House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone. We're here at the State Capitol in Room 325. It's Thursday, February 19th at 2pm. This is the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. My name is David Tarnas. I'm the Chair. We have Vice Chair Poepoe, and our Member Garner Shimizu.

We are also in a joint hearing with Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee in 30 seconds. And so I'm going to recess this hearing while the committee goes next door and we have a joint committee hearing next door on one bill, do decision making, and then we'll come back, and then I'll reconvene.

So I apologize for the delay, but I appreciate your understanding. So that's unfortunately what we have to do to try to move through all these bills to meet tonight's deadline, which is an important one when all bills have to move to their final committee. So with that, I will recess this hearing and we'll will be back. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Recess.

Convening the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs for our hearing, our 2pm hearing on February 19th. We are here in Conference Room 325. Thank you for your patience. I apologize again for keeping you waiting. Other Members will join us as soon as they can. Let's go ahead.

And those who are giving testimony, I would request your testimony to two minutes per person. I'll ask you to wrap up. We have a new microphone sound system here, so just project, articulate, and everything should be fine. But please keep your side conversations to a minimum because that gets picked up too.

If you're testifying on Zoom, just keep yourself muted and your video off until you testify and then turn it off when your testimony is complete. Use the Zoom chat function to communicate with technical staff if you have questions. If you're disconnected, don't panic.

Join up as soon as you can, and I'll try to fit you in to finish your testimony. If power goes off here in the building, we'll reschedule probably, and I'll let you know when and where we're meeting and about what. If you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid trademarked or copyrighted images.

And everybody who's testifying, please use your best behavior so your great auntie would feel proud about how you present. So don't use profanity or any uncivil behavior. So with that, let's go ahead and start our first bill, House Bill 2494, relating to criminal justice reform.

This measure establishes factors under which officers may arrest and detain persons without a warrant for petty misdemeanors and violations and requires officers to document the justification for the arrest.

Measure amends the circumstances under which officers may issue citations in lieu of arrest and requires officers to issue citations in lieu of arrest for certain petty misdemeanors and violations unless public safety or flight risks are present or the alleged offense involves operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant or the abuse of a family or household members.

It requires the judiciary to promulgate a standardized citation form and updates the required information for citations. Members, we've passed out a summary of HB 2494 prepared by the Policing Project, who has been working with us on this bill. So you just have that for your reference here as we listen to the testimony. First up, we have the Attorney General Mark Tom. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the department. Department submits testimony in opposition to House Bill 2494. The department's position that limiting arrests to seven criteria enumerated in the amendments to Section 803-5 subsection B of the Hawaii Revised Statute would significantly impede law enforcement's ability to resolve the situations they encounter in the community.

As mentioned in our testimony, there are several petty misdemeanor type offenses, and we listed some in our testimony, that may never fall into any of the enumerated categories that were in this bill.

Additionally, there are a number of types of habitual type offenses where having proper booking information and having fingerprints are necessary to ensure when we are charging an individual with a felony type offense or a charge that requires stacking of prior convictions, that we are ensuring that it's the right person that we are charging, especially when it's dealing with, not just when it's felony, but any type of charges, we want to make sure that it's the proper person.

In regards to the Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center, as we mentioned in our testimony, just understanding how those cases come in and get processed by the HCJDC, it could cause a lot of significant issues because some of those that information that's collected in that hub is used for pre-trial bail reports, determining dangerousness when we are determining bail to be set for individuals.

So having a property database when prosecutors are determining when bail is set as well as probation when they're meeting with these individuals is super important. There are also, in our testimony we mentioned that it could also lead to a lot of litigation if in fact attorneys in court say that it wasn't proper for them to arrest. Anything that they do find on them, the individual might be suppressed, will be subject to motions to dismissal. I will be here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The Judiciary, Ms. Acosta.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Michelle Acosta here on behalf of the Judiciary. We submitted testimony with comments. If this bill is passed, it requires the Judiciary to create a standardized citation form to be used for petty misdemeanors and misdemeanors for police officers.

It also requires that there is data integration for data gathering and also to connect that with data gathering for the Judiciary's electronic reminder system. We have submitted some comments for consideration. The citation format would have to be drastically changed from our current format. So we're requesting a delayed implementation date to no sooner than January 1, 2028.

And this would allow us to take a look at the formatting the citation, procuring a new citation, as well as working with the police, law enforcement, and other agencies for data gathering and what the data points are. We also made comments as to the contents of the citation.

Provision in the bill as written would require or omit the requirement of the four digits, last four digits of Social Security. That is an identifier that's required for us to be able to identify the correct individual and connect them to the case record so that we have the right person.

For example, this is important for law enforcement, Attorney General's Office, prosecutor's office, to determine if this is a repeat offender or individual offender, so that identifier is important. There is also provision and the bill as written for options to be included and the citation for petty misdemeanor and misdemeanor.

This requires a court hearing, so there are no options to resolve the fines and fees prior to coming to court. Those are what we've submitted in our testimony, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much, Ms. Acosta. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Ms. Woodward.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. McKenna Woodward on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. OHA supports this measure which will reduce unnecessary arrests for misdemeanors, petty misdemeanors, and violations by expanding the use of citations when appropriate.

We feel this is a balanced approach that preserves law enforcement discretion to arrest when necessary to preserve public safety, while reinforcing citation in lieu of arrest as the default response for low level offenses.

This promotes fairness and mitigates the outsized impacts of unnecessary pretrial detention for low level nonviolent offenses, including the loss of employment, housing instability, family disruption, and increased likelihood of deeper system involvement, especially in cases where an individual is presumed innocent and ultimately not convicted. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to pass HB 2494. Mahalo for your time.

Thank you very much. Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. Welcome.

My name is Martha Torney. I'm one of the commissioners on the Oversight Commission. The commission supports this measure, as it will reduce the unnecessary incarceration of low level offenders. We do want to note the exceptions that you mentioned for public safety, flight risk, and other things.

When people get incarcerated, even if it's only for a few days, it can in fact impact their employment by the not showing up to work, their housing, and their family stability. And when they're that low offenses, we don't think that's appropriate. And of course, we got concerned about arrests that result in overcrowding at our correctional facilities, our jails especially. Thank you.

I'm going to take one testifier out of order because they're in a very different time zone, and then I'll come back to the county testifiers. Lars Trautman, the Policing Project at New York University School of Law, on Zoom. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Lars Trautman. I'm the Legislative Director of the Policing Project at NYU School of Law. My organization advises policymakers on how to make policing more effective, transparent, and equitable.

The policies in HB 2494 look a lot like those already enacted into law in a variety of other states. These are laws that help reduce the number of unnecessary arrests, leveraging citations to get people to court while minimizing the disruption for potential arrestees and saving officer time and jail resources.

HB 2494 has moved toward more effective citation use as particularly targeted. First, unlike the law in some other states, HB 2494, citation presumption does not apply to any felonies or misdemeanors. It also explicitly excludes two of the most serious petty misdemeanors, those relating to drunk driving and domestic violence.

And all of these cases, police can respond with an arrest in exactly the same way that they do now. What's more, even for the offenses that are covered by the bill's citation presumption, the bill outlines factors reflecting public safety or flight risks, where, if any single one of them is present, the presumption does not apply.

As a former prosecutor myself, I've thought hard about how this bill might apply to petty misdemeanors. And the more hypotheticals you run through, the clearer it becomes just how well this bill preserves the option to arrest in all petty misdemeanor cases that merit it.

In addition, all of the citation factors also represent routine law enforcement considerations that officers will typically consider at the scene of a possible arrest, regardless of the state of the law. Things such as whether an arrest is needed to establish a suspect's identity or to stop ongoing or future criminal conduct.

This overlap ensures that officers will be able to quickly apply the citation factors in the field, leaving officers able to capably respond to the multitude of scenarios they face. Thank you, and I urge you to support this bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Trautman, and thank you to your team at the Policing Project at NYU School of Law. Have been very helpful to understand what are best practices across the country. Let's move back to... Oh, actually, Office of Public Defender. I should have had you come up sooner, but anyway. Sorry, you're a state office, not a county. Hayley Cheng, Office of Public Defender. Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. We are in strong support of this measure. From the unique perspective of the Office of the Public Defender, we can assure this committee that arrests for low level offenses, petty misdemeanors, and misdemeanors absolutely disproportionately impact the indigent and underprivileged community.

Bail amounts for those cases are usually nominal, but clients sometimes cannot afford to post $10 bail, $50 bail, $100 bail. Most of the time, practically speaking, these offenses will not result in jail time once they are convicted. So really the option of arrest in lieu of citation needs to be flipped in verse.

Which should be citation in lieu of arrest because it is overly punitive to our under marginalized members of our community. We also believe that this, as other testifiers have indicated, will reduce overcrowding in our jails. It will also alleviate the resources of law enforcement that have to effectuate arrests. The time devoted to an arrest versus the issuance of a citation is vastly different.

We also believe there are appropriate safeguards in the bill where people need to be appropriately arrested, and we do believe that that has to happen and we believe that police and law enforcement will have the discretion to do so if appropriate. We also wanted to briefly comment about the citation form aspect of this measure.

We hear the Judiciary's concerns and will defer to the committee on what the appropriate timeframe should be. But we would urge the committee to absolutely get something in place. The citations, at least in the First Circuit, are handwritten. They continue to be handwritten.

This inadvertently leads to illegible court dates, things of that nature, causing people to miss court even when they intend to appear. So a standardized form that is easily readable and not at the... And we understand that law enforcement officers are often trying to rush when they're issuing it, but it can lead to some issues. So thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I will be available for any questions.

Thank you very much, Ms. Cheng. Next, Maui Police Department in support. Not present. Next, County of Hawaii Office of the Prosecuting Attorney on Zoom. Mr. Waltjen.

Not around. Okay, well, if he returns... Mr. Waltjen, floor is yours.

Sorry, I'm having some technical difficulties. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, we do. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Committee Members. Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney Kelden Waltjen. We stand in strong opposition of this bill. We share in the concerns noted by Deputy Attorney General Tom. Simply put, this legislation is not necessary. Police can already issue citations in lieu of arrest. Also, it's not feasible.

You heard the concerns noted by the Judiciary. This legislation is deeply rooted in the misconception that people are being incarcerated for low level offenses and that this legislation will somehow help alleviate overcrowding. It won't. That is not what the data shows, especially on Hawaii Island. Look at the numbers.

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shares data each week online. HCCC is consistently Hawaii Islands, it's consistently Hawaii's most crowded correctional facility in the state. It's been like that for the year, for years. Instead, as of February 16, only about 90% of the people in custody at HCCC are being held on felony offenses.

Whether they be pre-trial, sentenced felon, probation or parole violators. Only a small portion of those in custody are being held on misdemeanor or lower level offenses, mostly those offenses being domestic violence related. Perhaps to reduce overcrowding, we can prioritize inmate transfers and movements.

For example, felons serving prison terms sometimes have to wait extended periods of time before being transferred out of state, further contributing to overcrowding concerns. Now, I bring up the overcrowding because, given the overwhelming attention on overcrowding, courts are already very reluctant to maintain bail for even felony offenses, let alone misdemeanor and petty misdemeanor.

I'd also like to highlight concerns that the booking process is essential to confirming the identification of a suspect. It's not uncommon for a person placed under arrest to lie to police or refuse to provide identification. The police power to make warrantless arrests based on probable cause has been an established rule of law for over a century.

We don't need legislation that will make law enforcement's job harder. We don't need legislation that's going to further erode the public's trust in our criminal justice system. We need laws that hold offenders accountable. We need to protect victims and survivors and make our communities safer. HB 2494 isn't that type of legislation.

This bill isn't about expanding... This bill, what this bill is about, it's about expanding rights of the criminally accused at the expense of victims and community safety. We submitted our written input, and we're available to answer any questions you have. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Testimony from the Maui County Department of the Prosecuting Attorney in opposition. Not present. We have Mr. Hugo, Department of the Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. And we strongly oppose this bill. I should clarify first that every arrest is at some point reviewed by a judge, either in advance when issued on a warrant, or in cases where the person was arrested without a warrant, there is a judicial determination of probable cause.

