Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

All right, welcome everyone to the Judiciary Committee. We have a couple of agendas this morning. The first one's at 9:45. It's a hearing, actual hearing and the other one is a decision making only being live, being streamed, lived on YouTube.

You can find links to viewing options for all Senate hearings and meetings on the live and on demand video page. The legislature's website capital.hawaii.gov if we unlike unlikely event that we have a major technical problem, we'll reconvene on to discuss any outstanding business on Wednesday, February 25th at 10:15am here in this room 016.

And we'll post a public notice for those people testifying remotely. All testifying audio will be muted and video disabled until it's your turn to testify for everybody.

We do have a two minute time limit for testifier and if there's any technical glitches for the online, if somebody online, we will try to come back to you if we can. And that's pretty much it. First up on our 945 agenda is SB2249. This establishes heightened penalties for defensive bribery under certain circumstances.

First up on SB 2249 is Daniel Hugo for the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney City; good morning.

Good morning. Chair Rhodes and members of the committee. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office, and we support this bill. One of the things that we noted here is that traditionally the federal prosecutors have taken the lead on public corruption cases, including bribery.

However, the effectiveness of federal prosecution has been constrained by the US Supreme Court's decision in Snyder against United States, which specifically was looking at Section 666, which is the typical statute that's used for prosecuting state and local corruption. So in other words, areas where the federal government and the state would have concurrent jurisdiction.

So, while the Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute distinguishes between bribes and gratuities and finds that gratuity, so a payment paid afterwards is not covered by that statute. Hawaii has a much broader statute and it looks at the intent to corrupt.

So, it's focused on whether or not the payment is intended to corruptly influence an official act as opposed to how the payments themselves are structured. Which means that, at least in theory, it's easier to get prosecutions.

The difficulty as opposed to federal prosecution is that the penalties in Hawaii, a Class B felony, is probationable and so oftentimes it's difficult to get the sort of cooperation that would normally be necessary in a bribery prosecution. So, we believe that these enhanced penalties in certain circumstances would be necessary to have effective state prosecution.

I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Hayley Chang for the Public Defender. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhoads, members of the committee; Hayley Chang for the Office of the Public Defender. We have submitted testimony in opposition to this measure. And the crux of our testimony is that first and foremost, the existing bribery statute is a Class B felony. We are extremely oppositional to the enhancement to a Class A.

Class A felonies are reserved for the most serious offenses in our criminal system. A Class A felony is the equivalent of a manslaughter charge. Continuous, continuous sex assault on a minor, sexual assault in the first degree, kidnapping as a class A and robbery in the first degree.

Making it non-probationable means that the court only has one option, which is to sentence someone to the open 20 year term of incarceration. Currently, the courts have the discretion under the Class B to sentence someone to an open 10-year term if they do not believe probation is warranted.

We also have included in our testimony some concerns regarding the over breath of the term elected or appointed official, as well as the inability of the court to address the specificities of the conduct that the bill would attempt to criminalize. So, thank you for the opportunity to comment. I will be available for questions.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Vince Legaspi for the Police Department on Zoom, or here? Okay, here. You're great. Good morning.

Morning, sir. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Vince Legaspi, Captain of the Criminal Investigation Vision of the Honolulu Police Department. HPD supports Senate Bill 2249 relating to bribery. HPD endorses this legislation that creates a Class A felony. The crime of bribery can lead to severe and long lasting effects on the state, county, and communities.

Any measure taken to mitigate bribery will benefit our state. Having the criteria a bribe exceeding $20,000 also aligns the statue with theft in the first degree. HPD urges you to support bill, Senate Bill 2249, relating to bribery. Thank you for this opportunity, sir.

Thank you very much. Next up we have Maki Morinoue for Huli Pac on Zoom.

Not present, Chair.

In support. Next we have Brandon Makaawaawa for Nation of Hawaii and support. Next we have Nakoani Warrington for Kupuna for the Mopuna. Also in support, Dave Mullinix for Green Piece Hawaii and support. Then we have Johnny May Perry in support.

Glenn Kagamita in support. Robin Sage in support. L. Oster in support. Cheryl Burkart in support. Lisa Galloway in support. Lori Kaiser in support. Daniel Fund in support. Joel Edwards in support. Robert Patrici in support. And Jane Aquino in support. Nanao Low in support. And Georgia Hoops in support. That's everyone who signed up on SB 2249.

Would anyone else like to testify on 2249? Seeing none. Members, questions?

Oh, yes.

Senator San Buenaventura.

Prosecutor's Office: so I know this is a prosecutor's bill and my question is regarding the removal of the section 853, which basically normally leaves it up to the discretion of the court on a first time offense to be able to, I guess, defer the acceptance of a guilty plea or a no contest plea.

And when, as part of the women's legislative caucus about 10 years back, we found that the 853 removal for abuse of family household member actually stifled plea bargains.

So, why would you want to remove this when you would want to have the opportunity for a plea bargain to allow the person you caught, I mean, like for instance, the ones like Ty Cullen or Kalani English.

I mean, they're the ones in the news, to be able to get them to, I guess, get other people, you know, with the carrot of an 853. And again, even if that which makes it a discretion with the judge to whether to defer or to accept a guilty or no contest plea.

So, in terms of plea bargains, we would have the option to structure it to where they plead to an alternative charge that might be deferable. So, for example, theft could be a potential charge.

So that would be the consideration if we were looking at it strictly from the plea bargaining angle. In terms of a public policy angle, somebody who goes out and abuses an official position in this way. We do believe that denial of a deferral is a commensurate penalty.

So you want to remove it from the judge's discretion.

Yes.

Okay.

Senator Chang, any questions? Okay, let's see. I got a couple here for HPD again, if you don't mind? Or were you with HPD? Can you come back up? So, I think you mentioned that the $20,000.

The $20,000 threshold, I have to admit, sounds pretty low to me for a Class A felony, but you were saying it that matches up with Class A theft, is that correct?

Yeah. Yes. Theft. Theft first. Yes. So, it's over 20,000, would be at first. Yes.

