Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs

Good afternoon. We're convening the joint committees on public safety and military affairs and water, land, and culture in the arts on our 03:01 PM agenda here in State Capital Conference Room 016. We have one measure up, HB 1926 relating to Red Hill, which appropriates funds for studies on remediation of substances released from the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility and other things. And testifying first is the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Good afternoon.

Afternoon, Chair, vice chairs. Keala Richardson, DLNR, Policy Coordinator for the Red Hill Water Alliance Initiative. DLNR submitted written testimony in support, and I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Up next is the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha, my kakou...with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. We submitted written testimony in support. Just wanted to highlight from our comments that it has been over five years since the contamination at Red Hill. And so, it's really crucial that the state of Hawaii upholds its constitutional duties to protect...and take care of our future generations. We also appreciate that while this bill does provide state funds for this cleanup, we appreciate that it highlights the need to seek reimbursement from the Department of Defense who are ultimately responsible for this. Available for any questions. Mahalo nui.

Thank you. Board of Water Supply. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chairs Lee and Fukunaga and Senator Chang. Board of Water Supply, Ernie Lau. We stand in strong support of this measure. I just want to make it clear, the Red Hill catastrophe is not over. Red Hill is not Powell.

The cleanup remediation of the Aina and the Wai is the next steps, and it'll take generations. So, this measure is really important to provide support for the effort. It's also very important to keep the community educated and engaged even when in light of the fact that the, the military is actually trying to step back from engaging with the community. So, mahalo nui. Aloha.

Thank you. That's everyone who had signed up to testify on HB 1926. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? Seeing none. Are there any questions?

Thank you. Maybe if we can ask Mr. Lau to return. You know, this has been going on for a very long time, and the funding that has been sought through this measure is one sort of small amount that has been identified in the House Bill, roughly a little over 11,000,000. Can you provide a little bit of background on your agency's efforts to secure appropriate funding through the litigation that Board of Water Supply has also been?

Yeah. I'd be glad to. Just to what the chair is referring to is our lawsuit against the US Navy under the Federal Tort Claims Act for about $1,210,000,000. But it's still in process. So, I really, it can't really comment too much about it, but we have we are still in the fight with the Navy to seek funding.

It is good that the legislature supported the creation of a special fund and also using that as ability to seek for the state to seek federal funds and get it put into that special fund for the Red Hill situation. So, a lawsuit's still ongoing, and we are committed for the long term.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any further questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much. That's the only bill on the agenda. You send it in committee? No? Okay.

Yeah. We're gonna recess, and we'll see if we can get quorum on this. So, we'll, worst case, deferred decision making till later on, but we'll give it some time. So, we'll go into recess.

Convening this afternoon's Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs, we have three measures on the agenda, and we would like to start with House Bill 2,279, House Draft one, relating to expungement orders. There's quite a bit of testimony on the third bill on today's agenda. So I'll be calling out those testifiers on House bill 2279 which amends the expungement orders law to reflect that a person who is arrested or charged with a crime but convicted of a violation is eligible for an expungement of their arrest record for that incident. On this measure, we have William Bento testifying for office of the public defender in person.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is William Bento, and I'm representing the office of the public defender. We do strongly support this measure for several reasons which we've outlined in our written testimony. I won't go over all of them, but I just wanna point out that it's important for the HRS to reflect changes in the laws as stated by our Hawaii Supreme Court. But this is important because it gives people the opportunity to expunge their record, have it clear, and give them the opportunities to move forward in their lives.

And we're not talking about serious criminal offenses, but people who've been convicted of a violation but may have been arrested for something more serious. And through adjudication in front of a judge or a jury, it was determined that their conduct only rose to the level of a violation. As stated in our written testimony, we've had numerous expungement. I don't know what you wanna call them parties, get togethers, where we've helped people to expunge their record in the community. And this has helped them to be able to move forward.

And we look forward to holding more of those after this measure is passed. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have, Community Alliance on Persons, Kat Brady, testifying in person.

