House Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. Convening our Committee on Public Safety hearing. Today is Wednesday, February 18, 2026, 10:00am here in Conference Room 411. Members, thank you for the good work this morning in Water Land. We're moving now to our Public Safety agenda. First up, we have House Bill 1997, House Draft 1, relating to students with disabilities.

This bill authorizes the inclusion of language addressing individualized accommodations and supports during emergency situations and evacuations in IEP, individualized education programs, for students with disabilities. First up, we have testimony with comments from the Attorney General's Office via Zoom. In person.

Good morning, Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto, Members of the Committee. My name is Randall Wat, Deputy Attorney General, department. As further outlined in our written testimony, the department has comments on this bill. Students with disabilities who may not qualify for IEP under the Individuals with the Disabilities Education Act may still have a 504 plan under a different federal law.

So the department is recommending that... Actually, we understand to be the intent of this bill to include students with a Section 504 plan to be covered as well. And we have suggested amendments in our written testimony to effectuate this. Additionally, we note that in the new Section 302D, sorry. Refers to department schools as opposed to public schools.

Department schools do not include charter schools, but IEPs must be effectuated by the DOE for charter school students. Therefore, we recommend that department schools be revised to public schools, as also outlined in our testimony. Thank you. And I am available for questions.

We have comments from Mr. Keith Hayashi, Superintendent of the Department of Education, in person or via Zoom. We have comments from Executive Director of the Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disposition, Daintry Bartoldus.

Testimony in support from Hawaii Disability Rights Center, Louis Erteschik, Executive Director. Testimony in support from the following individuals, P. L. Fritz, Johnnie-Mae Perry, Eleanor Macdonald, Veronica Moore, and Leilani Kailiawa. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Members, questions?

I have a... Chair.

Okay. I believe we have one person. Is that Mr. Fritz? Go ahead.

Yes, it is.

And then is there a second person there?

This is Kaili Swan.

Mr. Swan, we'll take you second, but go ahead, Mr. Fritz.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Peter Fritz. I'm an attorney. I'm an individual with a disability. And my sister, who is disabled by cerebral palsy, actually went to public school before the IDEA.

There's been testimony that federal law under the IDEA requires an educational plan, an IEP, to address health, safety, and functional needs, and that there's no need or that this is redundant. However, in my research I could not find a federal regulation that explicitly names emergency evacuation as a planning as a required IEP component.

The obligation exists only by inference. That distinction is important and matters. If it were a clear federal requirement, you would not have had, I would not have been able to attach the article discussing incidences, where this has become a concern where students were left in a firewall.

The reality is that there's a gray area, and the purpose of this bill, which I brought to the Deaf Blind Task Force, is to make this requirement explicit. I mean, this is a survival guide for individuals with disabilities.

Without a specific plan, students are going to be left behind in a dark room or in a stairwell or they'll find that when they go to bring somebody away into a safety area that the wheelchair doesn't fit through the door. Pre-planning and proactive planning is important.

I agree with the Attorney General that we should adopt the recommendation to include Section 504 plans. And I should have thought of it when I brought this item to the Deaf Blind Task Force. I have no real opinion, and I will defer to the Attorney General regarding the change regarding department schools so that we can include charter schools.

You know, this is Hawaii. You're not going to find many states that have to worry about evacuation plan for tsunami or a volcano. We have risks of floods and fires and other types of risks like hurricanes that need to be taken into consideration before it becomes an issue and before we suddenly find we forgot to plan for this. So codifying state law removes... Thank you. Codifying state law removes this ambiguity.

It assumes that every student has a right to free and appropriate public education, which includes the right to evacuation. I hope you found the article that I attached to my testimony interesting because it is what encouraged me to bring this forward and try and encourage legislation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. If you have any questions, I'll stay around. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Fritz. And thank you for bringing this matter to our attention with the news articles that you presented in the testimony. Please hang on for any questions. Mr. Swan.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is Kaili Swan. I'm in strong supporter of this bill because students safety with special needs is most important. Back when I was in high school, there was a school shooting in high school. So in the cafeteria what we nicely had people in this space had to react if there was a shooting or there was a fire or there was other emergency in a school setting.

Like for example, all schools are required to practice emergency drills in the school by law, so students with disability can practice, practice, practice what to do in case any emergency situation happen in the school and outside in the school itself. So can you please pass this bill? Please let me know any questions you have.

Thank you. Mr. Swan. Any other testifiers? Seeing none. Members, questions? Seeing none. You're off the hook, Mr. Fritz. Mr. Swan. Thank you all. Moving on, Members to the next measure, House Bill 2343 relating to veterans, which repeals a specific deadline by which the Maui State Veterans Home must be assimilated into a state agency,

having a Maui affiliation. Requires that the transfer be completed as soon as practicable. Members, we have up first testimony in support from Adjutant General, Department of Defense or his representative. Good morning.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. The Department of Defense stands on its- I'm sorry, Neal Mitsuyoshi with the Department of Defense. The department stands on its written testimony and support and prepare to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. We have testimony in support from the Hawaii Office of Veterans Services. Mr. John P. Alamodin, Director. Comments from HHSC Oahu Region. Mr. Sean Sanada via Zoom

Here.

Go ahead.