Okay. That was - okay, hang on a second. That's it. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. If there's no more questions, we'll go ahead and move on to the next bill, which is SB 2494. This establishes a limitations of nine years for bribery offenses. First up on 2494 is Hayley Chang, Public Defenders. Morning again.

Good morning again. The Office of the Public Defender has submitted testimony in opposition to this measure, and it's really just to, I guess, address the preamble of the bill indicates that the the justification for wanting to expand or lengthen the statute of limitations is in the event that the length or outcome of a federal investigation precludes the statute of limitations.

In our opinion and respect, the length of investigation is not a reason to always extend the statute of limitations. That justification could be given to every criminal offense.

We have certain delineated exceptions for certain offenses where the statute of limitations is beyond what is normally prescribed under chapter or statute 701-108. But for normal felonies, the statute of limitations is three years. Even for most Class A felonies, it's six years. So, this is extending it much beyond that.

And if there is a justification or significant need to extend it beyond what's normal, the statute limitations and the scheme under that statute is contemplated by the legislature, recognizing that investigations can become stale, evidence can be hard to obtain or get, and it makes prosecution in defense of those matters more challenging. Thank you. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you.

Next is Daniel Hugo for Department of Prosecuting Attorney, City and County. Morning again.

Good morning again, Chair Rhoads and members of the committee: Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. As the preamble indicates, a lot of these cases, we anticipate, will emerge from state and federal cooperation, and with federal cases, the statute of limitations is five years.

We would expect that in cases that could still be prosecuted under Snyder, in other words, just a straightforward bribe, that the federal, the federal prosecutors would take the lead.

What we are expecting, though, is that in cases where those payments are structured in a way that could potentially be construed as a gratuity, but where nevertheless, there is evidence of intent to corruptly influence official action, that is where turning it over to the state would be necessary.

I'll note that the bribery statute or bribery is already one of the offenses for which there can be an extension on the statute of limitations to up to six years.

And this would just allow us to ensure that the evidence, first of all, that federal investigators collect would be admissible in state court because sometimes the investigative methods may not necessarily align, and so we might be going in with a different, different set of evidence than the federal prosecutors might have anticipated introducing.

So, in order to ensure the integrity of these investigations. What we're anticipating is that these will be much more complex investigations, but also ones in which there will be more evidence. I'm available for questions if the committee has any. Thank you.

Great, thank you. Next up is Maka'awa'awa for the Nation of Hawaii in support. Next is NaNo'olani Warrington Kupuna for Kapuna for Opuna in support. Next is Maki Morano for Huli Pac.

Not present, Chair

Also in support. Next is Gregory Misakian in support on Zoom, maybe. Good morning.

Good morning. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee, My name is Greg Misakian and I am a member of the Good Government Caucus. We convened a meeting yesterday at the state capitol today.

I'm just here speaking on behalf of myself as an individual, and I do support this bill, and I hope that it does move forward. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next is Dave Mullinix for Greenpeace Hawaii in support. Okay, following that, there are a number of individuals in support. The told count was 22 in support, one opposed, no comments. If there's anyone here who would like to testify on Zoom or in person, you're more than welcome. Seeing no more members, any questions?

Okay, let me see if I've got any here, I guess for Mr. Hugo. Do we have any - I know there's been a change at the federal level because of that ridiculous case from the Supreme Court, but are there documented instances where bribery cases could not have been charged because the existing limitations period expired due to the federal first investigation?

I don't know of any publicly available cases that meet that criteria.

Okay, so as far as - okay, so then the nine years itself, I mean, it's three more than current. And you think that's - I guess it's fairly obvious that you think that's enough to cover anything that might happen at the federal level before the state would intervene, before the state would investigate?

Yeah, I do think that's a reasonable amount of time. One other thing that I should note is that the time tolls up to the maximum of the six years while the official is in office. And that is because bribery uniquely allows public officials to interfere with investigations to use their office to intimidate -

It's not six years automatically. It's six total. Well, so what is it exactly now then?

So, so it's three years, but it tolls while the person is in office up to two years thereafter and for a total of up to six years. So, you could have a bribery offense that occurred say four years before the person left the office and then two years afterwards the time would end.

So, that would be a six year. That would be the max.

They were in office for six years; you still have two years after they left?

No, because it would expire during there. Yeah.

Okay. Well, thanks very much. Other questions, members? Okay, if not, we'll go and move on. SB 2737, this is also relating to bribery; establishes the offensive failure to report bribery by a state or county elected official as a misdemeanor. First up on 2737 is Mark Tom, Deputy Attorney General. Morning.

Morning, Chair. Members of the committee, Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department just provides comments and suggested amendments for Senate Bill 2037, specifically on the proposed offense. The department does not take a position. The suggested amendments would just be to address the term state or county elected official.

Suggestion would be just to change it to public servant for consistency. It's already defined in the bribery statute, so it would just be more consistent. It would also cover specific positions that might not be covered. But this bill appears to be aimed at under just state or county elections or elected official. I will be here for any questions.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Next up is Daniel Hugo for Department of Prosecuting for City and County, Honolulu. Morning again.

Good morning again, Chair Rhodes and members of the committee. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. Our office offered comment on this bill. We appreciate the intent of the bill to establish a reporting requirement. One of our concerns though is that this may also create a Fifth Amendment privilege regarding people who fail to report.

At, at this point, you know, if, if a witness does not have a valid privilege and they're summoned before a grand jury or they're at a preliminary hearing, it would be criminal contempt to refuse to answer those questions.

However, if this person could be convicted of failure to report, then they could conceivably have a Fifth Amendment privilege and refuse to answer questions about bribery offenses they may know of. So, that's our concern. We do think that perhaps, you know, as, as the session continues, if there are considerations to strengthening investigative grand juries.

That is one of the main differences between federal prosecutions and state prosecutions. Our grand juries do a great job already screening prosecutorial cases, but the investigative arm is less developed. So, I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Maki Morinoue for Huli Pac on Zoom.

Not present, Chair.

In support. Ann Frederick for Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action also on Zoom.

Not present, Chair.

