House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. Thank you all for being here. I know you're tired of hearing me say this, but I do appreciate you being here. It does help us do our job, so I appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedule to tell us what you think. Because often, we don't understand this as well these bills as well as you do. So you do help us out. So thanks for being here. Come on in. Find a seat anywhere. You are in the camera if you want it.

Everyone, there's a camera here that will go on the speaker over here. So just be aware. You're welcome to be there, but you'll be on YouTube. So this is the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Thursday, March 19, a little after 2PM. You're in Conference Room 325. We're here for the purposes of considering numerous measures. If you're testifying, I would request you keep your testimony to two minutes. If possible, I'll ask you to summarize at that point.

When you're speaking at the rostrum here, just speak regularly, articulate, you know, object a little bit. The microphones are in the ceiling, so they'll pick up your sound and amplify it a little bit in the room, but it'll be carried over our live stream. And but they're very sensitive microphones, so they will pick up your side conversations too. So if you're whispering to your neighbor, just be aware it might pick it up.

This Chair is great.

There you go. For those who are on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while you're waiting to testify and when your testimony is complete. And if you have trouble, any technical issues on Zoom, just use the chat function and communicate with our technical staff, and they'll do their best to help you out. If you're disconnected if you're testifying remotely, just rejoin. Try, you know, take a deep breath.

Come back in as soon as you can. I'll try to fit you in if time permits to finish your testimony. In case of a network failure here in the room, power goes off or something and we have to reschedule, I'll make sure to post appropriate notice so you'll know when we're meeting to discuss what. Now if you're testifying on Zoom, please avoid using any trademarked or copyrighted images, and please testify with aloha. Don't use profanity or uncivil behavior, please.

It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. Thank you very much. First up, we have Senate Bill 2530, Senate Draft 2, relating to campaign contributions. This is, this is basically—I won't read the whole summary—this is basically the bill to prohibit state contractors and those who receive grants of a significant amount are not able to give political contributions to certain elected officials.

This is the Senate version. We've passed the House version of it, but we'll consider the Senate version today. So, first up, we have State Procurement Office on Zoom.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Bonnie Kahakui, Administrator with the State Procurement Office. We will stand by our written testimony. We did provide recommendations, just for clarity, to give the agency and the vendors an opportunity, within the execution period, to submit the names as requested by the Campaign Spending Commission. Mahalo. Available for questions.

Sure. And, Director, if you could briefly explain your, your amendment, I think you also—there's a timing issue too. Right?

Correct. Thank you. Thank you, sir. So, the, the bill, as currently written, says at the time of execution of a contract. We clarify that to say within thirty days of a fully executed contract.

Contract execution can be a little bit of a tricky, you know, who signs first, who signs second, when is that approved. So, within thirty days, would give everyone ample opportunity to, to get all the approvals necessary and to get the names, as requested, to the Campaign Spending Commission. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much for that recommendation and for your testimony. Next, Campaign Spending Commission. Welcome.

Afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, members of the committee. Kristy Chang from Campaign Spending Commission. The commission, of course, supports this bill. This is their administrative part of their administrative package. What this bill does, right, is currently, there is no ban on contractors from making contributions during the life of the contract. This bill would extend that to their officers and immediate family members and also to grants.

With this senate version, I mean, we have this SD 1, SD 2 version. Patricia just wants to point out that we did on the house side as well that it limits the scope to compensated officers. And as we said on the house side of the bill is that we're concerned that influence can still happen for uncompensated officers and we respectfully requested that be removed. And then, also, note about the password protected section.

We've been working with State Procurement Office to figure out ways on how we would implement that and figuring out procedures internally.

So, we are working towards being able to implement that. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. And thank, thanks to you and to the State Procurement Office for giving us a sense of how much appropriations you would need to be able to carry this out. Yeah. We ask for both of you for that.

Okay. Next, Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. Welcome.

Aloha. Aria Juliet Castillo, testifying on behalf of Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. Thank you so much, chair, for your hard work in trying to close this poll. We recognize your front end of the details and thoughtfulness ensuring something moves forward. We wanna recognize there's two similar bills that are moving in parallel. After seeing both measures crossover, listening to the testimony and amendments that have been made, we're asking that the language in this bill remain the same.

We will be advocating for HB 1519 to be amended to closely align with what we feel is a stronger framework as we have concerns there is a major loophole when you restrict donations of Canada's only same branch of government. This SB version reflects how influence actually operates in Hawaii. Counties play a central role in procurement and maintaining close, long-term relationships with contractors, often spanning years or decades, making strong, consistent safeguards essential. Influence does not stay within a single branch of government.

Donors and contractors build relationships with policy makers over the course of their careers, regardless of what branch they're working in at the time.

Limiting restrictions to the same branch fails to capture the reality and leaves the core problem unresolved. This approach ensures clarity, consistency, and public confidence that the decisions are being made are being made in the public's best interest and not influenced by long-standing financial relationships. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Imua Alliance. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2530? If not, questions, members?

Any questions? No. Just one question for Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action. I'm just curious—oh. She left. Oh, no. That's fine.

I was gonna ask her to give me some evidence about an assertion she made. It'll be another time. Okay. No questions, then we'll move on to the next measure. Thank you very much.

To testifiers. Senate Bill 2970, Senate Draft 1, relating to standards of conduct. This prohibits the state agency from entering into any contract to procure or dispose of goods or services or for construction with any business that is owned or operated or in which you're controlling interest to sell by a relative or a household member of a director or a deputy director of a principal state department. First up, we have State Ethics Commission, Mr. Harris.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair. My name is Robert Harris, and on behalf of the Hawaii State Ethics Commission, we are in support of this measure, although it's not part of our package. We do offer two proposed amendments. One is to try to consolidate it within the existing contract clause in the Chapter 84 standards of conduct In order to have all the language already in the contracts to be in one provision.

Second, we're suggesting that rather than specifying director, recognizing some agencies use different titles. We're suggesting a broader definition of just saying department head. And then finally, we have seen the testimony offered by the State Procurement Office and have no objections here. Thank you.

Thank you very much. State Procurement Office.

Good afternoon again, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Bonnie Kahakui. Yes. We'll stand by our written testimony. We did make a recommendation to close where we feel there's a loophole, limiting it to under $10,000. By limiting this loophole, we avoid also parceling. Thank you. Available for questions.

Thank you very much. Ted Kefalas, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2970, Senate Draft 1? If not, questions, Members?

Seeing none. Thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 2919, relating to the Office of the Public Defender. This measure appropriates funds to the Office of the Public Defender for one full time equivalent deputy public defender 3 position. First up, we have the Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas. Yes. I'm the second team though. Ms. Cheng couldn't make it. Vice Chair Poepoe, and Committee Members. So obviously, we strongly support this bill. The Office of the Public Defender is a statewide office. However, we don't have a statewide position designated to provide advice on constitutional and more importantly immigration issues statewide.

And with the changing landscape of immigration law, those kind of issues always coming up, it would, it's vital to our representation to be able to advise persons as part of our representation of the possible immigration consequences related to pleas, for example, or convictions. In fact, we have a professional and ethical obligation to provide accurate information to persons on those issues. So for that reason, we support this.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Hawaii Coalition for Immigration Rights. Liza Gill or her representative.

Yes. Liza. That's not me, but my name is Andrew Rozhok, and I'm also with Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights. And we stand in strong support of this bill. I just wanted to actually submit it. I'm myself, I'm immigrant. Pretty fresh. I'm from Ukraine, and I do work with a lot of immigrants here in Hawaii.

And one of the things that I would say in my experience, a lot of people, they do not know immigration law here. And when they have problems with, like, car accidents or whatever and they go to the court, they need someone who can actually also help them to advise on immigration first.

Get this related to their position here for the, I don't know, the deportation part of any immigration bills. Sorry, immigration documents. So I would say this is really helpful for people like me who work with immigrants and that we have someone who can represent immigration, low part works. And thank you for the opportunity for testifying. And one more time, Andrew Rozhok, Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights..

Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this measure? Can you please introduce yourself?

Aloha. My name is Leilani Stacy. I'm the immigrants rights attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Hawaii. And Mandy Fernandes...

