House Standing Committee on Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Welcome, everyone, to the House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs. It is Wednesday, March 18 at 2PM here in Conference Room 325. I appreciate everyone being here to give testimony. It really does help us do a better job as legislators to hear from agencies and stakeholders. So thank you for taking the time out of your busy day to be here.

If you're providing testimony, I'd request that you keep it to about two minutes. I'll ask you to summarize at that point, that that allows us to get through all the testifiers and be able to get to decision making. The sound system is new this year. Microphones are in the ceiling. You just stand at the podium, speak regularly, articulate clearly, and the sound system will pick it up.

But it also picks up any side conversations you have with your neighbor, so keep that to a minimum. Unless you want people on YouTube to be listening to you. For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify. And then after your testimony is complete, use the chat function, on Zoom if you're having issues, and our technical staff will help you if they can.

If you're disconnected, try to rejoin as soon as you can, and I'll try to fit you in, if time permits, to finish your testimony.

If power goes off in the room here and we have to reschedule, I'll make sure to post appropriate notice so you know what we're doing when. And if you're testifying on Zoom, please do not use trademarked or copyrighted images that kicks us off on YouTube, and then the public can't see you. And we want the public to see you. Please refrain from any profanity or uncivil behavior. Pretend that your great auntie is in the room, unless she was really salty.

Just pretend that she's in the room and so behave appropriately. It's okay to disagree, but let's not be disagreeable. We're all here for the purpose of helping the state. First up, we have senate bill three one two three, senate draft one, relating to private supportive education.

This measure clarifies that free tuition at private educational institutions or school conditioned enrollment at private educational institutions where no tuition or other monetary consideration is required or paid by the recipient are to be considered conditional gifts that support educational advancements rather than contractual obligations unless the parties agree otherwise in writing.

First up, we have the office of the governor in support. First first person said they would wanna be here is Abad, Kamehameha Schools. Welcome.

Aloha. My name is Kehala Bad. I am the vice president of Luhiva testifying on behalf of CEO Jack Wong and our board of trustees. We've submitted written testimony, but we wanted to be here in person to you folks for hearing this bill. We also wanna the governor for his leadership in introducing this bill, the attorney general for her collaboration, and of course the schools, organizations, and individuals who we stand among in support of this bill.

The bill empowers schools and donors to define for ourselves our relationships and interactions with our students and and in ways that align with who we are, authentically align with who we really are.

And so for Kamehameha Schools, this allows us to maintain the we have with our omanas and with our as our founder, Kenny Kawaii, would have intended. This reflects, really again, who we are and who we always have been. So we humbly and respectfully ask this committee to pass this bill. Maha nui for the opportunity to testify.

Mahalo. Next person, David Gowadi. Sorry if I didn't get your name right. ]

Oh, my name is David Gowdy. I am the head of Saint Mark Lutheran School in Kaneohe and also the board president current board president for the Hawaii Association of Independent Schools. HIS, representing more than 100 schools across the state, strongly supports SB 3123 SD one. This measure is essential to safeguarding the philanthropic support that helps keep independent education within reach for thousands of Hawaii families. Tuition assistance is central to educational access in Hawaii.

HI's data shows that approximately 94% of member schools offer financial aid supporting over 14,000 students. Protecting donor supported education helps expand opportunities for our local families. This bill safeguards donor gifts and scholarship funding by affirming that donor funded scholarships, grants, and tuition assistance are charitable education gifts, not commercial contracts. This provides clarity and helps encourage continued giving, benefiting our families, donors, and schools. For families, the scholarships can be the difference between meaningful educational choice and no choice at all.

For donors, treating awards as charitable gifts protects their intent and reduces the risk of their giving being overly complicated as a contract. And for schools, this clarity helps simplify the scholarship process while supporting stable and innovative tuition assistance programs. As a result, schools can access can expand access, giving families more options and helping students find a learning environment that best fits their individual needs. HIS rep respectfully urges the committee to pass SB 3,123 SD one.

This bill benefits families, donors, and schools by providing clarity, increasing efficiency, and strengthening educational access across our entire state.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify on this measure? Senate bill 3123 Senator F One. If not, questions, members?

I just wanna make a comment here. It's it's Sure. It's great to see all the school organizations coming together. It's very encouraging. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? No. No. Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony.

We'll go through all the bills first and do decision making at the end of the agenda. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 2438, senate draft one, relating to civil interference with constitutional and statutory rights.

This measure establishes a civil cause of action for interference with constitutional and statutory rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion, authorizes private rights of action, authorizes actions to be brought by the attorney general, county corporation counsel, or county attorney, and authorizes injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and certain monetary relief. Includes protections for constitutionally protected speech. First up, we have Kat Brady.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. Community Alliance on Prisons is in strong, strong support of this measure. We're living in kind of perilous times where The US constitution and states' rights are being dismantled. We really love this bill because it establishes a new chapter in HRS that is the Hawaii Civil Rights Protection Act. That is awesome.

This bill is grounded in Hawaii's own constitution, which provides explicit right to privacy, ratification of, you know, equal rights amendment, explicit and discrimination protections, and the law of the splintered panel. This bill is really a bright beacon in these dark times. Kath respectfully asked the committee to pass this bill and that demonstrates Hawaii is gonna protect her people. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Elizabeth Fujiwara on Zoom. Not present. We have, her testimony. Next, Mandy Fernandez in support.

Not present. Next, Christine Andrews on Zoom.

Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I did submit written testimony. I just wanna reiterate for this bill, for myself I am a know your rights educator here on Maui. I provide training statewide. I'm also a constitutional observer here.

We are witnessing on the Mainland people like myself who are out as I'm an attorney trying to ensure that people's rights are not violated. We are being beaten, our phones taken away. People have been murdered, in the street. The The judge in Portland said that they can't use tear gas and spray pepper spray in our face.

So I really appreciate the work of the committee to hear this bill, and I hope that you'll support moving it forward to protect the civil rights of all members of our community. Thank you.

Thank you very much, miss Andrews. Anyone else wishing to testify in Senate Bill 2438 Senate draft one? If not, questions, members? Seeing no questions, thank you very much to the testifiers. Let's move on to the next measure.

Senate Bill 3142, Senate Draft 2 relating to dangerous intoxication. This measure establishes the offenses of dangerous intoxication and habitual dangerous intoxication, provides for civil protective custody and transport for emergency examination under section 334-45, HRS, in lieu of arrest for

dangerous intoxication in specified circumstances, and bars prosecution when civil protective custody is used. It requires probation with mandatory treatment for habitual dangerous intoxication with incarceration only upon probation violation and makes conforming amendments to chapter 334 HRS.

First up, we have the Attorney General. Deputy Attorney General.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poepoe. My name is Michelle Puu. I'm a Deputy Attorney General with the Criminal Justice Division testifying for the Department in strong support of bill 3142. Last session, act 219 was passed, which updated Hawaii's civil mental health code,

which improved upon and introduced new pathways to mental health and substance abuse treatment. This bill essentially builds upon that work by affording a mechanism for individuals who are dangerously intoxicated, who pose a risk to either themselves or to the public.

It is based on longstanding California law, which seeks to provide law enforcement and the judicial system with an alternate pathway for such individuals to treatment. Myself and deputy attorney general, Yin Tsuda, from our human services division will be available should there be any questions for our department about this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Tommy Johnson, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. We'll stand our written testimony in support. Thank you. Next, Hawaii State Department of Health.

What? They can't hear you from way back there. Everyone wants to see you, can't you? I should have made Director Johnson come up too.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and committee Members. Pleasure to see you this first time this session. Kenny Fink with the Department of Health. We will stand on our written testimony in support of the call.

Thank you. Next, Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair of Poepoe, and Members of the committee. The office of the public defender has submitted testimony in opposition to this measure. We appreciate the spirit and the intent of the bill, and we, of course, appreciate the mechanism that is attempted to be

outlined to divert people away from the criminal system. Our opposition really stems from the fact that we do see some very problematic aspects with the way the bill is currently drafted, and just to highlight some of our concerns.

