they complete the treatment, then they could get the offense X1, which again is essentially wiping it from--well, not essentially--it is basically wiping it from their record.

By the time somebody is put onto probation, they're also, if they have difficulty with treatment there, courts typically give them numerous chances to-- everyone understands that it's a process. Rehabilitation and breaking the addiction is a process.

And so they're given numerous chances before--typically--before probation is revoked, and sometimes when they're even revoked from probation, they're put back on probation again to give them another chance. So we think that the number of people who are getting sent to prison have brought this type of offense.

Is-- I mean, I couldn't say numbers exactly, but they have, by and large, already been given numerous chances and been encouraged numerous times through the system to get treatment and rehabilitation. So we're available for questions, if any, but, yes, thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, and I would be interested in that data that you just made that assertion on. I'd like some data on that.

Okay. We can try to get those numbers. That would probably be from Judiciary or--

But I mean, you've made the observation, so I figured if you could back it up and give me the details, that'd be great. Thank you very much. Mr. Judge Wong. Paul Wong, Judiciary, State of Hawaii. Or his designee.

I've changed.

Judge, good to see you.

Thank you.

Maybe someday.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. My name is Jennifer Awong, and I am the staff attorney for the Criminal Divisions of the First Circuit Court. I was smiling back there because, Chair, you took most of the beginning of my testimony out, so I now have to flip over to my second page.

I'll just go into a little bit more with respect to, you know, the Judiciary really appreciates everything that the committee did. How it was formed, you already went over that. There were eight subcommittees.

Each of those subcommittees had primary responsibility for at least one chapter of the Penal Code that they reviewed. And then they made recommendations, and then we all met in Plenary Committee where these recommendations that are contained in the bill gained a supermajority approval.

So again, the Judiciary appreciates the work of all the members of the committee and what we were able to accomplish. While the Judiciary takes no position on the creation, revision, or elimination of statutory offenses that are contained in the Penal Code, we do want to offer just a few comments with respect to the proposed revisions that are made to Chapter 704, which are in part four, pages 9 through 26.

We really believe that these amendments will facilitate faster mental health examinations of defendants, minimize the time between court decisions, leverage the medical treatment already afforded to this defendant population, and ultimately reduce the length of stay by those defendants at the Hawaii State Hospital.

We're hoping that especially those amendments to Section 406 will expedite the transfer of defendants out of the State Hospital, specifically in instances where there's absolutely no dispute with respect to whether or not the defendant is fit to proceed. I will be available for any comments, and Representative Shimizu, I did read this stuff. If you want to ask me a question after about the other one, I can hopefully answer.

Cool. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Awong. Next, Pamela Ferguson-Brey, Crime Victim Compensation Commission, State of Hawaii, in support. Welcome. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members. Pam Ferguson-Brey. I'm the executive director of the State Crime Victim Compensation Commission. I also served on the Penal Code Review Committees in 2015 and this last year.

So as you know, there are many substantive amendments to the Penal Code, including to Section 706-623, and in that section, for a number of Class C felony offenses, the term of probation is reduced from four years to three years. So our comments relate to those offenses that are subject to where victims are eligible for restitution.

What this provision effectively does is, by reducing the term of probation, it reduces the amount of time the Judiciary has to enforce restitution orders on behalf of <inaudible>. So we support an amendment to exclude those cases. We're talking about some of the cases are sex assault, three cases, negcon, two cases. If you look at the statutory--

Negcon two?

I'm sorry. Negligent homicide in the second degree and sexual assault in the third degree, among other types of offenses. Some of the child abuse offenses are also included in the reduction of probation provisions. We also support the amendments proposed by Mr. Dunn as well.

The commission, in addition to serving crime victims through compensation, we also run a restitution project that collects restitution from inmates and parolees.

We did an article with the Council of State Governments in 2012 called, Victim Restitution Matters: Four Lessons from Hawaii to Ensure Financial Justice for Crime Victims. Criminal justice reform, we believe, must not only serve the interest of offenders, but must also include meaningful protection for the interests and rights of crime victims to avoid harmful and unintended consequences.

A consortium of victim attorneys that represent the rights of victims across the country urged policymakers to think about six different questions when they're doing criminal justice reform to make sure that victims are not forgotten. One of those questions is, does the strategy eliminate or reduce the opportunity for victims to receive court-ordered restitution?

If so, how will the financial recovery for victims be supported? So we think the bill does not meet that criteria in terms of considering crime victims. Restitution is the primary--

If you could summarize, please?

In summary, there is no other pathway. The civil enforcement provisions are, victims cannot avail themselves of those provisions. If you look at the instructions by the Judiciary about how to file civil orders for victims to do their own enforcement, I challenge anybody to be able to do that and then to be able to garnish an inmate's wages, to have to, as a victim, give your name and address to the defendant if you are attempting to enforce your own order. So encourage the committee to exclude those offenses from the provisions. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Ferguson-Brey. Next we have Mr. William Bento, Office of the Public Defender. Welcome, sir. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is William Bento. I'm an attorney from the Public Defender's Office representing the office. I'd like to-- you have our written testimony, so I just want to focus on two areas. One would be Chapter 706, dealing with the reduction of time for people to be on probation.

This is a reflection of what are the best practices considered around the country, and I think the committee took that into account when they made this recommendation. The longer a person is on probation usually leads to a greater risk that they're not going to succeed on probation. I don't know all the social science behind that, but that seems to be the findings.