So there are already written factual findings that courts make in all cases where there are arrests. I would suggest, as a prosecutor I've had the privilege to do police ride alongs and to actually see policing on the ground by the Honolulu Police Department. And the incentives are exactly the opposite. The incentive for our police is to write a citation because arrest is dangerous.

An arrest involves extra paperwork. An arrest can involve... Arrests often terribly inconvenience, create a great deal of inconvenience. And so there is already an incentive to write a citation. The reason why the police are doing arrests as opposed to citations is because they have to. Because otherwise that person will continue to pose a criminal threat either, even in cases where it's a nonviolent offense, that person will continue to...

It's a criminal threat. I would just suggest to the committee that the best evidence that you can see about what is actually happening is to go two blocks down to courtroom 7C where the custody cases are heard. And what you will see there is the revolving door of persistent criminals going through again and again and again, not meeting any sort of meaningful deterrence from our court system. And this bill will...

Thank you very much. Andre Peters, Honolulu Police Department. Welcome. Floor is yours.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Andre Peters on behalf of the Honolulu Police Department's Training Division. We are in strong opposition of this bill. As Hawaii County Prosecutor stated, that this bill is absolutely not necessary. The officers already do have discretion as far as when we can arrest or when we can cite.

We feel that, although we appreciate that reducing unnecessary incarceration is definitely a problem, that this bill significantly limits the officer's discretion by, like I say, requiring citations instead of arrests for petty misdemeanors and violations. As part of the offenses of like harassment or disorderly conduct.

When an officer arrives at the scene to this they won't be able to assess whether or not any of these five exceptions apply to this, to whatever offense that they're going to. And as the Honolulu Prosecutor also stated, that it would be great and an eye opener to actually go on a ride along with one of the Honolulu police officers because it's already a difficult job as it is for officers out in patrol.

You talk about that it'll actually take time away from the officers because they would have to cite instead of arrest. But that's actually not the case and it's not true because the officer would have to make sure that, as part of the justification on top of probable cause, that the officer would also have to have these five exceptions. So we feel that this wouldn't save the officer's time out in patrol and nor would it or this is not even a necessary bill. We'll be able to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Liam Chinn, Hawaii Justice Rising. Not present. Next, Josh Frost, ACLU.

My name is Josh Frost. I'm the policy advocate for the ACLU of Hawaii. We're here in support of the bill. Thank you for hearing it today, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Committee Members. Arrests can have a significant impact on the individual as well as their families.

We know this data bears it out in terms of reduced income over the lifetime of their career, more likely to have to drop out of school, more likely to experience trauma and mental health challenges, as opposed to citations. This can have effects on families, communities, even on the local economy as a whole.

And studies have shown that young people who receive a citation... Citations, people who are arrested have increased likelihood of recidivism. So citations can reduce overall populations. In terms of time spent by police, there's a study out of Georgia that suggests citations can reduce, be more efficient for law enforcement officers to put them back into the field up to 35 minutes. Finally, we think this is a good approach for law enforcement.

We think it's a good approach for people charged with or thought to be criminals, and so it can help reduce prison populations. It can be more efficient use of law enforcement time and it can have positive impacts on those people who receive a citation rather than arrest. We urge you to pass the bill, and I'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Nikos Leverenz, Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii, on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair and Members. Nikos Leverenz with Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii in strong support of this bill. At a time when state policymakers are looking to commit over $1 billion for a public private partnership arrangement for a new jail facility on Oahu, it's even more imperative for policymakers to consider changes to reduce the use of arrests for minor charges and the use of pre-trial detention.

As indicated by other speakers, even short periods of incarceration strain an already overcrowded and overburdened system that's characterized by workforce challenges. The impact on the arrestee or pretrial detainee is even more grievous given that short term incarceration has lasting impacts on them and their families, including disruption of care for children and older family members and the potential employment of loss of employment and access to housing. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Leverenz. Next, Cacique Melendez in person in opposition. Not present. And finally, Dennis Dunn. Dennis, Mr. Dunn, welcome. Please, the floor is yours.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I'm a strong advocate for victims for over 50 years, and I'm testifying in strong opposition to this measure. My basic objection is that this is enacting onerous new procedural requirements for police officers and is a broad brush across the board.

I believe that cases should all be reviewed on their own merits. The individual facts of the case and the background of the individual that's the subject of the investigation. In this particular case, many of the cases that are types of crimes for which a citation might be issued aren't as petty as they might seem.

Many sex offenders, for example, started with a variety of harassment offenses. Terroristic threatening oftentimes may result in harassment, harassing telephone calls and so on, or harassment. People's lives can be upended by this kind of activity.

I think it's important to point out that this measure could result because of the requirements in cases being challenged by collateral legal attacks simply for procedural defects. The cases would be inappropriately dismissed as a result.

Similarly, this case would, I believe, result in a higher instance of people not showing up in court, which would add significantly to the already huge backlog of bench warrants issued by people who failed to appear in court. I do think that the bill, if enacted, would also lead to the inappropriate release of individuals who are providing an unjustifiable risk to individual victims and to the community.

And finally, I would emphasize Mr. Tom's point about the fact that with citations that offenses that arrests that are not... I'm sorry. Offenses that are citations, they're not supported by fingerprints will not go into the state or federal databases. So that information would not be available to law enforcement who would be checking to see if an individual has a background. With that, I thank you very much and ask you to defer this measure.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dunn. We received a total of 14 testimonies in support, 21 testimonies in opposition, and one with comments. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure? Please come up and introduce yourself.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is John Deutzman. I live in Waikiki. I stand by my written testimony. I want to bring in a couple of real life examples. In Waikiki, we have a guy with 556 career cases. Most of them are citations.

This bill says the police have to say, well, let's take a look at this guy's failure to appear rate. Then maybe I got to arrest them. This guy never goes to court. Most of these people never go to court. So this guy now, instead of getting 556 mostly citations, will be arrested for each case because this bill will force the cops to say, wow, look at his record. He never goes to court. So it'll backfire.

The intention of this, to keep people out of jail is going to backfire on most of the people we deal with in Waikiki. There's no reason. There's a lot of millions of dollars spent on research here. I do my own research. I'm a former investigative reporter. I have a database of a thousand convictions.

In Waikiki, the median misdemeanor sentence is two days, two. The day that you're arrested and the day you go to court. Most misdemeanor offenders never make it to OCCC. So how you can argue that OCCC is like jammed up with low level offenders? It doesn't make any sense.

Nobody here, despite the millions spent on research, has the failure to appear rate. At least in Waikiki, on people who are releasing their own recognizance, the failure to appear rate is 73% on those people who are arrested. It's likely much higher for people with citations, probably closer to 100% than 73%.

And also, I want to bring up something about the numbers of people in jail. The data seems to be off. I've written to several of you people about this. Last February, they reported 85 people on average being held pretrial misdemeanors in OCCC. I did a freedom of Information request.

There was only 27. In March, basically the same, and there was only 29. So I don't know where they get these numbers from. But if the likelihood when you get arrested, you spend one day at the police station, one day in court, and you never go to OCCC, how does OCCC have all these people on misdemeanors? It makes no sense and have no reasonable explanation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your work on this, Mr. Deutzman. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not, questions, Members? I have a question for, if Lars Trautman, if you're still there from the Policing Project. Could you just give us a sense of how the reforms in this bill align with national trends? If you're still there, Lars.

Yes, hi. So in terms of trends over the last 10-15 years in particular, we've seen an increasing number of states take a number of routes to expand citations. There's not one single template that states have used. Some have expanded just the discretion to offer citations, but we are increasingly seen as well the use of presumptions.

Either, you know, extending them first to the lower level offenses, and then once there's a little bit more buy in, considering whether there are other offenses for which they can be used. But I will note in some states they will go as high as not just misdemeanors, but even sometimes the lowest categories of felonies. So there are other states that have blazed this path well in advance.

Thank you. Just, and one last question. How does Hawaii's current warrantless arrest authority compare to other states and jurisdictions, Mr. Trautman?

Yeah, so I've reviewed arrest statutes probably in a couple of dozen states at this point, and Hawaii has one of the most expansive warrantless arrest laws that I've seen. Most states that I've reviewed have some sort of limitations, whether it's based on the offense at issue, limiting it to more serious offenses, requiring perhaps that the offense occur in the presence of the officer.

Or even saying that there have to be certain factors present justifying that kind of warrantless arrest. So Hawaii's statute that places no meaningful restrictions on that, other than there is a separate one looking at low level traffic violations, that is outside the norm and much more expansive than we see in other states.

Okay, thank you. Question for the Attorney General, Mr. Tom. You know, the Maui Police Chief thinks this is a good idea, saying it's a proactive approach to criminal justice reform that aligns with national best practices. He has some suggestions for tightening up the language. But here's a police chief chief saying it's a great idea. You're telling us it's a terrible idea. How do I reconcile these two?

I think each county is different. I think in the aggregate, though, you can hear from numerous law enforcement agencies explaining to the committee how there's unintended consequences. And maybe, and I can't speak for Maui Police Department on exactly why they have that position, but there's a lot of unintended consequences.

They might not be taken into account where law enforce, different law enforcement agencies might be, such as prosecuting attorneys or the attorney generals that handle such petty misdemeanor offenses. We have a lot of issues when we're going to go into court and we're going to have to deal with a lot of...

I don't want to say frivolous motions, but motions that might start flooding in for these petty misdemeanor offenses, for a claim of unlawful arrest. So anything that they found would be suppressed, motions to suppress. So those are things that prosecutors have to deal with as a result of some of the aspects of this bill. In addition, when we are doing bail, as I mentioned...

I appreciate you're talking about the prosecutors. I was looking at the police. And we have a Maui County Police Chief says this is a great idea. Other police, you know, representatives of other police departments have a different opinion. I understand what your position is on this.

I just wondered if you had any insight and you don't really know what's going on in Maui. Okay, we'll leave it at that. On page four, the bill lists several reasons why the officer could arrest, including, quote, must be detained to prevent bodily injury to that person or another. Would wouldn't that be satisfactory as one of the reasons why the officer could arrest?

I think that as I mentioned in our testimony, there could be situations where a number of them, right. Even for subsection 4, where there's no further police contact, the officer may arrest in a situation in that, in that scenario. They might determine that subsection 6 applies.

It comes into court and the defense counsel in that case says, no, we don't think that was an unlawful arrest because our client or our defendant in the case is saying he was just going to go home, was not going to cause any more harassment, no more disorderly conduct. Or in a situation with a driving without license, they claimed they were not going to get back into their car, they were just going to sit on the side of the road.

And in a case like that, we would still have to litigate that to some degree to determine if there's any other additional evidence that might be suppressed pursuant to the motion to suppress or pursuant to a motion to dismiss for unlawful arrest in that case. So there are, I understand that there's a variety in a laundry list to try to encompass every scenario or situation.

But as the Honolulu Police indicated, there's just so many variables when they come across a situation that they cannot account for. And six or seven criterias, two including just specific types of charges, just might not encompass all the scenarios that might be required to effectuate an arrest in a situation to ensure public safety.

All right, thank you. And then one last question for Ms. Acosta, the Judiciary. Could you explain the issue with the Social Security numbers that you outlined in your testimony?

Sure. The Social Security, the last four digits, is one of the identifiers. So if there were two Michelle Acosta's that have court records or arrest records, we might want to know that these are connected. So the way the case management system for the Judiciary is that there are party IDs. Michelle Acosta 1 would have a party ID.

Michelle Acosta 2 would have a party ID. I could be the same person. And one of those identifiers would then allow us to identify that these are one of the same or two separate people. So that is the issue with the, if we're removing it for citation, it's removing one of our identifiers for that purpose.

Okay. And then on the citation form, are we heading toward a fully digital form?

There are initiatives in Maui County, also in Honolulu and Honolulu City and County, a lot electronic citations are being used by the police departments. They're not widely used at this point, but we are moving in that direction. And so that's why we included in here for consideration that there might be a need for a working group to take a look at that.

So that if citations, just as Office of the Public Defender mentioned, these are handwritten. And for data to be collected, to be read carefully so people know when to come to court, it is difficult to read handwriting sometimes. So digital electronic citations may be one of the answers to that.