Yes, good morning. Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Sean Sanada on behalf of Oahu region, we submitted some comments. We stand ready to support this project in any way that the Legislature sees fit. Until Maui can be up on its own to support this. We will support this project and do what we can.

So I'll be available for any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Sanada.

Thank you.

Testimony and support from the Hawaii Military Affairs Council. Testimony and support from retired Colonel Driscoll, who's been very involved in many of these veteran projects.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members, Tommy Driscoll, Colonel, retired U.S. army Medical Service Corps, testifying as an individual. I stand on my testimony and strong support of HB 2343 HD1 to be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Driscoll. Testimony and support from a number of individuals. Johnny May Perry in support, Carlos in support. Kathleen McNamara who's a clinical psychologist, in support. And Mr. William Clayton Sumpos- Sam Park in support. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Members, questions?

Question?

Go ahead, Mr. Representative Shimizu.

Sorry, I just, I understand the- the reason for this bill and my- my question is instead of saying as soon as, you know, practicable, would- would it be more prudent to put a reasonable time there so that there's a goal versus something that is open ended?

Good question. So, Representative, from the department's perspective. We- The- We like the language because the language makes it so that a Maui entity can, you know, assume the responsibility when they're available. The concern is right now we're not sure when that entity will become available.

And we are really appreciative that Oahu region, you know, has stepped up to the plate and- and- and allowed or ensured that we'll have a state entity overseer. But without putting a specific date, that would probably just require us to constantly come back to the Legislature if that entity was not able to stand up to take over on Maui.

Follow up question, Chair?

Go ahead.

So do you have, like, at least a list of possible entities?

Well, really, there- there's only two. There's the- the Maui HHSC Board or the Oahu Region HHSC. So those are the only two viable entities at this time.

How are those talks going?

So with. I know you just saw Sean Sanada from HHSC Oahu Region.

They are fully supportive in ensuring that we can stay on track to keep the home and be the overseer on Maui. So at the very least, we have Oahu region that's on board.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, Seeing none. All right, we will move on to House Bill 2566 relating to special license plates. This authorizes the issuance of special number plates for Members of the Hawai'i Civil Air Patrol. Members. We have testimony in opposition from City and County of Honolulu Department of Customer Services.

We also have testimony in support from Johnny Perry and individual. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Seeing none. Members, questions? Seeing none. Moving on to House Bill 2493 relating to wrongful imprisonment.

Members, this is a bill relating to the procedures to establish payments for those who individuals found whose convictions have been reversed or vacated under our wrongful imprisonment framework and other items in a very long description. Members, we have testimony first. Comments from the judiciary. Anyone from the judiciary here? Okay.

We have testimony in opposition from the Attorney General's office.

Good morning. My name is Michelle Pu. I'm a Deputy Attorney General with the Criminal Justice Division of the Department. We are essentially the statewide prosecutors for the Department. We are in opposition to this bill for multiple reasons.

First of all, this is essentially an automated mechanism for payment for individuals who have obtained a ruling whereby they have received a dismissal in their case. That dismissal may have occurred for a variety of reasons.

The 661 petition requires a showing of actual innocence prior to any payments being made to individuals who are alleging wrongfully convicted by any prosecution. This would bypass that mechanism and require automatic payments be made to these individuals within five days of obtaining a dismissal.

We are opposed to the automated mechanism because there would be no finding of actual innocence prior to any of these payments being made. There is a mechanism in the Bill that fashions a five day rule whereby the prosecution could initiate a case and once that initiation occurs, that the payments would cease.

However, five days is wholly insufficient to determine whether or not a case is viable for prosecution. Several things may have occurred which need to be assessed to determine whether or not a trial is viable.

These Rule 40 petitions occur several years after the fact oftentimes and it needs to be determined whether or not if this is a victim case, whether the victim is able and willing to pursue a trial again, whether evidence is still available.

A lot of times if a case occurred in 1990, evidence is lost and a case may not be able to go forward. This is not a situation that's grounded in actual innocence. This is simply a case where you are unable to go forward because you are lacking in evidence to go forward to trial.

Convictions are overturned for issues like jury instructions being improper. For, for evidence not being presented in the original trial that courts take issue with. For arguments being made in the original trial that should not have been made. For new evidence that comes to light several years after the fact.

For new technology being available that wasn't available in the 90s, in the early 2000s, for subsequent post conviction DNA testing that occurred based on technology that wasn't available at the time. It's difficult to make an assessment whether or not this is based on actual innocence and an actual wrongful conviction. Our Department wants these matters paid out.

If there is an actual wrongful conviction, certainly. But it should be a merit based system, not an automated system. There are also concerns with a constitutional issue under Article 7, Section 4.5 and the use of public monies being paid out without an appropriation.

There's no indication in the bill of where these monies would come from, who would fund them, how they would actually be doled out. Believe that's a constitutional violation. Essentially, we want these cases determined on merit.

We have a responsibility to the taxpayers of the state to make sure that public monies are doled out appropriately and based on facts, not an automated system. I'm available for questions.

Thank you. I believe there's going to be questions definitely. I assume so. I'm ready. Good. We have testimony and support from the Office of the Public Defender. We have testimony in opposition from the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney for the City and County of Honolulu. We have. I acknowledge you can just stay there. Hold on.

We'll go through this. We have testimony and support from the Community alliance on Prisons.