One of the things, anecdotally, I can tell you is that the more people are placed together that have similar issues and problems, we've seen where later they get together and get into trouble.

And so, you know, the sooner we can get people separated from each other into treatment and to a better way of living, they're going to be more successful. The shorter terms on probation help with that.

In regards to the issue of restitution, I just want the committee to know that every judge will issue a freestanding order as far as as restitution is concerned because that order will go beyond the life of the term of probation.

And the reason for that is our Supreme Court's already said that if you're poor and cannot afford to continue to pay the restitution while you're on probation, you cannot be held back from leaving probation because you don't have the money to make that payment.

And so I understand that might be difficult to enforce those freestanding orders in the Civil Court, but perhaps that would call for other legislation that could make things easier for individuals to be able to do so. But to hold somebody back or lengthen their term of probation would technically be unconstitutional.

The other part I'd like to just highlight is the issue with the dangerous drugs and renaming that to possession of a dangerous drug from the current-- promoting a dangerous drug. That will make a huge difference, not to most people, but people who get accused of such.

I can tell you in all my years of clients, when I express to them what their charge is and being told, I'm not promoting anything; I was just in possession of a pipe with microscopic amounts of residue. And that's what we're talking about here and that's why we're asking for this reduction.

It's more reflective of what's happening out there and more reflective of the proper level of supervision by the courts necessary for these types of events. Thank you, and I'm available for questions.

So you're actually supporting the recommendation from the Penal Code Review Committee to make that change?

Yes. It's our--

It's not just your suggestion, but you're supporting the suggestion recommendation from the Penal Code Review Review Committee in the bill?

Yes, I did not make that clear.

I just-- making sure everyone knows.

Our office is in strong support of the measure.

Thank you, Mr. Bento. Appreciate your good work and that of your colleagues in the Office of the Public Defender. Next we have Monsieur Basso Profundo himself, Nikos Leverenz, Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Madam Vice Chair, and members. Nikos Leverenz, Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii. I had the pleasure to serve on the Penal Code Review Committee with Judge Wong, and it was a real honor to serve with him and the under-distinguished jurors who volunteered their valuable time to improve the operation of our state's criminal legal system.

My comments are going to focus on part nine, which establishes the offense of a possession of a dangerous drug in this second degree. Judge Trish Morikawa jointly headed the relevant subcommittee and came to this proposed reform along with members from the Attorney General's Office, county prosecutors, and law enforcement.

I have a technical amendment to the proposed sub 3 that currently provides that whenever a court sentences a person, grants a motion for deferral, or grants a conditional discharge, it should also require that the person completes a substance abuse assessment and treatment, if necessary. There should be a clear demarcation between assessment and treatment.

Every person who possesses or uses drugs does not have a substance-use problem or a substance-use disorder, and placing these persons in treatment is a misallocation of scarce treatment resources. As with alcohol, problematic use and substance-use disorder, it's a multifaceted issue that requires greater attention to a person's health and not de facto eligibility for coerced treatment.

So I recommend that the proposed sub 3 instead read that whenever a court sentences a person, grants a motion for deferral, or grants conditional discharge, it shall also require that the person completes substance abuse assessment, and then the court may require participation in the appropriate level of treatment upon recommend-- that's recommended by the assessment.

I mistyped there. Appendix B4 also deserves particular attention. There is a notable discrepancy between the First Circuit, which is Honolulu County, and other counties, which attests to the significantly more severe prosecutorial practices here in Oahu. Ideally, Hawaii should explicitly preclude any criminal charges or unusable traces in residue for possession under the proposed new offense or current offenses.

This is current practice in the Fifth Circuit where residue is just not charged. Appendix B4 also demonstrates that most states classify drug possession for personal use as a misdemeanor. So again, as with the lack of a compassionate use law, which I testified in favor of yesterday in Ms. Belatti's committee, this is an untoward manifestation of Hawaii exceptionalism.

It was recognized by the larger committee that Hawaii has the largest average term of probation in the nation per a 2020 report from the Pew Charitable Trusts. This state has not enacted meaningful probation reform since, nor have county prosecutors systematically advanced drug policies grounded in harm reduction, public health, and racial justice.

In the context of drug law enforcement, as with other aspects of our criminal legal system, Native Hawaiians are disproportionately impacted at each stage of the process. So again, it was my honor to serve as a community stakeholder on this committee, and I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Leverenz. Now, I also have you listed here to provide testimony on behalf of Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center. Is there anything more you want to mention?

No.

With that hat on?

No. I will test-- I testify on both. Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii is now a project of Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center.

Ah, okay. Thanks. Appreciate that. Thanks very much. Okay, next we have Mr. Dennis Dunn, in support. Please. Mr. Dunn, floor is yours.

Thank you very much again, Chair Tarnas--

Sure.

--Vice Chair Poepoe. Appreciate the opportunity to speak. As others have said before, I also am a-- or was a member of this committee. I was very honored to serve; was the second time I had that opportunity. I doubt if I'll have another one next time around.

I'll be 87 years old, so I don't think they'll be calling me. I do also want to thank and congratulate Judge Paul Wong, his staff, and so on, and the Judicial Council for putting-- as you said, they did an excellent job with-- I forget; what are the total number of members? 61 or something? Incredible.

I will basically summarize here as, sort of, you've heard me before. It's the same old song. I'm going to talk about restitution. I generally support the report and its recommendations, but in Section 17, during our deliberations and today, I will express my concerns.