As we articulated in our testimony, the way that the statute is worded would allow law enforcement to approach people who appear intoxicated to investigate whether or not they are substantially incapacitated.

And we do have concerns about being that being used as a pretext to do other which would be otherwise unlawful things such as search and seizure. Additionally, we have some concerns with the measure of the bill that with the provision of the bill that allows the discretion of the

officer to only use the civil protective custody if they are, quote, reasonably able to do so. Without further definition, that leaves way too much discretion to the individual officer and I think would impede the intention of the bill, which is to avoid arrest and subsequent prosecution.

And finally, we do have some concerns about the conflating of what would normally need to to direct someone to possibly involuntary hospitalization. Under this measure, it would allow an officer to be the one to make the call.

And, normally, we need to have somebody transported and evaluated before we can even refer them to be considered for involuntary hospitalization. So that's a summary of some of our concerns. But, again, we believe the bill is a good first step.

We think there might be some additional work to do to get it to a place where there's not, all of these potential constitutional concerns. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Department of Human Services on Zoom.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee, Kristen Takushi on behalf of Director Yamani, DHS. We stand in support of our written testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, Honolulu Police Department on Zoom. Not present. Not present. Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate Bill 3142?

If not, questions, Members? I have a question. Yes. Rep Shimizu.

Public defender, please. I heard you say that this is a good first part and there's good intentions, some positive things about the bill. And, of course, you did have some concerns. Are you able to offer any, like, amendable language that would address some of your concerns?

To be honest, representative, I really appreciate the question. I think what the bigger problem is is we're trying to find a solution without the available resources to do so, and we're putting the responsibility on law enforcement to do that. We don't currently have appropriate or

enough diversion options for law enforcement to use. So what we're trying to do here is take people that are perhaps overly intoxicated or as the bill says, dangerously intoxicated and stick them into our emergency rooms and avail them of the involuntary hospitalization mechanism,

which in our opinion is not appropriate. Really, what I think, if you break it down, what this bill is going to do or seeking to do is try to get houseless people off the streets who are exhibiting intoxication or or perhaps seem to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

That is what we believe the practical effects of this bill will be. So the way that this framework is, we don't feel is the appropriate solution because we don't have the necessary resources for this type of diversion to take place.

K. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Other questions? Vice Chair?

Forgive me first. So what I'm hearing is, a primary concern is that, the way the bill is written, it could result in officers, making a determination to feel that someone might be highly intoxicated, and then taking that person to the emergency room and leaving them there.

And that could result in issues with our hospital emergency room capacity because we don't have the appropriate system or, you know, resources in the ACT program to be able to compensate for that increased volume. Is that kind of what I'm hearing?

Yes. And I believe our I know HPD is not here. I do see Director Lambert here, but law enforcement has a duty. Right? If they see or perceive that a crime is taking place, they have a duty to investigate and respond accordingly. So if we codify this and criminalize this behavior,

what we would expect to happen is for police to have to go and do these appropriate investigations into the offense of dangerous or perhaps habitual dangerous intoxication. We believe that will divert resources away, and then as you very correctly pointed out, Vice Chair,

inundate the emergency room with people who are high or drunk. And we understand the community safety concerns, room and I believe as in the field that I've been in and hearing from medical professionals, whereas a lot of our clients do end up in the emergency room,

that is not the appropriate place for them. And it would, I think, saturate and overly burden our already heavily burdened hospital systems and emergency room departments.

Okay. Thank you. Maybe we'll talk more Director Fink.

Thank you. So hearing the concern about if this bill were implemented, the high potential to increase the volume of people or intoxicated people taken and left at the emergency room and the already limited capacity of our emergency room areas. Do you see that as a concern as well?

I see this as providing another tool for individuals who may be in imminent harm, for whom they need to be connected to services. If there's a dangerous intoxication, it is important that should they have altered mental status that if the medical condition is first ruled out.

So typically, before conducting a, like, a psychiatric examination, the, the medical stability initially needs to be assessed. So for many of these folks, the emergency room may be the first appropriate site, for evaluation to ensure there's not some other cause for an altered mental status.

And then at that point, the intent is to connect them with services to prevent the churn. So we do need to use the access points that we have to have a more robust follow-up to engage them to prevent the reoccurrence in their readmissions.

But do you think that this could result in putting too much pressure on our emergency rooms at over capacity at our emergency rooms?

I don't have the the data before me to know, are these folks already frequent utilizers? And to the extent to which, this is a way to engage them, in, more follow-up services to prevent their further utilization of the ER, I I don't have the data to know that net effect.

So if they're already utilizes of the ER, then this is just another tool to be able to engage them and connect them with services.

Okay. So you are unsure?

I do not have those data before.

Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Chair, can I ask a follow-up question? Sure. To some public defender, appreciate you being here. Actually, I would have wanted to ask HPD, but because of your very wide knowledge and experience, the question would be, I understand what your concern is.

So without this bill, what happens to those people that are badly intoxicated? We just ignore them or or leave them there? I mean, how how is it handled at this point?

Well, if they are severely intoxicated and engaging in other criminal activity, then there would be this doesn't mean that they're not doing anything else that might be of concern to law enforcement or have maybe engaged in other potential criminal activity,

whether it's trespassing, whether it's disorderly conduct, whether it's harassment, whether it's a litany of other potential criminal offenses that oftentimes people who are highly intoxicated or as this bill refers to them as dangerously intoxicated may be doing.

So we believe and we understand, again, the community response. But, again, we maintain the the scope of this, I think, is a little bit too broad. It encourages law enforcement to engage with individuals who are perhaps intoxicated but not doing anything otherwise.

And, again, I if if we had the resources, to address this, then our position would be very differently. But all we're doing is really cycling them in and out of the ER. Because especially this measure calls for a diversion provision away from the criminal system, which is that civil protective custody.

Once they go there and they're evaluated by a professional, if they're not deemed to be a futurist because they've now been sober, they're now sober, they're just released back onto the street.

The probation elements that you heard and the duty for treatment and requirement for treatment that Jared Tarnas referred to when he read the introduction to the bill is only for those who are habitually intoxicated and have three or four prior dangerous intoxication convictions.

So it doesn't mandate treatment. It doesn't mandate treatment. It does offer a pathway to, I guess, a hospital setting. But like I said, once they sober up, if there's no further need for treatment,

they will not meet the criteria for an involuntary hospitalization, which meets mental health concerns more than substance concerns, actually, and a lot of times they are intermingled. But that that's why we say this. It's not because we don't recognize the underlying issue.

Clearly, we we see it and we understand it, but this mechanism that is here is not going to do anything in our opinion to meaningfully address it and will affect in fact, overburden, in our opinion, law enforcement and our hospitals. Sure. Follow-up.

Sure. So in that scenario where the person sobers up, I can understand, you know, they they have no issue and they're released, but that will not occur a 100% of the time, I would imagine. And for the percentage of times that,

the person does not sober up or or he is evaluated or or the person is evaluated to to need further assistance, wouldn't this be a pathway towards that rehabilitation, for lack of a better term?

I believe it would not touch as many people as I believe you think it would. Our current involuntary hospitalization criteria requires that you be have a qualifying mental health diagnosis as well as be dangerous to yourself or others, and there's no other restrictive least restrictive alternative.

And I wanna frame this because I think sometimes this gets lost, and I know the public defender's office is not always the most popular for taking this approach.

But what we're really discussing here is a loss of liberty. So we are we are even though it's we're diverting them away from the criminal system, it is a loss of liberty, and we're locking them up and trying to seek a custody situation of this individual.

And I believe the intent behind it is to force them into treatment. And we understand that, and we understand the community's knee jerk reaction to seeing people who are obviously suffering from substance abuse issues.

But like I said, what this measure is doing is not it's addressing people who are visibly intoxicated and hoping that they have a mental illness because then they'll qualify for the hospitalization portion of the measure.