Good morning. Chair Belatti and Members of the Committee. Kat Brady testifying in strong support of this measure. You know, this was really prompted by Alvin Jardine's illegal. He had to fight. He went to court three times. The Maui prosecutor did everything in his power to make sure that there was. There was no evidence.

Luckily, Alvin had attorneys, and they found. A tablecloth with his. With DNA on it, and it was not Alvin's. So for 20 years, his family, he was incarcerated when his daughter was like four months old. And his family kept saying, just, you know, just go along with them so you can come home and be a dad.

And he said, I didn't do this. I'm innocent. I am not going to say that I'm guilty for something I did not do. So he was very clear about that.

And.

And. After release, I know people on Maui said he was like a walking. Like the walking dead. He was just so demoralized after 20 years in prison, and he was homeless. He had nothing, no house, no car. And just why do we put people in that situation that is so unjust?

So this law is really about fixing the problems in the system so that justice can be served. You know, when I was doing research, I found an article by a judge from New York, Frederick Block. And he said, you know, let's put an end to prosecutorial immunity. Let's be fair.

Let justice be served, so that when mistakes or intentional things happen from the prosecutor's office, they are held to account. If we don't have people in those positions who are modeling the behavior that we demand from people in prison, then that is. That's not justice. So I really hope that you support this Bill, Alvin.

There's a Bill that claims against the state that will give Alvin, Alvin's daughter $620,000, which seems like a pittance for somebody who lost 20 years of his life and also for another man, Voyance. And he will get 400,000. So justice has to be equal. It should be something that we can all rely on. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Brady. Testimony in support by Ms. Angela Young of Cares via Zoom. Testimony in support by Mr. Gordon Cordero. Via Zoom. Go ahead, Mr. Cordero.

Hello. Good morning. Thank you for having me. My name is Gordon Cordero. I was incarcerated for 30 years for a crime I did not commit. After filing a Hawaii Rule, Rule 40 petition, there was a full hearing. Evidence was presented. The prosecutor had an opportunity to Respond. And a judge ruled that I was actually innocent. That day.

They walked me to the gate, opened it, and closed it behind me. My family and attorneys were there waiting for me. I'm grateful they were. But if they hadn't been, what would I have done? I would have been homeless, just like Alvin. Nowhere to go, nothing to eat, nowhere to sleep.

If you release me on parole, I would add a case manager. I would add a social worker. I would have structure and support. But when you're released because you're actually innocent, you walk out with nothing. When I went into prison in 94, we were carrying beepers. I came home to smartphones in a completely different world.

This Bill is essential under Chapter The compensation was meant to be straightforward. $50,000 per year for wrongful incarceration. It was designed to avoid a long civil fight. It was not meant to be retried, renegotiated, or delayed. The state of Hawaii spends between 60 and $112,000 a year to house one inmate.

If that person is innocent and spends decades in prison, no one asked for that money back. No one questions that expense. So why are we debating a small advance, just enough to help someone eat, find housing, survive while they wait for compensation they're already legally entitled to? This is rare.

People don't fight for decades unless they're desperate for the truth to come out, so. Or die waiting. Compensation is not charity. It's accountability. If we have integrity and admit to wrongful conviction, we must also have courage to make it right. Not halfway, not eventually, but fully and fairly.

I heard the AG speak about investigating these cases, and there needs to be proof of actual innocence. Well, in my case, the judge declared me actually innocent after a hearing. After DNA experts were presented, questioned on the stand under oath. After gunshot residue experts were questioned on the stand under oath.

These were the facts and the evidence presented. These cases don't need to be retried. I was ruled actually innocent by a judge in the circuit court of Maui. That has been already the determination in my case. I don't know why the Attorney General thinks they have to reinvestigate these cases.

These cases have been investigated and tried in a circuit court and ruled actually innocent. All of us that have been released have been ruled actually innocent by the judges in the courts already. So I don't understand why the Attorney General seems to think that they need to reinvestigate these cases.

There's nothing in 661b that says it needs to be reinvestigated. If you are deemed actually innocent by a judge, you shall receive $50,000 per year compensation from the state of Hawaii. I really support this Bill. I hope you guys advance this Bill. I'll be here for questions if you have any. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Mr. Cordero. Ms. Virginia Hench. Actually, Professor Virginia Hench in support. Veronica Moore in support. Sarah Cordero in support. Georgette Yangdell in support. Dawn Durrell in support. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom. Members, Questions?

I have a question.

Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Wait. Yes, thank you. We'll have the Judiciary representative come on up. Please introduce yourself.

Good morning. Chair, Vice chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jennifer Awong and I'm the staff attorney for the criminal divisions. Of the First Circuit as well as for Judiciary Administration. My apologies for being late this morning. I was stuck down in the Judiciary Senate hearing, which is also where Ms. Haley Ching is.

So she's not going to be able to testify on this for the later bills. Probably also want to apologize for the lateness of our testimony. And we are requesting a slight amendment to the provision replacing the circuit court shall as opposed to the trial court where the charge as originally filed shall, and that is in our testimony.

In addition, there's some things that operationally. We really need to look at with. Regard to this bill as to how we're going to be able to effectuate the purpose with respect to the interplay between our criminal and our civil divisions. In addition, the change. One of the changes into HD1 was that it took what was originally in.