Restitution by probationers is still not something that's happening at the rate that it should. Exactly how much is happening we don't know, because similar to the last time around when we met, we don't have any figures on a restitution by probation. We asked several times for that information; was not available.

I'm glad that Mr. Bento brought up the point about the freestanding order. It's true, and I was one of the people who pushed hard to make the freestanding order mandatory.

However, I can tell you from 50 years of working as a victim advocate, I don't know of a single victim who has been able to recover off a freestanding order. And for most people, it's going to require retaining an attorney. Most of the restitute-- over half of the restitution owed in the state is under $1,000.

And so, as you can imagine, not many attorneys are going to try to take on something unless they do it in pro bono. So what I have done is I've tried to suggest some ways short of not shortening the probation, because that is my main concern, but a couple of ways--and I have some proposals that I attach to my testimony--basically one of them--and my apologies to Mr. Bento, because I know I'm not like this--I think that we should make it a requirement that anyone who's been given consideration for early release from probation must have completed their restitution.

I think that's basic. The restitution, to me, is the most concrete way that we tie the offender to the victim. In other words, this quantifies in a real way what the responsibility of that person is. And then secondly, as I think I've said many times before, information is critical, both the defendant and for the victim.

And right now, although we have a requirement in the law--which I'm not really sure it's being followed--that an individual victim be notified if a person is put on probation, we don't have any requirement them being notified when they're released from probation.

So especially for shortening the terms or for allowing people to get off probation early, the victim will have no idea, unless they're fortunate enough to be somehow following online or, you know, on ECOR or something. And I think we need to have a provision there. And again, I have proposed amendments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Appreciate your testimony. Final testimony in writing from Mr. James Lindblad, in support. Not present. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2414? Ms. Young, please provide testimony that is germane to the bill.

Yes. Aloha. Angela Melody Young, testifying on behalf of Kapalama Neighborhood Security Watch. So my proposed amendment is to consider amendments to work with nonprofits and grassroots movements to provide advice as you review the penal codes in the judiciary process between the state and county's offices.

Because while the Judiciary requires-- the Judiciary requires balance through nonprofit objective intervention in processing crime and homelessness because state and county attorneys as government employees often operate under incentives geared toward case processing speed, high conviction rates, or simply clearing dockets rather than resolving the underlying social issues of homelessness.

And so nonprofit involvement provides necessary objectivity focusing on restorative justice, case dismissal, and rehabilitation rather than just punishment, which in turn reduces recidivism and the revolving cycling door of incarceration. So my amendment empowers nonprofits to take action to help the Penal Code process because we're all acting in the best interest of justice.

And also, if you could consider an amendment to work with DHS, Department of Human Services, because DHS operates the QUEST Integration Program, the QUEST Division Program to assist, this can help assisting incarcerated individuals with transitioning and reintegrating into society.

And DHS also operates a SNAP food program which covers the comprehensive low-income benefits for low-income individuals and individuals with disabilities. And the incarcerated group, they're very prone to be in this demographic of being low-income individuals and to have disabilities. So I do appreciate that there was focus on diversion programs and how the Department of Health shall periodically report to the court on the defendant's compliance with treatment and fitness restoration.

Ms. Young, could you please summarize?

Yeah. I think that if the committee could consider my amendments, as Hawaii is an island state and we have a unique problem with homelessness and those incarcerated groups, then it'd be very helpful to get the nonprofits and the state and county offices to work well together. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 2414 in person or on Zoom? Seeing no further testimony, members, do you have any questions? Representative Garcia, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair. For the Attorney General, please. Thank you for being here. My question is, and from my reading of the bill, it restructures two drug offenses in this bill which could possibly lead from your testimony to slightly lesser penalties in some cases. Could you briefly elaborate on that?

So the portion that I was talking about, it essentially splits an existing offense into two separate offenses. So promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree is the lowest level of possession of certain types of drugs that are classified: meth, heroin, fentanyl, those types of things. And it would break that into two different tiers, essentially.

So it would rename this possession from promoting, and that's not necessarily what-- we didn't discuss that aspect of it, so I would have to. If that's a point of clarification, I could make that. But it would break it into two tiers. So the higher level of the lowest level of possession would remain a Class C felony, and then the smallest amounts would become a misdemeanor.

Okay, thank you.

Question?

Yeah, for Attorney General. Okay, thank you. I was- in your testimony in relation to Chapter 711 with the unreasonable noise, you wanted to add some additional language, I believe.

Is that correct? Can you explain a little bit about what, what you're asking here?

Yes.

So just based on the plain language of the statute that's being proposed, it didn't seem very clear what- so people who are legitimately trying to comply with the law, it wasn't entirely clear what they could do to comply with the law as far as allowing the unreasonable noise to occur.

Sorry, to allow?

What would it mean to allow someone, allow an unreasonable noise to occur? Does that mean you just have to say stop it? Does that mean you allow it or that, does that get you out of trouble essentially, or take you out of the parameters of the offense or?

So the suggestion that we have would be that it would have to be something more than a verbal stop it or written order to desist, and it would have to be tied to some level of actual pursuit of some sort of consequences.

Such as a complaint to your homeowners association or calling in police Department if it raises to that level?

What would you say are these further consequences that you're saying should be presented?