If they don't, if they just have a substance problem and are just intoxicated, then they'll be released and we'll start from scratch. And as comfortable as that may be to people, we traditionally don't arrest and keep people in custody because they're merely intoxicated and

not doing anything other anything else other illegal or engaging in other illegal activities.

Okay. Thank thank you for your careful explanation, and I appreciate the time, Chair. Thank you.

Vice Chair, do you wanna follow-up?

Yes. Also following up. So for the portion about taking people who are just intoxicated and, taking them to the emergency room and they sober up. There's nothing else wrong with them but that they were intoxicated and then they them being released. So that is what you said.

That's what I believe. Yeah. I believe that's what the bill states is that there shall not be a criminal prosecution or if the officer is reasonably able to do so, that person shall not be arrested and there will no be there will be no follow-up criminal prosecution.

So if we select the civil protective custody route where they leave them and then they're evaluated by a doctor or a crisis intervention specialist, whoever it is, and if there's not not enough to hold them on an involuntary hospitalization criteria,

then I don't believe the bill addresses anything beyond that.

So, essentially, in those cases, we're picking up, say, drunk people off the street, taking them to the hospital, taking up a bed in the emergency room for them to sleep off or get sober enough to be deemed, that there's no other issues wrong with them and then they're being released.

So I think that is probably the biggest concerning part about the Mental Health Care.

Yes. And I want to add and I I do believe that's practically I don't think that's what we were hoping will happen, but practically, that is what I our office believes will happen. And then in our opinion, that will also lead to a litany of other other issues.

When a house's individual is taken into custody even for a even for a brief amount of time, and I think law enforcement can speak to this. Their entire world and all of their belongings are usually on their person or in their immediate region, and they're separated from that.

They lose everything that they had, and it can oftentimes make what's already a very difficult situation a lot worse. So we do have a lot of concerns about the practical implications of this measure.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Chair. Can I ask one more question?

Department of Health, please. You know, the the discussion has been revolving around the emergency room as the the prime source. And with this discussion, the only source of remedy. And are we just limited to ER rooms in this bill?

Sure.

Because I think the vision is is cast beyond the ER room as a sole source of the pathway towards rehabilitation. And, obviously, we are short of resources and, options, but is the vision that the ER is the pathway, the only pathway.

Right? So, I'll begin with we do have that behavioral health crisis center in Ibelle, and that may be appropriate. We have to find a way to triage the folks that we don't think may have an underlying medical condition and could be safely assessed there.

The current law, right, as I understand is, there are facilities that are designated by the director of health to perform, the ex the the examinations. And those facilities are, you know, generally hospitals and at the health crisis center.

So to begin, those are what we have to to perform those examinations, basically the psychiatric examination for safety. There were some statements that were made. I do just wanna reach out to offer the opportunity if it's okay to respond whether it would be doctor

Champion or AJ's office. There there are statements made that I don't have the expertise to address. So if I could phone a friend with

either Lifeline.

If anybody wanted to offer other comments.

Sounds good. Can you

ask a question of somebody else? Go for it.

Same question.

You gotta choose.

I yield my time.

Thank you. Sorry. Same question regarding the the ER being the only prime source of this this open door or other options?

Yes. Thank you. I'm Doctor Champion, senior adviser for governor agreement in the office of governor. I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues and clarify how this process works.

I think there are two things that are important to consider here. The first thing to, I think lead with is understanding that we need more tools to engage people who are substantially incapacitated. And if you read the definition of substantial incapacitation, these are people who are in

dire need of help now. And I would build on Doctor Fink's, comments about folks who are frequently utilizing coming into points of care already for that examination.

So really this, this approach is a treatment first diversion oriented and public safety informed tool.

Now where they go and what happens there, when they're put in, protective civil custody and bought in for an examination, those are the places where by statute an emergency examination is, conducted. And that would be a medical and a psychiatric examination.

Why do they have an altered mental status? What are their needs to safely address what they have? That could be the beginning of a detoxification, if it's related to substance or if it's a medical condition discovering that, accurately addressing that.

And if it's a psychiatric issue, considering whether that person needs longer term care in an emergency hospitalization. So to clarify, so to build on Doctor Fink's comments, emergency departments and also to the behavioral health crisis center,

and the importance of triaging to get the people to the right place depending upon, you know, what their needs are. The second thing is, we often see individuals who are experiencing a serious mental illness and also a substance use disorder and condition.

Sometimes they are separate and they need to be treated separately, but often they are carried together.

And our tools that we have available in emergency examination, the next steps in emergency actually apply whether somebody has serious mental illness by itself, a substance use disorder by itself, or when they're combined.

So actually, if they're in that emergency examination, have an opportunity to have that assessment and linkage to the next step, it would apply if somebody's substance use alone is causing an imminent danger and they need to be in an, the next step of, the treatment.

K. Thank you. K. My turn. Sorry. After reading the testimony and listening to the questions from my colleagues, I think this bill needs a lot more work. But let me just start with, maybe since we're the Honolulu Police Department, Thomas Chang, major events division is not here. I don't wanna put you on the spot because that's a different division. Maybe I can ask mister Lambert to come up, head of department of law enforcement.

So if you read the testimony from HPD, major events, they have concerns. They understand the intent of the bill, but it is concerned that more clarity is needed on how civil protective custody cases will be recorded, tracked, and enforced without clear access to these civil protective custody records. Officers may struggle to identify repeat cases or know when an arrest is appropriate. Because these civil protective custody does not result in convictions needed for habitual dangerous intoxication, consistent application may be difficulty may be difficult.

And then lastly, responding to noncriminal civil protective custody encounters, constraint staffing, divert officers from public safety duties, and place added pressure on hospitals and agencies.

Clear guidelines would help ensure consistent enforcement and better resource management. First question, if I may ask, were the police consulted in the crafting of this bill? And if so, it seems like maybe this division wasn't because they've got serious concerns.

Sure. We did talk to chief Vanek at the mayor's mayor Blangiardi's meeting in regards to the need for this bill. We did have discussion on that. I can't attest to whether or not that was pushed down just for the room the rank would be chief, deputy chief, assistant chief, major, captain. So I know Tommy.

I doubt that he was briefed on the necessities of this bill. I think that and again, director Lambert, law enforcement. I have twenty plus years in law enforcement, and basically what will happen in these scenarios, it's they basically get so passed out drunk that they end up in the hospital anyway, right, or they end up ramping up and breaking the law. And if they're intoxicated, we have to take them to the hospital to get medical clearance.

So in regards to utilizing beds, there may not be a change, a notable change.

But what we're trying to do is wait for not wait for somebody to be in a mental health emergency crisis or actually break a high level law. What we wanna do is take somebody who is beginning to act inappropriately, starting to create community concerns, and then say, hey. You know what? Let's take you somewhere safe where you can sober up. And again, to doctor Champion's testimony, the goal would be to link them.

In regards to captain Chang's concerns about the recording, it would be based on their CJIS history. So it would be something that after the third conviction, that would just be a packet that would be presented to the judge at a later time. The goal is to not have a record for people that habitually get intoxicated and don't they're they don't really pose, you know, the in other words, they are able to submit to the treatment. In other words, hey, bro.

I I can either take you to jail or I can take you to the hospital, but you can't be out here.

Right? And just having that conversation and saying, I'd rather go to the hospital. It's fine. Right? That's the whole point is for them not to have this elaborate criminal history.

Right? And that's why we wanna use civil commitment where basically what law enforcement do, we just close it as a disposition, we would know that it exists, but it wouldn't haunt them once they're actually, you know, on a better path. Versus what we have now is basically wait for disorderly conduct, criminal property damage, harassment, and then we take them in, again, still having to stop off at the hospital because they're intoxicated, and then now they have this elaborate criminal record.

So what we're really trying to do is when we introduce this law, is try to intervene in people, intervene with people that their behavior is caused due to their substance use disorder and try to get them on a better path instead of waiting.