Mandy Fernandes sent in testimony.

That's right. Yeah. And I'll just say that we stand on that testimony. We're in strong support just to allow our public defenders to be able to do their jobs and just enforcing the constitutional right outlined in Padilla versus Kentucky. We know other states have created these sorts of positions, especially in light of the increased enforcement that we're seeing here in our state and across the continent. So we're in strong support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, Members? Yes, Rep Shimizu.

Public defender, please. As you help the people people in need and you are able to identify those who are applicable, are you able to point them in the right direction and help them get citizenship if if they need it?

No. We can only we can only assist them in criminal matters. The immigration is a direct collateral consequence to the convictions, and that was the, you know, the reasons of this position because...

If I could interrupt, why don't you explain Padilla?

Padilla requires that we provide accurate information regarded to the criminal, when it's there's a criminal case in the immigration consequences to the person. So if for instance, you know, there's a deportable offense, we're required to provide accurate information to the person so that they know like if you're convicted or you change your plea, that you could be deported as a result of this conviction.

And Padilla is the name of the court decision that now requires all attorneys, all defense attorneys, to disclose to their clients the immigration ramifications of their plea. Yeah?

Yes. Correct.

So that's the basis of this is that we're trying, we're trying to... We're not asking a public defender to advise on immigration law, but rather to advise their clients on the ramifications of their sentencing or plea deal in the criminal case that might occur to them in terms of their immigration status. So is that accurate?

Yes. Correct.

So continuing my line of questioning. That you get them kinda like after the fact then. It's not like you're able to get them in the front where you can help them get citizenship because it's already a consequence of them being involved in whatever situation and coming to you.

Correct. Well, we can't represent persons in other than criminal matters. So we wouldn't be able to assist in that regard because that's like a civil type of situation. That's a non criminal. That's for sure. So while we could, you know, we might be able to refer them to resources as we do for other situations. We can't necessarily help them if if that's what you're saying, you know, to, like, fill out the paperwork or do things like that. But they would already be in jeopardy of being deported because of the possible conviction for the charge.

Chair, could I ask,,. Could I ask you the question? Yes.

Or the other representative is an attorney.

Yeah. Attorney. Sorry. Not that attorney is better than anybody else, but.. You heard the question that I posed. So when people are in trouble and they come to you and you identify their situation as applicable, are you able to help them on the path to citizenship?

Sure. So our organization, the ACLU, is a civil rights organization, and we take on a different set of cases. So we don't necessarily represent folks who are going through immigration court, but we work very closely with immigration attorneys. So some folks like The Legal Clinic, Catholic Charities, those are people who are helping to either get people citizenship, maybe through their green cards or an affirmative application, or to help prevent deportation, say, through applying for asylum or that sort of procedure.

And so, again, I think as the Office of Public Defenders was explaining, immigration court is a civil matter, and so an immigration attorney would help them go through that process. And they might be going through that process, say, in the application for a green card when a minor misdemeanor or, you know, crime occurs, and then separately, they'll be charged in criminal state court. And at that point, there might be consequences of even being charged with that crime or potentially pleading guilty or being convicted.

All of those decision points that, you know, the public defense office might help their client with, those could have consequences for whether or not they would be entitled to continue with their immigration proceedings to be on a pathway to citizenship because federal immigration law changes almost every year. In 2025, there was a new act that stated these new crimes that have a lot...

I appreciate. I thank you. Okay. Can I contact with you and talk afterwards?

Sure. Yeah. Our information is available online.

To learn more about it.

I have a question. Just I think this is to create a position to assist in to prevent, I guess, potential claims that a person, wasn't wasn't given enough assistance or the assistance was ineffective. So have you been experiencing this?

Again, our office doesn't, I don't think we've experienced this. I think probably the Office of Public Defense would be a little bit more appropriately in that question.

Okay. Chair, can I follow-up with that question to the Public Defender's Office, please? Thank you. Hi. Aloha. Did you need me to restate? Basically the purpose for this in house advisor. To address what is it?

So in, again, in terms of, like, convictions or even being charged, there may be a collateral consequence that might affect immigration status or even trigger deportation. So for Padilla, we have to properly advise persons on the consequences or potential ramifications of the criminal side as far as their immigration status. So this position would allow us to statewide have one consistent person who would be able to do that.

Okay. And Chair, one follow-up. And so one person would be able to take care of all the needs throughout the entire state? You feel confident?

Yes. So right now what happens is like we've had, we've had situations where attorneys have volunteered to take on, for instance, a specialty situation such as immigration. However, it's hard because they also have their regular trial work as well. So, you know, in order to have a person that's directly focused on, again, you know, as you know that the landscape keeps changing with immigration law. You know, there's a lot of interpretations involved. So it would help to have one consistent opinion that we could rely on statewide because, you know, we have branches on each island.

Okay. Alright. Thank you so much for that explanation. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Any other questions? If not, thank you very much to the testifiers on this measure. Let's go ahead to the next measure. Senate Bill 2446, Senate Draft 2, relating to the Judiciary.

And just to let everyone know, we're gonna be hearing all the bills in the agenda first and then we'll do decision making at the end of the agenda. So, Senate Bill 2446, Senate Draft 2, relating to the Judiciary. This measure increases the number of associate judges on the intermediate court of appeals from six to seven. First up, we have Judiciary.

Aloha. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, committee members. I'm Randy Panal, Staff Attorney at the Intermediate Court of Appeals. Thank you for allowing me to testify today. The Judiciary is grateful for this committee's support of the ICA and being instrumental in adding the sixth associate judge position back in 2022.

Judiciary supports the intent of the current bill, but since the sixth associate judge was added in June 2022, the ICA has operated at full capacity with six associate judges and one chief judge for only seven months. That means thirty nine months of the last forty six months, we have not been fully staffed. And we haven't really been able to demonstrate what we can achieve when that happens.

Despite not being fully staffed and despite an increase in the number of appeals that were filed, we still managed to terminate more appeals last year than we have in the last ten years. And that's because starting in January 2024, we reallocated our resources internally and implemented some operational changes, which increase our output.

So, we expect our case terminations will improve exponentially when we fill the current vacancy, which we hope will happen during this session. So, we agree with the third person of the bill, which essentially puts a seventh associate judge on the books because it's funded. And that way, we can get our sixth associate judge on board and continue to increase our output before we can meaningfully access—meaningfully assess—whether funding is required for the seventh associate judge. I'll be available. Thank you.

I'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much. We've also received testimony from the Office of Public Defender and Community Alliance on Prisons. Did you wanna say anything? Okay.

Anyone else wanting to testify in this measure? Questions, members? I just want a quick question before you leave, sir. So, as you stated accurately, this authorizes the additional judge position, but it does not appropriate funds to pay for it.

I think this is just, I think, a way for us to indicate support for the community court appeals, and that we would look for that assessment that you described. And I would urge you that when you when you make that assessment after you've, you know, caught up more and then got really more of your backlog and the and the delays, that you, you know, you don't, don't be shy.

Come back and ask us for appropriations if you need them, in order to render justice in a timely manner because I think that's our goal. And you heard from Senator Rhoads about this.

Chair Rhoads is saying, it shouldn't take so long, so I don't have to repeat that. But I would just urge you to don't be shy. Come back and ask when it's clear that it's something that you need. We may not be able to do it then, but we need to hear from you on that. And I would look for those metrics and talk about those assessments.

That would be important.

Understood. Thank you, chair. I'm glad that's on the record.

Yeah. Just wanna make it clear to everybody.

Thank you very much. Any other questions, members? Okay. Thank you very much. Let's move on to the next measure.

Thank you.

Senate Bill 2730 Senate Draft 2 relating to criminal justice reform. This is very similar to a House Bill 2494 that we considered and passed. This establishes factors under which officers may arrest and detain persons without a warrant for petty misdemeanors and violations and requires officers to document the justification for the arrests. An immense circumstance is under which officers may issue citations in legal arrest, and it does other things as well. First up, we have Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Welcome, Miss Woodward.