Well, anything more than a verbal or written order to desist. Is what's being proposed, but of course, it's the purview of the Legislature. If you'd like to create other parameters. We just thought it was unclear.

We're just trying to find out what you mean by further consequences. You know, that person making money.

Because there's such an array of things that people could use as consequences. It's-it's really, I think, very situation specific.

Okay.

So currently, whether it's a renter or owner or what their situation is with whoever the person is that's making noise.

Right. Okay. So currently we, this isn't-this is the actual. What is this, a chapter or section, but you're trying to add more to it or just clarifying existing language?

No, this is being proposed under the Penal Code Review Committee recommendation.

So she's suggesting an additional change to the recommendation from the review commission to add this additional language which says that you can't just tell them to stop making noise. You got to say that you will pursue further consequences upon the person making the unreasonable noise if the unreasonable noise persists. That's what they're recommending.

Yes.

Without saying exactly what the further consequences are.

And. Sorry, I have a follow up.

Yeah, go ahead.

And so I know there's page 33 in reference to property controllers, that verbiage called property controllers liability.

So is that saying like, like the property manager of a, you know, building or homeowners association membership board people, where your tenants have a issue of noise, their neighbor, and now they can they go to them to complain now that property controller. Sorry, property controller is liable if they don't do anything about it.

That was the recommendation of the Penal Code Review Committees to create this. You're asking about this.

So that was a recommendation of the Penal Code Review Commission, not a separate recommendation from-

Oh, and not from AG. Sorry. Not AG. So I'm. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Okay.

So I would refer you to the Penal Code Review Commission report for their justification for that.

All right. Sorry. I just thought. Okay. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Representative Belatti.

Follow up question to Representative Garcia's questions. And I really want to understand the opposition because of the prosecutor, or the attorney Generals to the creation of a possessing a dangerous drug in the first degree. You are in fact okay, that the possessing a dangerous drug in the first degree remains a class C felony, correct?

Yes. Yes.

Because that affords a higher level kind of punitive action probation. All those other things that you said were really good to make sure we were able to keep these people in the system.

Well, we think the longer term of probation is certainly helpful connected with the class C Bill. And of course that's subject to many okay conditions by the court.

Okay. But then in that possessing a dangerous drug in the first degree, the Penal Code Review Committee went through a lot of great painstaking detail to identify the amounts of drugs that would be subject to the first degree charge.

So can you speak to that and how really we're still capturing a lot of people who say they might be dangerous because they have these drugs on them and that we're really capturing people who we need to.

To get them into the system to be able to then provide treatment, probation, all those kinds of things that come with being convicted of this felony.

Well, I don't, I don't think we're making. Saying that the people themselves are necessarily dangerous, the drugs are dangerous and they're use of the drugs needs to stop. So I'm not sure as far as opining on specific amounts. Are you asking me to say why those amounts?

I guess I want to, I want you to comment. Yeah, because the other possessing a dangerous drug in the second degree, that's what you really seem to have a problem with, which is the offense that and is treated as a misdemeanor because it captures a person who, knowingly possesses any dangerous amount drug in any amount.

You want to put all of these people into the class C felony charge.

They're currently there now. Yeah. And so just carving out a smaller. The smallest quantities and then making that a misdemeanor.

Yeah. And then the reason being that because it's such small quantities that you don't want to treat them as if they're class C felons, you actually want to treat them as misdemeanants because it's such small quantities. Like, I guess that's what I want to. I want you to comment on.

You want to make the people who have the smallest amounts in their possession, felons. That's what you want us to do?

Well, there's different ways that it can be handled. They can get a deferral so that they're ultimately not a felon. They could get a first or second time drug offender sentencing which ultimately once they get through treatment, they're not a felon. So I mean there's different. There's diversion courts, there's diversion.

But we know there's a lot of problems with those things. And so can you, I guess, maybe, maybe. Can you speak to the.

Oh, I'm sorry. Just maybe to wrap that up. Is that. But having them as a class C felony is what gives them the length of time to go through treatment, to perhaps trip and fall and flounder through probation, but then get back up and continue with probation and get better.

It gives that length of time that they need, that they may need, and it's subject to the court's discretion. They can also apply for early termination if they want. There's different ways that the court can address it. And there's certain people that although they're on probation, they're maybe on a lower level of oversight than other people.

But do you acknowledge that in the language it was in fact crafted by the Committee, there's commentary for the possessing a dangerous drug in the second degree that refers to a person having to complete substance abuse assessment and treatment?

And so there's those safeguards built in that doesn't automatically put them into the felon bucket that is addressing your concerns about them not having the ability to get treatment.

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

If you look at the Bill, the possessing.

We'll try it one more time.

Yeah, I'll try it one more time. I think you know where I'm getting at. Possessing a dangerous drug in the second degree is carved out as a new offense. Right. Your Department has a problem because you would rather we treat them automatically in class C felonies so that they can have access to substance abuse treatment.

But in the new language that was created for this possessing a dangerous drug in the second degree, the Committee in its wisdom, in the wisdom of the many judges who see all of these people coming through, did in fact put in language that addresses the Attorney General's concern about somehow they're not going to get access to substance abuse treatment or training wheels to help them get back up on their feet, like how you just said that is in fact built in to the possessing a dangerous drug in the second degree.

I don't think that'd be up to the four year period, though. It would be for one year under a misdemeanor.