Some of the frustrations, and again, you know, I only came over a year ago, so I was a Hanoi police department officer before that, is that a lot of times we lose community trust because they're like, are you guys gonna do anything about that?

Right? And we're like, we basically gotta wait until they erupt. And really, that does no good for the community. It does no good for the person who is probably suffering from a substance use disorder, and it does no good for the officer because when we have to come back and they're upset, we're more likely to have to use force because they're they're in a higher level of crisis.

So again, what we're really trying to do is intervene on a lower level, pathway people, to care without having to, I guess, basically muddy up their criminal record.

Yeah. And I I everyone says the intent is great, but there's problems operationally from what the captain is saying. Even though the chief says, yes. Go do it. The captain's saying, wait a second.

Maybe he wasn't briefed. Don't call me. Maybe he spoke out of turn, and maybe he's gonna be called into the chief's office because of that

It's possible.

But the point is that there's some operational concerns that the captain brought up, and I think they're legitimate, and I think we need to understand how to handle that.

I'm sure. And and from hearing what he's saying, those are all standard responses, I'm gonna be honest, when they just don't understand it. Right? Law enforcement will always heal on the fact that it's gonna aggregate aggregate resources, it's gonna do all these things. I I I'm pretty confident if I met with Captain Chang that he would understand and very likely change his testimony on it. Okay.

Well, I think you might have that option. Sure. It's I'm sorry. I'm still on a roll.

Doctor Fink. Sure. I wanna ask you about, testimony we received from the Queen's, hospital. They say, they're they're concerned. They're draw the committee's attention to intended and unintended consequences.

Let me just quote, this bill will further direct persons to emergency departments that already operate at high capacity by expanding examinations pursuant to HRS three thirty four forty five, etcetera. We question the benefit of the statutory change without first expanding community treatment programs and stabilization facilities and evaluating the impact of the effectiveness of act two one nine. Did in your work to develop this bill, did you consult with Queen's since they are the ones that usually deal with this? And could you address their concern here?

Because it seems like this is something that's a very valid concern.

First, I need to disclose. My wife works at Queen's, so I have a potential for a conflict. Noted. I would ask in those who were involved with the drafting of the bill

Well, you're director of Department of Health. So you give it a try and then I'll ask doctor Champion. I I was not directly involved with the drafting of the bill. Your question asked in the drafting of the bill, I consulted with Queen's.

Okay. So let me ask reframe that question. Since you weren't in and on drafting the bill, if you were just to read this testimony from Queen's, would you share my concern about the impact of this bill?

I can understand. It was always the concern of the unknown. And as we are doing a better job of connecting people with services, as we're has been communicated for us to do, more petitions for assisted community treatment orders, of which substance abuse is alone as a criteria. We recognize that there are more people who need to be connected with treatment. So to the extent that this improves the connection with services and people are more likely to get stabilized and subsequently reduce ERUs.

So I agree that initially, right, people have to go through the front door first. But can this result in their, stopping, going through it again and again overall that could reduce, ER utilization?

Good. It could. I I mean, to pass this bill, I really like Queen it would be better if Queen's were supporting this. It'd be better if the the captain and the police department were supporting this. But they they got concerned, so that's why I'm asking.

Thank you for your best effort to answer it, and I appreciate that. And I will ask doctor Champion to explain how did you talk to Queen's about this and what how would you respond to their concerns? We questioned the benefit of the statutory change without first expanding community treatment programs and stabilization facilities and evaluating the impact of the effectiveness of act 209. Were were you able to do any of that? So, thank you for the question.

There's ongoing discussions in building our crisis services with the hospital systems and behavioral crisis centers in terms of flow and impact when we have people coming in with different pathways. Image 12 or three involuntary pathway, this is another tool in the pathway. So we understand that there is a concern about if you bring somebody in the pathway, what are the resources available if they need something next? And in this particular case, I understand the concern. It's frequently raised.

When we look at the, definition of substantial incapacitation, these are people who are incoherent, cannot communicate, cannot meaningfully interact with folks who are out in public place. And these folks would be coming in with first responders to get that medical evaluation. So I I I would go on doctor Fink's when I agree, these are folks who are already coming in this past

So you're saying we would bring them there anyway, so this isn't gonna change anything?

No. I'm I'm saying

I mean, in terms of the emergency room utilization. We're gonna bring them there anyway.

I'm saying it is very likely these folks are coming in this direction, and they need that level of evaluation as doctor Finkland out to rule on the medical source of the most has changed.

Yes. Did anyone talk to Queens when you were drafting this bill?

I believe that we did talk to the the service providers to get them.

Did they express these same concerns? Yes. How did you address them in the bill?

Let me just pause for a minute. Yes. We did have conversations. And there was an expression of concern on the audio burden of emergency departments and where this fit in. And I think when we discussed what the state is of individuals who are in the community, in the state, in their medical needs, there was an acknowledgment that that needs to be addressed.

It's not a safe situation. And that these folks would be coming into their environments to get that evaluation. And it was a, an acknowledgment that we need to continue to build together what the next steps are that are gonna best meet the needs of anybody level of impairment.

But they're saying we should first expand community treatment programs and stabilization facilities before we do this bill. Do you agree with that or disagree?

No. I think that what we need to do is meet the needs of individuals who are in the community in dire circumstances that need medical attention. And this bill provides a pathway for that in addition to other pathways that we have. We don't wanna leave people

Do you think this would have a negative impact on our efforts to build our community treatment programs and stabilization facilities?

zone pathway would have a negative impact on our ability ...

are we are we doing this too soon? Should we be building out our and expanding our community treatment programs and stabilization facilities and getting our ACT system up and running? Should we do that first before we do that?

I don't think we should leave people in the community, in the streets, and public places who are laying there, incapacitated, incoherent, and unable to protect themselves and and build out what the next steps are down

the road after. No police. If if somebody is flat out passed out, do they just leave them there or do they take them to the ER?

Those people should be coming into the emergency department or

They already are.

The emergency center for evaluation.

They're already being brought to the ER.

I'm saying that this bill creates another pathway.

Right. Right. I guess, mister Lambert, maybe you could ask. If some if a police officer and I wish HPD were here. But if the police officer comes across an incapacitated person, they're passed out, they're not able to take care of themselves, they're vulnerable, do the police leave them there or do they bring them into the ER?

If they can't coherently answer, then they're they're taken

to the ER via app. So so this bill is actually they're they're already the police are already doing that. They're already bringing him into the ER.

Similar work. So what this is is when they're totally completely passed out, yes, because they don't they're unable to refuse. What happens is sometimes is they're they're intoxicated to a point where they're all over the place. They're kinda causing a scene. And then what happens is is that they have just enough clarity to refuse the transport by the ambulance, and most times we have to leave them there.

And not to put, you know, goose on the spot, but we were big partners back in the day and we would just leave and we would just guess how long it's gonna take before we have to come back. And it's either because they got assaulted, they assaulted someone else, or now they're laying drunk in the street. So what we're trying to do is not wait for that. Right? We're trying to intervene before that.

So with our and maybe this is for doctor Champion. With our ACT approach that we're trying to build out, is there an opportunity to involuntary take that person in?

It would be through a different pathway, but

I mean, but not this bill. Just through the current ACT.

You could, but there's a longer process. But what we wanna do is use this bill as a way to flag. So for example, you come in for intoxication, you're not you're not combative, you're not whatever the goal would be that you get assessed. And then once you have this kind of history, then we use that data point to apply for our ACT act. And, again, the goal is always outpatient treatment.

The goal is always diversion away from jail and and to get people held. So we're just trying to create additional pathways. And I think, you know, to the earlier question to doctor Champion as far as what would be better first, it's just a chicken and the egg argument. Right? Because if we don't kinda push up against the capacity of the hospitals, it's hard to justify further furtherance of BHECs.

Right? So it's kind of like one of those where why do you need more BHCCs? Hospitals are saying they have capacity. Right? Okay.