The bill as a Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation responsibility and made it Adult. Client Services Branch responsibility. At this time we're looking at that to see how it is we're going to be able to do that. It may end up being some kind. Of combination that we may ask for. You folks, especially given their re entry.

Program where they have a lot more. Assets or avail availability to provide that information to the defendant versus our adult. Pro probation division, which is for those people that are on probation with us. And we would not have jurisdiction in the. In this particular instance. So I'm just. It's a General comment that we.

We still need to really look at how we're going to be able to effectuate this. But I will be available for any questions.

Thank you. Any other testifiers? Okay. Questions. We'll first go with Representative Souza and.

Then I have a question for the AG's office. Thank you. So there was a civil beat article. In 2025 where Bill Harrison, who represented. Alvin Jordan, he stated in this article. We don't have any case law that talks about actual innocence. When you go to trial, it's either. You'Re guilty or not guilty. So what.

What is your response to that? Because it seems like actual innocence is a very high bar or a bar that may not exist. So can you explain how you prove actual innocence?

That was an issue that we had as well, Representative, in looking at the statute under 661B. And my apologies, this is not my area. I'm not a civil practitioner in our Department.

This is just based on my trying to get up to speed on this, in my understanding of what our civil division is trying to do in understanding actual innocence and 661b, when they got the decision in Jardine, which came out September 272024 it interpreted actual innocence to be grounds consistent with innocence, which seemed to water it down a little than actual innocence.

And in determining that, they were led to believe that maybe it was something less than actual innocence, and it afforded some guidance into what that meant.

zero, sorry, I'm just gonna interject real quick. I guess where I'm going with this is that the 2016 compensation law. You. Know, you have to prove actual innocence. But it seems like in this article, it talks about there were.

There were five people since this law went into effect that tried to get or sought money based off of this compensation law, but were not able to because none of them could prove actual innocence. So it just seems like the law. Is moot at this point. Right. Because if they can't prove actual innocence.

So can you just further expand on that?

My understanding, if there have been settlements that have been entered into already under 661, however they are pending, I believe it's referenced as a ATG1 Bill because it has to go through the Legislature for approval because of the amount that they are.

Okay, so people are able to prove actual innocence is what you're saying.

Based on what I'm saying is there's settlements that have been entered into, and it's based on a consideration like any other litigation, that the parties are having a meeting of the minds as to what one side thinks they have and what the other side thinks they have, and they're coming to an agreement on an amount.

So it's not necessarily where anyone's saying, we believe you've met the standard of actual innocence or grounds consistent with innocence, necessarily, because if you were able to meet that standard, you should get the 50,000. Right. That's what the statute Allows for.

But the idea is if you, if you're unable to prove that you're actually wrongfully convicted and that you are innocent of the crime that you're accused of, should you actually get the $50,000? That's the issue.

So there are cases across the country where actual innocence can be proved where, say it's a single source rape case and they actually have DNA that is in the genitalia and the person's DNA is excluded based on technology available. Now that wasn't at the time.

That is an actual innocence scenario or where a victim recants and says, you know what, for whatever reason I accused the wrong person. That is actual innocence. So that's the distinction. Right.

The other cases that we're talking about are situations where evidence was not presented at trial or there's DNA found on an area of the room that was not even part of the sexual assault at issue. So is that actual innocence? Is that grounds consistent with innocence or is that DNA that's not even germane to the crime scene?

So that's the rub. Right? And that's something that needs to be vetted out in a, I hate to use the term, but an adversarial process where people are actually having a thoughtful discussion about where we stand.

Thank you. So just one last follow up. Chair so do you not think that this particular legislation does exactly what we're just saying right now, where it does further vet it, where it does make it more clear and it does allow for those other scenarios that is not the actual innocent scenario?

This particular Bill? Yes. No, I think 661b serves its purpose. What I'm saying is that since Alvin Jardine's case came out from the Hawaii Supreme Court in 2024, we have yet to see how that has impacted the existing 661b statute? That's what the Department is saying.

It hasn't had a full and fair opportunity to see the effect of it yet. What it has done is it's prompted movement of these petitions. And I can tell you that petitions haven't been filed in all the cases that you're hearing about. So there's that. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it.

Representative thank you. Chair for the Attorney General's office. So this is an issue about burden shifting, right? Because right now to elevate that, the person who's been wrongfully incarcerated now has to, after the trauma of that experience, now has to go and try to prove their actual innocence, which is a huge undertaking like who?

And then it would delay them getting the resources to just live after being incarcerated for potentially 20 years. Is that a fair burden when in fact the system itself failed? Like it feel like they're now being burdened with the system failing them? You don't see any kind of problem with that?

It would be if you're operating under the premise that the person was at the first instance actually wrongfully convicted, which means they are actually innocent of the crime that they were convicted of. So you're starting at a different premise from where we're at. I think that's the difficulty.

Okay, well, we can move on to another question. Go ahead. In your testimony, one of the other points was that your constitutional concern was that it doesn't identify a specific appropriation. We heard another testifier earlier talk about removing immunity for prosecutorial misconduct potentially. Would that. So shifting it possibly to the counties whose prosecutors may have failed?

I mean, could that be a source of funding that we can identify in this Bill that would potentially meet some of this?

It makes me a little bit uncomfortable because I'm not supposed to go astray from my testimony as a representative of the Department. What I can say is, based on the timing of these petitions, that because they all go to the Department for processing. Right.