Aloha, Chair. Aloha, committee members. McKenna Woodward on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support with comments on this measure. This bill reduces unnecessary arrests for misdemeanors, petty misdemeanors, and violations by making citation and move arrest the default in appropriate low-level cases while preserving officer discretion where public safety or court appearance is an issue.

OHA supports that approach because arrest is one of the most serious forms of government intervention and can trigger immediate harms to employment, housing, family stability, and future system involvement even before any conviction.

This bill also makes better use of limited public safety resources because citation based responses require less time and fewer detention resources and allow law enforcement to focus on more serious matters. This is especially important for native Hawaiians who remain disproportionately represented throughout Hawaii's criminal legal system and are therefore more exposed to the harms of avoidable custodial arrest. OHA also supports the bill's redesigned citation form and clearer notice requirements, which should improve appearance rates and make the process more understandable for people navigating the system.

OHA appreciates the prior committee's effort to address identification concerns by restoring the last four digits of the offender's social security number, if available, to the citation form. However, OHA is concerned by the added provision requiring citations issued under this section to be visible on an offender's criminal record.

OHA raises this concern from a practical implementation perspective as a voting member of the clean slate task force, where we have been actively engaged in record relief policy discussions. Hawaii law already allows expungement of certain non-conviction arrest records. In this session, the legislature is also considering measures to further align Hawaii with best practices on record relief and reduced collateral consequences in low-level cases.

Making citations newly visible on a criminal record cuts against that direction and risks undermining broader efforts to reduce unnecessary long-term consequences where there has not been a conviction warranting that result. For those reasons, the Office of Fine Affairs respectfully urges the committee to pass this measure with reconsideration of the criminal record visibility provision.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much, Miss Woodward. Next, we have Mister Tom, Attorney General.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom for the department. Department submits testimony in opposition to Senate Bill 2730 SD 2. Although this bill attempts to provide some enumerated exceptions where officers are allowed to arrest, these seven enumerated sections cannot adequately address all the types of scenarios that officers, law enforcement come across on a daily routine doing law enforcement tasks. So we are concerned that that's not gonna address, you know, law enforcement's ability to effectuate their task.

Additionally, for, for prosecution purposes, having correct identification is truly important. When we are charging step-up type offenses like driving without license or habitual property crimes, we wanna make sure that we have the right individual when we are charging them for a much more significant crime like a class C felony for habitual property offense. So we wanna make sure that we do have the person that was cited prior and is now being cited for this felony offense.

We did mention, we do appreciate the last committee's attempt to address putting it on the criminal record. However, in terms of we put in our our testimony in regards to the cost that might be imposed in trying to effectuate this task.

It also is very unclear just how, that would be effectuated and where that criminal record would be. If that's with the HCJDC, we just put the financial implications in our TCJDC. Hawaii, justice record.

Basically, the Hawaii justice. They keep off the criminal.

Even smart guys.

I apologize. Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center.

So, that's where all the, if they are gonna if that's where they intend to place that it's not clear in the bill. And we did put the financial implications to make sure that they can address that. Lastly, it would be the increase the possible increase in motions to suppress, motions to dismiss, and the unintended consequences of once it gets to the court level. I do hear my time is up, so I will be here for any questions. Thank you.

I, I didn't I didn't tell you to summarize yet because I'm always interested to hear what you say, Mister Thomas.

It's okay. I'm always listening. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

I told you before this, but I used to serve with Mark Tom's father, who was the judiciary chair in the house.

Thirty years ago.

Years ago.

Yeah. Yeah. How about it.

Thanks for sharing that, Chair. That's sweet.

Yeah. There you go. Okay. Let's move on to the judiciary next.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair of Poepoe. Ernest Delima on behalf of the Hawaii State Judiciary. We submitted written testimony under my colleague's name, Michelle Acosta, who would stand by the testimony. The committee would like I could kinda review the main three points I think from our testimony. First of all, we'd like to appreciate the committee reviewing our previous testimony and making amendments to SD 2.

There's three main points in our testimony that we recently submitted. The first one is that the the current piece of legislation requires the judiciary to disseminate a newly designed citation for use by law enforcement by July 1st, 2027. From our perspective, you know, this is gonna require a lot of research to design and implement the new citation, as well as, our a lot of collaboration between the judiciary and our partner agencies, as well as the Criminal Justice Research Institute, and making changes to our GEMS system.

We also need to dispose of any existing citations that we would have at that time. Given this and our desire to do the best job possible, we would request that the committee consider an implementation date of this piece of legislation no earlier than January 1st, 2028.

Our second point was that, we'd kinda like to suggest that the committee consider, removing language on page nine, that talks about available options for citation resolution and options for persons unable to afford any fines or cost imposed. And the reason for this is that a request is that for petty misdemeanors and misdemeanor level offenses, they are criminal in nature. We do not have any options at this time for resolution prior to arraignment.

So they cannot get some type of resolution prior to appearing for the arraignment in court. Yeah.

Unlike in a traffic infraction type situation where you could resolve the matter without ever coming to court by paying a fine or fee, because these are petty or misdemeanor type offenses. We would wanna avoid having someone believing that they do not have to appear for an arraignment, and failure appear might result in some type of benchmark being issued, which would be counterintuitive to what the intent of SB 2730 is asking. Right?

And our last point would be, and this again is for the committee to consider, is potentially creating a working group citation. E-citations are being used in the state right now, I believe, in the first and second circuits. And perhaps, you know, through this working group, we could take a look at transitioning our, our historically paper-based citation to more of an electronic format. So that would be another suggestion that the judiciary would offer at this time.

I can be available for questions and thank you to the committee.

Thank you very much. Next, Office of Public Defender. Mister Bento.

Just issued a citation. That concern can be alleviated by the language that's in the bill. One of the things that was brought up in testimony of other parties was dealing with the type of charging in these cases. So if a person is arrested.

I'm sorry. If a person is issued a citation for perhaps theft in the fourth degree, but then when they review the matter, they see that this person has prior property offenses and should have been charged with a felony instead for a habitual property crime.

The concern is that by issuing a citation, they're not able to do so. But I think that that's not a valid concern, and this is the reason why. In every situation when somebody is arrested, that information from HPD goes to the prosecutor's office, and they review the matter and decide what the charge needs to be. And that's usually done, thank goodness, it's the prosecutors in the hospital early in the morning prior to court.

So overnight, they're working on these matters, and they get these charges, and they take people to court.

Sometimes it can take longer because it could be a more complicated matter. So the system is already prepared to have situations where a citation is issued by a police officer and the information goes to the prosecutor's office, and they realize that that's not a valid charge. So there's already that safety measure by which they can charge appropriately. The real issue here is there are people who are being arrested that perhaps do not need to be taken into custody. Why is that a problem?

Because one, they're gonna miss work that day. They could lose their job. Maybe they haven't had arrangements for childcare or other things. Even senior care. They have people all have responsibilities.

And an arrest, when it's unnecessary, could trigger a cascade of other ramifications. So we do believe that this is a streamlining measure. It takes into consideration public safety, but would be highly appropriate in a number of situations. You know, the police do arrest and then release pending investigation. And the legislature previously had allowed for a different type of charging whereby just information is provided to a court, and then a person is then arrested, and then they have to post bail in that kind of situation.

So there are already procedures in place to help, to institute what this bill is hoping to achieve. Thank you, and I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much, Mister Bento. Next, we have Hawaii County prosecuting attorney on Zoom. Not present. Next, we have Honolulu Police Department. Welcome.

Hi. Aloha. Please excuse my cough.

Yeah. I'm I'm sniffling too. I apologize. No. It's alright.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, committee members. I'm Major Paul Okamoto with the District 6 Waikiki of the Honolulu Police Department. HPD opposes Senate Bill 2730 relating to criminal justice reform. Police officers currently have the ability to use their experience and reasoning to make a decision at the scene of an incident, to issue a citation or make an arrest. Many factors are considered in making this decision.

Complicating this process and removing the officer's independent ability to utilize discretion will ultimately be detrimental to public safety. One of the considerations of any officer writing a citation or effectuating an arrest is their assessment of whether their enforcement action will be sufficient to immediately stop the that criminal activity. Since every situation is unique, we rely on the training and experience of our law enforcement professionals to make that determination. The stated purpose of this bill is to, quote, reduce unnecessary arrests, unquote.