So let's create a law. Now this incapacity is not there, so we now it justifies having more BHCCs. So like, again, it's a very hard chicken and the egg argument, but the goal is again, the the goal is to use what we have now and, again, to pathway people into treatment over over incarceration. That's the ultimate.

Yeah. And I understand. I mean, it's it's it's good intention behind it.

Sure. I appreciate I appreciate that one. K.

Thank you. Question for the AG, miss Putin. ACLU testimony brings up some very serious concerns. Criminalization of status of dangerously intoxicated is unconstitutional. This, law could be determined void for vagueness.

The requirement of civil protective custody will violate due process and equal protection. Do you have responses to all those? Those are very serious

Yes, sir. Criticisms.

are not seeking to criminalize the condition of alcoholism. We are seeking to target the conduct of the individual. If someone's conduct is criminal, that's criminal. We're not criminalizing anyone's condition of them being an alcoholic.

We we

So ACLU is wrong?

Yes. We criminalize conduct. We don't criminalize conditions of homelessness or, status as an alcoholic.

I would love to have you and the ACLU attorneys talking about this back and forth because

I would too.

They they're very clear that this is unconstitutional. Are they here, chair? No?

We we don't do that.

Office of public defender, they say ACLU says we share the concerns raised by office of public defender regarding the wide discretion officers have to determine. Supreme Court has explained vague laws contributing the first essential due process, and they they go on. And and these are these are serious issues, violating due process and equal protection by requiring civil protection. You know, I you're a smart attorney. I'm not.

And so I'm I'm I'm hearing public defenders with all these concerns, ACLU with all these concerns, and you're saying, no. No. We got it figured out. We're not doing that.

I think we're operating from a different perspective, sir. I work with law enforcement every day, and I probably should defer to director Lambert on what law enforcement will do.

I understand law enforcement to be operating from the presumption that according to this bill, what we're what the goal of it is treatment. That's the goal. The goal is not to criminalize these individuals who cannot care for themselves. That's not the goal of it. Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

In terms of whether or not there's going to ever be a habitual prosecution, I don't know. I really don't see that happening. In reality, it's possible, but the goal is treatment. This is affording law enforcement and the judicial system a tool to help these individuals engage in a pathway to treatment. That's the purpose of the legislation. So when

think everybody supports that purpose. It's a question of how we get there.

Understood. And basically, when you talk about page two starting at line seven, when it talks about that pathway. So once you meet probable cause for the crime, right, what what this is, this dangerous intoxication criminal offense that the bill creates. Once you establish probable cause for a crime, law enforcement determines the elements have been met for the crime. They don't have discretion.

You shall divert to this treatment process and avail this person to this treatment process. Now that's something that prosecutors looked at and said wait, do you want to leave it shall? Should this be a may for law enforcement to have the wiggle room to say, maybe they should have a may to make that determination. But it was purposefully left a shall so that discretion was not there. So it's required that pathway to treatment.

Yeah. So to say that they're not being afforded due process, they're not being afforded protection, that they're gonna be deprived of their civil liberties, the whole point is to get these individuals into treatment Yep. As as best and as quickly as we can.

No. And we were dealing with the same concerns about ACT. Right? It's that we're taking people in against their will. And it just looks like we're the same issues are coming up with this bill, and I'm just I'm I'm concerned about it.

I have concerns for people who are substantially incapacitated being in a public place, a danger to themselves, and a danger to others.

But if they're a danger to themselves or others, the police will take them.

According to this bill, they can.

Yes. But even now, if they're a danger to themselves or a danger to somebody else, then the police aren't just gonna walk away. They'll take them in.

There's a little bit more of a gray area with that, sir, but this actually clarifies that. This is a very clear tool that will afford a mechanism to law enforcement to fulfill that purpose. Yeah. There is no gray with this.

I I you're absolutely right. And that's why ACLU and public defenders are bringing up all these concerns is there is no gray. It's a criminalization. So I I have to

I understand, but that's not the goal.

I get it. It's not the goal. It's just that that's what as legislators that we're that's what we're dealing with. And so okay. Well, I think we've we've talked about this enough.

I I appreciate your I I appreciate everyone's hard work on this bill. It I I think it needs more work. But I think we've we've covered enough for now, and I've taken up enough of your time. So let's thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Okay. If it's okay, members, let's go on to the next measure. Next measure, Senate Bill 2517 relating to public safety. This measure establishes a Class C felony penalty for the unlawful possession control or transfer of a firearm or ammunition in violation of a valid judicial protective order or restraining order.

First up, office of the public defender.

Good afternoon again. So, office of the public defender has submitted testimony in opposition to this bill, and we just want to highlight the reasons why. Currently, it is already a criminal offense to be in possession of a firearm if you have a TRO (temporary restraining order) or valid order of protection against you. Our concerns, as we outlined in our testimony, is that restraining order and protective order process is very, very different from a criminal proceeding.

To get a protective order or, excuse me, a restraining order, it's just an application to the court without any kind of hearing, and the court just makes a unilateral decision as to whether or not in writing they believe there's been enough to grant the restraining order, and then the protective order issue comes later.

What we've just noted is that oftentimes, TROs are not upheld when they go to the next phase. We believe the existing criminal provision is already adequate, and we also have some concerns about the legal definition of possession as we outlined in our testimony that could lead to unintended consequences of the measure. So, thank you, and that's the basis of our opposition. I'll be available for questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Attorney General.

Good afternoon again. Michelle Puu, Deputy Attorney General, testifying for the department in strong support of this bill. This bill was submitted by unanimous agreement of the Hawaii Law Enforcement Coalition, which consists of membership by the attorney general, the Chiefs of Police of the various counties, and the prosecutors for each county, and the director of law enforcement.

Seeking to essentially increase the penalty from, misdemeanor to a Class C felony for those who have a temporary restraining order or order for protection that is in effect at the time of their possession of a firearm or ammunition. We are in strong support of this bill. Available for questions.

Thank you. Hawaii County Prosecuting Attorney on Zoom. Not present. Andrew Roberts on in person. Not present on Zoom. Michael Rice on Zoom. Thank you.

One second.

Hi, Mr. Rice.

Good day. Michael Rice testifying in opposition to this bill. Apologies. I just had it.

This, like, this makes just having a gun a felony in the TRO case, which can be done for anything. Like, I can get into a verbal argument with my neighbor, and he can issue a TRO against me. And I mean, I can see there are cases where, yeah, you should have a gun with a TRO. But, like, they don't this would also make it a felony.

Like, if I were to go give it to my cousin, have him hold it off, like, have him hold off to the gun until the TRO gets resolved, whatever. Or, like, if this TRO is going to go away, I can't even sell my gun. My only option is to give it up to HPD in my case.

And HPD, even in the temporary cases, do not have a very good track record of returning firearms in the best conditions. A friend of mine was arrested, went to court, had all his charges cleared. His guns were seized, and it took three years from the time when the judge said "charges dropped with prejudice" to him getting his guns back from HPD just because I don't know why. They just wouldn't give it back to him.

And that's not even current recalling some of the other horror stories I've heard where guys had their guns seized by HPD for, like, a few days.

And somehow within those couple of days, the gun rusted or, like, a thousand-dollar scope was damaged. So, I would like this to be rewritten or just deferred. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, Jennifer Cabuan on Zoom.

Hi. This is Jennifer Cabuan. I'm testifying as a citizen, and I would like to just oppose this bill. Number one, people use TROs as a bullying tactic sometimes when there's not a true issue. And once it gets taken to the next level, as the public defender said, a lot of times they're proven to be false accusations.

And for it to be, a false accusation and you're actually a considered a felon based on the bill's language, for the normal citizen, it's a hardship to be considered a felon when you're just being accused of something you didn't do. So, and also because there are a lot of crimes committed for different weapons now. I see a lot of stabbings. I see a lot of other ways that crimes are committed. So why is this only for firearms?