They're handled by our Department, but that requires the Department to reach out to the counties that actually prosecuted the cases and then we're having to obtain all the case information. So that does create delays. And I know that doesn't fully answer your question. It is problematic.

Who would actually foot the bill for it and if it would be the county that actually handled the prosecution? That's really not for me to say. It is an interesting idea and I cannot say whether or not it's a misconduct issue in. In the cases that you're probably hearing about.

Go ahead, Representative, please.

This was previously heard in the judiciary and the AG did provide testimony with some language. Is that testimony consistent with your testimony here now? Or was some of the concerns in the JJ addressed and these are new concerns or.

That was me, sir. Yeah. And it's largely the same, but there were some adjustments made based on this being an HT1, and that's why Ms. Awong is here from the judiciary. Because of the adjustment made from corrections. We recognize that. I believe there was an adjustment to the five day rule for the prosecutors.

I believe not sufficiently, which is why it's still raised in our testimony.

Okay.

So no, it's largely the same.

Okay.

In the short answer, follow up question. Sure, go ahead.

Same for ag. Okay. Not being a legal beagle, just Hearing people that need to be helped, will we be able to extract those things that we can agree upon, that a person who does qualify and needs to receive care, if we can implement those things and amend language to be satisfactory for the legal system?

Representative There are parts of this bill that we didn't oppose and that was purposeful. The portions where there's discussion about assignment of a caseworker to these individuals who are being released from the system without any support.

One of the individuals who came in to testify at the hearing before the other Committee, he was actually on parole, so he had been out for quite a while before his conviction was actually overturned.

So the need for a caseworker in that situation is not for the Department to say, but Certainly someone like Mr. Cordero's case, you would need support for those types of individuals. So we recognize the importance of those sorts of things.

It's the automated payment system that is difficult because those are monies that cannot be recouped if the petition is ultimately denied. And that's where the Department has concerns, because we have to look out for the best interests of all taxpayers, not just these individuals, because we are operating under the premise, not that it isn't a.

It is a wrongful conviction. That's not our premise.

So would we be. Would AG Be able to offer amendable language to correct or strike the areas that you have serious concerns to keep the rest of the Bill that we.

Agree on, I don't think there would be much left in Al Qander, because a lot of it has to do with the automated system, quite frankly. We have a duty to the taxpayers as a whole, not just these individuals. And we seem to be, in my discussions before these committees, operating from a different premise.

If the courts were actually making a finding of actual innocence or even grounds consistent with innocence, it would make these petitions much easier. But that's not what's happening. So that's why these petitions are taking time to sort out.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. All right, I have a couple questions. Any other questions? Ms. Pu? So how many petitions have been filed since 2016 under this framework?

Under the current framework, in all candor, Chair, I can only tell you what I'm aware of because this is not my area. I don't handle the petition. So I am aware of four. Yeah, that's it. Yeah.

Currently, the settlement conversations you're having with these four petitioners is money coming from where? Once you guys reach a settlement, I.

Just know it goes on the ATG1. Okay, so you. So where the pocket is, I don't know.

So you folks come here and essentially we appropriate it and then from the General funds budget it gets paid out, I presume.

So I don't know the process for that.

Okay, so if we were to say and designate that the budget and finance would be the ones that would release the funds, does that make sense or does, does a check go through you guys Attorney General?

I honestly don't know.

Okay. I think at the next Committee refinance you need to, you need to have answers to those questions and you need to have someone from your office answer those questions. I would also like to know, and in some ways it should be something that's answerable by easily answerable.

I mean the money, the funds have to come from the General funds. It's not sitting in your guys budgets. It's probably coming from just General funds and then it comes from budget and finance. So again, easy question to track down and answer.

In these cases, in these four cases where these individuals are petitioning, how long have they been in prison?

It varies. I, I don't know.

And then, are these cases, ones in which the prosecutors are on notice that this petition is going through, like in the Jardine case or the Cordeiro case? It's, it's pretty well known that these individuals are challenging their convictions, correct?

They have challenged their convictions, yes.

So, the prosecutors are, in fact, aware that this is moving through.

And it's not like, oh my God, all of a sudden, they found out. I mean, they've been able to look back into the case and see and maybe potentially have an indication of whether or not they're going to be able to refile and prosecute, re-prosecute, correct?

Again, it's not like something they're just like discovering—oh my God, this is going through the system. They know.

Well, the Rule 40 petitions are handled by the county prosecutors who prosecuted the case. So, they would be aware that their convictions are being challenged. Are you talking about the 661B petition?

Yes. Yeah.

They would have to also be aware of that because our Department would have to obtain discovery from the offices.

Okay. So, it's not like they're surprised. Like, so the testimony coming in from the opposition from, I believe, prosecutors saying, oh, they need more time to determine if they're going to be prosecute. They're actually on notice that their convictions and the prosecution is being challenged.

And if they want to quickly refile a prosecution, they could do that because these petitions are also—how long do these petitions take?

Well, first of all, you don't know whether or not a petition is going to be granted.

I'm talking about the four, the four that you guys have in your guys' office right now. Like how long have they been sitting in your office where you guys are litigating, litigating the 661B process, so that the prosecutors have, have noticed that this is happening and that there's problems?