It is my opinion that we should trust our officers to make that determination and rely and and rely as we always do on their testimony, their body-worn camera footage, and other evidence in their reports and citations to justify the degree of enforcement action.

This bill also asserts that arrests are highly disrupt disruptive to a person's life. The purpose of an arrest is to be disrupted enough to immediately stop and arrest the criminal activity and to dissuade the lawbreaker from reoffending in the future. Mandating the enforcement action to an issuance of a c citation may not be sufficient in many cases. Also, the physical arrest and booking procedure of an uncooperative suspect is necessary to determine their true identity, which, of course, is always important in successful prosecution.

Finally, the argument about staffing shortages affecting public safety due to the removal of the officer from patrol duties during arrest is moot.

Officers currently are currently possess the ability to make that determination on their own and can simply choose to issue a citation after properly considering the merits and demerits of doing so. Respectfully, legislation is not needed to make this determination. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and HPD strongly urges you to oppose Senate Bill 2730.

Next, we have Dennis Dunn on Zoom. Please proceed, Mister Dunn.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, members of the committee. As you can see from my written testimony, I am justifying a strong opposition to this measure. I will try to go to my main points. But first of all, before I go further, the main premise of this seems to be that too many people are being arrested.

And I must say, from a victim's point of view, many victims, especially those who are in immediate danger from offenders, feel that often too few individuals are arrested, especially for offenses that involve domestic violence and sexual assault.

Although some of these offenses here might seem to be excluded, the conduct may be subsumed into the definitions of certain statutes that would fall into this, and therefore, citations would be issued rather than an arrest. Some of the kinds of situations that I've pointed out are assaults that might be harassment, charges of harassment, individuals who are making harassing telephone calls, and possibly even offensive touching, which could be underlying or attempted sexual assaults.

In these situations, I think that one of the concerns is that by not making an arrest, there'll be increasing dismissals for purely procedural reasons. This statute lays out procedures that the police must follow. And if they fail to do so, cases could be easily dismissed based on a technicality.

Again, one of a major frustration for victims. Secondly, this would be encouraging people to fail to appear, leading to bench warrants. We already have a huge backlog of bench warrants that are not being served. And, eventually, this is gonna put more stress on the courts because these cases that have been dismissed may be charged again, just adding to the additional backlog.

The other thing that I wanted to mention, and that I think has been touched on already is that criminal justice histories, databases which maintain these such as a criminal justice information system and the FBI records do require fingerprints to support the information being included.

So an individual could have many, many citations without ever having their fingerprints taken, and therefore, their records will not show up when the police are trying to make these decisions. So finally, in summary, I think this bill will undermine effective law enforcement, increase police increase procedural dismissals, overwhelm an already strange judicial system, eliminate critical criminal history information due to lack of fingerprints, and place victims and the public at greater risk. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Melissa Pavileck, are you wishing to testify? Come on up. But we received your written testimony, and I saw you there. And I thought maybe you wanna testify in person.

Aloha Rep Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe and members of the committee. I know that the chair's preference is to hear from people and not to have them simply submit written testimony. The State of Hawaii Organization of Police Officers respectfully opposes this bill. Our comments are consistent with things you've already heard, such as the logistical constraints of the current system to show a citation, but also the our perception that this would reduce flexibility needed by law enforcement officers. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2730? If not, questions, members? Representative Shimizu?

As you heard HPDs and other testimonials, that the officers are able to make those determinations. Wouldn't that be sufficient as far as accepting that current ability that HPD has in administering law enforcement.

Well, all I can tell you is from our experience, we don't see many cases where just a citation is issued as opposed to a physical arrest, and so that's why the language of the bill is important because the default would be to issue the citation with exceptions that the police officer can point to, to actually do the physical arrest. Instead of the other way around.

So, I think that that's an important part of the bill and gives important language under the circumstances. Did I answer your question?

Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate your position, and your opinion and your testimony. Thank you very much. Thank you, chair.

Garcia?

Thank you chair, for HPD. Thank you for your testimony. I'm just curious, because I know the proponents of this bill, they say often that this is just happening in instances where it's nonviolent crimes. Right?

Could you give examples of certain misdemeanors or petty misdemeanors where arrests are made currently, where if the bill passes, officers would no longer be able to make?

I think just the top of my head. Right? I work in Waikiki. I think if there were someone smoking Marijuana on the beach, was in possession over an eighth of an ounce, we would be required to give them a citation. People feel very strongly about Marijuana.

That person didn't want to comply with us even after the issue of a citation. Really, what can we do other than issue more citations? So, I guess that's a good example. Sometimes arrest is necessary to stop the criminal behavior, and I think we should leave it up to the officer, based on his experience and training, to make that decision and not legislate. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, if I may ask? We had a very productive meeting with your chief, a number of the objections that you brought up, and we were able to explain to him in the bill how we've addressed those, how we have not tied the hands of the police officers, that they must issue citations.

So, there's a lot of discretion that is still provided for your officers who have the professional ability to make that decision. If the person is a threat to themselves or others, if there's future interactions, with police that you foresee.

So, I would urge you to meet with the chief, and as I say, it was a productive meeting after numerous things you brought up. I said, well, here's where we changed the bill to address your concern.

He says, oh, I didn't realize that. Brought up another objection. Here's what we have explained. Here's what we did to address your concern because we have modified the bill along. So, I appreciate your position on it, but I think I would I would urge you to meet with the chief.

I provided him with information about how we've addressed many of the concerns that he brought up, to assure you and assure the chief that we're still allowing discretion, and if the individual is a threat to themselves or poses a threat to themselves or others, you can arrest.

If they don't provide you ID and proper identification, you can arrest. So, we're not taking those things away, and I think the chief was surprised. He wasn't aware of that.

So the legislative process is not easy to keep up with. I have a hard time keeping up with it. So, I can't imagine that, you know, you've got a busy job. So, I appreciate your concerns, and I listened to them, and I do think we've addressed a number of them, maybe not all of them, but quite a few of them.

So, I would just urge you to meet with the Cheif, see what he thinks.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

I think anything that erodes the officer's ability to exercise a discretion, I think is smart.

Yeah, and this still allows the discretion. I just want to make sure that everyone understands that. This allows discretion and the public defender explained that.

I'll explain it again because I think this bill has been mischaracterized by opponents. So, I would urge you to meet with the chief so you can get the information from them. I would be happy to meet with you separately as well.

So, I think it's a disservice to the public and to the members here if you mischaracterize the measure, because we've really worked hard to try to address your concerns.

So, Thank you. Appreciate that. I appreciate your good work.

Thank you.

Any other questions? If not, let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 2315 Senate draft two, proposing an amendment to Article 17, section three of the Hawaii State Constitution to specify that the standard for voter approval of a constitutional amendment proposed by the legislature is a majority of all the votes tallied upon the question. This addresses the issue about if if it's

blank, it's counted as a notebook. So this tries to address that issue because people get very confused about that. So on this measure, first up, we have oh, we don't have anyone who said they're gonna testify in person. Is there anyone here wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2315? If not, members, you see all the written testimony on it.

You can refer to that. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 2723 relating to the State Sheriff's Day. This establishes April 27 of each year as State Sheriff's Day to commemorate the establishment of the office of marshal of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1846. And this measure, we've received two testimonies.

Nobody said they're gonna be here to testify. Is there anyone here who wishes to testify in Senate bill 2723? Not? We'll move on. I'm looking to ask questions though.

Next measure, Senate bill 2135 Senate draft two, relating to privacy. This measure establishes the offense of nonconsensual disclosure of an intimate image. First up, we have attorney general. Welcome back. Okay. Attorney general.

Thank you. You guys are moving really quick. I thought there was a couple of bills in this and was gonna have some time.

I just moved along here.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee, deputy attorney general Mark Tom with the department. Department just provides comments. This bill was heard before. There is just I'm not gonna go into the details.