So we're starting on that road to get there, but it's not consistent across the state.

Correct.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thanks very much. Other questions, members? Thank you very much to the testifiers on this measure. We're going to move on to the next measure, House Bill 2413, relating to pretrial reform.

This measure requires release on recognizance for defendants charged with violations, traffic offenses, nonviolent petty misdemeanors, nonviolent misdemeanors, and nonviolent Class C felonies subject to conditions. It establishes exclusions for specific offenses, threats to public safety, and willful flight.

It requires findings when bail or detention is imposed, ongoing review of continued detention or conditions, and a prompt hearing of bail cannot be posted. It requires prosecutors to notify victims of pretrial decisions. First up, Mr. Bento, Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. My name is William Bento, and I'm from the Public Defender's Office. I believe that this is a very important and a historic day in the State of Hawaii because we're talking about bail reform and actually trying to implement work that began in 2018, so much so that it's caught the attention of people in the media.

There's an article written by the R Street Collective talking about Hawaii's chance to fix its bail system, and I think that that's a reflection on how important it is. And I think the reason why it's so important is because, for perhaps the very first time, we're talking about the release of people pretrial, very limited group via people arrested for violations, nonviolent petty misdemeanors, misdemeanors, and nonviolent Class C felonies as being the default decision of the court, and that the current system, which tends to be the incarceration of those that are pretrial and presumed to be innocent, is not working.

The language in the bill is very important when it reads, shall be ordered by the court to be released, because this clearly states the intention of the Legislature and what the law is meant to do.

And a side note to that, it also gives a judge the opportunity in making a decision in court to say that the law compels the decision that I am making from the bench. I cannot tell you how many times I've been in court and have made argument on many different issues and the judge has said, that was a fine dissertation, Mr. Benton, but can you show me where the law supports your contentions?

It would be great to go into court to have the law to support our contention that those who are arrested for nonviolent offenses have a right to be released pretrial. Others will talk to you about all of the ramifications that occur when somebody is incarcerated pretrial--the loss of a job, the inability to support one's family, things like that--but the fundamental aspect of being released when you're presumed to be innocent is very, very important under these circumstances.

I just want to point out also that the bill is not, you know, a wholehearted change. It allows for the court to use discretion when it needs to and it doesn't cover violent offenses. And so we're talking about a limited group here. The Office of the Public Defender, for these reasons, strongly supports this measure. We do have a couple of amendments that we have proposed. I'd be happy to answer any questions in regard to that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bento. Next, Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. Ms. Torney.

I just want to preface my testimony to remark that what's included in this bill came as a result of HCR 134 2017 Criminal Pretrial Task Force, which was under the auspices of the Judiciary. They presented the report in 2019. These are well-thought-out, discussed, and research recommendations.

First of all, again, the bill allows for people released on own recognizances for violations and nonviolent petty misdemeanors in Class C. They are enumerated in the bill, unless a person is a threat, of course, to public safety or a flight risk. It ensures judicial oversight, prompt bail hearings, and victim notification, which we think is very important.

Low-level pretrial defendants do contribute to overcrowding, and HCCC is an example. Currently at HCCC, we do have 21 pretrial misdemeanors there, and so the commission does support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, the Judiciary. Thank you for being here, Ms. Awong.

I shouldn't have sat so far in. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Jennifer Awong. I'm the staff attorney for the criminal administrative divisions of the First Circuit as well as for Judiciary Administration. The Judiciary supports the intent of this proposed legislation, and we stand on our written testimony in support of the intent.

There are a couple comments that I wanted to make that are contained in our testimony. First, there are several occasions that are not really contemplated by this bill where a defendant may end up being held in custody despite this, on another charge or another case, and in those instances, it would be imperative that we be able to set an amount of bail so that they can get credit for the instant case. If we don't set bail, they will not get any credit. So we've outlined five additional qualifications in the testimony that we would like you to consider.

The additional language will ensure that any defendant who has continued to be held in custody due to violation of the conditions of release, probation, or parole on another case or due to being charged with a serious crime in another case at the same time due to a violation of federal law, any of those instances, they'll be able to get credit.

Second, the release decision contemplated by this proposed statute actually occurs at the 804-7.5 hearing, so we just wanted to make that clear in the legislation. Third, we've got some notations with respect to Subsection F, and we just were asking that the language in that particular section be amended to be more consistent with the language throughout Chapter 804.

Fourth, we had some suggestions with respect to the definition of willful flight to include the failure to maintain contact with council and to address the good cause for their prior failure to appears. Finally, we do have some concerns with respect to the written findings required by this measure.

It's most significant in District Court, especially here on Oahu, where there are approximately 170 custodial arraignments every week, which would require probably at least a few orders in those instances.

And because of the language further on in Subsection-- in the measure that requires a review of bail at all subsequent hearings, it may not be specifically necessary to have written findings at this particular instance. I'm available for any questions, and again, everything else is in our written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Awong. Next, the Attorney General.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. I'm Deputy Attorney General Kory Young, speaking on behalf of the department. We do oppose this bill, and we thank the committee for reviewing our written testimony. I don't want to belabor that. I just want to make three points just of emphasis.

And we do have concerns because if the committee members were to go to the seventh floor of the District Court building, the initial appearance date, what you'd see is the courts are already bending over backwards to release whoever they can-- whoever they can justify releasing, people charged with violations, petty misdemeanors, misdemeanors.

So a lot of this is already covered. What we are concerned about, though, is a difference in language between what the court is doing now to ensure defendants appear and to protect the public. They're already doing that.

But adding language that requires the judge to find a specific real and present threat could deter the ability of the judges to actually protect the public in those instances. We can have individuals who are there for a theft come back on a criminal property damage, come back on a harassment.

Now, if that person is back for a fourth time, third time, what are we saying the specific threat is, though? They've committed a litany of different offenses, but if we're looking for a specific offense, we can't say, well, you are specifically likely to damage property because you steal property and you harass people as well.

We can't say, well, you're specifically likely to harass this person because their other crimes are for property offenses. So it can be very difficult to pin down specifically what a person is likely to do. So the language that is currently in 8045, requiring the court to ensure the defendant's appearance and to protect the public, we believe is adequate, and already the courts are using that to guide who they should release and they do release at all points that they can.

Our other points would be, there are a bunch of enumerated offenses within the bill, or classes of offenses that the Legislature is clearly concerned about. We would actually ask that that would be expanded or that the Legislature consider looking at other offenses that may not appear violent but do have either a potential to lead to violence or a history behind them that would lead the courts to want to hold them.

Like, as it's currently constituted, we would look at habitual property crime. That requires, to even be charged with that, that the individual have prior property crimes on their record. You know, why wouldn't that be adequate to just be held? Harassment by stalking, aggravated harassment by stalking, cruelty to animals, injuring or killing a service animal or a law enforcement animal--these are kinds of offenses that clearly indicate violence.

Criminal property damage, unauthorized entries into dwellings, which can be frightening for homeowners, would be the kinds of offenses judges should be able to look at and say, hey, you know, even though we can't make a specific finding, you're going to commit this next offense. You've committed enough offenses. We're going to have you held.

Thank you.

I'll be available for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have-- next testifier that said they wish to testify is Kelden Waltjen, Hawaii County Office of Prosecuting Attorney. Please proceed, Mr. Waltjen.

Vice Chair Poepoe Committee Members of Hawaii Prosecuting Attorney, Kelden Waltjen. We stand in strong opposition of this bill. Similar to HB 2494, this legislation is is not necessary. The court already has the authority to grant a defendant's request for release and quite often it does over prosecutors objections regularly.

As noted in my earlier testimony, very few individuals who are solely charged with the misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor offense have their bill maintained. Most of those offenders are granted release, oftentimes unsupervised release on their own recognizance. You also heard the testimony by Deputy Attorney General Young, previously Deputy Prosecutor Hugo.

That's the same thing happening on Oahu as well. We don't need this legislation. Using Mr. Bento's phrase, it's already the default to release low level offenders. But taking away the court's discretion to detain pre trial defendants, it isn't smart. It's dangerous.

In my previous testimony, I urge this Committee to consider legislation that will protect and support survivors and victims. But don't get me wrong, I agree that we also need to assist offenders when they reintegrate back into the community. But this type of legislation isn't helpful for offenders. All it does is set them up to fail.

Offenders suffering from substance addiction, mental health, lack housing, a job and a support system are not going to land on their feet without established wraparound services. Expecting offenders who are prematurely released, without resources and expecting them to succeed is not just misguided, it's also dangerous. The preamble references states that have previously eliminated cash bill.

However, what the preamble fails to recognize is that many of those states have justice or court navigators, individuals who work with an offender and work collaboratively with their defense attorney. The courts, jails and behavioral health systems.

Perhaps legislation and funding court navigators within either the Office of the Public Defender or the judiciary will be helpful to addressing offenders needs, reducing recidivism and promoting accountability and public safety. We submitted our written input. We're available to answer any questions you asked.

Thank you very much. Mr. Waltjen. Mr. Hugo, Department of Prosecutors Attorney City and County Honolulu.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. And we strongly oppose this bill. Our written testimony drew attention to the President's Executive Order which requires the US Attorney General to identify jurisdictions with similar bail laws and to target their federal funding.

And we think that the Committee should take that into account in making its decision. But I'm not here to speak for President Trump and even if I were, he wouldn't listen. So I'm here for the Honolulu Prosecutor's office. And our office is committed to the rule of law. Necessarily.

We consider violent crimes to be more serious than other crimes. But I want to address the myth of the so called violent crime. What we're talking about here for the most part are property crimes that these are unimportant. Every law abiding person in Hawaii is paying two taxes.

The first one is the one that the government levied and it is invested by our representatives. We get feedback as to how it is spent. The other is levied by criminals. It's levied by thieves who can't stop stealing, by vandals who destroy other people's possessions, by swindlers who con trusting people.

And it shows up in closed shops, more expensive goods, ruined days at the beach. And these crimes may matter less for anyone who lives in a gated community who can afford private security, but they matter tremendously for working class and lower income victims who have no defense from criminal predation except the police.

And the promises that are made by the Legislature. Legislature in our laws establishing a presumption of release for so called non violent offenses sends a clear message that these are not serious offenses. And it sends a warning that these are laws. That these laws are going to prove broken promises. I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Vince Legaspi, Honolulu Police Department.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair and Members. I'm Vince Legaspi, Captain of the criminal investigation division of the Honolulu Police Department, City and county of Honolulu. Sorry I'm not in uniform. I had a surgery done on my feet.

I wish you a rapid recovery.

Thank you, but I. HPD strongly opposes House Bill number 2413. Public safety should come first. Kauai as an island close knit communities amplify the impact of repeat offending. Mandatory release increases the risk that defendants return immediately to the same victims or neighborhoods. Non violent does not mean non harmful. Repeat theft harassment.

Property crimes seriously affect the quality of life. A quick release without accountability increases the risk of repeat victimization. The bill also runs counter to safe and sound and weed and seed programs which have been highly effective in making the community safer. Victims are not truly protective due with this bill.

Victims, especially elders, small business owners, often feel unsafe, ignored and less willing to report future crimes. Public confidence erodes when offenders are released repeatedly with very little consequence. Mainland results are mixed. Claims that cast this Bill reduces crime are not supported by clear evidence. Several jurisdictions have walked back or modify the reforms after public concern.

New York, Washington, D.C. Georgia, Indiana, Illinois Banned Commercial Bail Bondsmen 2023. That's why they had to implement the no cast bail reform. The impact on crime. The 2024 Brennan center of Justice report found no statistically significant relationship between bail reform and crime rates across 33 US citizen cities. I know this bill.

There's a list of what crimes are not excluded are included with the bill. But I think we should talk about what's included. UCPB.

If you could summarize, please.

I have a whole list of crimes. UCPB, UMB, identity theft, harassment, criminal trespass, burglary, disorderly, valerly dispersed traffic offenses like D wall, excessive speeding.

You know, it goes on and on. I'll close up, sir. I had a lot of things, but I submitted my. We have your written. Thank you.