Like with a Jardine case, how long did the county prosecutor know that there was going to potentially be a problem and it was going through this process so that they had notice to re-prosecute?

I can't answer how long they knew. That would be speculative. I don't know.

Chair, can I ask a question?

All right.

Is it following up on my line of questioning?

I think so.

Okay, go ahead.

So if this Bill were to pass, can AG and Judiciary work with it?

I'm not really sure, based on how the Bill is written, how it would work because the Bill says that the $5,000 payments would go out—at what point is unclear.

Okay. We can.

I'm not sure what that means exactly. And where that $5,000 would come from, I'm not sure.

But if you have answers for that, we can, it can move forward, as long as you have answers for those uncertainties.

There's also an indication of grounds consistent with innocence. I don't know who would make that finding. There is no entity making that finding right now.

The judge, as in Gordon Cordeiro's case?

There was no such finding. So, that's not happening.

How was he released then?

His conviction was overturned.

Okay, here's another way to ask the question. If we pass this law and the judges see this framework, a judge in the case of Mr. Cordeiro, who was represented, his attorney could say, "Judge, we are operating under 661B, and we would like you to make a finding of grounds consistent with innocence." And then, if that judge, in that case, were to do that, then this would apply.

We would be required to follow the law.

All right, then there we go. That would be the process. That could be the process, in fact, where we clarify.

I don't know that a judge is going to make that finding.

Well, you don't know that, but I don't. Yeah, no, and no one knows that. But then the litigation, the litigating process will determine that. So, like Mr. Cordeiro's attorney, they could make that request.

They could make that request, and I believe they probably do.

Okay. And then if a judge were to say, and whatever the criteria the judge used by plain, simple law, interpretations of this statute, and they made the decision based on whatever circumstances that they found, the problems in the, in the trial, the conduct of whatever, they could say, grounds, a judge could make the call, and if that judge makes the call, grounds consistent with innocence, then that would be something that you could do that the Department of the Attorney General's office could execute on.

You're required to follow the law as written.

Thank you, Representative Shimizu. You're asking the right questions. Any other questions? I think I'm done, but can you just say I want to ask further follow up questions with the Judiciary? I'm sorry, as you were speaking, I didn't catch—did you say that there was a particular division within the Judiciary that would be better able to handle this issues than adult services?

We would not have—no, we don't currently. So, we're trying to figure out in reviewing this how we would be able to provide case management services to a defendant whose conviction was overturned and his case was dismissed.

Because right now, once the case is dismissed, basically in the criminal case, the Judiciary really has no other jurisdiction in the matter. But there is, like I said, the offender reentry program with DCR, so we can have our people talk to their people and see if we can come up with something. We're going to have to—whether, and there is a provision in there that says we can contract with outside providers, which is, I think, where we're going to have to probably go, with respect to that provision.

Okay. I think it's really unfortunate that we don't have DCR here because I think the House Draft 1 still makes DCR responsible for finding case management. And then that one particular section where you folks are called out, then it calls you folks out as Adult Client Services Division.

Do we just need a sentence in this Bill that says individuals subject to this statutory framework, DCR continues to exercise jurisdiction over individuals who are subject to this section?

That would be probably the best case scenario, I would think. I think DCR is going to disagree with us on that. But they have those, I mean, they have reentry programs available. They have sheets that they hand out with respect to all kinds of services and gate money, that kind of stuff.

Now, I don't want you to throw under the Department, and I don't want you to be accused of doing that.

Which is why we're, we, we'd be willing to work together to try and figure this out. It's just.

So, what I'm trying to understand is maybe we can say that the Judiciary and DCR retains jurisdiction and that then you guys are the entities responsible for providing these kinds of services in collaboration. Because what I sense that probation has is kind of the overseeing infrastructure to be able to track this person, that DCR may not have.

My assumption would be that we would actually contract with an outside provider. It wouldn't be one of our probation officers, because our probation officers are very.

They're also very.

You know, and they're dealing with people on probation. And the way the Bill is written, it does permit us to contract with outside providers, I believe.

Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. They're helping clarify the situation. And I will promise you, I will explain to the Director that you did not throw them under the bus.

Ms. Brady, do you mind? Who do you think should be the correct agency to oversee once a person is, you know?

Well, I have a problem if it's DCR, because they really don't do reentry. I mean, they speak about it, but there's really no system. So, the system is people in the community who have halfway houses, other things like that. But that's not a system. It's really catch as catch can.

So, I kind of like the adult client services because they actually have all sorts of connections with housing and health care, things like that. And we need more comprehensive stuff. When people come out, they really have nothing, and if they have no family, they're really screwed.

So, do you—can I just finish?

You can finish, but I also want to follow up.

Okay, so do you think by adding a little phrase in that one part of the Bill that says, or their, or whoever, the Judiciary contracts.

Yeah.

Yeah. To do the work.

Yeah. But it should outline housing, health care, you know, things like that, so that it's more comprehensive.

Thank you. Okay, Ms. Brady, stay there. So, we know that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations is working with the Department of Human Services under the Section 1115 Waiver for Reentry Services. So, I'm curious to understand why Department of Human Services has not been brought up as the entity to assign a case manager.

Because, in fact, the case manager would have access to all of these housing support services—medical, dental, mental health services. Why did they not?

Well, the 1115 waiver is really about Medicare.