Very specific. We put page numbers and line numbers just to make clear certain terms in the bill such as reveals the identity, identify individuals. We, provided some language to assist the committee if they intend to try to make those corrections or those amendments to assist them in making those. We also provided some technical amendments for this bill as well. I will be here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry to catch you unaware.

Next, miss Cheney with Hawaii State Commission on Status of Women.

No, thank you.

Good afternoon. Yasmin Cheney for the Commission on the Status of Women. I'll stand on my written testimony in support of this measure, as it provides legal recourse for individuals who have experienced technology through self hate and abuse. Thank you for your consideration and support.

Thank you very much. Next, Chris Caulfield, the Imua Alliance.

Hello, chair, vice chair, committee members. I'm Chris Caulfield speaking to you today as the president of Imua Alliance. We're in support of this bill as well. We understand this is a work in progress. You've heard it before first crossover, and there's a number of competing perspectives about it.

And a lot of language changes that, as the attorney general included in their testimony, need to have to look forward and move forward. But image based sexual abuse is a widespread problem in the digital era. National data shows that approximately one in twelve adults have experienced nonconsensual distribution of intimate images. And nearly one in four young women report being threatened with it. Survivors face lasting harms, including depression, anxiety, stalking, even housing and job instability.

Advances in artificial intelligence have made this problem much worse. It's easier than ever to create and distribute nonconsensual sexualized images, which expands the scope of the harm tremendously. We just wanted to highlight one proposed amendment from our testimony, and that's something we were really keying in on this year, which would be eliminating the requirement that survivors prove harm for an offense to be treated as a felony.

We feel that, as currently drafted, the bill would create a two tiered system of justice cases where survivors can prove emotional distress or reputational harm or be treated more seriously about cases that are unable to make that kind of proof of harm or treated as lesser offenses. Then for us, that approach would create significant barriers to justice.

Legal analysis that have been done on on this issue have shown that most perpetrators, about ninety percent actually, are not motivated by a specific intent to harm. They act for amusement, they act for profit, they act for other reasons but not specifically with an intent to commit harm against another individual or out of a vengeful motive. So the proof of harm requirement risks risks allowing many of these cases to fall through the cracks entirely.

And as you already know, most of the most of the cases will fall into the lesser rated misdemeanor category. As you already know, the activity that's included in this this proposal is already, criminalized under state law under section, seven eleven eleven ten point nine, our first degree violation of privacy law.

That bill that that law also contains a proof of hard provision in it in subsections b and c. And so if you do move this bill forward, given that that we would have parallel statutes addressing image based sexual abuse, we would encourage you to to delete the proof of harm requirement both from this proposal as as well as from a seven eleven eleven ten point nine. That, we think, would be transformative in terms of providing access to justice, especially virus of image based abuse.

So removing these distinctions, we think would treat treat all cases consistently. This is a growing problem, and we're excited that your committee is hearing this bill to try to address it. Thank you so much.

Thank you, mister Caulfield. Next, Dennis Dunn on Zoom. Please unmute your call, mister Dunn.

I'm sorry. I thought I clicked that.

There you are.

Sorry. My apologies.

No problem.

I'm testifying in strong support of this measure. I'm just gonna make a couple of comments. One is that I have in my career of stand about fifty years working with victims. I have heard excruciating details of victims who've been subjected to this type of treatment.

I'd also point out that these types of offenses, the consequences last very long in the sense that, oftentimes, these image may remain available on the Internet for long periods of time that the victim themselves may not contemplate and the harm therefore may be amplified by the fact that these images may be lit live practically forever.

I believe that this type of a bill will provide the adequate deterrent. I think a specific offense is warranted given the comments that everyone has made about the increase in these number in these types of incidents. And I thank you very much. I urge you to support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on Senate bill 2135 Senate draft two? If not, questions? Rep Shimizu?

Sorry sorry to disturb you. Thank you for being here. I was wondering, were you able to see TechNet's testimony? I was not. I apologize.

Okay. Did they mention intentionally that that's the word intentionally was changed to knowingly. So, they are asking to change change the language to knowingly and intentionally. Does that does that make any difference for you?

I would have to see in the context of what they're specifying. But most of the time, the default, whenever there is not a state of mind for a charge, is intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. I don't know if there, without seeing context of it, I don't know if there's a there's there matters if you say knowingly and intentionally or intentionally and knowingly. I think it's just how the statutes are always written. So most of the time when you see a state of mind specifically written in, they will say intentionally or knowingly or recklessly. So I can take a look at it and follow-up on that question, representative Shimizu, if you'd like to follow-up on that.

But without looking at the context of their testimony, that's just purely the state of mind and I would

So I'm I'm I'm just trying to be a a lawyer wannabe, but so knowingly and intentionally, is knowingly or intentionally better? Or instead of adding? Routinely, it's intentionally knowing or reckless.

Can I ask a follow-up question?

Sure.

That's the default language that would be if there's no stand line

Or

Or

Okay. That's what I thought too. Or would be better. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? This is on the job training for the incoming member of the Judiciary Committee. Okay.

No other questions. We'll move on to the next measure. Thank you for the testifiers. Senate Bill 2448 Senate Draft 2 relating to the disclosure of intimate images. This enacts the uniform civil remedies for unauthorized disclosure of intimate images act as modified.

First up, we have state Commission on Status of Women. Miss Cheney.

Good afternoon again. Yes, we continue for the Commission on Status of Women. I stand in my written testimony in support of this measure as I feel it's important to offer civil remedies to survivors. Thank you very much for your consideration and support.

Thank you very much. Next, Chris Caulfield, the New Alliance.

Again, Chris Caulfield, speaking on behalf of the New Alliance in support of this bill. And just to be clear at the outset, we feel that image based sexual abuse is sexual assault. It is a form of sexual assault. The violation itself is the harm. It is inherently harmful.

Criminal law plays an important role, but these cases can be very difficult to prove, in part because of the proof of power provisions that we mentioned previously. It's often slow. It's, too narrow, simply inaccessible for many survivors. This proposal would fill a critical gap, creating a civil cause of action that gives survivors the ability to seek damages, stop further distribution of images and videos and secure removal of harmful content from the Internet.

From a philosophical perspective, that would shift survivors from being passive victims to empowered participants in their own protection.

We've seen that civil remedies work. A civil remedy complements criminal law by allowing survivors to pursue accountability, monetary damages, and injunctive relief, such as expedited removal orders and prohibitions for further distribution. It also incentivizes platforms and third parties to act responsibly and support removal and take down efforts. Really critically, there's data on this. States that have adopted civil remedies for IBSA report greater survivor satisfaction, increased compliance with removal requests, and measurable reductions in reposting and resharing of powerful content.

In essence, when we pass bills like this, IBSA goes down in those states.

IBSA?

Image based sexual abuse. Sorry.

Just just so everyone understands what your acronym is.

Thank you so much. Appreciate the clarification. But, yes, survivors with limited financial resources often cannot afford legal assistance without a civil cause of action. They can bring damages and attorney's fees. Civil actions also address inequities and access to justice for marginalized communities.

Women, LGBTQ plus individuals, and young people are disproportionately targeted by this type of activity, and those with fewer resources are often left without recourse. And I just wanna note, this is something that's impacted me personally. I know some of you may have heard my story before. When I was sexually assaulted years ago, the assault was secretly recorded. It was posted online.

I didn't find out about it until seven years later. When I did find out that it had been posted on multiple sites that have been viewed over a million times, I can tell you it was emotionally devastating for me, and it's something that it took years to overcome. Moreover, in our work with survivors of sexual exploitation, this kind of activity is commonly used to subject survivors as a form of coercion.

It's also used, explicit images and videos of this kind are used nonconsensually to advertise explicit services for trafficking victims, to buy traffickers, up their victims up. Ultimately, this measure is about giving dignity and accountability control to those whose privacy has been taken away. So we really hope to move this measure forward. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. And I appreciate you continue to be a strong advocate. You've changed traumatic experience to motivation for action. And I-

Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Acknowledge that and appreciate your active, steadfast support for these measures. Next, let's move on to Jane Sternecky, Uniform Law Commission on Zoom.