So. But in the wisdom of the Committee, what they did was that acknowledging that all of these other offenses that have all of these amounts of drugs, which I'm assuming you know, three to 24 capsules of a dangerous drug is pretty, pretty still not that much, but still significant, so that it's felony.

Whereas if you had one capsule and you were captured with one capsule, you wouldn't be treated as a felon, but you'd be treated as a misdemeanant. And that, that seems like a, on balance, a really good way to handle this given the- given the wisdom of the Committee that was looking at this.

I understand what you're saying.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your explanation of that. And thank you for your explanation of your position on that. Representative Shimizu.

Thank you. Chair, Question for you AG. Was your Department part of this council? Okay, so I guess I'm trying to understand what we're discussing here. And my understanding is we had this 61 Member, extensive membership council that discussed and put in a lot of work to upgrade and make revisions to this penal codes.

And I'm hearing multiple testimony offering amendments. So I'm just trying to understand, are these amendments, you think maybe oversights or they're minor in degree, and that's why it wasn't initially put in the original body of work?

All of the recommendations that were adopted by the Penal Code Review Committee were put to vote. And offhand there were so many sections, I'm sorry, I don't recall which ones got more were subject to more controversy than others. This may have been.

I think from what I recall, at least one person from our office did raise concerns about the first section that is the subject of our testimony. The second one, I can't recall if that clarification was maybe just something that we thought of afterwards upon reading the entire, the entire thing perhaps with fresh eyes.

So. So can I follow up question? Yes. So would it be correct to understand that based on 61 people, obviously you can get 61 unanimous on everything that some of these amendments that are being brought up were brought up and was voted down?

Yes. Yes. And then that's what I'm saying is that just because something is in the report doesn't mean that it was unanimously recommended by all Members.

Well, if it's in the report, it doesn't mean that it was unanimously approved by all Members. Is that what you said?

Although I do believe in this Penal Code Review Committee, Judge Wong did call for a super majority.

Super majority Members had to support the recommendation for it to be approved and included in the report. So a super majority but not unanimous. Correct? It wasn't necessarily unanimous but a super majority supported it.

So the Attorney General may have stated that they want something then they, they advocated for it and it not all of them were included. And so the super majority report is what we have super majority approved report is what we have before us. The Attorney General is making recommendations on to change it.

And I should clarify further. I'm sorry, that's a super majority of the Members that were there for that day's meeting.

The super majority of those Members who chose to show up at the meeting to that they knew was a decision making meeting.

Of course

that's what happened.

Thank you Chair for your kindness. Appreciate it.

Oh sure, sure. This is very important so we all understand the public understands how the recommendations were made. What was the process? It was facilitated process, collaborative. Judge Wong did a great job and it's-

And so what we are hearing are some recommendations to modify some of the recommend from the individual agencies to modify the recommendations from the commission.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, cool. Any other questions, Members? I have one question for Judiciary and it's because I just. Thank you. I couldn't find on page 27 line 17, staff and I could not find any class C felonies under part five, robbery of Chapter 708. So if you could help us with that, that'd be great.

You don't have to figure out right now, but it is something that it's a loose end that I couldn't tidily tie up. So it's on page 27, line 17. It's a Class C felony under part five, which is robbery of Chapter 708. I, I just couldn't find it.

And if you could just help us with that like I said you don't have to do it right now, but it is something that we're going to have to address going forward. And I don't know if, you know, Senate Judiciary is considering the same thing.

They had different testimony, so they're addressing different things, but that's a loose end I would like to address. So if you can get back to us on that, that'd be great.

Certainly.

Okay, cool. Any other questions, Members? Complicated Bill. Very important. And I appreciate all the hard work that the commission put into it, the Judicial Council and the Penal Code Review Committee did. And thank you for all your questions, Members. Okay, let's go on to the next Bill. House Bill 1520 relating to campaign finance.

This measure provides that the period of limitations for criminal prosecution under campaign finance laws commences upon discovery of the offense by the campaign spending commission, rather than being limited to five years from the violation date for report filing date. First up, we have Campaign Spending Commission Christy Chang. Welcome. Please proceed.

Hi. Good afternoon. Chair Tarnas and Members of the Committee. Christy Chang, on behalf of the campaign spending Commission. The commission supports this Bill. I just wanted to provide a couple of comments. Our testimony first is if you look at section one of the Bill, it appears that it's deleting the five years.

I mean, we, we support starting the statute of limitations from the date of discovery instead of the date of filing. But in the amendment to the Bill, it looks like you're taking out the five years that we currently have to enforce that violation. And it seems that it's now adding it to Section 701,108.

But when you do that, most of our violations are either a misdemeanor or class C felony, which would give us five years for both. But if we're adding it to that 701108 it will change it to either three years for a felony or two years for a misdemeanor.

So we, the commission would prefer to keep it at five years, but also we can the date of discovery instead of the date of violation. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. And thank you for working with us to provide some language to amend the Bill to achieve what you're requesting in your testimony.

Thank you for asking.

Yeah, that helped. That's very helpful. Thank you. Okay, next, we have, we have received testimony from numerous individuals on this total of 22 testimony, all in support. And no one said they were planning to be here. But let me ask, is there anyone here wishing to testify on House Bill 1520? Anyone in the room? oh, yes, welcome.

Please Introduce yourself and proceed.

Aloha, everybody. Aria Juliet Castillo on behalf of Hawaii. Lions for Progressive Action.

oh, thank you. If I may just briefly. I'm sorry to interrupt, but just to let the Members know, we did receive testimony from Hawaii alliance for Progressive Action. It's under Ann Frederick name in support.