But it's Medicaid services that also provide housing supports. And so, we could—now we're adding a new Department and throwing another Department under the list. We could add the Department of DCR and the Department of Human Services in collaboration, assign a case manager to the person pursuant, and that could start to get to the appropriate agencies.

I'm not quite sure that Human Services actually.

Because, look, Human Services also has oversight of SNAP. So, if this person also needs assistance with getting food benefits, you've actually identified the correct agency now. Just think on it. You don't have to answer.

I think it would be a discussion.

And I think maybe we should move this forward with that.

Yes. Yes.

No, I'm going to put in the Bill. Okay. It's going to present a whole other set of issues, but, okay. One of the things I anticipate that someone's going to say is that we're going to want to hold on to the person a little while longer to make sure all these things get, get finalized.

If the courts have said that the person is.

I won't even go there. You know where I'm going.

Okay. All right. That's okay. Don't have to follow up that question. You know what? One more question, Ms. Brady. This one does bother me, and it's going to seem heartless to ask this question, but the Bill actually says that we should provide medical coverage for the person's spouse and dependents. That's challenging to me because if.

Well, if they have Medicaid.

Mr. Cordeiro, are you still there? Maybe this is a question for Mr. Cordeiro. Is Mr. Cordeiro still there?

Yes.

Mr. Cordeiro, can you come on board?

Yes, I'm here.

So, I really want to give this Bill the best chance of passing, really. And that's why I'm asking this question. When you were released and you had family there, did you have any expectation that your spouse or dependents should be entitled to medical coverage?

Well, I didn't have a spouse, and I never had any children, so that wouldn't apply to me. But there's options. There's, there's—we're open to negotiation. You know, if that needs to come out, then that needs to come out. It's more important for the individual to receive mental health care, health care, dental care.

Prison dental care is horrible. Mental health care is important. I was—I had all kind of medical issues when I was released. That is more important for an individual. If that needs to come out, then that's fine.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cordeiro. See where I'm going with the—yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Brady. Sorry to put you on the spot with that question. Any other questions? All right, thank you for the good discussion, members.

We're going to recess and do decision making at 11:30, because that is the practices of the Committee, and we have half an hour to go, so recess. Thank you.

Good morning. We are convening our 11:30am decision making agenda in the Committee on Public Safety. Today is Wednesday, February 18, 2026, 11:30am in Conference Room 411. Members, taking up first on our 11:30am agenda, House Bill 1769 relating to correctional facilities.

Members, I've struggled with this bill because the current framework is that we in. When we first started sending prisoners to the mainland, we created a pipeline essentially to the mainland and we never created the pathway back.

The language of reducing by percentages has been troublesome because of the testimony provided and I think valid testimony from DCR which says, "We never know how many people at any one time are in our system."

So, what I'm going to do is make amendments to this bill which basically directs that the Director shall return 25% of the number of committed felons incarcerated in private out-of-state correctional institutions to in-state facilities beginning July 1, 2029. Right?

So, the first tranche of people who will be returned will be 25% of the number committed. Thereafter, provided further that beginning on July 1, 2031 the Director shall annually return 5% of incarcerated felons at that time, as in prison, in private out-of-state correctional institutions back to in-state facilities in that year.

So when I did some of the calculations, and I promise you I'm not a math expert, when I looked at the Department's numbers, say that there was no more others that were transported after that first year, based on the numbers we have, we would be reduced to 600 in the following year.

The expectation would be 5% of 600 would be. The expectation is that next following year we would have to return 30 individuals back to an in-state facility. Again, the whole point is to create a pathway to an expectation that every year we're going to be returning some amount of people back.

And I think this is going to be in alignment with our kind of efforts in the reentry programs that we're looking in other bills. So that's going to be my recommendation. So throughout it's going to be removing it from just a reduction by a pure percentage to being a percentage of 5% for annually.

In the reporting section, I'm going to also change that again, making sure it's a return to in-state facilities and keeping those same timelines.

I'm going to ask JHA to look at the question as if we can tie this plan of beginning the reduction and creating a pathway back to the creation and the building of the new facilities, because maybe we might need to tinker with the 2029 date.

And I'm going to ask JHA to look at that when we should really start to begin this process. First of returning first 25% of the number of committed felons on the mainland back here and thereafter a percentage of 5%. I'm going to make any tech amendments identified by HMSO and then change the effective date to July 1, 3000.

Members, any questions, comments or concerns? Go ahead.

Thank you so much. I don't know if Chair would be open to adding into the Committee report some of the testimony that spoke about the Department's ability to redefine its classifications.

We will include some of that language in the committee report. Thank you. Any other questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

For House Bill 2044, Members, my recommendation is going to be to move this forward with a defective date at any, defective date and any tech amendments identified by HMS. So for clarity, purpose, clarity and style. Members we had. I tried to get more criteria.

Advocates have provided me with some information about reentry programs in other states, but it didn't really fit into what we were doing. So I think the language as proposed by the introduced service bill is good for now. And so I'd like to keep moving this forward with those tech amendments and a defective date of July 1st, 3000.

Questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 2044. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting that all members are present, are there any voting no? There any voting with reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Moving on to House Bill 2264 related to protective orders. Chair's recommendation is going to be to move this with an HD1.