Also in support. Brandon Makaawaawa for Nation of Hawaii in support. Nako Alani Warrington in support. Dave - I'm sorry. For Nako Alani Warrington was for Kupuna for the Opuna. Dave Mullinuk for Greenpeace Hawaii in support, and then quite a number of individuals in support.

The total count is 33 in support, 0 opposed, 2 comments, and at this point, anyone else wish to testify in SB 2737, either on Zoom or here in person? Seeing none; members questions? Oh, I'm sorry.

Just very quickly. I'm sorry. I tried to do it as fast as I could. It's the delay between allow being allowed in by video that this problem. So, apologies for that. I just wanted to say that, again, Greg Misakian, I do support this bill. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

Okay, great. Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify in this either on Zoom or here? If not, Senator San Buenaventura.

Yeah. Prosecutor's office: so, I understand your concern. You want to be able to get an indictment and that person, who may be a needed witness, will not be able to testify in a grand jury.

My question is the reason I supported this bill was because it looks to me it's like a version of mandated reporting for child abuse.

How do you prosecute those people: the teachers or the, or you know, who are supposed to report child abuse if they can do a...

If they can, and, and they would also have a Fifth Amendment privilege, but the difference is that with child abuse cases, there's usually physical evidence of the abuse. Right.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, so it's not so much of a concern there whereas this one. Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions? Oh, you can stay on. Another question on the same topic: so, how would it if so the analogy that came to my mind was you're supposed to, even if the income was derived from illegal activity, you're still supposed to pay taxes on that illegal activity.

So if you, if prosecutor AG decided they wanted to - if they found out some other way that this person had been bribed and and then had not reported it as required because they knew they had been bribed in their, under this language, in this bill, now they'd be required to report that.

So, why couldn't you just charge them with both?

Well, so in the - in an income tax evasion context, typically what we would look at are bank records which would show unreported payments. The difficulty with bribery is that we also have to prove the intent to corruptly - so, it's not illegal for a politician to accept a gift.

However, what we have to be able to prove is intent to corruptly influence official action. And in order to get that, typically what we need, are witnesses in the room.

Right. But, if you're the one who had actually committed the bribe, you're not going to report it anyway, so you would still have to - so I guess if that's not the, maybe I'm, maybe I'm looking at the wrong situation. So, I was thinking about it.

If you were having, you're supposed to be self reporting. Right. But if, but what you're suggesting is if a couple of people were bribed sort of simultaneously than the one - but, they would both be required to report on each other.

So, or, or if a witness who was not bribed and therefore normally would not have a Fifth Amendment privilege, but did know in this case they would have a way to invoke a privilege and not be able to -

So, if they weren't bribed and they were, they'd have to be on the hook for something else before then. They wouldn't be required to...so, before the Fifth Amendment would apply because if they're not being charged with anything, they're not being charged.

So, so an example might be: suppose A goes to B and gives it, B and C are public officials, A goes to B and attempts to give a bribe to B. B refuses and A says, "Well, C took, took a bribe as well." B goes to C, has this discussion.

C says, "Yeah, this is just how things go in this case." B has not committed a crime and would be a prime witness. But with this statute now has a Fifth Amendment privilege if they don't report.

What they haven't - but presumably they wouldn't be charged for - they wouldn't be on the hook for anything else?

Right, but so, so if, for example, a grand jury subpoena went to B and we ask questions about C's activities, B would not have a valid privilege to decline that except with this statute.

What that would, that would assume that the person, the B had not reported.

Right, Right.

But if they reported, then?

Right, so if B, if B reports and they're a cooperating witness, but it's, it's those cases where B may not report and sort of just has passive knowledge about this. So, they could be a useful witness at grand jury. Those, those are -

Okay, all right, all right. I'm understanding what you're saying. Yeah. Okay. All Right. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions on this one? Let's see. Okay. Yeah. Let's go and move on to the next bill, which is SB 3071.

3071 relates to offenses against public health and morals, clarifies and updates sex trafficking, promoting prostitution criminal offense statute by defining the definition of profits from prostitution, redefining them, I guess, and establishing an affirmative defense to those offenses for certain lawful transactions and some other stuff.

First up on SB 3071 is Yasmine Cheney for Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. And I apologize if I butchered your name. How do you pronounce your name?

Yasmine Cheney on the Status of Women. I'll stand on my written testimony in support of this measure. Thank you.

In support. Okay. Haley Cheng for the Department of—I mean, for the Office of Public Defender. Morning again.

Morning, again. The Office of the Public Defender opposes this measure, and it is not because we understand—we don't understand—the Legislature's desire to clarify other definitions pursuant to State v. Ibarra. Our objection really is that what is in the proposed measure does not achieve that goal.

The holding in Ibarra specifically address the issue that the behavior that is intended to be criminalized is those who have an intent to benefit or facilitate profits from prostitution and which we understand needs to be addressed and perhaps clarified. But we don't believe this measure adequately does that.

It leaves room for those who do not have that intent to potentially be prosecuted.

Additionally, the affirmative defense that is proposed in the measure, we have submitted testimony regarding the language of "in the ordinary course of lawful business," and we've given a hypothetical where, if it's a business versus an individual with the same intent or lack of intent, the affirmative defense may apply to only one and not the other, which I don't think is the intent of the measure.

So, that is the crux of our testimony. I'll be available for questions.

Great. Thank you. Next is Mark Tom for Deputy, Deputy Attorney General. Good morning, again.

Morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the Department. Department provides testimony in support of Senate Bill 3071. This Bill will clarify the offenses of sex trafficking and promoting prostitution. It essentially refines the definition of profits for prostitution, establishes an affirmative defense for these offenses, and restructures the provisions that define terms or establish exemptions for Part 1 of Chapter 712 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

This Bill is—this Committee has seen this Bill before in different iterations. I think this version takes a measured approach.

It addresses some of the concerns of other stakeholders by inserting an affirmative defense that should address that the Department believes addresses situations that would encompass individuals that it might have been unintended at the time. And we'll be here for any questions.