And so you're adding additional comments to that.

You're. You're from the same organization and we're gonna hear some additional comments, so please proceed.

Campaign finance laws only work if they're actually enforced. Violations are hidden through complex or misleading reporting and aren't discovered until years later. This is sending the wrong message. Breaking the rules carries little consequences. Our democracy depends on fair elections and meaningful oversight, not technical loopholes that reward secrecy. I just want to add, for years.

The county spending commission has been underfunded and understaffed. Now that commission has a position to hire an investigator. We should also fix this law so meaningful action can be taken if there. Are any violations that are discovered.

That's great. Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here in person and thank you for your advocacy. Anyone else wishing to testify on House Bill 1520, if not Members, any questions? Representative Cochran, you have a question? Thank you.

For campaign spending commission.

Please, you have a question?

Hi. Aloha. Thank you for being here. And so your unattended consciousness consequence, you're mentioning that the removal of the five years. And you want to put five years from the date of discovery. So nothing's discovered. Something's been going on, maybe it was happening, but you know, 10 years later you discover it.

So you want a clock of five years from that data discovery to conclude this or do the investigation of the violation. Is that.

Yes.

Discovery then five.

Yes, within the five. It starts from, you know, when you file your report, it would start from that point time. From point in time. But as mentioned previously, that would not capture folks that don't report that or things like that.

So I think this Bill is trying to start the start date from the date of discovery whenever that point is. But right now we have five years. So we want to continue to have the five years from that point.

Okay, thank you, representative Lotti.

So, Ms. Chang. Cruz Chang, you know, this is awkward to ask, but this Bill is based upon the unfortunate incidents of the $35,000 transaction that has occurred and we knew no occurred in 2022. It was reported publicly in 2025.

If there is no investigation or report that can definitively tell us one way or another, do you think that the five years is enough to cover what might have Been a violation and that maybe we should, like, expand it to greater than five years. Because right now, what has the commission discovered? There has been. Yeah. So, yeah.

On that case, has. Have you discovered anything? So has the clock started ticking?

We have not discovered any.

Would it help if the. If the limitations period was longer, if there's any kind of, like, vagueness about when the discovery of a potential crime was committed?

I don't know that offhand. I don't think so, because I think if clock is running from the date of discovery, I think five years would be sufficient time. Because I think that's the challenge. Right. Is trying to figure out when that occurrence happened.

And unless there's some sort of evidence that points to that or somebody tells us to point us in that direction, it's really difficult. So I think once that information is given, I think five years, especially now that we'll have the opportunity to hire an investigator, will help us in that regard. Okay, so thank you.

Wouldn't be opposed to longer, but I think five years would be sufficient. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Rep Belatti. Other questions, Members? If not, thank you so much. Appreciate you being here. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2578, relating to due process for establishing personal liability for tax.

This measure provides that a determination of personal liability for another person's unpaid taxes is an assessment subject to the due process procedures and appeals available for other assessments. And we have testimony from the Department of Taxation. Oh, I'm so grateful you're patient. You waited all this time.

I'm sure I don't have to say this to you, but it's been a long week.

And if you could tell us why you think this is a, what your thoughts are on this Bill.

Thank you. I'm Garrison Kurth, Department of Taxation.

Garrison Kurth. K U R T H. Yes. So, yeah, this Bill deals with an existing statute that allows personal liability to be put on someone for the tax liability of another. What that means is usually business, it's GET. So if a business, yes it's General excise tax.

If the General excise tax, if there's an assessment made against the business that's done, there's a whole process there to try and resolve it. If it's determined that one of the officers, Members of the business willfully didn't pay the taxes or something like that, then they can be assessed personally for those and be held accountable.

If it's a corporation, that's what they refer to as piercing the Corporate veil.

Woah, sorry. It refers to as what?

As like piercing the corporate veil. So-

Piercing the corporate veil.

Personal.

Poetic.

That's just a legal term.

I'm not a lawyer, so this is all something I'm learning. Piercing the corporate veil.

Yeah, because, you know, if you set up a corporation, the whole idea is the corporation's liable, not the people. But in certain situations, if the members of the corporation, the board, they're doing things illegally that they know they're not, pierce the corporate veil. Got it. And hold them personally liable. Same.

Same type situation. Sorry, I didn't mean, to get too technical.

No, these are important legal concepts that this Committee needs to understand.

So what this Bill does, is instead of, it allows for an assessment against personal liability in a situation like that, and it subjects the person who may be responsible for those taxes in that situation to be able to appeal. So no problem. No problem with that.

The only issue we had with the Bill and we suggested some language to address this is. And I think I have an analogy. It's not perfect, but I think it makes the point. And it's just not being able to kick the can down the road, pass the buck.

Because the way this is written, the business could not do anything because they know that eventually this other person who's going to be responsible is going to have to deal with it.

So the analogy is like, if as an employee, if I have a work assignment due tomorrow and I know if I don't do it, my boss is going to do it for me and there will be no repercussions to me, what incentive do I have to deal with this? So we just added some language here.

You know, there's concern that that could happen here. You could be giving some incentive to the business to. I don't have to deal with this because it'll be dealt with later. So we've just suggested some language, I think that will deal with that. So we don't want to incentivize that potential behavior, but this will disincentivize it.