Members, Judiciary and the MACRO were able to come up with some recommended amended language that clarifies that this would be related to agencies and the designated military security force in cases where the respondent is alleged to be a service member.

So I'm going to put in those amendments that were worked on by the Judiciary and the Military Affairs Office. Any tech amendments identified by HMS. So for clarity, style, style and clarity, and defective date of July 1st, 3000. Any questions, comments or concerns?

So that military system that was going to be coordinated is going to be reactivated and reinstalled?

Basically, yes, but. And. But both parties seemed to agree that we need this kind of formalized language to make sure that the process stays in place. So we'll be moving this one along. Any other comments, questions or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay. Voting on HB 2264. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting that all Members are present, any Members wanting to vote no? Any Members wanting to vote with reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay. Members for House Bill 2336, House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. It continues to have a defective effective date, so moving this forward for continued consideration. Questions, comments or concerns?

Chair?

Yes?

I'll be voting with reservations only because it wasn't completely clear to me that we actually need this because they've clearly been doing work. They've been working together without this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote. As is.

Voting on HB 2236 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Noting the that all Members are present, would any Member like to vote no? Any Members other than myself wanting to vote with reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Recommendation for House Bill 1518, House Draft 1. Chair's recommendation is also to pass this as is. It already has a defective date.

Are we skipping one? Are we on 2290? I'm sorry. Sorry. It looks like run 2298 relating to education.

Oh, sorry. Okay, let me. Did I not do that one? Yes. House Bill 2298. This is related to education. And this is the Veterans diplomas? Yes. Chair's recommendation. Again, this is an HD1 that has a defective effective date. So this one is also to be passed as this. Comments, questions or concerns?

Sorry. Chair, do you mind adding to the Committee report that DOE indicated that they would not need additional funding?

Happy to do that. Yes, we'll add that to the Committee report. Thank you, Vice Chair, for catching all my mistakes.

No, it's not a mistake.

All right. For the vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay. House Bill 1518, House Draft 1. Again, Members, this has a defective date. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is for continued discussion. Comments, questions, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 1518, HD 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Noting that all Members are present. Are there any Members wanting to vote no or with reservations? Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

All right, moving on. Reconvening our Wednesday 10am agenda starting off with House Bill 1997 chair's recommendation is to accept the AG's amendments, adding Section 504 Reference and to clarify that it's public schools, not department schools, that this bill is is applicable to keeping and retaining the 713000 date and any tech amendments identified by HMSO.

Members, comments, questions or concerns seeing none but sure for the vote voting on.

HB 1997 HD one chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments noting that all Members are present. Are there any wanting to vote no Any wanting to vote with reservations? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Moving on to House Bill 2343, HD 1, relating to veterans. Chair's recommendation is to pass this as is. It has a defective effective date. And that's it. Members, questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 2343, HD 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Noting that all Members are present. Any Members wanting to vote no or with reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

All right, moving to House Bill 2566, HD 1. Chair's recommendation again is to pass this as is. It does have a defective date, no tech amendments identified by HMSO. Questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on HB 2566, HD 1. Chair's recommendation is to pass as is. Noting that all Members are present. Is there any Member wanting to vote no or with reservations? Seeing none. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Okay, Members, House Bill 2493 is a work in progress, but it's an important work in progress that we need to keep moving forward. Chair's recommendation is going to be to adopt the Judiciary's request that the language on page 5, line 13 be changed from the trial court to the circuit court. That's amendment number one.

Amendment number two is going to be to clarify. On page 6 order the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Actually switch that up, change it so that order the insert Department of Human Services in collaboration with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to assign a case manager to the person pursuant to section 661B-D Members.

This is going to bring in, I think the more appropriate agency that can help with making sure that these individuals who are subject to this kind of compensation actually get the help that they need, that the Department of Human Services will be the more appropriate agency in collaboration and consultation with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to make sure that these services are available.

Share's third recommendation is on page nine to then remove Adult Client Services Division from that provision and insert. The Department of Human Services, in collaboration with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, shall contract with a community-based agency to appoint a case manager. Put that in there on page 10.

We're going to strike B, subsection B which provides medical coverage for the individual spouse and dependents as that's sort of a while it's an important impulse, it's not an appropriate implementation language for this.

The third, fourth Amendment is going to be to add language to say that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the judiciary retains jurisdiction over the individual to be able to effectuate the requirements of the 6616 process to effectuate this law. The 661b process.

Okay, this is, this is in response to the question raised and the concern raised by DCR that says once a finding of innocence is actually found, they just lose jurisdiction. So we have to keep that language in there so that they can be able to then affect and provide these services.

Finally, I'm going to insert a fourth amendment and clause that says that the state may recoup cost from this statutory framework from the city and count from the county from the county.

And I'm going to allow the Finance Committee to be able to explore that option because we know that many of these cases that are being brought forward while the state is responsible for the incarceration, it's actually problems in the trial that leads to the person being incarcerated.

So there should be a shared responsibility between the county and the state. Okay. Questions, comments and concerns. Defective date and any tech amendments identified by each missile. Questions, comments or concerns?

I just want to thank the Chair for your very clear itemized amendments that were very easy for me to follow.

Thank you. Trying my best. All right, Questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none, Members for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Members. I don't think we're going to have a hearing on Friday because I don't think that there's anything. But I haven't filed anything. So we are adjourned for today. Thank you.