Thank you. Next up we have Daniel Hugo for the Department of Prosecuting Attorney, City County. Morning, again.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair Rhoads and Members of the Committee. Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office, and we are in support of this Bill. Following the State vs. Ibarra decision, unfortunately, traffic—human traffickers—have the option to structure their, to, to structure—to create essentially loans to the trafficked persons and use those as a way of avoiding prosecutions for profiting from prostitution.

We believe that this Bill is improved by allowing for affirmative defenses which, again, avoid some of the conduct that would be non-culpable.

But the main concern that we have here is that these are very sophisticated enterprises, particularly the motive is money, and they therefore have the ability to create financial transactions that currently can avoid the statute by, again, creating it as if it's a loan or a gift to the trafficked person. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have my Maui Prosecutor's Office, in support. Johnny May Perry, in support. Nicolette Troy, in support. Jim Kyla Galopone in support and Ryan Beckley in support. That's everybody who signed up on SB 3071. Would anyone else like to testify in SB 31—3071—here or on Zoom? Seeing none. Members, questions?

I think for Public Defender. Come back up. So I mean the... Well, this is all kind of in the weeds. But the big... The big change looks to me, I mean it's overruling the, what the name of that case was... Ibarra. It just says if paying back a loan is still, can still be considered profit from prostitution.

But that's, you're arguing that we're missing the point of Ibarra. But isn't it really just you just disagree with what the bill does in terms of how we react, how we're reacting to Ibarra. We're saying that is paying back a loan can be profits from prostitution.

I guess it depends on how you read Ibarra. I think what the Supreme Court was really focused on there was really wanting to criminalize, which we understand and agree with, those who knowingly profit. And they had a big issue with the term and the use of the word profit from prostitution.

What I believe even in the the as from the defense attorney perspective reading the language of the measure reimbursing someone for something that may be completely unrelated to prostitution but is tangentially connected is I don't believe, and maybe we're making assumptions, is the exact behavior that the Legislature is seeking to criminalize. This is really centered around...

Then we are, right?

Right. But I think again we have issues with the state of mind that is required, the tangential connection to whatever is deemed to be profits or proceeds. And the case in Ibarra, And if that's, if that sort of behavior...

Because in State v. Ibarra, two individuals flew over, there was payment for travel expenses, and one reimbursed the other. And if that's the type of behavior, then I guess yes, the Legislature would be criminalizing that and making that a class B felony.

But I think that that behavior it exposes what is not really what I think the bigger concern which is the sex trafficking, commercial exploitation, that that sort of behavior. So I think that's where our issue is. And then of course our other objection to the terms of the legal or the the business language in the affirmative defense.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

I have one question.

Go ahead, Senator San Buenaventura.

Prosecutor's Office. Have, other than Ibarra, have there been any cases where basically it isn't... In Ibarra, the factual situation did not look like frankly a sex trafficker getting getting away with a conviction. But have there been actual like sex traffickers who were able to defend by saying that all they got was reimbursement, I mean, statistically...

So I'm not going to comment on cases, but I can give a general scenario. Where a person is told that they have a work opportunity here, and then they arrive. They find out that actually the visas are not in order, and then they are told that you have this loan for your travel expenses coming over here and you have to pay it back. And since you can't get legal work, prostitution.

So. Okay, I understand that. That to me is when you entice somebody with a job opportunity. But what my concern is, and I think anybody who lives in Hawaii has been hit up for air traffic. I mean, not air traffic, for air tickets to come over here. Okay.

I mean, whether or not it's a relative or a friend, and they, then they get reimbursed for that air. And you didn't realize that while they were here they engaged in prostitution. Will you all of a sudden then become a class B felon just because you paid for an air ticket over here not knowing that they were going to engage in prostitution?

No. Like this statute, or like most criminal offenses, ignorance is always a defense in terms of you, we always have to prove a state of mind. So if, I believe in this case, we have to show a knowing state of mind, which means that they have to have awareness that...

They had to know that they were going to be... Okay. I'm going to ask Public Defender. Because ignorance of the law is never an excuse. You know that. That's the first thing you learn.

Not of, not of the law, but of the conduct.

Okay. Prosecute... I mean, may I ask the Public Defender? So same question. I'm concerned because we all get hit up for air tickets to come over here, and we get reimbursed, but we don't know that they end up engaging in prostitution. Will we all of a sudden become class B felons if we pass this?

Correct.

We will be?

That's what our concern is. Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Other questions, Members? All right, let's go and move on to the next bill, which is SB 3073. This is relating the retention of biological evidence. Specifies the types of cases in which evidence must be retained post conviction and the process by which evidence may be disposed of. First up on 3073 is Hayley Cheng for Office of the Public Defender. Hello again.

And good morning again. The Office of the Public Defender strongly opposes this measure, which seeks to find ways to destroy biological evidence. I think it goes without saying how important biological evidence has become in a lot of criminal matters. And that ranges from low class felonies all the way to the most serious offenses.

We've outlined our testimony, and I think I've highlighted the big concerns that we have. Which number one, we believe it unconstitutionally forces defendants to go to trial on the issue of disputing their identification. It also restricts the crimes that qualify for evidence retention.

And as science advances and as an attorney who deals with forensics, the science is always advancing and changing. So what could reasonably contain biological evidence today may not be something that could reasonably contain biological evidence a year from now. And those things are always fluid and evolving.

Also, shifting the burden onto the defendants to justify their preservation of the evidence and then requiring actual testing. Biological evidence is often the key to exoneration. It is often the key to new evidence, new witnesses, new potential perpetrators.

So I think it goes without saying that we are deeply concerned about the potential impacts of this measure and believe that retention of evidence until absolutely deemed to be completely unnecessary is the only appropriate way to go. I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Michelle Puu, Deputy Attorney General, on Zoom. Oh, or Mr. Tom. Good morning again.

Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the department. Department is submits testimony in support of this bill. As the committee already indicated, this bill is established a reasonable guidelines for limitations for post convict retention of biological evidence by law enforcement agencies and courts.

Based on the current stat language of this bill, it's just very broad. And because of this broad nature, what's happening is we're running into a lot of storage issues with evidence that, based on the language, may not contain biological evidence that is relevant to that case or the biological or it doesn't contain biological evidence as needed for the type of case that it's pending as evidence.