So, I don't, think that that's a good idea to have this written down because there are a lot of legal firearm owners out there that can be targeted, just because they do have a firearm and somebody wants to, do some lawfare against them. So, this bill assumes that all parties are honest.

This bill assumes- and the intent is good if you if you're saying that the person of the TRO is guilty- but due process takes a long time, like was mentioned earlier, and this assumes that all parties are honest and they don't have ulterior motives. So, because the law is to be used more, and not everybody is a good guy, it's possible that some selfish motivations can cause these types of lawfare issues to be used.

And I have a personal example where HPD, it was a political reason. They charged me with a misdemeanor, and I have my concealed carry license. So, I would have been a felon, you know, if you take this stacking of laws into effect. Because we do have laws that that apply to CROs. We do have laws for firearms. So, to stack it, it makes it worse for the person if they're wrongly accused.

So what happened in my case was the HPD was taken. I went to court. Judge said dismissed. I went to investigations. They had issues with HPD, and they wrote him up for giving me, I forget what the exact charge was, but I was found innocent and had this bill been in place or something like this where they were trying to do something and accuse me of something, I would have been a felon.

So, yeah, that's my testimony, and I just encourage you guys to oppose the bill as written. I yield.

Thank you very much. Next, Dennis Dunn on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair Tarnas, Vice Chair Poipoi. Dennis Dunn testifying in strong support of this measure. You have my written testimony, but I'll try to make a few what I consider to be critical points. Number one, this bill is very simple.

It doesn't affect anything regarding the current, you know, procedures that are followed by the police. It has nothing to do with affected people's due process rights. It does nothing to change things regarding the second amendment. It simply looks at a policy issue saying domestic violence and firearms are a lethal mix. And therefore, we feel that anyone who is owning or possessing a firearm in violation of a restraining order deserves a felony penalty because this is a serious offense.

It's as simple as that. I personally have assisted a number of women and I usually I try to refer to them as survivors, but as noted in my testimony, a couple of the women I assisted in getting restraining orders were subsequently brutally murdered by the respondent. So, we know that domestic violence and firearms can result in people's deaths. I will note, as in my testimony that we already have a similar provision for assaults that are committed in violation of restraining order.

If there's a restraining order in effect and an assault is committed, it can be elevated to a felony assault in second degree.

Same thing with terroristic threatening. This is really no different than that. I would suggest that position of a firearm in violation of restraining order is just as serious and is causing bodily injury, which is essentially what an assault in the third degree is. So again, actually a very simple measure. I strongly suggest that you look at this as a way of protecting domestic violence victims.

Ming a felony offense will allow for greater, effective, response from the police department, and I think that's what we need in this situation. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? That's all who said they would testify. We received a lot of testimony in this. Let's see. Six in support, 44 in opposition.

You wanna testify? Oh, yeah. Come on up. Oh, it's right.

Yep. I you gave me your testimony. Sorry.

Good afternoon, Chair Tarnas and Vice Chair Porto and Committee members. Arnold Sagucio, acting Major of the Honolulu Police Department's records division. We in the HPD strongly support Senate Bill 2517. This bill will protect victims of domestic violence within the state. Protection of these vulnerable people of our community is paramount for the HPD, and this law will greatly impact our community for the better.

We're just trying to prevent further tragedies. This law will also provide HPD and Department of Prosecuting Attorneys the ability to restrict the possession, control, and in legal transfer of these, domestic violence, respondents, firearms, which is very important. And then you're back to rest of my time. I'm taking any questions, comments, or concerns.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members? First, from Garcia.

Say again? I would not have accurate stats in regard to that. But from my 23 years of patrol, we have made some arrests. However, with it being a C felony at this point, it would provide us a little bit more teeth and ability to govern these types of restrictions with these firearms, especially with a lot of gun violence that's occurred in prison.

Oh, thank you. HPD. So, thank you for being here. Under existing law, a person may be prohibited by a lawful judicial protective order or restraining order from possessing, controlling, or transferring ownership of a firearm or ammunition. Currently, a violation would be a misdemeanor. This would make it a felony. My question is, how many arrests have been made for violations of the current law recently? Are there any stats?

Thank you. Okay.

Shimizu?

HPD, please. Sorry. You know when somebody has a restraining order, does law enforcement already have the statutory authority to seize their weapons? Are they supposed to hand over their weapons?

Correct. So, I work for the records and identifications division. So, we control license to carry, permit to acquire, registration of firearms. It is very difficult, in these situations where we have to confiscate or put into safe keeping these firearms while the TRO or the, you know, protective order is adjudicated. It's very difficult to have them comply.

We've had situations where firearms come up stolen or they're missing or I gave it to a friend.

But then in eventuality, they're still retaining the firearms. So it's very difficult without it being a serious offense. We need to get compliance from these people to turn in their firearms and go through the judicial process. And then we can return the firearms if it's adjudicated and finalized.

Follow-up question. Okay. So, is it a correct statement that if you have a Class C felony, we have a permanent lifetime ban on firearm ownership?

That is correct.

So that's a that's a serious jump from a misdemeanor to a Class C felony.

Correct.

K. Thank you.

Maybe, I guess, I should ask you, officer. What's the evidence that a tougher penalty is actually going to be effective as a deterrent in a situation like this?

I want to bring up incidents, but domestic violence sometimes escalates to murder.

Oh, I understand. But what's the evidence that making it a felony, a Class C felony, is going to change anything for an individual?

It'll help us get more compliance because the penalties are more severe.

I mean, if someone who is all upset and that's usually what happens in the situation. Right? Their knowledge of the penalties, does that make a difference?

I wouldn't be able to answer that, sir. Sorry. I mean-

I mean, if you read the public defender's testimony, they're saying it's a false premise that a tougher penalty would serve as a deterrent in a situation that's usually highly emotional and involves different types of relationships that are under stress.

I think the premise is that we need to protect our most vulnerable victims. Domestic violence, especially with, today's day and age, a lot of firearms are being used. And a lot of these, crimes are being committed against, you know, family members. So, I think that is the premise for the law to control and govern the possession, you know, control and illegal transfer of these firearms.

They're adjudicated. It is no problem for the Honolulu Police Department. You know, upon judicial notice, we can return these firearms.

Right. Okay. Any other questions?

Go ahead.

Chair. Yes. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Officer?

You're popular. Stay up here.

In your testimony, you mentioned that you've had situations where the people go, "Oh, I lost it. I loaned it. I don't know where it is." Excuses. So is this going to alleviate those people from making statements like that to you?

Especially if we can prove that they were falsifying that information, because the possession of the firearm at that point would be considered felony.

But I guess they could still continue to say lies straight to your face about it. Having the actual firearm. Yeah. Okay.

We'll resolve the problem immediately.

Right. Right. Okay. No. Thank you for your time. And what you do.

Sure. Last question.

Any other questions? Rep. Shimizu

Attorney General, please. Thank you, Attorney General, for being here. I appreciate your good testimony. You know, you made a statement that I forget the exact body that met, and it was this bill. It was a unanimous-

The Law Enforcement Coalition.

Yeah. So what was the data or the points that made it? I mean, that is strong move to suggest that the penalty be changed from misdemeanor to Class C felony. And it's kind of related to Chair's question to HPD. Is there any data that shows with increased penalty, is there a decrease in the crime or is there a better outcome?

So, again, with that body that met that had discussion points, was there data that showed that increasing the penalty from a misdemeanor, which is one year max, $2,000 fine max, to a class C felony, which goes from one year to five years, and $10,000 fee max. Just that shift was, I guess, purposeful to make this change?

Anecdotally, sir, I can tell you two things. One, one of the members of the coalition is, Police Chief Pelletier from Maui. One of his officers, Suzanne Ho, was allegedly murdered by an individual who was just served with a TRO two days prior to her being killed in the line of duty. So arguably, he should not have had that firearm by law. So, I'm certain that prompted some of the discussion between the members of the coalition.