Good afternoon, senators. Kat Brady testifying on behalf of Community Alliance on Prisons. You know, as the bill states, the expungement of a record when an arrest happens, but it led to a violation rather than a crime, we should be able to expunge these records because they're not crimes. But it does having that record does impede impede people's ability to reenter the community. So thank you so much for hearing this, Bill. K.

Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Next, we have let's see. ACLU, Josh Frost testifying in person. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, committee members. My name is Josh Frost. I'm the policy advocate at the ACLU of Hawaii. We stand in support of HB 2279. You have our testimony, so I'm just gonna highlight a couple things.

Research shows that records criminal records can have long lasting and wide ranging effects on committee community members. This bill would help alleviate that. Here in Hawaii, four okay, sorry. Nearly nine in 10 employers, four out of five landlords, and three out of five colleges now run background checks. No matter how minor or how old, the record might be, it can have, a detrimental, impact on the ability to receive housing, employment, education, or other benefits.

Approximately 432,000 people in Hawaii have at least one eligible record for expungement.

Mister Frost, if you can summarize Oh, yes. Greatly appreciate Yeah.

Yeah. No. Absolutely. Testimonial. So we stand in support. Yes. No. I appreciate. The only thing that I will add is is we would like to see the bill amended to have the expungement be state initiated. It would make it smoother and easier for the people who would be directly impacted by this legislation. So thank you.

K. Thank you very much. All other testimonies that were submitted were in support. We have one additional testimony from Carrie Anne Chirota on Zoom. Is she avail oh, she's here in person. Welcome.

Hello, senators. Carrie Anne Shirota, attorney testifying in strong support of this measure. You've heard that over the last few years, there have been a number of expungement clinics, helping people to clear records. This is one step towards that by broadening the eligibility for clearance of records. So this codifies the Hawaii Supreme Court decision.

And I just want to remind everyone that the clean state task force, which was introduced by Senator Lee, is currently working. And while we support this measure, we want to do more. And by having a robust clean state law that aligns with best practices to allow for more people to get this record clearance, we often hear about housing and job opportunities, I've known a number of individuals who have changed their lives after being incarcerated, who then want to be engaged with their children's lives. They want to volunteer to be coaches or to even shop around their kids. And because of past records, they're unable to.

So these impacts are not just on the individual, but entire families. And we ask that you pass this measure. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else who would like to testify on House bill 2279? If not, we will turn to next measure. Sure. Okay. We're gonna take a brief recess.

Okay. Reconvening the joint committees on public safety, military affairs, and water, land, and culture in the arts on our 03:01pm agenda for decision making on HB 1926 relating to Red Hill. Chairs having conferred the recommendation would be to pass this measure forward with amendments changing the effective date to 11/20/2121. So it can go on to the next set of committees. So any questions, any comments? Seeing none, vice chair to the vote.

For the committee on water, land, culture, and the arts, chair's recommendation on HB 1926 house draft one to pass with amendments. Chair Lee? Aye. Vice chair goes aye. Senator Chang? Aye. Senator LaMusalle is excused. Senator Descourt excused. Measure is adopted, mister chair. Thank you.

Okay. For the PSM committee, same recommendation. Chair votes aye. Senator Lee for the vote.

Voting on HB 1926. Recommendations to pass with amendments. Chair and vice chair vote aye. Senator Hashimoto excused. Senator Inouye? Aye. And senator De Court excused. Chair the recommendation's adopted. And with that, we are adjourned for our 301 PM agenda.

Returning to the 03:02pm PSM committee agenda, House bill 2289 House draft one relating to the expenditure ceiling on the automated victim information and notification system special fund. On this measure, I believe we also have primarily supportive testimony, and, we do want to, kind of recognize those who are here in person. So first, we have for state commission on status of women, Lizmon Chaney. Good afternoon.

Oh, good afternoon. Yasmin Chaney with the Commission on the Status of Women. I stand on my written testimony in support of this measure and thank the committee for its consideration and support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we have department of corrections and rehabilitation director Johnson or his designee.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. I'm Tanya Dydasco with Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's victim notification services office, and we stand on our written testimony in support.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Kelvin Walton testifying for County of Hawaii, office of the prosecuting attorney on Zoom. Go ahead, mister Waltgen.