We have your written testimony and I appreciate you taking the time. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Next. Community Alliance on Prisons Brady.

Aloha Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Members of the Committee. We really support this bill. We think eliminating bail for people who are struggling to put food on the table, house, their family and themselves. We think this is a compassionate bill and we thank you very much for introducing.

Thank you, Ms. Brady. Next. Josh Frost, ACLU.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Again, ACLU stands in support of HB 2413. In this country, liberty is the norm and detention prior to or without trial is the carefully limited exception. This is what the Supreme Court has said in Hawaii. Currently, 54% of people held in Hawaii's jails are held pretrial.

Here on Oahu, that number goes up to 69% in OCCC. That means they haven't been convicted of anything yet. Research says that people. The bail reform does nothing to increase or, well, sorry, decrease public safety and it doesn't do anything to decrease the likelihood that people will show up for their court date.

So bail reform, well, so sorry. Alternatively, pretrial detention can contribute to overcrowding, staffing issues and worsen facility conditions, something that we all know our state is already facing. Again, research said that holding people pretrial can have devastating effects on those individuals. Loss of housing, loss of jobs, loss of parental visitation. The list goes on and on.

And again, these are people who haven't been convicted of anything. So given that liberty should be the norm, we support the bill and urge its passage.

Thank you very much, Mr. Frost. Nikos Leverenz , Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Nikos Leverenz with Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii and very strong support of this bill for the reasons already articulated. I think pretrial detention needs to be restrained in this state.

And I want to highlight something that was not in my written testimony and that's its application to the personal possession for drug use, which is currently mislabeled promotion of a dangerous drug in a third degree, which is a nonviolent class C felony.

I know that we've talked about deflonization in the context of the Penal Code Review Committee, but since we have so many prosecutors here, I just want to run a few quotes from a report from the Institute for Innovation and Prosecution at John Jay College.

As enforcers of our drug laws, prosecutors too often use their power to keep the engine engine turning for mass incarceration, which has taken a grave and inequitable toll. Such prosecution has also proven to be largely ineffective. Instead, prosecutors should adopt a range of practical strategies to achieve two interrelated goals.

One, enhancing access to voluntary treatment and services in community settings and two, minimizing the role of the criminal system to mitigate harms caused by arrest, incarceration, surveillance, involuntary treatment and the lasting stigma of a criminal record.

As we all know, the operation of the criminal legal system, including drug law enforcement, this proportionally falls on those from under resourced communities, particularly our Native Hawaiian community. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you very much, Mr. Leverenz. Members. We've gotten written testimony from Stephen Greenhut on behalf of Liesl Pettis at the R Street Institute in support. I understand Ms. Pettis is available for questions, but she's to stand on her testimony. So I refer you to the written testimony.

If you remember, she was one of the individuals who spoke with us at our pre trial reform information briefing that we had here recently. Next, let's move to Chris Magnus.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm Chris Magnus. I'm Honolulu resident. I have 44 years of policing experience, working my way up the ranks and then serving as the chief of police in three cities, most recently Tucson, Arizona. Happy to be a resident here though. And I'm speaking this afternoon in support of the bill.

You know Republican Rand Paul and Democrat Kamala Harris, not exactly two people you'd expect to be aligned on criminal justice issues. Wrote an op ed together a while back on bail reform. And they wrote whether somebody stays in jail or not, far too often determined by wealth or social connections.

Even though just a few days behind behind bars can cost people their home, their job, custody of their children, even in worst cases, their life. Now, you know, I've spent a career in policing, and frankly, I think they, they got it right. When people have their lives upended simply because they can't afford bail, the harm extends.

It extends far beyond them. It ripples through their families as well. And it's often those families that pay the consequences when somebody loses their job or their housing or even their social standing. And that's when you really see people making desperate choices, which, let's face it, that includes committing crimes. And I saw this play out many times.

Ironically, defendants who commit nonviolent misdemeanors and classy felonies in our state, they can be held longer in jail before trial than the length of their sentences, if they're even found guilty.

Now, I've heard some people claim that bail reform endangers public safety and just heard a reference to a study that the Brennan Center made which compels bail reforms to cities. You know, where those reforms are in place to other cities without bail reform.

And they've shown there is no correlation between the bail reform and the higher crime rates. That's, that's what that study showed. And there's no really meaningful other research that shows anything to the contrary. Multiple states legislators have, you know, they've revised their bail laws. And this should be a nonpartisan issue.

And in many places that it has been, Republican governors in New Jersey and Utah, they were strong advocates for making this kind of a change in their state. So, look, let's level the playing field between the wealthy and those without the money to post bail.

It just isn't fair that lower and no income people should be stuck in jail awaiting in trial simply because they don't have the resources that others have.

And there's no reason to believe, especially with the protections included in this bill that give judges the right to make decisions based on different circumstances, there's no reason to believe this is going to make our communities unsafe. In fact, quite the contrary. I think it's going to make communities safer and more resilient.

Thanks for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. And our final testifier, Dennis Dunn.

Testifying an opposition to this measure. I'll try to just hit my main points. First of all, I believe this bill in section one states, it's the reason for it, which is basically the feeling that current judges are not Properly Applying Act 179 of Session Laws of Hawaii 2019. I disagree with that proposition.

I think our judges generally are doing a good job. I disagree with them sometimes, as you may, but I Think trying to do again, this broad brush approach, I think is not effective. It will, I believe, may need to release of some defendants who shouldn't be released into the community.

Also, the time frame that it sets means that there's any adequate time for police, prosecutors and judges to be able to evaluate the individual circumstances of each offense in each offender. Also, I note that already the intake service center is not able to keep up with the backlog of bail reports.

With this kind of additional load and active time frame, I'm sure they won't be able to keep up. I will note with some satisfaction that the bill does give a nod to victim safety, but requiring notification of decisions made in the case by the prosecuting attorney. There are several problems with this.

To begin with, I'm concerned that the compacted time frame does not allow victims to be involved in the process of making a decision on bail or whether to release. It's only notifying them after the fact. It's sort of like, you know, closing the barn door after the cows got out.

Similarly, there is currently no provision like this in the statute. It says in the bill, it says Chapter 801D does not apply. And this would seem to expand the notification requirements to the prosecuting attorney's office. Currently it's with the Department of Corrections and rehabilitation. Under this measure, that wouldn't occur because these people don't make it to OCCC.

All of the automated victim notification that currently exists is based on OCCC and the other correctional facilities, individual being in custody there. There is no notification from release from court. There's no notification for release from the Police Department. So this means all these notifications would have to be manually done by someone in the prosecutor's office.

And currently, the work that they're doing primarily are focused because of the statute on violent offenses. This would expand it to make thousands and thousands of. I will note that this would require, I think, a huge increase in the number of staffing for the victim witness assistance programs.

And I do not see any appropriation attached to this bill. With that, I will again voice my opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dunn. So we received a total of 14 testimonies in support, 10 in opposition, one with comments. Anyone else wishing to testify on 2413, please.

Hello again, everybody. John Deutzman from Waikiki. Bail reform is already in the Hawaii constitution. Constitution says that judges can release almost everybody, no bail if they believe, reasonably believe, that they're going to return to court. That's what the constitution says. So this is all on the judges and on their discretion.

And if you want to meddle with their discretion, this could backfire like meddling with police discretion. Well, let me give you a real life example. On Waikiki, we had a guy who was released on his own recognizance on a non violent felony, crystal meth possession. The guy had 75 prior convictions.

He's a registered sex offender and dozens and dozens of failures to appear. But the judge decided, using this philosophy, let's let him go. It's a non violent felony. Twelve days later, he was arrested for attacking a police officer. He's in jail right now. Charges were filed for felony assault.

Law enforcement judges routinely release people here on a daily basis who have a horrific record of coming to court. They routinely release people who have horrific criminal records. The justice towards the criminals is already in place. And if you're going to go this far with such a radical change here, where is the data of failure to appear?

That's what this is all about. I have my data, my little Waikiki Data, and it's 73% failure to appear. But if the advocates want this so much, where is the data on that most important thing? They don't have it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify, if not, questions Members. Mr. Shimizu first.

Mr. Hugo, public defender. Judges already have the latitude to release non violent offenders. So why don't you think it's happening to the content of this bill? Because that's what the bill wants to provide, right?

Well, so the vast majority of nonviolent offenders, particularly those coming in on misdemeanors you can see any day in 7C, I can speak for my personal familiarity in this district, are going to be released.

Either they will plead straight to the charges, receive credit for time served, and they're gone, or the judge will release them on their cognizance, which is a pretty common outcome already anyway. Oftentimes those who are held are held because of the record.

Okay. A question for the Attorney General, if I may. Research cited in the testimony, including our street foundation, concludes that setting bail does not improve the failure to appear rates. Have you reviewed that research? I have not seen that. I'd like you to do that. And I mean, Mr. Deutzman is saying, where is the research?

Well, the testimony provides this and I was curious if you had looked at it, but I guess not. Okay, thank you. Liesel, are you there from our street? If so, I'd be curious.

You were here just recently and I appreciate your visit and when you were here, we went to Judge Johnson's court and observed how he was operating. Could you describe how you think this bill might improve what you saw?

Sure. Thank you for the question. Chair Tarnas. Liesel Pettis, Policy Director at the Archree Institute I was fortunate to observe court in Hawaii a couple weeks ago and I believe the bill really helps in two main ways.

First, the bill will reduce the number of low level, low risk defendants held in custody simply because they can't afford bail. So in Hawaii, what struck me, though honestly it didn't surprise me, was how many people charged with minor offenses were still on the in custody docket.

I saw the same thing when I was a prosecutor in Colorado before the state updated their bail practices. The same type of low risk, low income people sitting in jail not because they or dangerous or there was a risk of their flight, but really just because they couldn't even afford small bail amounts of 100 $250.

When Colorado made changes, the low level, that low level in custody docket largely disappeared. To be completely frank, I had concerns at first about public safety when those changes were made, but we did not see meaningful negative impacts.

Most people came back to court, most stayed crime free and when someone didn't, we responded with consequences for violating their release. And in serious cases or where there was in articulable flight or safety risk, judges still had the tools to set financial conditions or order detention when the law allowed, which Hawaii will also still retain.

Second, the bill helps keep pretrial decisions focused on what bill is limited and meant to do so in Hawaii. I did notice that bail discussions sometimes drifted towards a person's broader needs. So housing, substance use, mental health and that's very understandable the desire to help.

I also heard some test testimony today about the need to hold individuals accountable for their crimes and all those things are very important. But pretrial happens before any conviction and our constitution does require that persons are to be presumed innocent.

So the focus must stay on court appearance and public safety risk with conditions tailored to address those risks or detention only used to address the risk. So the bill reinforces that by requiring a clear and risk based record and conditions tied to specific flight or safety concerns. It doesn't take discretion away from judges.

They're still able to use those tools. They can still set conditions, require bail when warranted, deny release if appropriate and in accordance with law, and act quickly when someone violates release.

What I think it really changes is the default assumption that cash bail is necessary in these low level, low risk cases and the tendency to use detention by default through cash bail to address problems the pretrial system really isn't designed to solve like homelessness or behavioral health issues.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that perspective. Any other questions? Members? Otherwise, thank you very much. The Testifiers let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 1516 relating to pretrial release. This measure requires certain factors to be considered when determining a defendant's financial ability to afford bail. First up, we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs,

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. McKenna Woodward, on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, OHA supports this narrowly tailored bill and highlights that HV 1516 does not eliminate judicial discrimination discretion and does not remove consideration of offense severity or public safety.

This measure provides clearer guardrails so that bail functions as intended to reasonably assure court appearance without becoming an unintended driver of wealth based detention. Cash bail systems that do not accurately reflect ability to pay can result in individuals being detained pre trial solely due to poverty rather than their level of risk to the community.

As we heard in previous testimony.

By acknowledging any income derived from public benefits cannot be used to pay bail, and that for defendants whose household income exceeds 150% of the federal poverty level for Hawaii, it is reasonable to consider how this may affect their ability to pay within 40 hours of arrest, we can move closer to a system that promotes fairness and proportionality while maintaining public safety and court appearance requirements for the opportunity to testify.