So this bill however will put reasonable requirements on the retention of biological evidence by limiting the retention requirements to evidence related to cases that resulted in convictions for specified serious felony offenses.

It will also maintain the retention periods for current laws and provide methods for disposal of evidence either by a motion by prosecution or they can have a hearing on determination if it should be preserved.

This bill I believe takes, the department believes takes a very measured approach in ensuring that we keep evidence that is very substantive for the case for appellate processes or for any challenges that may arise later on in the future. But also ensures that we're not just storing these evidence that might not be relevant to the case for just an indefinite amount of time. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next up is Vince Legaspi, Honolulu Police Department. Morning again.

Good morning, Chair and Members again. I'm Vince Legaspi again with the Captain of the Criminal Investigation Division, Honolulu Police Department. HPD support Senate Bill 33073. Under the current law, evidence custodians must retain any evidence that may contain biological material.

Regardless of the offense severity or whether identity was ever an issue. This has created a significant storage challenges for HPD, such as retaining large vehicles and other large items based solely on speculative forensic value, even when DNA evidence was not relevant to the case.

This bill limit retention requirements to serious felony cases in which the identity of the perpetrator was contested and evidence could reasonably contain biological material suitable for DNA analysis. It also preserves due process by providing defendants with notice and an opportunity to object and judicial oversight before evidence may be disposed of.

By clarifying retention standards and defining biological evidence, the measure allows law enforcement agencies to manage evidence storage, continuing to protect the rights of defendants and the integrity of the justice system. HPD urges to support this bill.

Thank you very much. Next up is Maui Prosecutor's Office in support. That's everyone who signed up on SB 3073. Would anyone else like to testify on SB 3073, either here or on Zoom? Seeing none. Members, questions?

Yes.

Senator San Buenaventura.

HPD. So, good morning. So how big is the storage problem regarding the biological evidence? Because it seems to me it's like... Like cars.

The biggest problems are really cars, motorcycles, and mopeds. And we have very limited storage space. It's a constant battle trying to see what we could dispose of or return to the registered owner vehicles.

I mean, you're talking about, like, can't you, like, cut out? I mean, if it's like, rape, can't you, like, cut out? I mean, keep the panties or... I mean, it seems to me it's pretty small storage problem.

Yeah. With respect to certain crimes. Yes. With sex assaults, like you were saying. Yeah. We keep them for, I don't even know whether retention. But there's no statute of limitations for, you know, sex assault 1, 2, and kidnapping. So we... Those are kept.

Okay, good.

The biggest problem is the big items.

Yeah. Like vehicles. I understand the vehicles. So shouldn't we, like, tailor this to be, like, the big items instead of the smaller? What I'm concerned about is you folks have this contested procedure to try to stop it, but if you don't even know defendant until years later, you don't have an opportunity to contest

Most of the, most of the big items that we keep, we already know the defendants, and the ID Is not really the problem. It's just keeping it as evidence. That is a problem.

We have cars under there that the defendants have been arrested and adjudicated, but we have a problem just, we can't keep it there forever. See, that's been a problem with HPD, and we don't know what to do with like big car items that's been there forever.

No. Well, what I'm concerned about is, like, the Innocence Project.

Oh, I see.

You find, you don't find the DNA until, of the actual perpetrator and match it until, like 10-20 years later. I mean, like, what happened in the Ireland. Yeah. Now in the Ireland case, they actually, they actually did find a DNA early on that didn't match, but it was... So. But anyway. Yeah, but most of these cases you hear on tv.

Yeah, no, no, I do understand.

And it's, it doesn't involve cars though.

Yeah, no, I do, I do understand. I'm also in line with. I agree with you in that aspect, but most of the DNA that is collected from these evidence items are submitted into our CODIS, and it's constantly checking for any new DNA items that input into the system.

And it could be there for years. And that's where it gets hits. Like 15 years from now. It's not the actual, like, car itself. We already processed the car. We already swabbed it for DNA. We already, you know, did the fingerprints. And it's not really the DNA itself. We already collected it if it wasn't solved.

It's the... It's the vehicle.

Yes. Yes.

Okay. Other questions? So another question for you. So in terms of, is it always the police departments that have to do the storage stuff, or are other agencies involved in that, too?

Other agencies do, but since I don't know where the DLE stores their items as well. I don't know.

They have a storage. They have to store stuff as well?

Yes, I believe. Yes. But I don't know where.

AG, does AG store stuff?

Well, it's evidence with the court.

It was evidence with the court. So the court. So it's the courts, police departments...

Most law enforcement that collect and...

All right, thank you very much. If there are no other questions, Members, we'll go ahead and move on to the next bill. This one is SB 3281, relating to gambling enforcement. Establishes a criminal offense of promoting an illegal electronic gambling device. First up on SB 3281 is Gabe Huntington for the Department of Prosecuting Attorney, City and County. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair Rhoads. Good morning, Members. Gabe Huntington for the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney. So we support this with comments and improvements. Adding a definition of the fish game grades a potential loophole in the sense that most of the cases that we are prosecuting for gambling offenses involve fish games currently, so they already fit within the definition of a gambling device.

So we believe a more appropriate way of addressing fish games is to include them in an exemplary list for other gambling devices. Otherwise, defense attorneys could claim that fish games were lawful yesterday, but after this measure was passed are now unlawful, so it could potentially affect our current prosecutions, all of which currently involve fish games.

As to the nuisance abatement section, we would ask that the committee look to improve the overall section. This is an out of date section and it's difficult to use both for prosecutors and potentially people who are defending such a suit. So we would be looking to improve the overall section. And then the discussion of electronic gambling devices should be broadened to include all of the morals offenses in Chapter 712.

And the purpose of that is one of the things we've seen with our effective enforcement of gambling laws, including those provided by this committee in the Senate, is that we are seeing shifting from gambling to residential prostitution in residential neighborhoods within residences. And last issue we want to raise, this was not part of the original bill, but the government is facing a storage problem with the devices that we seized.