Hello, chair Fukunaga, vice chair of the committee members, Hawaii County prosecutor Kelvin Waltjen. We sat in strong support of this bill. This bill removes the expenditure ceiling. Without this increase, Sabin's funding will be significantly impact. We submitted our written input, and we're available to answer any questions you have. Mahalo

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Oh, excuse me. We have one late testimony from Dennis Dunn also on Zoom. Please go ahead, mister Dunn.

Aloha, chair Fukunaga, vice chair Lee. I'm testifying in support of this measure. Well, the limit that was original cap that was put on the seven, fund was made sense at the time. At this point in time, I think it's clear that it doesn't make any sense and it's limiting the ability to extend seven out to more and more victims. Victims depend on this, so please support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dunn. Chair would like to note that we may have a time constraint. So Chair is going to recommend that we take action on the first two measures on today's agenda before we lose quorum and we will take testimony on House bill 2413 House Draft One relating to pretrial reform since we have received a great deal of additional late testimony today and we will hold decision making on that measure at a later hearing. So for the first bill on today's agenda, House Bill 2279 relating to expungent orders, Chair is gonna recommend that we make a technical change to modify the effective date to July 1, 2050 to enable us to move this measure forward and continue the discussion. Is there any discussion on this measure?

If not, chair's recommendation is that we pass House Bill 2279 House Draft One with amendments.

Thank you. Voting on HB 2279, recommendation to pass with amendments. [roll call]. The recommendation's adopted.

Thank you. On House Bill 2289 House Draft One, relating to the expenditure ceiling on the automated victim information and notification system special fund. Recommendation is also to modify the effective date, which is already defective, and to insert July 1, 2050 as the new defective date. This will allow us to continue discussions on this measure as we move it on to the next committee. Any questions? If not, Vice Chair Lee for the vote.

Voting on HB 2289 recommendations to pass with amendments, noting excused absences of Senators Hashimoto and DeCorte. Are there any reservations or no's? Seeing none, the recommendation's adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much. Returning to the agenda, House Bill 2413 House Draft One relating to pretrial reform. Chair will note that we did receive a large number of testimonies, 85 in support, 37 in opposition, and we would like to proceed through some of the testimonies at this point. And, I certainly have a lot of questions. So with that, let's get started with Office of the Public Defender, Mr. Bento, in person.

And good afternoon once again Chair and Vice Chair, Members of the committee. Again, my name is William Bento and, I represent the Office of the Public Defender. We're in strong support of this measure for the simple reason that for the very first time, a person who appears in court and charged with a nonviolent offense up to a class c felony, the default will be for release, not the other way around. And this is important because if you have money, regardless of what the bail is said, you can post it and get out of custody. And that puts you in a much better position as you move forward with your criminal case.

This is really a bill for those that do not have the means to post bail and to get out when they're merely are accused of an offense. They've not been convicted of anything. But I wanna point out that the bill isn't, as written is not an automatic. First of all, a person gets arrested. The police department or other law enforcement agencies have the right to set bail, and they have their own bail schedule and they can set bail and the amount that they feel is fair and proper.

This is really a bill for a judge who had arraignment or at the first appearance would be required to release under certain limited circumstances. But I just wanna also point out that if the court feels that this person is a danger to any individual or to the community in general, the judge does not have to follow and release. So and there are safety measures built into this measure. But for those who are charged with most of the nonviolent offenses, there's no need for them to remain in custody. Sometimes for months and months and months while they're waiting just for their trial.

And so that's why we're in strong support of this measure. Thank you. And I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bento. Next, we have Kristen Johnson testifying for Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. Testimony in support has been provided. Department of the Attorney General, Michelle Pu or her designee? Good afternoon.