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and members of the committee. My name is Jane Sternecky, and I'm Legislative Counsel for the Uniform Law Commission. We stand today in strong support of SB 2448 relating to the disclosure of intimate images. This bill creates a civil cause of action for the unauthorized disclosure of an intimate image when that disclosure meets certain criteria as specified in the bill.

SB 2448 represents a vital step to allow victims of revenge porn to receive restitution and it dovetails with SB 2315 which creates a similar criminal penalty. The Uniform Act that this bill is based on is the Uniform Civil Remedies for an Authorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act, which was finalized by the Uniform Law Commission in 2018.

This act has been enacted in 10 states, and uniform acts like this are valuable because they provide predictability and certainty to Americans who move across state lines, and they allow judges and states with recent enactments to consider the precedent from other states that have already enacted that same act with substantially the same language.

However, I will note that the Uniform Act can still be subject to minor modifications in each enacting state as long as those modifications are both in line with the policy of the Uniform Act and are not unconstitutional.

As a result of conversations with stakeholders from throughout Hawaii, we restructured the definition section of this Uniform Act for clarity, and we agreed to two particular changes made to this bill in the Senate Committee, which first allow the estate of a deceased victim to bring a claim that meets the criteria, and second to require the destruction, deletion, or return of all copies of the intimate image following the conclusion of the case.

These specific changes do not undermine the uniformity of Hawaii's enactment because they're within the policy scope of the Uniform Act, and they do not pose constitutionality concerns. Accordingly, we request your support of SB 2448 to enact the uniform civil remedies for unauthorized disclosure of intimate images act, and I welcome your questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Elizabeth Kent. Mission to promote uniform laws.

Aloha. I'm Elizabeth Kent representing the campaign to promote uniform laws. Thank you for the opportunity to express strong support for this bill. I'm pleased that professor Mary Anne Franks, who worked with the ULC, the Uniform Law Commission on this bill, is here today. Professor Franks has incredible credentials and expertise in the subject of First Amendment law and law and technology.

I'll focus on three points. First, this bill is based on a uniform law that was drafted to protect victims from the nonconsensual release of their intimate images that they had a privacy interest in. Enactment of this bill would establish that Hawaii's public policy is to protect victims and to provide them with remedies. It also may deter bad behavior. Second, the ULC drafting process is rigorous and time consuming.

Committees strive to narrowly tailor their bills and to find the balance that's acceptable to all parties. The process takes hours and hours and can be painstaking. I estimate that a few thousand person hours go into each bill before it's ready for enactment. The challenge in drafting this bill was to strike the balance between privacy rights in intimate images and first amendment rights that required narrow tailoring. The ULC is confident that it struck the right balance here.

I asked the ULC staff to research if there have been any constitutional challenges to it in the states where it was enacted, and there have been none. Because our economy relies third, because our economy relies heavily on the military and tourism, and because service members and visitors come and go, it's beneficial to have a law that's uniform between the states for harms that can take place over social media. Uniformity brings consistency and application of the law between states and helps provide more predictable outcomes.

Uniformity helps reduce confusion and promotes fairness, which matters when people move around or work in different states. In closing, I hope you'll pass this bill out of this committee. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we have Mary Anne Franks on Zoom.

Hi. My name is Mary Anne Franks. I'm a First Amendment scholar and a professor at George Washington University School of Law in Washington, D. C. I served as the reporter for the Uniform Law Commission Act on which this bill was based, and I'm also the president of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, which is the nation's leading nonprofit organization that is dedicated to the issue of image based sexual abuse.

I have submitted written testimony, and I would like to use my time here to emphasize that my support for this bill is based on its narrow and careful focus on providing remedies for the nonconsensual disclosure of private, intimate, authentic images. The bill does not attempt to address related and serious forms of abuse that have similar destructive impact, such as deepfake pornography, but which implicate different and delicate constitutional considerations.

As a advocate and policy advisor on this issue for over a decade, I have witnessed many well intentioned legislative efforts founder because they attempted to sweep too broadly or to address too many issues at once, leading to unintended negative consequences or invalidation on First Amendment grounds. The fate of Act 191, the Hawaii political deep fakes law that was just permanently enjoined on First Amendment grounds in January 2026 is a recent cautionary example.

SB 2448 takes the approach that sexual images, similar to other kinds of personal sensitive information, such as medical diagnoses and financial records, are entitled to reasonable expectations of privacy.

Expectations that persist even if that information has been previously disclosed in confidential context before. This approach has been tested in multiple jurisdictions over the last ten years. It has been upheld in every court that has examined closely related issues. SB 2448 is currently drafted as narrowly tailored to further the compelling governmental interest of shielding matters of purely private concern from public exposure, while at the same time preserving wide ranging discussion on issues of legitimate public interest.

For those reasons, I would strongly caution against any changes to the bill that might significantly broaden its scope, or to unsettle its careful balancing of privacy and free expression values. I I thank you for your time, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, we have Dennis Dunn.

Thank you again, Chair Tarnas. As you can imagine, I'm supporting this measure very strongly. I would echo all the comments. Mr. Caulfield did a great job of explaining why it's so important.

I am concerned though about one particular aspect of this bill, and that's the inclusion of the term private. This term does not appear either in the previous bill, Senate Bill 2135, the proposed criminal statute, and does not appear in our current invasion of privacy statute.

I don't think that this will be something that will be helpful to victims in part because by saying that we have to prove the element of private, it will put a focus on the victim's conduct in terms of whether they voluntarily shared it with other people, the circumstances of that sharing, and so on.

So in a sense, including the term private means that we are asking the victim to essentially bear information that this this type of offend I mean, this type of, measure is designed to protect and allow them to recover for. So I would ask you to very strongly consider eliminate the term private, and otherwise, I'm in full support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Lynn Costales Matsuoka on Zoom. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 2448 Senate Draft 2?

She's she's here.

Oh, yes. Miss her.

Sorry.

Oh, no. There you are. Please go ahead.

Hello. Hello, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe, and the members of the House Committee on Judiciary. My apologies for my camera being off. I have to find the button, but I am here and I. You know, for the most part, I will tell you, Chair Tarnas and the committee, we are in support of a bill that will provide a civil remedy for victims of this particular offense. I think it goes without saying that almost everybody who has submitted testimony is definitely in support of the intention of this bill, and we all believe that it is very important.

I think it's the language of the bill that we're trying to struggle with, whether it should include computer generated images or deep fakes or AI. Sounds like that is a whole other bucket of conversation that Professor Franks brought up that needs to be explored because it would seem important that that also be included in this bill, but I haven't looked at it further enough to know all the details that Professor Franks brought up.

And then the second thing is, you know, this issue of private on the image, that the image be private. I do have concerns about that. I have voiced that in the past regarding this particular bill and its companion bill.

I would echo what Mr. Dunn had said is that it really does put the victim in the place where they would have to defend their actions versus it focusing on the offender. And we want the bill to be focused on the conduct of the offender, i.e. that they did not have permission to disclose it, to disseminate it, and that should be the focus of the bill. A victim has a. Can have a reasonable expectation.

In the image, I have provided some language that we would suggest be supported. Again, it's outlined in my bill.

And for those reasons, we would ask for these amendments as it relates to computer generated images as well as a reasonable expectation that the image remain private and some cleanup language. And, ultimately, Chair Tarnas, I think there needs to be a lot of discussion on this. There are other states that have enacted bills. They are not uniform law commission bills, but they address this particular issue.

And so I don't know if the uniform law commission bill is mess language is necessarily the right one for us, but I do recognize that there are other states that have not adopted it but have civil remedies on this particular issue, California and Colorado being those states. But that's it for me. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much for your time and, contributions with your testimony and your recommended amendments. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 2448, Senate Draft 2? If not, questions, Members? If not, let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 2494 relating to corruption.

This measure establishes a statute of limitations of nine years for a bribery offense. We only received one testimony in writing. No one... Is anyone here wishing to testify on this measure? If not, Members, I refer you to the testimony in support from the Prosecuting Attorney Honolulu.