And I think this is partly inadvertent due to, I believe it was Act 288 last year involving the need to charge a particular individual for an offense in order to engage in asset forfeiture. Since then, there's been a district court ruling saying that these types of gambling devices are contraband as used rather than contraband per se.

I'm sorry. Let's see. You've run out of time. Thank you. Next is Hayley Cheng for the Office Public Defender. Morning again.

Good morning for the final time today. The Public Defender has submitted opposition to this measure. And just to highlight the portions of our testimony, we are just concerned with the definition of illegal electronic gambling device. We understand the need to enforce the illegal conduct. We are just worried about the language of in whole or in part.

We believe that's extremely broad, and the inclusion of the term anything of value along with the express rejection of skill based distinctions. It's technical, but we are concerned that it could encapture or have broad sweeping consequences that the measure is not intended for. So thank you. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next is Brandon Makaʻawaʻawa, Vice President, Nation of Hawaii, in person in support. Glen Kagamida in support. That's everyone who signed up on SB 3281. Does anyone else wish to testify on SB 3281? Seeing none. Members, questions? Check. Okay, I think that's it for this agenda, Members.

We're okay. We can start voting. Are you feeling well enough to take votes, Senator Chang?

Sure.

Okay. Back to the top of the agenda. First up was SB 2249; establishes heightened penalties for the offensive bribery under certain circumstances. I'd like to go ahead and move it along, but I do feel that it's a pretty harsh penalty for what's being alleged so I'd like to suggest that we amend it.

Well, first of all, I'd like to raise the threshold significantly because this is a Class A felony and it's a serious-- I mean, this is like, as I think the Office of Public Defender testified, this is the next one down from murder, so-- or at least manslaughter. It's kind of the manslaughter level. So I'm going to suggest that we raise the threshold to $50,000.

The $20,000 threshold for theft, that puts you in a Class B territory, if I recall correctly. So we'll clarify that the aggregation rule for the now $50,000 threshold. So, we'll limit the aggregation to amounts conferred, solicited pursuant to a single scheme or course of conduct, or within a specified period.

And the suggested language would be the value of the aggregate of the-- I'm sorry--the value or the aggregate value of the pecuniary benefit conferred or agreed to be conferred pursuant to a single scheme or course of conduct with any three-year period exceeds $50,000.

Now, this does imply that you could have more than one scheme going on at the same time and you could be indicted for more than one. We'll define the term, elected official, to ensure a consistent application.

We'll use, in this section, elected or appointed official will mean any person who holds an office established by the constitution, statutes, charter, ordinance, or rule of the state or any county and is select by election or appointment to the office, including-- and I'm going to exclude any members of state or county. Eh, no. No, I'm not. I'm sorry.

And that includes any members of state or county boards of the commissions. I would like to exclude neighborhood boards. I don't think that is necessary for them. And then-- no, I'm sorry, I misspoke.

I'd like to tie the-- I'd like to-- the people who will be subject to this will be those who are covered by the Salary Commission, so that's governor, lieutenant governor, judges, members of the legislature, directors, deputy directors. I think that probably not all of them, but that's most of them. And I don't feel like it's a finished product or I'm not sure it's a finished product, so we'll put a bad date on it, March 22, 2075. Questions or concerns?

Just a comment.

Sure.

I missed the hearing part of it. I was upstairs. I looked at my-- came into the office today, looked at this, and I said, oh, wow. We got a good bill here. And every time I have to caution myself when I see something that I feel is a good bill, and then-- because I was a little disappointed just now that we're raising the threshold, and you said this is going to take it up close to murder, but shoot, bribery should be right there, and that's just my comment on how I feel about this. We should--

Well, I mean, somebody was just-- somebody was just convicted of bribery for $20 just recently last couple weeks. I don't--

The 91-year-old guy.

I just--

Nobody should be doing it and--

I think it has to be proportional. I agree. We're moving the bill, but I don't-- I think a Class A felony for that amount of money is very harsh. Any other questions or comments?

I appreciate the changes, especially redefining public servant because we all have, like-- we all have difficulty just getting boards and commissions filled.

And my only concern is the removal of the 853, because as shown, like I pointed out, when it's-- when you remove that discretion by the judge, then it limits the ability to get the plea bargains. And notwithstanding what the prosecutor testified to, a theft is not a lesser included offense of bribery.

So it's going to be difficult to have that as a considered a plea bargain. And that's what happened in the abuse of family household member scenario was they could not do the plea bargains to simple assault like they thought that they could. And that backed up the system, and basically, it caused a major problem for the victims, too.

So-- but I do appreciate the concerns--I mean, the amendments--and I do understand that it's going to keep moving. So I'll be voting-- I'll be voting with with the chair on this one.

Okay, thank you. Any other concerns or questions? If not, Senator Chang, Acting Vice Chair.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 2249 is to pass with amendments. [Roll call]. Recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 2494. This establishes a statute of limitations of nine years for bribery offense. Recommendation here is to pass as is. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 2494 is to pass unamended. Noting the excusal of Vice Chair Gabbard. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Hearing none. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 2737. This establishes the offense of failure to report bribery by a state or county-elected official as a misdemeanor. Recommendation here is to pass with some amendments, I believe. Yes. Add a new paragraph/ definitions at the beginning of the new section.

For purposes this of this section, state or county-elected official means any person elected to public office in the state or any county-- let me see. Sorry. Yeah, I think I'm going to go with the same definition we went with on the last one, anybody covered by the Salary Commission, so it's the high-level people that would be covered.

So this is a failure to report a bribe, and then we'll clarify reporting satisfaction, so we'll specify reporting to another law enforcement agency or the city, state, or county. State Ethics Commission satisfies the duty.

So a report made in good faith within the period required by this section to any of the following shall satisfy the reporting requirement: Department of the Attorney General, the Prosecuting Attorney of the county where the conduct occurred or the reporting official serves, any law enforcement agency with jurisdiction, or the State Ethics Commission, or an authorized County Ethics Commission--I mean board. And let's go and put a bad date on this one as well: March 22, 2075. Any questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 2737 is to pass with amendments. Members present, are there any objections or reservations?

Reservations.