Afternoon. Afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Senator Inouye, Deputy Attorney General, Mark Tom, for the department. First off, I just want to, let the committee know I apologize, on behalf of our department for the late testimony on this, on House Bill 2413. With that said, department respectfully submits, testimony in opposition of House Bill 2413 HD1. Very specifically, when looking at this- this issue that we're dealing with in 2413, it's not like nothing has been done in regards to bail.

In 2024, the legislature created the essentially the penal code review committee for 2025 and a report was done. There was a specific subcommittee that dealt with Chapter 804 which this bill is dealing with, and that subcommittee reviewed it. It was made up of, among others, the public defenders, the judiciary, prosecutors, attorney generals, legislators. And with all those stakeholders involved, there were two amendments that were suggested and recommended out of this penal code review committee. And with those, they were placed currently in Senate Bill 2721.

And that currently is still moving. So these recommendations for Chapter 804 is not the broad stroking amendments that this, this bill does. And, to allow the, the department just believes it, allowing the penal code review committee and their recommendations to work itself through, as that bill hopefully will pass would be the more ideal situation, allowing more time as well to collect data or to assess the data from 2019 from Act 174 which I don't believe there has been a clear assessment of the data that was collected, would be very key to understanding what actually needs to be changed in our bail system. Additionally, it just, the bill does not account for other situations that are not addressed. There are enumerated offenses that are ex- exceptions, but it can't account for every, situation.

I will be here for, any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Chief Booning, testifying for the police department.

Hi. Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Aloha, and thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. You know, I I believe we submitted testimony, and we'll stand in opposition. Of course, I am here to answer any questions that you have.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Let's see. Next, we have for the County of Hawaii Office of the Prosecuting Attorney on Zoom, Mr. Waltjen.

Hello, Chair Fukunaga, vice chair and lead and committee members, Hawaii County Prosecutor Kelden Waltjen. We stand in strong opposition of this bill. We share in the concerns noted by Deputy Attorney General Tom. This legislation is be based upon a big misunderstanding that we have a lot of people in custody on low level criminal offenses, simple drug possession crimes and traffic offenses that are overcrowding our jails. That's not what the data shows, especially on Hawaii Island.

At the Hawaii Community Correctional Center or HCCC, which is the state's most overcrowded correctional facility, over 90% of those in custody are being held on felony offenses, whether it be pretrial, sentenced felon, felony probation, or felony, parole violators. Now I wanna also address another misconception, and that's- that this lesson that- that- this legislation is not necessary because the court already has the discretion and the authority to grant a defendant release and quite often does so over prosecutors' objections. But what the but the court has that discretion to make an informed decision, looking at each defendant case by case. What this legislation does is it takes away the court's discretion to detain pretrial defendants. Instead, it creates a presumption of release, standard for traffic and nonviolent petties petty misdemeanor and class c felony offenses.

This is far too overbroad, and it may include property offenses like unauthorized entry to a motor vehicle, burglary, criminal property damage, theft, ID theft, firearm possession, escape, electronic enticement of a child, possession of child pornography, and others. This isn't smart. This is dangerous. This type of legislation isn't helpful for offenders, offenders who have drug addictions, mental health concerns, who are jobless, homeless, and lack a basic support system. They need services.

But if you simply release them back into community without helping them address those issues, they're just going to reoffend. They're gonna victimize another person, and they're gonna be right back in custody again, not just wasting our limited resources, but endangering community members.

Thank you very much. We also have on the screen, Mr. Evangelista testifying for Hawaii Police Department. Please proceed.

Aloha. Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My- My name is Jeremie Evangelista. I'm testifying on behalf of the Hawaii County Police Department, and we oppose HB 2413. We've also submitted written testimony for today's hearing.

But we appreciate the amendments made in committee. The bill still presents significant public safety concerns for us. Our officers often arrest individuals for certain misdemeanors and petty misdemeanors not to punish them, but to deescalate volatile situations and restore order. Removing someone from an escalating incident is often the safest way to prevent further harm. This bill limits judicial discretion even though every situation is different and many cases involve repeat disturbances, intoxication, mental health factors, or credible threats that fall outside of the listed exceptions.