So that's our only comment there. And other than that, just we recommend pushing it to January 1, 2027. That's the effect of date, just so we have time to make the changes we need to make. So hopefully that makes sense.

Yes, it does. Thank you very much for your testimony and your explanation. Very helpful. Next we have Tom Yamachika on zoom. Please proceed, Tom.

Thank you. Chair Tarnas, Members of the Committee, Tom Yamachika from Tax Foundation. We had asked that this Bill be introduced because there is a, to address the issue that comes up when people are asked to answer for the debts of a corporation or another business entity.

What we've seen is that sometimes the Department of Taxation has to go after relatively low ranking individuals like the bookkeeper or the, you know, accountant who writes the, you know, who has check signing authority but doesn't have any control over, you know, which bills get paid. They only take orders from their bosses.

And in terms of practical fact, what happens is once the, once the delinquent debt of the, of the corporation goes into collection, everybody associated with the collection is going to get a notice of personal liability and they have to kind of disprove that they, you know, that they are a responsible person.

Currently the only way to challenge this, you know, if the department doesn't accept what you as the taxpayer are, are telling them is to pay the entire tax up front and then sue for a refund in tax appeal court if the, if the debt is multi million dollars and for example, and if you're the bookkeeper, you don't have multi million dollars.

So what's going to happen is you get leaned, you know, you get your bank account drained and still doesn't pay off the debt, but your life is ruined.

So what we are trying to accomplish with this Bill is to have the same due process protections available to any other taxpayer who's assessed the, you know, the taxes so that they can use that without having to pay everything up front.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Yamachika, good to see you again.

Good to see you Chair. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2578 in the room or on Zoom if not, there are no more questions. Any questions from the Members to our testifiers?

Sure.

Yes. Representative Cochran.

DoTax. Sorry sir, I didn't catch your name. I'm sorry. Garrison.

Mr. Kurth.

Yeah. And thank you for being here. So you're currently you have a process such as this or is this a totally new operation program that's going to trying to get implemented?

No, there's a process. There's a process in place. What this does is it instead of just giving a notice to a person, who may be responsible for that other debt, this gives them, we have to now assess them and it gives them appeal rights that they don't otherwise have no issue there.

It's just, in law, if you have a chance to litigate your dispute and try and resolve it, then you should do it. And on appeal, you're not allowed to then go back and say, well, I wanted to argue this.

So what we're trying to do with this limiting language, it is limiting that, you know, when the business is assessed, they should address this. Let's get things resolved. You know, it's important for everybody to get it resolved sooner rather than later, so address these issues.

So we're just trying to put some limiting language in to try and disincentivize them to do that so that later you can't argue the things they should have argued here. So does that make sense?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Kind of get ahead of it. And so operationally, do you have a, I guess, do you already have something lined up or do you have a clear, you know what I mean, path to start this type of added program?

Yeah, it's just a matter of-

Notice to proceed on such a person or entity that's, you know.

Yeah, it's just a matter of modifying the current assessment process we have in place now. So we just need time to review the forms, figure that all out, make sure it is set up.

And you think there's going to be a meaningful outcome with this, to pursue this and kind of, you know, have them do the appeal process and sort of vet through the issues and try and work through whatever payment plans, whatever it needs to be so we can actually get the taxation due to us in our coffers?

I hope so. I mean, the whole idea, too, is, like Mr. Yamachika said, is to make. Sure everybody's got due process. I think that's the main point of this Bill. You know, it doesn't change the liability issues. The business is liable or the person is liable, one or the other.

So we're just trying to make sure that we can try and get it resolved and get things in the coffers or not, if that's the case, but sooner rather than later.

Great.

Okay, good.

All right. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Representative Cochran, of course. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to our testifiers. We'll go on to the last measure on our agenda for hearing, HB 1992 relating to foreclosures.

This measure authorizes the public sale of a foreclosed mortgage property or unit on a state website to be developed and maintained by the judiciary. It requires the public notice of the public sale of the mortgage, property or unit to include the date, time and website address of the sale.

If the sale is to be held on a state website and the measure appropriates funds. We have received testimony from the judiciary in opposition. Is the judiciary here in person or on zoom? No, not present. I would refer Members to the testimony in opposition. Okay, we're finished with our testimony. Let's. Should we wait? We don't know.

We got two other. We're going to recess briefly to see if I can round up the other two Members who are not here. So we're going to recess briefly. Recess.

We are reconvening the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Tuesday, February 5th. We're now at 3:45pm and we're doing decision making here in room conference room 325. On our agenda today, we have numerous measures that we are now going to consider for decision making.

First up, we have House Bill 2062 relating to gun violence prevention. I would like to move this on, but I have some unresolved questions. And so I would, you know, the Judiciary has made some suggested amendments which I think are fine, but I, I am, I've got some questions. The HGEA, I want to note Hawaii government.

Oh, hello, Rep... Hello, welcome. We just started decision making. Hawaii Government Employees association in their testimony raised some concerns that I want to at least investigate a little bit further before we go to decision making on this. So I would like to defer decision making on this. We will bring it back for decision making.

We just have to meet the first lateral deadline. So we have a little bit of time on this. So I will reagendize, put this back on a future agenda for decision making. And so if any of you have input on it, you know, talk to me and I'd be happy to hear your opinions.