Additionally, if it is known, and it's usually known, by partners in a domestic violence situation that their partner has firearms. And if they are registered firearms, police can verify whether or not the firearms have been surrendered to law enforcement as they should have been. And if they have not, search warrants can be obtained to collect and retrieve those firearms. If this is elevated to a class C felony, that's more likely to occur rather than it being a misdemeanor just as a practical matter.

It's just when you talk about resources and how they're going to be assigned to certain kinds of cases, when you're talking about a class C felony offense and what you can do with a class C felony offense to ensure that those firearms are, in fact, surrendered in a volatile relationship where there is a TRO at issue, or an order for protection, as the case may be, at issue, and firearms are involved, there are different avenues that are available when you're talking about a class C offense.

Data specifically, sir, I don't have any data to present to you. That's just anecdotes that I can give.

So are you saying that the requirement to confiscate registered firearms is the same for misdemeanor and a class C felony, but if it's a class C felony, it'll be enforced more strongly or given more credence than a misdemeanor. Is that what I heard?

What I'm saying is that it could be because there are different tools that are available. You can certainly pursue a search warrant for a misdemeanor offense, but the odds of that occurring are not very likely. Search warrants are very labor intensive. But if you're doing it for a felony offense, it's much more likely to occur.

Okay. Thank thank you.

And because of that, I'm sorry, the search warrant requires probable cause and a standard being met by a judge.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Thanks very much for the testifiers. Let's go ahead to the next measure. Senate bill three two eight one, senate draft one relating to gambling enforcement.

This measure establishes the criminal offense of promoting an illegal electronic gambling device, authorizes civil penalties and actions relating to premises on which an illegal electronic gambling device has been used and allows the attorney general, any county prosecuting attorney, any county police chief, or the director of law enforcement to take certain actions against places used to commit certain offenses that qualify as a nuisance. First up, Office of the Public Defender.

Good afternoon again. The Office of the Public Defender's opposition to this measure is mainly because of what we perceive to be very overbroad, and vague language associated with some of the definitions. And we've articulated that, I think, in pretty detailed fashion throughout our testimony. Specifically, the definition of elect illegal electronic gambling device.

There's just several provisions under that definition that raised some concerns, and like, in whole or in chance of or in part upon chance, the inclusion of the term anything of value, also the express rejection of skill based distinctions.

We do believe that there will this is going to, if this passes, invite heavy litigation and, meaningful challenges to the language being used to describe these machines. Again, we don't have an issue with the criminalization of legitimate gambling devices, but we have concerns about the language being used in this measure. We also added some additional testimony that we've changed from the first draft about our position on the nuisance provisions, which we think also raised some concerns related to property owners. So I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Department of Law Enforcement. Not present. Next, Honolulu prosecuting attorney.

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, and members. My name is Gabe Huntington. I'm the deputy prosecuting attorney for the Department of Prosecuting Attorney. We support the bill's intent, but we ask that the committee accept the changes we have proposed. I personally lead my office's efforts to combat game rooms, and I have significant experience in this area.

And the proposals I've made are designed to maximize the impact, of these offenses. So at point one, I'd like to protect my active prosecutions. Every single current gambling prosecution does include fish games, And I'm concerned that if we change and add a new definition to it, the current prosecutions, they will make a motion saying this wasn't illegal before. But our our position is that gambling devices as currently defined does include fish games.

So the proposal I have is to incorporate the definition of electronic gambling device into the current definition, thereby making clear that they are already illegal as we believe and as I believe everybody else, takes that position.

But by passing a new bill, it potentially raises a defense that they weren't illegal before the bill is passed. Second, I would like that you guys are increasing the strength of nuisance abatement. I'm probably the only person in the state who have used a nuisance abatement currently working. We have shut down game rooms using nuisance abatement, but the statute itself is very old. The language is archaic.

It's hard to use. So I suggested changes to clarify both for us and also for anyone who's potentially being litigated against a nuisance abatement action. We also like that you have increased or or added a civil fine. One of the things we've known is that by prosecuting gambling cases, some of the gambling operators are shifting to residential prostitution. I've been working with the human trafficking unit to try to initiate nuisance abatement suits, but the only action you can take is closure of the property.

By having fines, we can threaten people with meaningful costs. This also adds provisions to shut down utilities and provide ongoing judicial oversight of a location. There's language in the proposed statute that talks about to the extent constitutionally possible. This is written in a way that we don't have any questions. This is something that has been done for years.

It has been done in other jurisdictions as well. And then the third point, we are spending a lot of money storing, gambling devices. Right now, we're seizing between four and 600 a year. They're being stored in a warehouse. The city is spending a lot of money on that, and there's a recent federal case that made summary forfeiture of those devices harder than it used to be, potentially not an avenue that we can pursue.

And then last year's changes to asset forfeiture made that that approach to taking title over these machines and destroying them. It closes off because we don't know who the owner is when we see some machines inside the game room, so we can't charge that person.

So I proposed a narrow exception to act two eighty eight that would allow the seizure of gambling devices without knowing who the owner is, cash bound in game rooms without knowing who the owner is, and summary destruction of the machines after ninety days if nobody comes forward and says these machines are mine. I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Anyone else testifying on Senate Bill 3281? If not, questions, members?

I have a question.

Go ahead.

Thank you for being here. You know, this bill gives the landlord ten days to evict the tenant who's a violator. In in your estimation or experience, is ten days sufficient time for the landlord to do that?

It's it's not so much about the eviction of any person. What my experience is that there are cooperative landlords who don't know the gambling's occurring, and then there's uncooperative who are part of the gambling. So in the civil sorry. In the city council side, we had a bill passed last year that allows HPD to share information and make officers available for eviction proceedings. So HPD can now consult the landowner or the landlord and say, we can participate in you evicting this person.

Ten days, that may not be enough. I reworked it in the language I submitted to the court when assessing whether or not penalties will be imposed against a person. We'll take into account the efforts the lawful efforts they took to remove a game room tenant. So rather than it just being we we end up with a situation, we go from a to b to c. It's in the court's discretion to take into account any efforts they took to evict a game room.

Oh, so your amenable language, addresses this this issue and it changes it from a time period to, again, as applicable with the process.

Correct. So once there's a nuisance abatement suit, so we go there, we go to the court, we prove that the nuisance is there, The court can then, when assessing penalties, the criminal contempt, shutting down the, property, the court can take into account whether or not the the landholder took efforts to remove a person.

Thank you very much. Thank you, chair.

Any other questions? I have a question, .

Your recommended amendments are significant? Yeah. It's a new bill if we were to put all this in there. And the Senate's already moved it out.

Now you're coming here. It's a single referral. I'm very hesitant to change this into a new bill. I think your suggestions are well worth considering, but they should be a a bill introduced at the beginning of session. . I Maybe it's something that you might consider for next session.

So I I was asked to comment on this bill.

Oh, I think it's it's great.

With a couple days at the last session, and I prepared the language after that and submitted it to the chair, after my testimony in that bill. And now having prepared the language, I'm ready to present it at the first appearance day.

I'm sorry. So you you this was the Senate?

Yes. I testified in front of the Senate. I I got suggestions that I will submit statutory language, but I I got notice of that just a couple days. And so then in the week after, I submitted it to the chair.

Got it. Okay. Because I I mean, I think I would like to have due consideration of your, proposed amendments, but if we include it, it doesn't have any more hearings.

Understood. Yeah.

So I'm I'm reluctant to to do that, but it sounds like we would need to do that. Because according to your testimony, it'd be better off leave it as it is and not adopt the bill as it is.

status quo is better than adopting this bill as it is.

That'd be better

There could be some changes made to the bill that would be acceptable, but, yes, status quo, it with the exception of the civil fine. If we had a civil fine and nuisance abatement, that would be helpful on the day it's passed. Yeah. But in terms of adding a new definition of what gaming machines are, that would significantly complicate our process. Sure.

It sounds like it would be a problem.