Noting reservations for Senator San Buenaventura. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 3071. This clarifies and updates the sex trafficking promoting prostitution criminal offense statutes by redefining the definition of profits for prostitution. Recommendation here. This bill's been kicking around a while, but recommendation is to pass with technical amendments only. Questions or concerns?

Yeah, yeah. My concern is bad facts make bad law. And this basically is going to make felons of all of us who lend or buy tickets for a relative or friend who end up unknowingly becomes involved in prostitution. For that reason, I'll, you know, I'll be voting with reservations. I mean, especially since the prosecutor can't even point to how many people have skated because of Ibarra.

Okay, understood. Any other concerns or questions? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 3071 is to pass with amendments. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Hearing none. The recommendation is adopted.

I'm sorry, did you vote?

I voted with reservation. Even though I don't like it.

Reservations for Senator San Buenaventura.

Okay, next up. Thank you. Next up is SB 3073, specifies the types of cases in which evidence must be retained post conviction and the process by which evidence may be disposed of earlier than the standard period. I mean, it looks like there's a real problem here, but I do understand the concerns about keeping things. So recommendation is to pass with some amendments.

We'll go ahead and add a definition of identity. It means that as reflected in the record, the defendant affirmatively disputed being the perpetrator of the charged offense by raising or relying on misinformation, alibi. I mean, sorry, misidentification, alibi, mistaken identity, third party perpetrator, or similar theory, or by otherwise placing the perpetrators identity and issue through motion, argument, cross examination, evidence, or proffer.

So the idea being that we would hang on to the evidence in those cases. And then we'll add a subsection to the retention statute. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, upon motion of the defendant, the prosecutor or on the court's own motion, the court may order retention of biological evidence in any felony case for the period otherwise required under this chapter.

If the court finds based on the record that biological evidence exists or was collected in the case and biological evidence could reasonably be material in establishing or just proving the identity of the perpetrator. And again, I'm not sure this is a finished product, so we'll put a bad date on it. March 22, 2075. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 3073 is to pass with amendments. Of the Members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 3281. This establishes criminal offense of promoting an illegal electronic gambling device. Recommendation here is to pass with some amendments. Let's see.

Okay. I'd like to apply the more specific nuisance abatement tools in this bill, for example, lock orders, receivership concepts, and owner notice obligations to the current nuisance abatement provision in HRS 712-1270 so that we don't have two separate nuisance abatement schemes going on simultaneously, and thus-- this will apply to all nuisance abatement, not just for electronic gambling devices.

Also like to replace written or oral notice with written notice and add a reasonable compliance timeline/safe harbor for owners, lessors, property managers. So suggestion language would be: replace written or oral notice wherever it appears with-- notice means: written notice issued by a law enforcement agency and served personally by certified mail or by electronic mail to an address designated for notice in the lease or management agreement.

The notice shall identify the premises, state the date and nature of the observed conduct, and state the basis for believing the premises being used for operation of an illegal electronic gambling device, and then the safe harbor compliance timeline would be: a person subject to this subsection shall be deemed in compliance if within 10 business days after receipt and the person provides written demand to the occupant to cease the prohibited activity and commence as reasonable abatement actions with some additional verbiage.

Let's go ahead and define some key terms for enhanced remedies. We'll have a definition for violation, more than 12 months will be defined, chronic nuisance will be defined, and standards for enhanced remedies the court may issue-- well, this, I believe, I already described.

The court may issue a closure order, lock order, appoint a receiver only upon notice and an opportunity to be heard provided by all known owners, less source property managers and lawful occupants finding by clear and convincing evidence premises constitutes a nuisance under this part, written findings that less restrictive measures are insufficient to abate the nuisance, and written findings specifying the duration, scope, and conditions for reopening.

And for the civil penalty application and authorized mitigation for prompt good-faith abatement, we'll put in, for purposes of this subsection, per violation means: per premise per written notice period, provided that the court may impose additional penalties upon a finding of continued noncompliance after issuance of a compliance order.

And determining the amount of any civil penalty, the court shall consider the person's knowledge, degree of control, promptness of abatement, cooperation with law enforcement, and whether the person made a good-faith effort to prevent reoccurrence. And we'll-- again, I'm not sure this is a finished product, so we'll put a bad date on it: March 22, 2075. That everything? Okay. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 3281 is to pass with amendments. Of the members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Okay. That concludes our first hearing or the hearing part of our two agendas. Let's recess just briefly and then we'll go in for DM on the second one.

Okay. Welcome back. This is our 10 o' clock agenda, which is a decision making only. First up on the 10 o' clock agenda is SB 2079.

This requires Accounting Director of Finance to issue a temporary three year title to an applicant in case where no prior title exists, the prior owner is unable to provide one or the Director is otherwise not satisfied as the ownership of the vehicle. I don't know. We puzzled around with this for a while.

The counties seem to be opposed, and I don't see a real clear way forward. So I'm going to defer that one indefinitely. SB 2116, requires the Attorney General to establish a confidential process for persons to anonymously file complaints against public employers. Well, there's two problems with this one.

I don't, what's being asked for is quite similar to other things like whistleblower protections. And I think a lot of the CBAs probably have procedures about how you're supposed to have, how civil servants can defend themselves against potential accusations. So I probably would have deferred it anyway.

But it also has a, it has an appropriation in it and so. And it does not have a lam referral. So I'm going to defer it indefinitely for those two reasons. No, indefinitely may mean we still got a, we still got a week and a half. So it's still possible that we could repost, but I think it's unlikely in both those cases. Okay.

SB 2151, clarifies state and local authority during a state of local state of emergency, defines severe weather warnings, amends the definition of disaster and emergency to limit the use of emergency powers except to address sudden events cause are more likely to cause catastrophic harm or immediate danger. Recommendation here is to move it on unamended.

But I do have a comment myself. So this is my bill or this is a bill that we put together. My office put together. It is restricting the Governor's current powers, and the current, the previous, the subject matter committee also restricted that further by applying it only to immediate emergencies as opposed to other things that emergencies have been applied to in the past, like homelessness, which of course has been with us for many years.