Mahalo. Next, Office of the Public Defender. Ms. Chang,

Good afternoon. Again, I want to start by reading directly from the existing statute which says that the bail amount should be so determined as to not suffer the wealthy to escape by the payment a pecuniary penalty, nor to render the privilege useless to the poor. That is already in our statute.

And I want to emphasize that we, of course are supportive of the measure. The specific reasons why are in our written testimony. We believe that the financial considerations absolutely must be considered. But I think what is the crux of what we and it aligned with some of the other agencies believe that our current system is not working.

Our pretrial system, our bail system, which is why so much of today's agenda is focused on trying to make some sort of changes in reform.

If it were working the way that it should, and the courts and the prosecuting agencies were following this mandate that the bail amount should not benefit the rich and detrimentally impact the poor, then we wouldn't need to have this conversation.

But the reality of it is, again, as the agency that represents most of the criminal defendants in the state and definitely represents all of the indigent criminals criminally accused in the state. We can tell you that bail, cash bail, absolutely detrimentally impacts the poor in our community.

And again, what we've heard and what I think we sometimes forget is bail and release matters are for those who have been accused. There has not been an adjudication of guilt. There has not been a trial or a plea. These people have been accused and are being detained. And we are talking about bail.

So if we need to further clarify and articulate what needs to be considered before resetting this amount, then we are absolutely in support of it. Thank you very much and I'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Martha Torney, Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission.

The Oversight Commission supports this measure and considers the factors to consider when determining financial ability to pay bail. I just want to give the example that you people with limited resources. We've talked about the poor, but talk about the working class. The working class are making minimum wage. They can't pay $1,000 bail.

They just don't have that extra cash. So if I was arrested on a misdemeanor theft charge, Martha could easily pay $1,000. You have someone making minimum wage arrested on the same thing. They cannot. And that's what I object to, having that disparity. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Kelden Waltjen, Hawaii County Office of Prosecuting Attorney. Please proceed. Please proceed, Mr. Waltjen.

Aloha Chair, can you hear me? Yes, Aloha Chair. Vice Chair Poepoe, Committee Members, Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney Kelden Waldjen. We stand in strong opposition of this bill. Like the previous two bills heard today, this legislation is also not necessary. The court is already required to consider a defendant's ability, financial ability to afford bail.

What this bill does is it requires that a defendant's household income or public benefits be determined. But who is responsible for verifying that information? How will that be determined? I assume that given the time based restrictions, most of this information will be based upon by the defendant's own self reporting.

To address this, one suggestion would be to include a provision within the proposed amendment of 8049 that defense counsel be required to petition the court via a motion with an attached declaration attesting to the financial status of their client.

Furthermore, if the Legislature intends to amend hrs804.9, let's look at it from all angles, from all perspectives, offender, victim and community. When determining bail amounts, the court should also consider the defendant's criminal history, past Performance on court supervision such as release on own recognizance, supervised release, etc. And the status of the victim.

For example, is the victim a minor, elderly, handicapped, incapacitated household Member or a vulnerable person? I had a chance to review the testimony submitted in support of this bill by the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission in reference to HCCC. I have to respectfully disagree with their position as I. As I previously highlighted, the data represent HCCC.

88 to 92% consistently of those who are in custody at HCCC are being held on felony charges. They're not in custody because they can't afford bail. It's because they're facing serious charges or serving time on serious felony offenses. I appreciate the previous testimony by Mr. Leverance and I agree that we need to prioritize prevention efforts.

I too support programming. In fact, our office has a dedicated crime prevention unit that actively works on capacity building efforts within the Hawaii island community. Currently we focus on substance misuse, domestic violence, sexual assault and juvenile justice issues. The phrase revolving door. It's a phrase.

Summarize, please, Mr. Waltjen.

Yes sir, I'll summarize. Those of us who work in the criminal justice system hear this phrase every day. It refers to the public's dissatisfaction when offenders are prematurely released from custody, whether it be in a lenient sentence or because the judge thought that overcrowding justified it.

This bill is only further frustrate our community and promote the concept that our Legislature is more concerned with affording more protections to the criminally accused instead of victims and survivors of crime. People of Hawaii deserve to feel safe in their homes. They deserve to feel safe in their community.

Our community deserves legislation that's focused on public safety, protecting victims and survivors. Let's try to work together to collaborate and work on that. We submitted our written input and we're available to answer any of your questions. Mahalo.

Mahalo. I am trying Kat Brady Community alliance on Prisons

We support this bill because we think criminalizing poverty is a crime. So we support this bill and we're really grateful for the clause in it that says that they are receiving public benefits in order to survive. That that doesn't count toward their income. So thank you so much for that.

Thank you. Josh Frost, ACLU of Hawaii.

Thank you Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Our times My testimony is basically the same as the prior bill. I do want to highlight the testimony of the prosecutor, sorry, the public defenders. The way things are now in law, just it's not working. And we wholeheartedly agree there is seems.

To be a disturbing trend of criminalizing poverty both at the state level and the county level. One's ability to pay should have no impact on whether they're incarcerated or not. And this bill takes steps to correct things as they are now.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Leverinz not present. We received 10 testimonies in support to an opposition. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1516? If not questions, Members, thank you to the testifiers. We'll move on to the next measure, House Bill 1627 relating to sentencing.

This measure amends repeat offender sentencing provisions to allow sentencing courts under certain circumstances to sentence defendants in class c felony cases to probation with appropriate terms and conditions. First up, we have Attorney General Mr. Tom.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Deputy attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department submits testimony on House Bill 1627 in opposition. This bill would allow judges to sentence repeat offenders to terms of probation and do a mandatory mandatory prison repeat offender statute that was created back in 1976 through Act 181.

When that was created, it appeared that it was the Legislature was trying to combat repeat offenders by providing enhanced sentencing which the Legislature deemed so serious in nature that the mandatory prison terms were necessary. There's been two penal code review committees that have been formed since that was passed at least to 2016.

They addressed this section and they removed promoting dangerous drug in the third degree from that section and made references to the reason for their removal pursuant to their report that they provided to the Legislature. It did not have these broad stroking amendments that this Bill intends to do in 2025.

New pretrial bell Committee also provided to the Legislature a report and also in that one, it addressed this section and did not make such broad stroking amendments. I don't think that that's what the stakeholders believe is necessary at this time. I will be fair for any questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bento. Office of public defender.

Thank you and good afternoon. Once again, our office does strongly support this measure because we do believe that there are individuals that should benefit from their hard work and effort to rehabilitate themselves. And that's what we're really talking about here. Very, very limited exception to the repeat offender statute.

And already there are times when judges have seen the need for this type of measure and do what they can to help a person towards that rehabilitation.

So in other words, there are situations where some treatment programs can take up to two years for a person to finally get a clinical discharge, and judges have allowed, when that person is showing success, to stay in that program and to complete the program and earn that condition. Sorry. Earn. Earn that discharge.

And then at that point in time, the reality sets in. They have to then be sentenced by the court. And if they're a repeat offender on a class C felony that's enumerated in the statute, they have to receive an indeterminate term of five years with a mandatory minimum jail term.

Now, I've seen judges in certain circumstances, because the current statute allows this, to reduce the mandatory part of the sentence down to one day as a reflection upon that person's hard work to rehabilitate themselves, but they still must receive the indeterminate term of five years.

And so that means they fall into the same category as everybody else that's being sentenced in spite of their good efforts.

And, you know, we know now the current status of working with people with addiction and other issues, that that really is kind of a slap in the face to say that you achieved something that you probably never thought you could in your previous life.

But now you have to go into jail for five years and wait for the paroling authority to determine that you're working of being released back into the community.

So this allows a judge a very small exception for those people that have demonstrated, and I'm going to use the word, strong word here, but the right to be back in our community because they've proven that they can do so. Now, sometimes this doesn't happen on the first instance, the first touch with the criminal justice system.

I've had to sit and counsel people many times who have gone through the system 23 or four times before I can help them to realize that they need to change their life. But when that moment happens, we need to be ready to reach out to them and give them that help. Why?

Because we want them to return to the community better. People just warehousing them in our correctional facilities don't always do that. And I'm not saying public safety doesn't provide services they do. It's much more difficult to receive those services being incarcerated.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Hugo, Honolulu prosecuting attorney.

Good afternoon again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. And we oppose this bill. Repeat offenders belong in prison. Here's the eight things that have to happen before you are a repeat offender. Number one, you have to commit a felon. And not just any felony.

Certain enumerated felonies that are set out in the statute, like possessing child pornography, identity theft, or being a felon who illegally acquires a firearm. Second, you have to be confident. Caught and charged. Third, you have to be convicted of that felony offense.

Fourth, if it was a class C felony, you have to commit another felony within five years. So if you wait six years, you won't be a repeat offender. Fifth, you have to be charged again. And this time the prosecutor has to specify in the charging instrument from the start that you are being charged a repeat offender.

Sixth, you have to be convicted again. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. Twice. Seventh, you have to get a jury trial on repeat offender sentencing. There's a whole other trial on whether or not you are a repeat offender. Eighth, as Mr. Bento acknowledged, judges are allowed to downward depart from mandatory minimum sentences.

If you have completed all eight of those hoops, you are not turning a new leaf. You are a repeat offender. You should go to prison. If we are going to be counseling repeat offenders two times, three times, four times, five times, every single time, that is a danger to the public. That is a victim who is forgotten.

I'm glad when felons finally decide to give up their criminal conduct, that's a win for us. But in the meantime, we need to be serious and we need to incapacitate people who have proven that they are committed to a criminal course of conduct.

Thank you, Mr. Walton, Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney.

Hello, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and Committee Members of Lake County. Prosecuting Attorney Kelden Waltjen. We stand in strong opposition of this bill. We support the comments made by Deputy Attorney General Tom and DPA Hugo. This is another piece of legislation that we simply. We don't need.

The repeat offender statute was established to provide for proper accountability to protect public safety and serve as a deterrent for future criminal activity. It goes without saying, but being a prosecutor isn't an easy job. Prosecutors are the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system. We decide when there's enough to charge a case, when.

We decide when. If we don't have enough and we can't go forward with the case. And ultimately there's times that we get to decide what might be a fair resolution in the case and propose a resolution short of trial. Now, taking that into consideration, a prosecutor could decide not to seek the repeat offender enhancement.

I appreciate and support a multifaceted approach to addressing crime through a combination of prevention, education, treatment, rehabilitation, reintegration and victim services. But the last piece to that multifaceted approach is accountability.

Holding offenders accountable is paramount to a strong criminal justice system, a system that our community can trust. We don't need HB 1627. We submit in our written input. We're available to answer any of the questions you ask. Model.

Thank you. Kat Brady.

Aloha. Again, we support this measure. We think it's really important that the court have discretion, and this is for certain Class C felonies. The Bureau of Justice Statistics collects data on recidivism patterns of various people, including those on probation or discharged from prison.

The research suggests that while longer sentences may deter recidivism, the effectiveness of incarceration as a deterrent is not always strong. The impact of probation and parole is also a critical area of study as these post conviction supervision measures play a significant role in, in reducing recidivism. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Josh Frost.

Thank you again. ACLU stands in support of this bill. Briefly, you know, as others have said, this bill will give greater discretion to judges imposing, to impose probation in very limited circumstances. Also, at a time when our jails and prisons are struggling with overcrowding, this bill might provide some small semblance of relief.

And then I, you know, would reiterate what the public defenders and others have said. And so we stand in support.

Thank you very much. We received a total of six testimonies in support, six in opposition. Anyone else wishing to provide oral testimony on this measure? House Bill 1627. On Zoom or in the room. If not Questions? Members not. Thank you to all the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure.

House Bill 2279 relating to expungement orders, amending Section 831.3.2. How I revise statutes to reflect that a person who is arrested for or charged with a crime but convicted of a violation is is eligible for an expungement of their arrest record for that incident. First up, McKenna Woodward, Office of Hawaiian Affairs,

Again Chair and Members. OHA appreciates this bill's consistency with Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in Barker V. Young in 2023 and supports this measure as we have heard directly from community Members about the lasting barriers created by arrest records, even in cases where no conviction of a crime occurred.