A victim notification is important, but notification alone does not provide protection that meaningful release conditions or bail can offer. Nonviolent does not necessarily mean low risk. And for these reasons, the Hawaii Police Department respectfully asked the committee to defer this bill. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Next we have Christine Denton representing Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. First, I would like to say hello, Chair Fukunaga, Vice Chair Lee, and Members of the Committee, and also apologize for my late testimony. Christine Denton be testifying on behalf of the Prosecutor's Office for Honolulu. We are respectfully testifying in opposition to this bill. This bill requires release on recognizance for a wide range of offenses without expressly requiring the court to review the defendant's criminal history, which is often one of the most important factors in determining whether the defendant poses a risk of failing to appear in court or committing new offenses while the case is pending. Equally important, prosecutors should be permitted to present relevant evidence to the court regarding the defendant's history of failure to appear prior violations of court orders and any risk the defendant may pose to the community and victims so that judges can make fully informed pretrial decisions.

Courts should have information more of it, not less of it when making decisions that directly affect public safety. With thousands of criminal cases filed in district court statewide each year, it is critical that our judges retain this discretion and receive the information necessary to evaluate criminal history, prior failures to appear, and risk to community when making pretrial decisions. Thank you for allowing us to testify.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Community Alliance on Prisons, Pat Brady, in person.

Hello again, committee. Pat Brady. We support this measure. We don't like everything in it, but we support a lot of it because the constitution says people are innocent until they're proven guilty. And when people have not even gone to have a hearing, to condemn them just seems unreasonable.

Also, crime has been decreasing in just about all categories according to national studies, the FBI, from think tanks. So we know that that crime is decreasing. Our jails are so overcrowded. HCCC is at, like, 126.5% over the occupational capacity, and OCCC is right up there with 95% capacity. And, you know, they need to have more- more space for people who might get arrested.

So that's not a good thing. One of the things in the JHA hearing that came across really loud and clear is victim notification, And this bill includes that, that a victim should be notified at all stages of pretrial. So I just wanna enforce that vengeance isn't justice. We need to do a better job identifying what's contributing to crime and what we can do as a community to actually provide the services that are needed so that people don't commit crimes of desperation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Chris Caulfield testifying for Imua Alliance in person. Good afternoon.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair. I'm Chris Caulfield. I'm speaking to you today as the president of Imua Alliance. We're in support of this bill. We must stop criminalizing poverty.

So our organization works with survivors of sexual exploitation and gender violence across Hawaii. Many of the people that we've worked with have experienced pretrial incarceration, not because they posed a danger to the problem safety, but simply because they couldn't afford bail, almost always for circumstances that have been related to their own exploitation. National data shows that we incarcerate people pretrial at more than double the national average. And as you've already heard, on other bills today, when we engage in those kind of practices, we are having negative adverse impact on people's ability to obtain financial security, people can lose their jobs, they lose access to housing. Those are the exact same social determinants that are important when somebody is trying to seek restoration from exploitation.

So many of our survivors have pled guilty to simply avoid jail even when they have a valid a valid defense, like being coerced into exploitation just to avoid just to avoid incarceration. We believe this bill moves Hawaii toward a a smarter, more equitable system, one that bases pretrial decisions on risk and and public safety. And just on behalf of our survivors, I just wanna say that justice should never depend on the size of someone's bank account. Freedom should always depend on risk, not wealth. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. She sees us. Oh, okay. I skipped over let's see. Melissa Pavlicek for SHOPO. Did you also wanna submit comments this afternoon?

Good afternoon. Chair Fukunaga, Vice Chair Lee. My name is Don Faumuina, and I'm the president of SHOPO. We stand here before you in opposition of this current bill. Now I've been hearing a a few testimonies about for those that are in support.

You know, we we talk about nonviolent being labeled as burglaries, unauthorized entry into motor vehicles, drug dealers. And many of them in my 26 years of being a cop, most of them have one thing in common, they carry weapons. And it has a potential of making something not labeled nonviolent to be very violent. And that's a safety issue for our officers as well as the members of the community. Some stats I'd like to share with- with you folks is, burglary second.