So there were, there was a lot of testimony opposed to it seeming seemingly thinking that this bill was expanding the Governor's power, and it is certainly not. So... Yeah. So that's the, that's the context. Any questions or concerns? Senator Awa.

I saw the same thing. There was confusion in this. Opposing this bill. I guess this is the role that I play in here. And no offense to you, with respect, Senator Rhoads. This one, for the reasons that I think HIEMA mentioned, a county mentioned, when you're in that position, and this is not a commercial for the Governor or any kind of endorsement or anything.

This is just a seat. When you're in that seat, you bear all the brunt of the criticism. You're the one in charge. You need to be able to respond. And I feel that this is shifting more to the Legislature, which we're all elected too, but not to, not to the level that anyone who is put in that seat is. So yeah. With respect, no to this.

Okay, thank you. Other questions or concerns? Comments? Yes, short recess.

Okay. Back in on the decision making agenda. Yes. So for those who are not familiar with the procedures in the Senate, in the House all bills are heard every time that they're considered by a committee. In the Senate on the second committee, typically all we do is decision making.

So we take written testimony and we consider that, but no one is allowed to testify on Zoom or in person. For this particular bill, after having discussed it with Senator Chang, I'm going to go ahead and defer it for... Let's see, I'm going to defer it to a date certain. What should our date certain be? Thursday. Okay.

We're going to defer until Thursday, March 5, in this Room 016 at 10:00? 10:00. Okay. All right. So that one is deferred, date certain. Okay. Next up is SB 2245, relating to revolving door restrictions for state employee ease. Prohibits new state employees from taking official action on matters they worked on before state employment. Recommendation here is to pass it as is. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 2245 is to pass unamended. Of the members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 2516 is establish as a gradient penalty structure for the offense of hindering a prosecution in the first degree based on the level of offense hindered. Recommendation here is to pass with some amendments. We're just going to spell out the gradient, the grading conversion rule for one class or grade lower.

So the penalty is determined, determined across all covered underlying offenses. So, starting with hindering prosecution the first degree is an offense one class or grade lower with the offense committed by the other, by the other person.

Provided that if the offense committed by the other person is murder in any degree, hindering a prosecution in the first degree is a class A felony, and then for one grade or lower for the other offenses, class A will be class B, Class B will be class C, Class C will be a misdemeanor, misdemeanor will be petty misdemeanor.

Misdemeanor, petty misdemeanor will be a violation. And if you hinder somebody trying to commit a violation, you're off the hook. In other words, there is no penalty. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Recommendation for Senate Bill 2516 is to pass with amendments.

Yes.

The numbers present. Are there any objections or reservations?

No.

Noting the objections of Senator Awa. The recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you. Next up is SB 2517. This establishes Class C felony penalty for the unlawful possession, control, or transfer of firearm or ammunition in violation of a valid judicial protective order or restraining order. Recommendation here is to go ahead and move it along but just with a bad date: March 22, 2075. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 2517 is to pass with amendments. Of the members present, are there any objections or reservations?

No.

Reservations only for the prohibition of a transfer. To me, if you're not allowed to possess it, you should be able to transfer it.

Okay, thank you.

Noting the reservations of Senator San Buenaventura and the objections of Senator Awa, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 2518, related to assault against law enforcement officers. Establishes sanctions for the offensive assault against the law enforcement in the first degree. Recommendation here is to go ahead and pass it with a bad date: March 22, 2075. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 2518 is to pass with amendments. Of the members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next up is SB 2520. This relates to habitual violent crime. Let's put them in Act 2 and 3 session laws of 2024 by repealing its sunset date and requiring the Criminal Justice Research Institute to submit a one-time report to the Legislature before the regular session of 2031 and require the Department of the Attorney General, in the consultation with the Criminal Justice Research Institute, to submit ongoing annual reports to the Legislature.

Recommendation here, we'll clarify-- we'll add a subsection to the reporting provision. Reports required under the section shall be submitted and published in aggregate form and shall not include personally identifying information. Nothing in the section shall be construed to require disclosure of information that is confidential under state or federal law or protected by court order. Questions or concerns? If not, Senator Chang.

Chair's recommendation for Senate Bill 2520 SD 1 is to pass with amendments. Of the members present, are there any objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

Okay, thank you. Next up is SB 2004. This increases the penalties for any person who violates the state's laws relating to display of billboards or any other outdoor advertising device and already has a defective date. It raises the minimum fine from 25 to 100 and increases the maximum fine from 500 to 1000. Recommendation's to pass as is. Questions or concerns?

There's a concern. Thank you. And this, this kind of relates to the people who showed up to testify on a different one. In a lot of these first committees, I understand it's our policy.

And a lot of these first committees, I wasn't on this one or actually I was on this one and I had questions because I could have gone either way on this one.

So I, in this case, I wish that, yeah, if we did have questions, there would be some kind of hybrid model that our policy would allow when the bills come here where if people show up, maybe we can for some, ask questions for some. I understand the process. It got to be fast, right?

You're trying to get through all of this. But, but in this one, yeah, my vote could have went either way because no one's here and we can't ask questions. I'll keep it as a no.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, the question of how our rules works is a, not one that we're going to decide here. But the problem, the problem as I see it is if I start selecting who I'm letting, letting talk to me, then that in itself is a political decision. And I think it's all or nothing. Either got to let everybody talk or you got to not let anybody talk.

When I first came over from the House, I was skeptical of the rule, but I realized after a while that the reason for it is that the GMs, we don't have GMs in the house and GMs take a long time and it's very difficult to hear every single bill like they do in the House.

But that's the, that's the time difference. That's the reason. So that's kind of a tangent. But since we're talking about it, thanks for the conversation.

For and for anybody who wants to change it, that would be our Senate policy. You can go hit up the Senators and, and try to get that change on the start of the next legislative session.

So noting the, the no vote for Senator Awa. Go ahead. Senator Chang

Here's recommendation for Senate Bill 2004 SD1 is to pass unamended, noting objections from Senator Awa. Of the Members present, are there any other objections or reservations? Seeing none, the recommendation is adopted.

All right. I believe that's our last Bill. Yep. Thank you very much for being here, we're adjourned.