If the state pursues criminal charges against an individual but the conviction is ultimately for a violation, the state has a responsibility to ensure the person does not face disproportionate and unjust barriers to employment, housing, education and economic stability thereafter. Mallow for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. Haley Chang, Office of Public Defender.

Good afternoon. Again, the Office of the Public Defender strongly supports this measure, just noting that it codifies in statutes the holding of the Hawaii Supreme Court in Barker v. Young. And this situation does actually happen more frequently than people might expect. It's a mechanism used to negotiate plea agreements.

It's a common way that petty misdemeanor and sometimes misdemeanor offenses are resolved. And we believe that appropriately so, those people should be able to apply for punishment and that it be clear by statute if they qualify. So thank you for the opportunity. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Kat Brady,

We support this bill strongly. A violation is not a crime, as the bill states. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Josh Frost, ACLU.

Thank you again. ACLU stands in support in the digital era, with nearly nine in 10 employers, four in five landlords and four in five colleges now using background checks, any record, no matter how minor, can put employment, housing, education and other basics permanently out of reach. We did. I did.

In our testimony, we do request that expungement be state initiated. Research shows that just because someone is eligible for expungement doesn't mean that they'll necessarily get it. Inability to even know that it's an option, inability to afford a lawyer, pay court fees, or figure out how to navigate the petition process can be challenging.

So for all those reasons, we support the Bill and hope that we can get it state initiated.

Thank you very much. We Received a total of seven testimonies, all in support and anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2279. If not questions, Members, thank you to the testifiers. We're going to move on to the next measure, House Bill 1716. Changing topics here, we're going to talk about elections.

This measure establishes a process by which any political party continuously listed on the General election ballot for 20 or more years shall be deemed continuously qualified for ballot placement. First up, we have the Attorney General.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair Member of Committee Charles Zhang Min Lee, Deputy Attorney General so this bill would permanently exempt political parties that have been on the general election ballot for 20 consecutive years from petition based re qualification, creating a separate favorite ballot access track for those parties they are concerned.

First question is the potential equal protection risk from a two tier system, especially where the bill's findings single out a party by name. And second, a policy and practical gap because exempt party would not have to show ongoing voter support. So to reduce this risk, we recommend in our written test comments.

So if you have any questions, I'll be here to answer them. Great. Thank you very much.

Next. Ann Frederick, Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action on Zoom. Please proceed.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Tina. I'm here for Annie and Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. We are in full support of HB 1716. Democracy works best when participation is easily possible. Not just for the powerful and well resourced, but for everyone who chooses to show up and engage.

So imagine being asked to prove that you can drive every single year, not because anything changed and not because there was any violation, but just because the rules says so.

At some point the repeated requirement stops being about safety and just starts being about paperwork, time, money and energy spent reproving something that hasn't been in question for a long time. That's what we're asking of political parties that have spent 20 or more consecutive years on the ballot.

They've already proven that they can organize, they've already proven they can comply with election law, and voters have continued to support their presence in our political process year after year, election after election. And yet they still have to keep petitioning just to maintain what they've already earned.

We think that HB 1760 says it's unnecessary and we agree reducing that burden doesn't weaken our elections, it just makes them more fair. It frees up resources for parties and for the Office of Elections to focus on what actually matters. So we respectfully urge you to support HB 1716. Thank you.

Thank you Very much. Dave Mullinix. Greenpeace not present. Nikolananda, Please proceed. Please proceed.

Thank you. Chair Aloha, State of Hawaii, House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Poepoe. My name is Nikhil Ananda, a resident of Ho on Maui. I want to start my testimony by saying two things. First of all, listening to all that testimony I was just listening to for a couple hours.

This is not a matter of life and death. That was fascinating. Listening to discussion on the criminal justice system. However, it is similar in that it is a matter of fairness. I also want to accept Tina's prior testimony. She was spot on. And mahalo for allowing me to remotely testify here out in the jungle on Maui.

My name is Nikki Lananda and I'm a resident of Coelho on Maui. I strongly support this Bill, HB 1716, requesting that HRS.

1161 and 62 be amended so that a political party which has been continuously qualified on the ballot in Hawaii for 20 consecutive years or more be permanently secured and listed on the ballot in Hawaii without the need to repetition the State of Hawaii to remain on the ballot.

I would also accept the Attorney General's suggestion, remove the Green Party. Just make it any party that's been on for 20 or more years. Listen to what Tina just said. This is a matter of fairness, equity and justice.

Two political parties seem to be treated differently, not being required to petition year after year to remain on the ballot in Hawaii. This additional inconvenient burden required of other parties is discriminatory and serves little beneficial purpose for our state other than demand that certain political parties need to maneuver discriminatory, burdensome and onerous rules and regulations.

The Green Party in Hawaii has been and continuously remained on the ballot in Hawaii since first qualifying in 1992. That's over 34 years ago. Since then, the Green Party of Hawaii has successfully petitioned seven times over the years.

In 94, the Green Party qualified to be on the ballot as a result of obtaining the minimum amount of votes required in 1992 in a statewide rank. In that case for Senate, the Green party successfully repetitioned in 96.

In 98, the state of Hawaii demanded that the Green Party had to repetition because we hadn't met the requirement that at that time required three successful petition drives we challenged. Can I ask you to summarize, please? Yes, you could ask me to summarize and I'll try to speak faster to get it all down. Thank you very much.

And thank you for laughing at. The Green Party sued and we won on that. Don't go on too much longer. I am. Okay, great. Cut me off when I got on too long. I'm just saying that we have success because all the parts are important into this petition. So I request.

I request that the part 61 and also I want section hrs. 1161, parts 2 to 5 to be taken out. These are burdensome and unacceptable for fairness and equality. Enough is enough. Start. Stop discriminatory practices towards the Green Party of Hawaii and other political party minor parties in the state.

When voters of Hawaii are approached, they want more parties on the ballot. Change and amend these sections, the relevant laws, rules and regulations so that a certain amount of time a political party is permanently included on the state of Hawaii ballot. And a reminder, the legislation says 20 years. You can change that to 25 years.

But the Green Party of Hawaii has been on the ballot for 34 years. And yet we're continually required to repetition. Thank you very much for listening to my testimony remotely from the jungles of Maui.

Thank you very much. We do have your written testimony, so we have the details there. We've received a total. Thank you very much. Certainly. We've received A total of 13 testimonies in support. One with comments. Anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 1716? If not questions, Members if not. Yes. Representative Shimizu.

Am I able to ask a question of Mr. Nago?

He didn't testify.

Can I ask a question of the Blue Party person who just testified then?

Only if he can answer quickly.

Yes, I can answer quickly.

Go ahead, Mr. Shimizu. Thank you. Mr. Nikhil Ananda, you asserted that there's

discrimination the Green Party. Are you saying that the other two major parties don't have to do what you do?

Yes, exactly. They don't have to petition. They're included. I don't want to get into all the politics on that, but yes. Do you see the Republican Party ever test ever petitioning? No. Do you see the Democrats ever petitioning? No. Thank you very much for allowing me to respond to him.

Sure, sure. Thank you. Certainly, I appreciate it. Any other questions? If not, we'll move on to the next measure. House Bill 2078 relating to habitual violent crime.

This measure amends Act 213, Session Laws of Hawaii 2024 by repealing its sunset date and requiring the Criminal Justice Research Institute to submit a one time report to the Legislature prior to the regular session of 2031. Requires the attorney General in consultation with the Criminal Justice Research Institute to submit ongoing annual reports to the Legislature first up.

Mr. Tom. Attorney General.

Good afternoon. Chair. Vice Chair. Representative Shimizu. I'll keep this very short. The Department supports this bill. House Bill 2078. This is part of the law enforcement coalition package. It was voted unanimous agreement by all Members which is includes the Attorney General, Chief of Police and prosecutors from each county as well as the Director of law enforcement.

Department supports this and asks the Committee to pass it bill. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Paul Okamoto, Honolulu Police Department. Please proceed. Mr. Okamoto.

Hi. Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Major Palo Komodo with the Honolulu Police Department and I'm currently assigned to a sea Patrol operations in Waikiki. The Hon Peace Department is in strong support of Hospital 2078.

We already have good laws that have been passed to address repeat offenders for abuse of household Member and other specific individual crimes. But Act 213 allows us for stiffer consequences for those fre. For those that frequently resort to the use of violence in the commission of different crimes.

It's also been our experience that the Police Department hasn't seen a proliferation of charging individuals for Act 213. So I believe we can safely assume that removing the sunset date will not result in unreasonable increase in incarcerations. We'd like to see Act 213 continue past its original sunset date. So I ask if you support this Bill.

Thank you. And I'll be happy to ask any question.

Thank you very much. Mr. Hugo.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair of Members of the Committee, Daniel Hugo for the prosecutor's office. We support this measure. We do believe that felony prosecutions are substantively different. This will allow us to prosecute certain people who otherwise would have been charged as misdemeanors as felon for felony prosecution based on predicate acts.

But it still requires us to select those cases. We're not just going to rubber stamp it for each case. And it's important that going forward we're able to have a long term longitudinal view of how this bill or how this law goes forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Kat Brady.

Aloha again. You know, I did some research on habitual violent crime and you know, it started in the 1900s and it was part of eugenics. And 49 states today have habitual violent crimes on the books. So by the mid 20th century, the term was closely associated with scientific racism and authoritarian control.

So I just wanted to say that because it's really bugging me. Crime is declining. It's all over the press. We know that crime is down in just about Every category. And in my testimony, I go through several things and I put a chart in there from the real time crime index, so crime is decreasing.

I think it's important that we gather data. One of the suggestions we have is years ago we had something called the Sentencing Simulation Project, and that was. It started with the Department of Public Safety. Actually, Martha Torney was really involved in that. And that gave legislators like they could actually see a chart.

What would the impact of this bill do in terms of population? So I think those things are really important. My problem with the Criminal Research Institute is they seem to work in a very dark area because it's never actually shared with the public.

And I think if we're going to be doing this kind of research, it is really important that the public actually be part of that and be apprised of what's happening. We'd like to see reports from them about what they're doing and how that would help our testimony, how it would inform our testimony.

So I'm all about accountability and openness. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Josh Frost,

Hello again, hopefully for the last time this afternoon. Josh Frost is still you of Hawaii. We just had some comments on this bill. The language in the preamble suggests that the sunset should be lifted because ample time hasn't been given to collect the data and do the research. And while that may be true, it also is.

We don't know whether this is necessary. So if the Committee chooses to advance the bill, we ask that rather than lifting the sunset, you extend it to a period sufficient to collect and analyze the data to see whether or not this is even something that's worth maintaining.

Additionally, we also request that the bill be amended to include a comprehensive impact statement to assess how the proposed penal code changes may affect the incarcerated population, including potential consequences for sentence length and facility capacity.

Thank you very much. Mr. Deutschman, did you want to testify? I see you've got testimony that you've submitted.

Yeah, real quick, please go ahead. Stand by my written testimony. I was strong supporter of this when it passed. The only objection by the criminal justice advocates was we're going to put more people in jail. We haven't put anybody in jail yet with this.

Part of the reason is felonies take a long time to percolate through the system. Two, three years, four years sometimes. But more importantly, as I testified to this is a very small subset of the community out there that has enough of these violent crimes teed up to be eligible.

So it's a very small but very dangerous population that's out there. There is some data that I got. Again, not from the multimillion dollars that we spend on data, but according to the HPD data dashboard, the target of this, which was assault of the third degree, is down 8% between 2024 and 2025.

There's 526 less cases of that crime. Whether that's directly related, I can't prove that. But it's kind of good news that that sound anecdotally the guy who's got four convictions for assault in the third degree in Waikiki was out on the sidewalk on Sunday with a two by four waving it at nobody in particular.

And his friend had a can of lighter fluid that he was simulating squirting it on the tourists. So there might be a guy that could be teed up for this pretty quickly.

Thank you. Thank you very much. So we've received a total of nine testimonies, six in support, one in opposition, two with comments. Anybody else wishing to testify on House Bill 2078? Not questions Members. If not, we'll move on to the next measure. Thank you. To the testifiers.