These are commercial blur- burglaries from 2024 to current. There's about 1,600 cases. And out of that, we were able to arrest about a 110 of these offenders, keeping them incarcerated. It is good because we don't need these people back out and, you know, out there and, you know, violating personal lives for our our community. I've also heard testimonies about not being able to afford- to afford to simply don't do the crime.

It's cheaper that way. You keep that. We're- We're very in in opposition in in this. We just wanna submit this testimony and let you know on on how and that we oppose this bill. Thank you so very much.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Hawaii Community Safety Coalition, Liam Chin, testifying online.

Not present on Zoom. Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Next, we have Nikos Leverenz testifying for Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members. Nikos Leverenz with Drug Policy Forum of Hawaii and also Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center. This bill is necessary to forestall excessive use of pretrial incarceration for non serious, nonviolent offenses. It's imperative to reduce the use of pretrial detention to ensure that our current jail facilities are not overcrowded and to help ensure that public health and public safety are pursued in a more measured and equanimous fashion. As noted by the Prison Policy Institute and its testimony before HSOC last year, the median length of a pretrial stay in OCCC was 52 days for those arrested for felonies, including nonviolent, non serious offenses like possession of drugs for personal use and eleven days for misdemeanors.

In stark contrast, the national median for predrial detention is six days. This state's overuse of incarceration also extends to a probation system that maintains the longest average term in the nation. Hope probation contributes significantly to this jail overcrowding. All those administering this state's criminal legal system often public publicly deny that current policies and practices do not criminalize poverty or behavioral health conditions. The reality is that homeless persons in Hawaii are subject to over criminalization when compared to other cities, even in the former Confederate states of Georgia and Houston.

Thirty eight percent of those in Hawaii jails are homeless, compared with four percent in Houston, Texas, and 13% in Atlanta, Georgia. So, you know, policymakers and and even those involved in the criminal legal system directly should really, you know, step back and think, why is it that people in Hawaii are treated less fairly and less equitably than people in former Confederate states. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you very much. Next we have for ACLU, Mandy Fernandez. Not quite--

No. You get me instead. Sorry. Thank you again, Chair. A lot of the things that we that's in our testimony have already been said, so I just wanted to highlight a couple things.

We are in strong support of this bill. Nearly half of Hawaii's Yale population is pretrial. Here on Oahu, roughly 74% of the people in OCCC are pretrial. Now, you know- you know, don't do the crime if you can't pay for it, if you don't take the time. But if two people get charged with the same crime, one has money, one doesn't, now you have the person who can't afford bail staying in for upwards of two months as you just heard as opposed to the person who can afford bail gets out.

Right? So it's- it's not so for us, it's- it's less a question of- of whether there's genuine risk to the community, and there are countless studies that says pretrial reforms do not increase crime in- in the community. So it does keep our community safe, and it keeps people out of jail who don't necessarily need to be there. Hawaii is spending $307 a day for every single person that's incarcerated, and we believe the vast majority of the people who are held pretrial don't necessarily need to be held pretrial. Also, being held pretrial doesn't necessarily mean that that person's going to show up in court or that they will not be rearrested or commit new crimes.

So by and large, bail reform as this bill does is good for good for the community. It's good for for Hawaii, and it actually will save the state money.

Thank you very much. Next, we have, let's see, Sex Abuse Treatment Center, Lynn Costales Matsulka in person. 'Kay. If not, John Deutzman, individual, also in person. Please come forward.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. My name is John Deutzman, Waikiki resident and crime victim. I don't know if you have any other crime victims here today. Been a victim of vicious harassments by chronic criminals that the system continually turns loose on the streets here. And because of that, I've done a five year study of every arrest in Waikiki to see what's going on.

First, the fact has been said before, judges have the discretion to release almost everybody without bail if they believe they're gonna return to court, and most judges do that. On occasion, a judge here and there will release somebody with a horrific criminal record. We just had a guy in Waikiki who was arrested for one of these nonviolent class c felonies. He had 300 prior arrests. He had 78 convictions.