Next, Senate Bill 3073, relating to the retention of biological evidence. This measure 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 of retention, which includes a procedure for defendants to oppose the disposal of biological evidence by filing an objection with the court. It provides it upon the motion of a defendant or prosecutor or on the court's own motion. The court may order retention of biological evidence in any felony case for a certain period under certain circumstances. On this measure, we have the Attorney General.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Mark Tom with the department. Department provides testimony in strong support of Senate Bill 3073, SD 1. So currently, our laws regarding the retention of this evidence post conviction are overly broad and could be interpreted to require that all evidence from all convictions are kept even when identity is not an issue in the case.

This bill, as written, will provide reasonable parameters for the retention of evidence post conviction if the identity is at issue in the case and if that evidence could reasonably be used for DNA analysis to identify or exclude someone as a perpetrator in any post conviction issues. I will be here for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Hayley Cheng or Office of the Public Defender?

Oh, it's me.

Yes. We get you. Thank you.

Good afternoon. So generally, our objections, so we oppose this bill. I'm sorry. So general objection to this bill, it seems to place some sort of burden on the defendant to, at some point, subject to the destruction of the evidence. Generally, we're not in, you know, we don't have the we don't have custody of the evidence.

We don't have knowledge a lot of times of what the scope of the investigation were, you know, what evidence is being held. So placing the burden on us rather than the agencies that actually hold the evidence we feel is not appropriate. You know, I was looking at it though just now and I was I was actually talking to Mark about this. And then I was looking at the proposed section 844D-126.

And that had addressed some of the concerns we had originally with the original draft of the bill. But I was I was looking at it and then in the AG's testimony, they it says, and I think this is the correct reading of it, that conditions one, two, and three have to be met in order for the requirement for the evidence to be retained.

And I think that in that sense, it kind of limits it because there may be there may be offenses other than those listed under two, subsection two, where biological evidence would be important. So I think in any in any case where identity of the defendant was a contested issue or, you know, the listed offenses or the evidence could be determined to contain biological evidence that could be used for DNA analysis subsection three.

I think those should be floors rather than having to meet all three conditions because we would like to be more give a broader scope of when evidence must be kept with while still addressing the concerns that the AG brought up about, you know, having to retain evidence even in cases where identity, for instance, is not an issue. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much. Next, we have Honolulu Police Department on Zoom. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions? Yes.

Public Defender. You know, on your testimony, your last statement says furthermore, the agency having custody of the evidence is in the best position to test for biological evidence. So I have two questions regarding this. Who is the agency?

Generally, it's gonna be the law enforcement agency. So it would be like if the prosecutors or sheriff, I mean, sorry. The police or sheriff's office usually initially has the evidence or and actually keeps custody evidence. So the prosecutor's office may have some access to the evidence as well, but we don't have access to that evidence other than the testing. I think in some situations, we can ask that we are, you know, an expert be allowed to test the evidence as well. But generally, the custody of the evidence remains with the law enforcement agencies.

So and then when it says is in the best position to test for biological evidence, I guess my understanding is it's already been tested and now it's being stored. So now, they're talking about disposing of what was stored but it's already been tested. Is is that an accurate statement?

I think generally. But I think there could be situations where there could be items that were seized that were that may contain biological material that weren't necessarily tested as part of the initial investigation. So that that's why, you know, like and for instance, there could be situations where new techniques are developed in the future to test evidence. I mean, that's, you know, kind of the advances in DNA technology, things like that.

I would have thought like maybe like the Innocence Project or something would have wanted to weigh in on this because one of the ways you can challenge an old conviction is through a rule 40. And one of the grounds is newly discovered evidence. So newly discovered evidence could be evidence that previously wasn't able to be tested under the techniques at that time but, you know, with advances could be retested using new techniques.

Can I ask one last question? Thank you so much. I guess the way I understand this bill is it establishes reasonable requirements for retention or disposal of biological evidence based on conviction was accomplished, the identity of the perpetrator is not an issue, and is not and biological evidence is not relevant to the case. So it's giving the store of this material the ability or the freedom to dispose of it with no problem because these conditions have been met.

I don't see it being objectionable.

No. No. Not not on those particular grounds. So there's certain situations where biological evidence probably wouldn't be necessary to be stored. Again, if identity isn't an issue, you wouldn't need, there wouldn't be a need to later on test it to establish identity. However, I think the bill covers situations where it also must be retained. And so that includes situations where identity is an issue.

You know, there is a biological evidence as a question in the in the charge and then situations where the identity biological evidence could be used to confirm the identity of the person. So both. I think it's both. Like so you're in your situation, yes. There would be this would help them in terms of being able to dispose of biological evidence in situations where it wasn't necessary, but it would also have requirements that they keep it in certain situations where it may be necessary.

So it's a good, it's a good bill then, right?

Well, I just, yeah, to some degree. I mean again, we don't like the burden being placed on us, on the defense, because we're not in possession of the material. So for instance, if the police have possession of an item of evidence and we're not aware of it and it's not tested at that time, we would not know to have them retain it. You know, so that's why we would we wouldn't want the burden to be placed on the defense because we're not in possession of the evidence. So how would we know what needs to be retained or not?

Doesn't the bill state that they have to give you notice that they're intending to dispose of it to give you a means to ask to retain it?

If they if they intend to dispose of it, but there's also a provision where we kind of have to identify or raise objections. And if we're not aware of what it is initially or we don't make a motion to preserve it because we're unaware of it, then that's also a burden on us as well.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions? I have a question. Mark, could you come up? And you heard with our suggestions from the public defender, concerns. What's your perspective on that? Could you give us some feedback?

So it's not in our testimony. So I, it's difficult to go outside at this point of what we put in our testimony. But in terms of at least the burden, I don't know if it's a true burden shifting. I think this is a post, I'll just point out these are post conviction. So there are, this would be a policy decision by the committee to put in safeguards that they feel comfortable to ensure that if there is a remedy for defendants to retain this evidence if they would like to.

I would just point out that it's not just with the agencies with HPD. A lot of the evidence is with the judiciary as well if there's a case that went to trial and the evidence is placed. So that's, there's a multiple places where the evidence is placed. But how the committee would like to create this, I guess, avenue for a defendant to retain the evidence, that would be something that we would leave to policy, but we believe that this bill at least provides that avenue sufficiently for them to write in and have it retained for potential future, you know, motions.

And just to follow-up on that one question for, you know, everyone on the committee who doesn't have the legal experience that the two of you have. You know, how does it, how do the defense, how does the defense learn about the biological evidence that's being stored? I mean, it sounds like you're not always informed.

But it's notified. So it's they're notified that they're gonna destroy the evidence. So they're more than willing in this bill to request that it not be destroyed at that time.

So there is a notification in the bill that defense would be provided notification that the request to destroy, dispose of the evidence is made. At that point, the defense could be able to say no. Don't do that.

Yes.

Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions, Members? If not, thank you very much to all the testifiers.

Let's go ahead and go to the top of the agenda and decision making. Thank you to all the Members who are here so we can move forward. Senate Bill 2530, Senate Draft 2, relating to campaign contributions. I prefer the House version of the bill. It's basically what we had worked out in conference committee last year.

And so I'd like to insert House Bill 1519, HD 1 in the bill. But I wanna reinsert the section e from the original bill on page nine and ten so that it reads, this section shall not prohibit or make unlawful the establishment or administration or the solicitation of contributions to any non-candidate committee by any person for the purpose of influencing the outcome of a question or issue on a ballot. So I wanna put that back in.

Make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. I'd also like to incorporate the amendment from the State Procurement Office. To include in the standing committee report the request from the State Procurement Office for 18,000 for training, which will be recorded and available for use repeatedly for government employees and vendors.

And the Campaign Spending Commission request for one FTE IT specialist, information technology specialist, $150,000, and then equipment, supplies, software, licenses at $20,000, and that they are requesting a $200,000 appropriation for a password protected filing system and to provide updates, training, and administrative support.

And that these appropriations would be made upon approval of the bill. The effective date of the bill would be one year later so that the Campaign Spending Commission and State Procurement Office could prepare everything to build the system so we can put it into operation. Those are my recommendations. Questions or concerns, Members?