HB2089 relating to a certiorari review by the Hawaii Supreme Court establishes a fixed disposition deadline requiring the Supreme Court to decide an application for cert to Irari within 60 days after the application is filed.

Applies prospectively to cases in which the judgment or dismissal order of the Intermediate Court of Appeals was filed on or after the effective date of this act. First up, we have Attorney General Lauren Shun testifying in person.

Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair. I'll be brief Deputy Attorney General Lauren Chun for the Department of the Attorney General. Our Department supports this bill. We think that the public would benefit from the certainty it provides, from the additional time for review it provides and the clarity on the deadlines. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Nicholas Severson, the Judiciary.

Aloha Chair Vice Chair, Committee Members Nick Seberson, staff attorney for the Hawaii Supreme Court, testifying on behalf of the judiciary in support of this bill. I'll be very brief. This bill would greatly improve judicial efficiency and provide clarity for both litigants and the public.

So we stand on our written testimony in support of this bill and I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. Haley Chang, Public Defender.

Good afternoon. Again, the Office of the Public Defender supports this measure. The existing statute requires tracking and calendaring and retracking. And this just makes it very clear. So we are in support. We believe it will Promote efficiency and better transparency for the public about the appellate process. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on HB2089? If not questions, Members not thank you very much. The testifiers. Moving on to the next measure, House Bill 2099 relating to vacancies. This measure amends the processes for addressing party candidate and state Senator vacancies. First up we have Scott Nago, Office of Elections.

Thank you for your patience, sir.

Chair, Mike Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify and support. This bill aligns the vacancy process for Senate candidates, our state Senators with the federal Uniform Overseas Citizens Voting act, which allows us to meet the 45 day mailing requirement. And I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Next. Shelby Pikachu Billionaire on Zoom. Not present in support. We received a total of five testimonies, all in support. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not questions, Members, thank you very much to the testifiers. We'll move on. House Bill 2132 relating to voting.

This measure authorizes state agencies to implement automatic voter registration if designated by the Office of Elections. It requires eligible applicants for instruction permits, provisional licenses, driver's licenses and identification cards to be automatically registered or pre registered to vote unless the applicant opts out. First up, Mr. Nago, Office of Elections,

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on HB 2132. We support the intent of this bill and we're just. We appreciate the committee's efforts to expand access to voting and strengthen civic engagement. And I'll be happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have comments from city and county Honolulu Department of Customer Services. Next we have Glenn Takahashi, Office of the City Clerk. Next. Ann Frederick, Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. Next. Cameron Hurt. Thank you for your patience, sir. You have the floor.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Cameron Hurt. I'm here behalf of Common Cause Hawaii here in strong support of this bill. We you guys have our written testimony. We're going to stand proudly on that. But I would like to highlight some things. First, we have heard pushback that there

is a fear of non citizens being able to get the right to vote because of a measure like this. That is a complete fallacy and we're proud of that. We know that right now we have an opt in system and non citizens do not vote now. Why?

Because the system still has to be verified with the Office of Elections. Therefore, if you're not able to vote now you're not going to be able to vote under this new system. There's no way for it. In fact, we worked across lines with both Members of parties to make sure that this would be applicable to all Members.

And what we found was that for some who were more worried about non citizens voting, the DMV was the best place because the threshold was so high. We took that into account when making this bill. That's why it says every eligible voter, if you're not a citizen, you're not eligible.

We also wanted to make sure that we were being fiscally responsible with our state. We understand where we are in this moment as a nation and where our state is with cuts. When we were able to look into a system which we already have a partial. That's the good thing about we already have partial.

It's a $35,000 implementation with a $1.2 million surplus and a presidential election. We're talking about making money from people voting, and that ties into other things that we're working on. When we talk about needing more money to have more in person voting locations. Right. We're looking at a way that we can get possible passive revenue.

And at the end of the day, this is again, all about making sure that every American, born or naturalized, has the easiest time to get to the ballot.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next person that said they would wish to testify is Ralph Cushnie on Zoom. Please proceed, Mr. Cushnie.

Yeah. Thank you. My name is Ralph Cushnie. I'm a Member of the. I'm against this bill. On its face, it seems like it's a good idea, but in reality, it is a very bad idea. This bill will allow bad actors to insert or add voters electronically to the

voting rolls and to the people who are listed as voted. So what. What's happening is our elections are not verifiable. On the Big Island, we had 19,000 more ballots than we had.

Mr. Cushnie, could I interrupt? May I interrupt, sir? Are you driving?

I am driving.

Oh, this is dangerous. Could you summarize, please? I. I'm just worried.

I'll pull over for you. So there was 19,000 or ballots than there were envelopes received. So what's happening? We're trying to figure out where these ballots.

Could you please focus your comments on the bill itself, not on other matters.

This all ties back to the bill. So let me speak about it.

The bill is about automatic voter registration. If you could speak to that.

That's what I'm. That's. That's what I'm talking about. So what this build, what this allows to happen. The population of people that is likely to verify if they voted or not is going to be signed up. And then ballots can be assigned electronically for them by having a large voter pool of people that are highly unlikely

to look at the to see if they voted it or not. So the state welfare recipients who are getting benefits and that's all they want to do, they're going to be automatically registered to vote with no op, and they have to sign out, fill out paperwork to opt out. So anyway, this is a bad idea. Quiet.

Had several thousand votes or ballots that could not be accounted for. Maui had no records in the city and county of Honolulu. Had no records of receiving the envelopes at the drop boxes. Could you summarize, please? Thank you. Yes. So I'm against this, and it's just a way to insert ballots electronically. Thanks.

Okay, thank you very much. So we've received seven testimonies in support, six in opposition, two with comments. Anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? If not. Questions. Members. Representative Shimizu, a quick question.

Mr. Nago, please. So the issue of citizenship or proof of citizenship has come up. So will proof of citizenship be established and verified in this new system?

I believe it would still be where you. So currently, when you register to vote in Hawaii, you have to answer three questions. Are you a US citizen? Are you 18 years of age? And are you a resident of Stanford?

And I believe it'd be the same way where you just have to test the three statements to register to vote.

You said you believe it to be so, but is it.

Are you sure? I don't believe this bill requires proof of citizenship. It's the same process, but we have to automatically register them when they go to the application. It's the same process. We use it. Same process. It's just they're automatically registered when they use these services.

I'm not sure about that. That's the reason I'm questioning it. Because the way I read it is they're using. And I'm all for border registration. We need to get people to vote. But to vote as a citizen is our. Is our privilege. And I just want to make sure that that is being upheld.

Because if you're doing your license and you have the opportunity to automatically be registered to vote, are you saying that via this process you opt. You have to opt out. So you're automatically registered to vote? So I don't know what is the mechanism of you're applying for your license and automatically you're now registered to Vote.

So is there a process that goes from doing your license you didn't opt out to getting to now you're automatically registered to vote? Is there that process that you're talking about that verifies citizenship?

No, I think it's just the self, just self subscribing to those three questions. You have to say you're a US citizen, you're 18 years of age and you are a resident of Hawaii,.

Which is the same thing that we do now.

What we do now and you sign to that.

So it's the same method we do now. It's just that it, it's the difference between opt in and opt out.

And it's only people who are eligible to register that will be automatically registered, not non citizens.

So if they're doing this, they're somehow not a citizen and of course they can get a license maybe and they didn't opt out. So now they go through this questionnaire to try and get register.

If they're not a citizen, as you say, the question is there and they don't pass that question, then they won't be registered to vote.

Okay, Mr. Garcia.

Question for Scott. Since we implemented the automatic voter registration, the opt in program, how much or what increase did we see to the registration count here in Hawaii?

It's, I don't know if it's necessary the registration count, but it, what it does help with is when you move and you renew your license, that helps in the process of us or the clerks of actually registering you properly. So as you know, if you move you have to re register your registration does not follow you.

And that's when people you got to get, you have to have a driver's license for the current address. And that's where we catch a lot of the people with this registration process because they have to get a license and then in the process they will re register.

Right. But prior to us implementing the automatic voter registration previously the, the opt in program, you had to contact the office of Elections to, to even register or go to the post office or get an application to fill it out. Right. Or go online.

But it's, it's really hard to see because the federal mode of voter act required the driver's license to provide that registration services.

So that was prior to the automatic. Okay, so that was always attached to it. That was, that was a fair law. Okay, I have 11 more question. Sheriff for the Department of Customer Services.

I don't think we have anybody here for them.

Nobody came and it would be them who's doing this process. All right, well, that's unfortunate. Thank you. Okay.

Can I ask one last question? We really do need to move on if it's. If that's okay, sir. Okay, let's. Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2106 relating to financial disclosures. This measure expands the scope of persons who are subject to public financial disclosure requirements. Mr. Robert Harris, State Ethics Commission.

Thank you for your patience, sir.

Good afternoon. Aloha Chair, Tarnas Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee, thank you for hearing this bill. I'll try to be brief. In 2014, this Legislature wisely established a public disclosure requirement for certain key boards and commissions, ones that had great fiscal authority, or sort of colloquially would say a lot of power.

This measure today would do two main significant things. First, it would require the Executive Directors or Executive Offices of those board commissions. And selfishly, I'd say that would actually include myself and require those people to also file public disclosure financial disclosure publicly.

In addition, it would include five new boards and commissions to the list that would have public disclosure requirements. So those are listed and these are ones that are, I think objectively you can look at. They have submitted significant fiscal authority.

And there's a very concrete reason why for public confidence, we want to make sure that there are no conflicts of interest and the decisions made by those boards or commissions. I would also like to note we suggested some amendments.

One of them specifically is to acknowledge a good recommendation made by one of the testifiers that we're trying to address that specifically in it. It also does I call administrative catch up. I'm happy to get into more detail if you'd like.

But what it really is trying to do is ensure that even if the titles change, some of the positions, like the University of Hawaii, frequently will do updates and they'll change the titles. The idea is the requirements would stay the same regardless of what the title would be over time. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Happy to answer any questions.

Sure. Thank you. So we received 10 testimonies, nine in support, one with comments. Anyone else wishing to testify on HB2106? If not questions, Members? Representative Shimizu, Ethics, please.

I heard you say that you would be one to also have to do this, correct? Proud of you. Thank you. And I guess the last question would be how were these positions determined? As far as was it your.

Your own solely to do that, or you had a Committee or you mean the recommendations in this Bill to be added? This was done by the commission or the ethics commission. So this is a Bill they've recommended.

But we did do a poll of a number of different individuals specifically, specifically connected to some of the boards and commissions and tried to do some reach out. The decision to add Executive Directors or Executive Officers was made based upon the assumption that frequently those people are the ones making a lot of the decisions and actions.

They are granted discretionary authority.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? Thank you. If not, we'll move on. Thank you. 2107 relating to political fundraising by Executive branch employees. This measure prohibits any Executive branch employee who is nominated or appointed by the Governor to a compensated position subject to confirmation by the Senate from engaging in certain campaign fundraising activities.

First up, we have Christy Chang, Campaign Spending Commission. Welcome. Thanks for your patience.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, Members of the Committee, Christy Chang from the Campaign Spending Commission. The commission supports this bill which we believe will prevent data play practices or at least the appearances of these practices and also represents a step towards improving public's confidence in government. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Mr. Harris. State Ethics Commission.

Thank you again. Chair. Vice Chair, Members of the commission. The Ethics Commission is in strong support of this measure. This measure was instituted based on a story allegedly that the Executive Officer was arranging parties to connect contractors to political candidates.

The appearance of that, regardless of whether the allegations are true, obviously draws the supposition that the contracting, the procurement authority, is being used to help motivate contractors to donate to certain candidates or vice versa. And the idea that that is occurring is obviously something that would directly undermine public confidence in government.

So the effort here is to try to draw a very narrowly tailored restriction on a very narrow group of individuals who have essentially very high levels of authority and specifically to be involved in in the procurement process and trying to pull them away from the political fundraising process itself.

This is a measure that we spent months developing and did do it in coordination with AG's office. So there is a fair amount of thought that went into this and we're happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you very much. Mr. Billionaire on Zoom. Not present. So we've received A total of 10 testimonies in support. One in opposition. Anyone else wish to testify in 2107? If not questions? Seeing none, we'll move on.