He had dozens of failures to appear in court. He was a registered sex offender, but the judge said, well, it's a nonviolent felony. Let's let him go. Couple days later, he attacked a cop. He bit a cop, and now he's in jail again.

One thing you guys are going into this bill with is complete lack of information on the failure to appear rate. How many of these people who are released on their own recognizance actually don't show up? Well, I did my own research. Of course, it's just Waikiki, a two year study. Seventy three percent 73 percent of the people do not return to court.

And what does that mean? Well, the police have to go out and try to catch them again on a warrant. And after two years study, thirty percent of the people still had outstanding warrants. And each arrest, by the way, costs $1,900 per arrest per HPD. So talk about saving money. No. That doesn't save money. It creates a vicious cycle. Another very important point, a crime does not have to be violent to be dangerous. Almost every crime has an element of danger.

Shoplifting can be dangerous. Breaking into cars can be dangerous. Burglary can be dangerous. This thing about, oh, it has to be violent to be dangerous is wrong. And the Supreme Court in the a case called Jones versus United States, they said even shoplifting is dangerous. You're confusing violence and danger. Almost every crime is dangerous, and somebody who's been arrested 300 times, who's failed to appear in court dozens and dozens of times, they shouldn't be released into the community. Happens every day. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Deutzman. Let's see. Our remaining pages of testimony, we have Carrie Ann Shirota testifying on Zoom as an individual. Oh, I'm sorry. She's here in person.

Yes. Hello, senators. Carrie Anne Shirota, attorney testifying in support of this measure. For a number of years, literally decades, we've talked about reforming our pretrial system. This bill while not perfect.

And I, to be clear, I support cash bill elimination, which is more aligned with New Jersey and with Illinois. This moves closer to the federal system in a number of ways. There still need things to be done from the pretrial task force, which comprise, as we heard, police, prosecutors, AGs, and everyone. There's a list of, like, 23 recommendations, most of which were never implemented, which include collaboration from a number of stakeholders in this room. So we have people coming together looking at best practices throughout The United States.

We come up with these task force reports and recommendations, and then typically we don't implement them. One of the reforms that came from the past was to have unsecured bail. In every jurisdiction in Hawaii, it has never been used, not once. And so we need to look at other jurisdictions. New Jersey, which was- has major changes in their pretrial system, their champion advocate is Chief Justice Suitt Robert- Rabiner, their Supreme Court justice, who is a former federal prosecutor, who goes around to talk about how the changes to their system is more fundamentally fair that it's no longer just based upon who has wealth and who does not.

In our current system today someone could be charged with Class A or Class B, murder in the second degree. And if they have money, they can post bail. And there have been cases here. We have police officers who have been arrested for family abuse of household member. They typically have money and so they post bail.

And so do we have a fair system or is this based upon wealth inequality? If you look at the data from Harris County, Texas, Indiana, New York, a number of jurisdictions that have been studied by Harvard and other law universities, they've looked at successful data outcomes. And I I know my time is short, but please just keep in mind, all the money that we're spending on incarceration, we're not getting cost savings. I- We're not saying just let people out free. The money that we save from releasing people through data driven policies can be used for other services to help people to be successful.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, senator.

Okay. Next, we have Christine Andrews, online on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, chair.

Thank you. Next, Dennis Dunn, individual online on Zoom.

Good afternoon again, Chair Fukunaga and Chair Lee, Vice Chair Lee. I'm testifying in strong opposition to this measure. Let me begin by saying I'm a strong opposition in part because this bill begins with a presumption that our judges are not doing their job, that they're not properly applying the law, and that individuals who deserve to be be released are not being released. I worked for over a year on the penal code review committee with judges from across the state, and I can tell you that is not the case. You yourselves know these judges cause you've confirmed all of them.