Chair. You know, the Campaign Spending Commission requested to delete the word compensated?

I heard that, but I'm not adopting it. And the reason why, just so you can explain my thinking, is that there are the reason why I put compensated in there and I wanna keep it in there is that I know many Members, and I'm sure all of us do. We all we know individuals who serve on charitable, charitable organizations board, and it's uncompensated as a member of the board.

These charitable organizations get, some of them get substantial contracts with the state to do jobs for state agencies. The uncompensated board members receive no monetary benefit from the grant or the contract that is given to that organization. And so I did not want to impinge upon their constitutional rights to make contributions. So that's why I wanna keep compensated in there.

Makes perfect sense. Thank you.

Any other questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2530, SD 2 with amendments. [Roll Call] Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Next measure, Senate Bill 2970, Senate Draft 1. On this measure, I'd like to move forward with the House Draft 1, insert defective effective date of July 1, 3000. I'd like to adopt the amendments recommended by the Ethics Commission, the State Procurement Office. And in addition, I would like to incorporate language into the Section 84-15 to make sure that there is an alignment regarding enforcement.

I think there was some inarticulate language that was used, and I think we just need to make some amendments to that so that enforcement and responsibility of provisions are in line with what I what I think this bill is intending to do. So those are the changes. And that will be on page three, lines 13 to 19. Those are my recommended changes. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2970, SD 1 with amendments. Representatives Belatti and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 2919, Senate Draft 1, related to the Office of Public Defender. I'd like to move this forward because I wanna make it clear this committee's support for this additional position in the Office of Public Defender. They would be able to build their capacity to be able to provide support regarding constitutional matters and immigration law to all of the public defenders throughout the state.

Because it is a responsibility of defense attorneys to provide that disclosure and guidance to their clients that if they, regarding the immigration related ramifications of the of their sentencing or also their plea deal. So I'd like to move this forward with a July 1, 3000 defective effective date. Questions or concerns, Members? Yes.

In the interest of disclosure, I wanna disclose that my daughter works as a deputy public defender. Although, I do not believe that she's affected by this new position unless her boss has other plans for her. But just wanna let you know.

Thanks for that disclosure. I agree with your assessment that it it would not affect her employment or make a conflict of any sort. And I'm very happy that she's working there. Any other comments or concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2919, SD 1 with amendments. Representatives Belatti and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting no? No for Rep Garcia. Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 2446, Senate Draft 2, related to the judiciary. I'd like to move this forward with the defective effective date of July 1, 3000. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2446 with amendments. Representatives Belatti and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 2730, Senate Draft 2, relating to criminal justice reform. I think I'd like to align this measure with our House Bill 2494, House Draft 1. So I'd like to insert the language from House Bill 2494, House Draft 1, make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. I'd like to include the judiciary's amendment that they recommended in their testimony.

And note in the standing committee report judiciary's recognition that our police departments should go digital. And the standing committee report can quote from the judiciary's testimony on that matter. And then I would recommend that the effective date, and I recommend in the standing committee report that the effective date would be January 1, 2028. Questions or concerns, Members?

Chair, I appreciate all your good work. If there's so many significant testifiers in opposition and I wanna respect their positions and I will vote no.

Understood. Understood. Yeah. I certainly have done my best to try to address their concerns. But I understand. I appreciate you letting me know. Any other comments or concerns?

Same requests there.

Sure. But you don't have to request.

I mean, you know, same vote.

You have every right to vote the way you wanna vote, but I appreciate the heads up. Any other comments or concerns?

Chair, the same reasons I gave on third reading. No vote.

Alright. Any other comments or concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2730, SD 2 with amendments. Representatives Belatti and Sayama are excused. No votes for Representatives Cochran, Garcia, and Shimizu. Are there any additional no votes? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Senate Bill 2315, Senate Draft 2, proposing an amendment to article 17, section 3 of the Hawaii State Constitution to specify the standard for voter approval of a constitutional amendment proposed by the legislature is a majority of all the votes tallied upon the question. I would like to make some technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. And always aware of the Supreme Court's admonition to this legislature to make the ballot question clear.

I'd like to simplify the ballot question to read as follows. Shall the constitution of the state of Hawaii be amended to change how votes are counted for constitutional amendments proposed by the legislature so that only ballots that vote yes or no on the amendment are counted. And blank, spoiled, or over votes are not counted as votes against the amendment, period. That's my recommendation, with technical amendments in addition to that. Questions or concerns, Members? Rep Garcia.

I appreciate this, but I do have doubts. And I think the reason why there are so many blank votes on many of the ballot initiatives or the ballot questions is because it's so confusing to voters that they're just like, I don't know what this means. I'm just not gonna vote. And I think it being confusing doesn't serve the interest of Hawaii's public. And so I appreciate you trying to make this question simpler.

But I think overall, but overall, I think most questions out there, and not just the state, but county as well is quite extensive and it's very confusing. And so I do believe if they wanna earn the public's trust for a yes vote, they should make it simple enough to understand and comprehend. So right now, I'm gonna be be voting no because I think those blank votes does mean I just don't understand what it means.

And I appreciate that. And I will do my utmost to make sure that any ballot question that comes out of this committee is clear because I don't want to make matters worse. You know, I don't wanna confuse voters. That's not the point. So I appreciate your comment though. Any other comments or concerns?

Chair, I do appreciate your thoughtfulness, as always. I think anyone who pulls a ballot and whether they blank, over vote, or whatever should be counted as a vote, you know, in the majority because they physically did the process. So I don't think we should disregard them. So I will be voting no.

Okay. Anything else? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SD 2315, SD 2 with amendments. Representatives Belatti and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting no in addition to Reps Garcia and Shimizu? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you very much. Senate Bill 2723, House Draft 1, relating to State Sheriff's Day. I'd like to move this out as is. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2723, HD 1, as is. Representatives Belatti and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you.

Yeah. Right. Senate Bill 2135, Senate Draft 2, relating to privacy. I think that the language we have in a very similar bill, House Bill 1963, House Draft 2, is preferable. I would like to insert the language from House Bill 1963, House Draft 2. Make sure we've got a defective effective date, July 1, 3000, and move this forward as a draft, House Draft 1. Questions or concerns, Members? Yes.

Is that House draft gonna include the Attorney General's concerns?

I think I've addressed them, but we voted on it before. House Bill 1963, House Draft 2. I'm putting a defective effective date on it, so if we do need to make some additional changes, we can do it in conference. Any other comments or concern? Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2135, SD 2 with amendments, Representatives Belatti and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thanks. And I would ask our deputy attorney general to take a look at that and let us know if you think no more changes need to be made as we move into conference. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay. Next measure, Senate bill 2448 Senate Draft 2. And this measure, the Senate is moving the companion bill, which is the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act that we passed over there, House Bill 1682. They made the amendments in labor, in their Senate draft 1 that I think needs to be made. So, at this time, I'm gonna recommend we defer this bill.

It's a single referral. We can always bring it back if there's a problem in the Senate, but the House Bill 1682 Senate Draft 1 is now moving to the Senate Judiciary. So, I'll keep monitoring that. If need be, we'll bring this bill back. But at this time, I think we can defer it. Comments or concerns? Okay.

Comments or concerns? If not, next bill, Senate Bill 2494, relating to corruption. Let's just move this forward with the House Draft 1. Let's put in a defective effective date, July 1, 3000, and make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Comments or concerns? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2494 with amendments. Representatives Belatti and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Last bill, Senate Bill 3073, Senate Draft 1. I'd like to move this forward with technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. I would like to adopt the amendments offered by the Attorney General. And also I wanna correct something in here. Police department and prosecuting attorney should be changed to law enforcement agency and prosecuting agency. So that it's similar to page five, lines five to six.

So we have consistency in the bill itself. I'd like to make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style, and defect the effective date to July 1, 3000. I heard the public defender's concern. I also heard the attorney general's response. And I think we're okay moving this forward with those recommendations that I've just provided. Questions or concerns, Members? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SD 3073, SD 1 with amendments. Representatives Belatti and Sayama are excused. Are there any voting no? Any with reservations? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. There being no further business before us today, we are adjourned.