I have a question.

Oh, yep. Rep. Belatti.

Mr. Harris. And we don't have testimony from the AG?

Nope.

Okay. I really appreciate this because I can remember when that. I think it was a New York Times story that broke and it was actually pretty stunning. And it was actually pretty disappointing. Do we already, from what I remember from that story, were the parties happening on state property?

I don't recall. I apologize. I couldn't answer that. I think if it was happening on state property, that would be problematic, and that's something we can investigate. I'm not sure if we ever got evidence.

Okay. Okay. Really appreciate that you folks are following up on this because I think to have that kind of story done. And I remember on that very day that we, I think, had an opportunity to pass on some campaign finance reform, and we didn't pass that bill on that day.

And so I really appreciate that you guys have worked on this. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, we'll move on. House Bill 2505 relating to assist assisted community treatment. Forgive me if I don't read the whole description. We'll go on to the testifiers. Department of Health.

Good afternoon, Chair. Vice Chair. I'm Courtney Matu, Deputy active Deputy Director for Behavior Health Administration. We're here testifying, support and offering some amendments. Essentially, assisted community treatment is an essential tool to promote adherence to mental health and substance use treatment and prevent relapse or deterioration that could result in the individual becoming imminently dangerous to self or others.

Allowing the community mental health outpatient program to partner with the hospital to file petitions will allow for more coordination between inpatient clinical teams and outpatient treatment providers. We respectfully request an amendment to address the length of time from petition filing to decision making on petitions.

The time from petition filing to initial hearing to evidentiary hearing to decision and issued actionable order averages sometimes more than three months, which does present a challenge to the community hospitals. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next person said they wish to testify is Angie Knight, Institute for Human Services.

Hi, Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Angie Knight with IHS. We stand in support of this measure. We do want to offer comment in that we do support the suggested revisions. Right now there's a revolving door of

some of our most vulnerable continuously going through Deferral of Act 26 to the hospital getting discharged on the criminal proceedings, but not receiving mental health treatment. And so this bill helps close that gap and also uses the evidence of the unfit proceedings to also help them get the necessary treatment under the Family Court.

So thank you for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much. We received four testimonies in support, one with comments. Anyone else wishing to testify on HB2505 questions Members?

Members, if not Aloha, Chair, Apologies.

Hi. Please introduce yourself.

Afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members, my name is Scott Boone. I'm a staff attorney for the First Circuit Family Court. Testify on behalf of the Judiciary on this bill. We appreciate the concerns raised by the Department of Health and I'd like to address that by raising two points and context for the Committee.

First, I want to talk about that statement regarding the three month average case length from the initial hearing to the evidentiary hearing. We frankly haven't had time to confirm that data. But what I would say to that is, you know, the judiciary can only move as fast as the right to due process allows.

For a vast majority of these cases, the subject is out in the community and they're typically houseless. And so from our experience, these subjects can be difficult to locate, which means it's difficult to serve them with the petition and likewise hard for the guardian ad litem to locate the subject and consult with them.

So those two due process issues are far and away the biggest factors contributing to case length. And so that's, you know, your typical case. However, for the petitions that are at issue in this measure, none of those concerns exist.

That's because the Department of Health would typically have custody of the subject, which means that the process server and the guardian ad litem can simply just show up at the hospital to find the subject.

So, and even if the Department of Health doesn't have custody and the subject is in a lesser restrictive alternative placement, again, the court can only move as fast as the right to process allows.

And then briefly, you know, the second point I want to raise is there's a statement in written testimony regarding it taking an additional week after the evidentiary hearing for an order to be issued.

You know, first off, we think that turnaround time is reasonable, but the way these cases work the judges make their decision orally immediately after the evidentiary hearing. Then what happens is the petitioner is required to file a proposed order, and from there the court will issue its final written order.

In one case we pulled, just as an example, the petitioner took 40 days to file their proposed order. And so that's likely skewing those departments the numbers that the Department citing.

So at any rate, you know, the best way for the Department of Health to expedite the issuance of written orders is just by them timely filing their proposed orders. I'm not saying they were the one that waited 40 days, but that's just the example.

So again, we respectfully recommend that the Committee declines to adopt the Department of Health's amendments. And we'll be available for any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any questions, Members? One question.

Yeah, Quick question. Is Mike Goodman here?

No.

Can I maybe. The Department of Health, Mike Goodman's language proposes saying that the clinical team shall identify a community non custodial mental health program striking the term outpatient. And he makes the point to say that the change would allow for people to be placed in group homes, respite Kohale and adult foster family care homes.

Does the Department oppose that amendment? No, we don't. And I just want to clarify. This will now ensure us that if we can find placement with one of these inpatient homes, we're not just releasing them to their own recourse.

Like this is the language that will allow placement in an in inpatient program where there's more support that AMHD holds contracts with. Right. But they're not.

So you're. I think the language that he proposes broadens it so that it allows other providers to take part in this. I don't know if there's any kind of impact per se on inpatient or outpatient, because they're not. Once they're discharged, they're discharged.

So I guess from the community's perspective, a lot of these individuals are circling into just back. And they keep coming back. Right. Because they're not being placed in programs where they actually have the support services.

I just want to know that the Department supports this language and if it can accomplish what the problem is, which is we're not able to find placements for these people in places where they can get the background services. Does this language do that?

I'll have to get back to you to say for sure if the language addresses that issue. But in terms of in general, I don't think we have it.

Let's move on to the next measure. House Bill 2446, relating to the wage and hour law, authorizes Department of Labor and Industrial Relations to establish a community wage theft enforcement Partnership Program Program and enter into contracts and MOAs with community based organizations. First up, Department of Labor and industrial relations. Mr. Butai, thanks for being here.

Good afternoon. Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm Jade Butai, Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. We stand on our testimony offering comments. We acknowledge the issues identified and we agreed further work is necessary.

However, we believe that the most effective path forward is continued engagement with community based organizations rather than imposing new statutory requirements. Thank you for the opportunity.

Certainly. Thank you. Kami Yamamoto, Please proceed.

Aloha Chair and Vice Chair. My name is Kami Yamamoto. I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaii Workers Center. We also stand on our testimony that we submitted.

And I just like to reaffirm the fact that a bill like this would ensure accountability and not only for the people, the workers that we serve, but for the general community here in Hawaii.

While we serve primarily migrant workers, this bill would support all workers here in Hawaii, and increased outreach will only prove to have better outcomes in terms of wage theft enforcement.

So while we can continue to collaborate with the DLIR and, you know, foster a working relationship, we'd also like to ensure that there's some sort of accountability measurement in place. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Tina Satlan, Legal Clinic. Referring to the testimony, Rose Elovitz.

Hi, I'm present.

Oh, please proceed.

Yeah, of course. Aloha. My name is Rose. I'm a worker and I'm a community member. I just wanted to say that I stand in full support of this bill.

I think that having third party organizations be like active collaborators with the DLIR is a great way to ensure that we're bridging gaps between the most vulnerable populations subjected to wage theft and the bureaucratic systems that are often really difficult for workers to access. And. Yeah, that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And Misty Pegram, anyone else wishing to testify in House Bill 2446? If not questions, Members? Mr. Shimizu.

Mr. Butai, your testimony at the end says it may be duplicative and respectfully suggests its necessity be further evaluated. So you say it may be duplicative. So what this bill is asking, is it already being done?

I think at this point, we already have the authority and the flexibility to do what this bill is already asking. So, I mean, we, you know, we're not opposed to doing any Collaboration. In fact, we regularly conduct educational outreach in the community.

So would this bill create more work for you or cost or?

Yeah, definitely create more work because then, you know, we will get more. But like I said, we don't need the bill. We already have the flexibility.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you to the testifiers on this measure, let's move on to the next measure, House Bill 2023 relating to transportation. This, beginning in July 1, 2030 makes circumventing or tampering with an active intelligence speed assistance system a misdemeanor.

Requires Department of Transportation to select a vendor for installation and maintenance of active intelligence speed assistance systems and some other provisions on this. First up, we have Mr. Bento, Office of Public Defender.

Good afternoon once again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, the Office of the Public Defender doesn't oppose the spirit of the measure. We all use the highways and we want them to be safe from speeders.

However, we do have a few concerns about the language because we think it's a little over broad and does not speak to the specifics of what we believe the Bill is meant to do, which is to keep speeders from using our public highways and speed on them. You've got some amendments you suggest, and

we did suggest a couple of amendments so that it would read and focus on persons that were putting their vehicles on the public highway because. Putting them or using. Sorry, I should just back up and say that the Bill requires any person who would qualify for an ASIS system to have that on any vehicle that they use.

So an employer's vehicle would have to have it. If they're using it on a farm, a ranch, on a construction site, they would have to have the ASA system, which would not really be necessary.

Also, the language dealing with tampering doesn't take into consideration the fact that mechanics or technicians, even people working on their own cars, might have to turn that system off in order to repair the vehicles.

So what we would suggest is that added language that would state a person tampers only with the intention or knowledge to circumvent or aid in the circumvention of any vehicular speed law within the state of Hawaii. That would refocus the attention, I think, on what the purpose of the Bill is. Thank you.

Thank you for your suggested amendments. Next, Ed Sniffin, Department of Transportation for his representative. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you. Aloha. Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poiko, Members of the Committee, Tammy Lee, Deputy Director for the Department of Transportation. So just to summarize our testimony and prolonged provide a little bit of data. We closed out 2025 with 128 fatalities. This was a 20% increase from 2024. More than 90% of these fatalities are attributable to human behavior.

From 2019 to 2023, nearly half of the fatalities were linked to speeding drivers. These active intelligence speed assistants or speed limiters actively intervenes to limit or reduce the vehicle speed of the driver. It just restricts acceleration to the detected posted speed limit. It uses technology like gps.

When there's no cell phone service, the device will default to what the DOT will predetermine as a speed setting until back into cell service. So, thank you, Mr. Bento. So we would like to address some of the comments from the public defender's office.

Thank you.

So yes, we agree with the standing and it should be the agreed parties with the language that was suggested. We do agree with the mailbox rule and we do support clarifying language to ensure that off road farm construction and other vehicles are not unintentionally included.

We also agree with the clarifying language about the tampering to include knowingly and with the intent to evade enforcement of the vehicle speed laws. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Lee. Next. Tiffany Yajima, alliance for Automobile Innovation. Comments? No. Chad Taniguchi, please proceed. Mr. Taniguchi,

Sorry for my delay. It looks like AAA, the motorists, the auto manufacturers and police and prosecutors support this. And thank you Chair for hearing this. I hope it passes. Thank you.

Thanks for your encouragement. Next. Kapua Keeliikoa Kamai not present. So we received A total of 13 testimonies in support, two in opposition, three with comments. Anybody else wishing to testify on HB2023 if not questions, Members? If not, thank you very much. We'll move on to the next measure. 2031, House Bill 2031 related to transportation.

This establishes the administrative Hearings division within the Department of Transportation and transfers certain administrative hearing powers to the division, including matters related to automated red light, camera and speed enforcement, traffic citations, oversized and overweight vehicles on state highways, commercial driver's license appeals, on demand taxi services at airports, transportation network company permit appeals, airport and harbor matters and highway encroachments.

This is going to be a busy division. First up, we have Department of Transportation. Ms. Lee, and you want this bill? This is.

I do, actually. Thank you, Chair. Vice Chair, Members. This measure, as you mentioned, would provide us the Authority to conduct HRS 91 contested case hearings on matters that are under Our purview. It will require a lot of work and that's amazing. But thank you so much for hearing this.

Thank you for wanting to do the work. We appreciate it. Next, Michelle Acosta, the Judiciary. Welcome.

Good afternoon again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Michelle Acosta here on behalf of the Judiciary. We submitted our written testimony with some recommendations or comments and wanted to recognize Department of Transportation in support of this bill, as well as had the opportunity to read the attorney general's proposed HD2.

Wanted to summarize our testimony that even with the HD2, we recognize a lot of those changes and support those with the Attorney General. The comments that we make and for your consideration is for the appeal process for the speed camera and red light camera under HRS.