So, you know, these are individuals that we should be trusting. I don't always agree with them, but in many instances, I think that they're taking the facts backgrounds of a case, and an individual's criminal history into account. That takes me to the point of victim safety. Many of the offenses that are in here, although we're talking about eliminating some of them from consideration, There are other offenses under which the underlying conduct is a danger to a victim or danger to the public at large. And we need to have that considered.

Secondly, there's inadequate time and resources for risk assessment. This bill imposes accelerated timelines that make meaningful risk assessment unrealistic. The intake service center is already struggling to meet existing bill report timelines. A further compressed process invites tragic outcomes. And finally, the victim notification provisions here are great, except for the victim should be notified prior to the release and to get information from them that might affect the judge's decision, not just afterwards.

And furthermore, the kind of release, I'm sorry, the kind of notification contemplated here goes far beyond the requirements of the current law, which would require substantial increase in resources for the victim assistance programs in the prosecutor's office. And there is no appropriation attached to this bill. So in summation, I think there's concerns about public safety here. There's concerns about it properly considering- considering victims. And I think the victim notification part are just plain not workable. Thank you very much for your time. Mahalo.

Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Next, we have Ilima DeCosta on Zoom.

Not present on Zoom, Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here who would like to testify on this measure? If not, members, any questions for our prior testifiers? If not, chair would like to recall Chief Vanic as well as the representative from SHOPO president.

You know, a lot of the discussion today has been about whether or not the jails are overcrowded, and I know it's not really fair to ask HPD or SHOPO, you know, what your statistics look like. But I would really be interested in seeing what kind of statistics your department retains and for SHOPO, what kinds of statistics and data you have that show that the jails are not overcrowded and that the jails are necessary to keep people who may be hazardous or dangerous from assaulting other individuals?

Yeah. So our- our holding cells are temporary holding cells, and we don't have an overcrowding issue. So this bill would not help us to unovercrowd our cell our temporary holding cells. So by passing this bill, that would in no way actually help us to relieve any type of issues that we have in our holding cells. And also, I don't think that changing bail reform is the answer.

If there's an issues with overcrowding, you shouldn't compromise the safety of the public by passing a bill like this. You should actually address the overcrowding itself and not compromise public safety. That should be the response, not looking at changing bail reform.

'Kay. Thank you.

Yeah. Chair Fukunaga, I- I don't have any stats at at the moment, but we can provide some for you at a at a later date. But to echo the chief's sentiments, we totally agree. It's more of a public safety and and really focusing more on the overcrowdingness in- in our jail cells as opposed to these nonviolent issues.

Okay. Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of our testimony this afternoon.

One follow-up.

Oh, sure. Ms. Shirota.

Yes. Thank you, Chair.

Just on that point on data, you said you referenced a number of different data points and states and things like that. Do you have that- is that- is that a broader list or something like that?

I do have a list of resources at home. I have some of them I've embedded into the testimony, but I've noticed that no one has talked about the latest report that just came out from our own criminal justice research institute, I think, within the past month. And so they're literally data points for pretrial population within every single circuit from Oahu to Hawaii Island, to Maui and Kauai. It gives the average amount of time people are incarcerated pretrial. It's far lengthier than some of what we're being heard today.

And I even list the amount of bail that people are being held for by the type of criminal offense. It breaks it down by petty, misdemeanor, felony class C, class B and class A. And so I think when we're looking at public policy, good public policy, we need to look at this report that just came out and I just got a copy of it recently, too. But for the other states, Senator, there's some literally studies of like 50 state scans of looking what's been done in other places. Some of them are being studied by third party evaluators, and I can provide a list of those resources to this committee.

That'd be helpful. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We would really appreciate also a copy of that report if you can provide that to the committee.

Yes. I will.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay. This brings us to the end of our agenda today. Members, chair would like to call a brief recess and consult on this last measure. Thank you.

We have conferred with the members and chair is gonna recommend that we defer decision making today to receive additional information, as mentioned during the hearing. And we will have decision making on this measure on Friday in this conference room during our 03:00 scheduled committee meeting. Any questions? If not, we are adjourned. Thank.