So we'll defer decision making on HB2062 for the time being with the intention of bringing it back to after we've answered some of these questions. Okay, next Bill, how any comments or concerns? If not, thank you for allowing me to do that. House Bill 2061 relating to firearms. This is the gun buyback program.

This measure, I think is very appropriate and I think it's, it's effective. I do. There were some questions brought up earlier which I have to do some more investigation on. But regardless, I think we can move this Bill forward. I would like to recommend we move it forward with only defecting the effective date to July 1st, 3000.

It currently has already has a blank appropriation amount. I would like to request to try to get some numbers how much we actually want to include in this so that we can do a fiscal impact analysis of this and know how much money we're asking of finance. But I don't know that answer yet.

So let's move it forward with a blank appropriation, the effective date to July 1st, 3000 and move it on to Finance. And in the meantime, I will work to try to see if we can come up with the dollar amount to recommend to Finance. That's my recommendation. Members, questions or concerns.

So Chair this amount 37,900 in gift cards is not the amount that this Bill is considering.

I don't think that they have the total amount for all counties because this is to pay for two gun buyback events in each county. And I don't know if each of the counties has chimed in on this. That may be the number, but I want to confirm that it's a blank appropriation in the Bill.

So I want to get some hard numbers on that. zero. zero, I see. Yes. Representative Shimizu. That 37,000 was from a prior gun buyback program, and that's how much they gave away at that time. It's. It's not how much would be in the appropriations for this Bill that. That. That remains undetermined at this time. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Okay, so I'd like to move this out with a blank appropriation amount, defect the effective date to July 1st, 3000. Any comments or questions? Seeing none. Vice Chair, could you please take a vote on HB 2061 with amendments.

Voting on House Bill 2061 with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair, vote aye.[Roll Call] No. No for Representative Garcia. Representative Shimizu. Reservations. Reservations for Shimizu. The recommendation is adopted. Thank you very much, Members.

Next. House Bill 2414. Amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Since this Bill will be taking effect on July 12026 after the June 302026 repeal and reenactments for Section 706623, the amendments under that section should be to the reenacted language or the effective date should be moved up for that section to 6-29-26.

So my recommendation is to move the effective date on that section to June 292026. We're going to find out about this class C felony under part five. That's. That's something that won't hold us up from moving this.

But I did ask to get more information on that before it moves, and we'll have that information as it moves along to finance. I think we need to amend to change the date for Section 709906. It will revert. Act 238 in 2021 should be amended to change the date for which Section 709906 will revert to.

Since the current date of December 312020 will revert to the language of Pre Act 19 of 2020 and will make the amendments moot. We have really smart people in the House Majority Staff Office that see a conflict there. And so I just want to make sure that we don't have that conflict.

So so we will make that amendment to change the date for which section 709906 was will revert. We're doing technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style.

Next, Members, I want to draw your attention to a memo that I just passed out to everybody where I go through the recommended amendments from the Attorney General, Department of Health and the Drug Policy Forum. My recommendations are in here that the first concern of the Attorney General related to revocation, medication and probation decision.

I recommend we do not take their recommendation. And the reason being that I've justified. I want to justify that is in the report itself. So the Pew Charitable Trust published a study in December 2020 on the variability of probation term lengths in the U.S. hawaii ranked number one with the longest average probation length of 59 months.

Hawaii's 2019 recidivism study, the latest available, reveals that most probationers, if they violate their supervision terms, do so early in their probation terms. This data leads the Committee. This is all language from the Committee report.

This data leads the Committee to conclude that if a probationer is no longer violating probation conditions after two years, they no longer need active supervision and probation can be terminated accordingly. This recommendation allows a court to sentence non violent class C felony offenders to a probation term of three years, a reduction from the current four years.

The Committee Members discussed even shorter terms of probation, such as two years, since recidivism generally occurs within 18 months of being placed on probation.

The interest in shorter probation terms was counterbalanced with the need for time to complete services to address criminogenic needs such as long term substance abuse and mental health treatment and the interest to ensure the payment of court ordered restitution. That's from page 38 of the report.

So for that reason I am I will not recommend we adopt the Attorney General's recommendation nor the Crime Victims Compensation Commission amendment related to the same provision. Secondly, I do not recommend that we adopt the Attorney General's recommendation regarding. Excuse me.

I do recommend that we adopt the Attorney General's recommendation regarding unreasonable noise on premises by adding the additional provision as noted in the testimony saying that it shall not be a defense to this section that verbal or written orders to desist were given to the person making unreasonable noise without pursuing any further consequences upon the person making unreasonable noise if the unreasonable noise persists thereafter.

So I'm okay with that. We'll move that forward. Third recommendation with the Attorney General possessing A dangerous drug. I do not recommend we adopt this amendment. And the reason why is from the Committee report. As I quote, the Committee recommends changes to the treatment of criminal defendant substance abusers that possess minute quantities of illegal narcotics.

Currently, possession of any amount of a dangerous drug such as cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin and fentanyl results in a class C felony.

Many of these class C felony cases involve possession of drug paraphernalia, such as a pipe that contain residue or trace amounts of the illegal narcotic when a defendant is not actually ingesting the narcotic, they just have the pipe on them on their person.

The Committee believes that many of these defendants should be focused on treatment and rehabilitation without the weight of a felony conviction. So for that reason, we are not going to adopt the amendment the AG recommends on that measure.

In addition, as you all know, we received suggested amendments from the Department of Health and Drug Policy Forum, and we will be adopting them so on the Department of Health.