Yeah.

Okay. Well, thank you very much for your hard work on your testimony. It is useful. But if if we decide not to incorporate now, that's why.

Understood. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions, members? If not, let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 2731 relating to sentencing.

This measure limits the maximum term of imprisonment for misdemeanors that are not crimes of violence or for offenses that are not crimes of violence punishable by up to or not exceeding one year. We change it to 364 days. And the measure allows individuals previously sentenced to a one-year term of imprisonment for an offense that is not a crime of violence to apply to the court for a sentence modification to conform to the new limit.

First up, we have Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action.

Sorry. I don't have any notes that I was supposed to talk about this.

Oh, yeah. I was on the wrong bill. Next first up, Hailey Chang, Office of the Public Defender. Sorry.

No worries.

You're on the next bill.

Yeah. I'm ready for that one.

And good afternoon again. The Office of the Public Defender has testified on this measure in various forms throughout this session. I want to limit my testimony today to a concern that we have with this draft of the bill. And that is particularly as to the exclusion of what is, "Considered a crime of violence and that it would not be afforded the 364-day reduction".

This committee is very familiar with the need for this bill and why the 364-day sentencing cap to misdemeanors would have significant and really important and meaningful impacts on the immigration consequences that our noncitizen population faces.

However, this inclusion of crimes of violence would essentially make that meaningless for this portion of the population who gets charged with what is "a crime of violence". Crime of violence is a very reactionary term. When people hear that, I think they're envisioning the worst. I would just like the committee to be mindful that a misdemeanor crime of violence, which is really the only thing that we're talking about, is considered a misdemeanor for a reason. A misdemeanor is a very low-level offense.

Of all the things that this committee hears about in terms of crimes, there's an escalation from petty misdemeanor all the way up to a class A felony. Misdemeanor offenses are handled by our district courts. Generally, they are not considered very or extremely serious crimes and are categorized this way by the legislature for a reason.

So we don't think that this addition of this exclusion of "crimes of violence" in accordance with Hawaii Vice Statute Section 134-1 is appropriate or necessary and would undermine the meaningful impact this bill could have if passed in its original form. So that we support it, but we offer comments as to that section. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Mr. Ramos, Richardson School of Law on Zoom. Go ahead, sir.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Danicole Ramos with the Richardson School of Law, Refugee and Immigration Law Clinic. You have our testimony and support with comments that kind of go more into the context of the immigration law consequences and how it connects with state criminal law. And we're happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Kat Brady?

Aloha again. Community Alliance of Prisons is in strong support of this bill. Sorry. I did some research on misdemeanors since that's been such a burning issue this session. So from an August 25 report from the Center for Justice Innovation, they wrote, lower level misdemeanors make up over 80% of all criminal cases, yet there is mounting evidence that prosecuting people for nonviolent misdemeanors substantially increases their chance of coming into the system again, so it sets them on a path.

In other words, conventional misdemeanor court process may be undermining public safety. This bill would really protect our immigrant neighbors when a sentence for one year can have incredibly scary effects on their lives and their families. The states that have reduced the maximum misdemeanor sentence from six- 365 days to 364 include Utah, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, and they follow 11 other states that already have misdemeanor charges, that carry less than a year sentence. Thank you.

I hope you pass this bill.

Thank you very much. Next, Mandy Fernandez, ACLU in support. Not present. Next, Christine Andrews on Zoom.

I'll stand on my written testimony with support for the comments made by the Office of the Public Defender. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members? Question. If not- Yes.

Kat Brady. You mentioned other states, Utah, Colorado, California, Oregon, New York, which were recently added to 11 previous states that already have implemented this- this change.

Yes.

Is there- Is there any data that shows, any kind of improvement based on that change?

I think less people were deported. But, and I think that's the reason that most states did it, because they see the effects of the ICE arrests.

Chair, can I ask a question to Office of Public Defenders? You know, I'm not familiar, but my understanding is we were we're changing it from 365 to 364 because 365 is an automatic trigger for some kind of immigration thing. Can can you explain that? What is the the concern with immigration status?

So I would like to caveat my response by saying I'm not an immigration attorney, but I will do my best because it does impact our clients at the public defenders who are not citizens. There is immigration consequences for the term for one year or more. So if you are sentenced or are charged or plead to a crime that carries the potential of a sentence of one year or more, there are significant immigration consequences

that are not triggered if the sentence is less than a year. So that's why reducing it to 364 takes it out of that one year category and can significantly lessen the potential impacts for certain clients.

But isn't misdemeanor a one year max? So--

Someone judge can, use his discretion to sentence for less than a year?

Yes.

Yes. And that's a a very good question. And because for immigration purposes, the actual sentence is not what matters. What matters is what the possible penalty of the crime that you have been convicted of carries. So the fact that a judge could impose a no jail sentence and give just a misdemeanor, probationary term, or a fine as a sentence, but because the offense carries the possibility of up to a year in jail, that is what triggers the immigration consequences.

It's not the actual ordering of the sentence by the court.

So if a person is a- a non documented citizen following in this quote immigration category, they'll get flagged. Is that what you say?

I think anytime, especially in our current state, if you are a noncitizen, it's not just for completely undocumented. It's for our green card holders. It's for our permanent residents. It's for people who might have lawful status but who are noncitizen. That is where we're really seeing an impact, so I wanna just make that clear that it's not just undocumented individuals.

There's just a disproportionate impact, I we believe, based on this language of one the carrying the possibility of one year. That's really all it is. It doesn't necessarily flag or not flag. It's just if you are charged with a criminal offense is when there's these consequences that can- can ensue.

And, Rep. Shimizu, if you want, we do have an immigration attorney that did provide testimony from Richardson School of Law. You could ask the question of Mr. Ramos who's on Zoom.

Oh, right now? Oh, okay. I might. Hey. What's up, man?

That- That- That way, you don't you don't have to do that.

Thank you.

Yeah. Not a friend. So What's it--

Back to you, Mr. Ramos. Could you- you heard the question?

Yeah. So, the public defender got it, most part accurate. I will say, what she was talking about in terms of the one year sentence, what we call that in immigration law is something called an aggravated felony. So under immigration law, when there's a sense of miss even though it's a misdemeanor considered, if it's allowed to be sentenced up to a year, that's what could trigger, if they plead to it, an aggravated felony.

And so what happens when a noncitizen is given a conviction that's considered in immigration law an aggravated felony, that's what could trigger deportation.

And it- And it's- it could guard them from any relief unless the prosecutor and the public defender's office agree to repleting it back to a misdemeanor or there becomes a pardon, from the governor's office. But, essentially, what this bill would do is, as the public defender articulated, you're just giving the discretion to put it to 364 days so it doesn't trigger that aggravated felony statute under immigration law.

So if- if it's- if it's triggered, there's no due process for status path to citizenship?

I wouldn't I don't think due process is the right word. What happens is that they still have to go through immigration court proceedings, but there's no relief from that deportation as there would be for other crimes that aren't considered aggravated felonies or don't have a sentence up to a year. So in immigration law, there's something called cancellation of removal, where certain crimes, depending on what they are, can be essentially, like, forgiven at this one time- this one time deal.

But if the- if there's a criminal conviction that's an aggravated felony, that's when there's essentially they'll still go through immigration court proceedings, but there- there won't be that cancellation of removal relief.

And that's just about a one day, 364 versus 365?

That could be- that- that could happen. Yes.

Could or I mean, that's the whole purpose of this bill. Right?

Yeah. It could. If- If it's charged up to that's if there's a 364 day bill, there's a chance for cancellation of removal. If the sentence is up to a year, then essentially would be an aggravated felony, and any relief from deportation would- would possibly not happen.

But even if they're up to 364 there- there would be identified as a non documented if- if the case is that they're undocumented. If there was 364 it would still be identified as an undocumented citizen. And would there be ramifications thereafter to be deported?

There are some opportunities for this there regardless if they get an issue for a notice to appear that they're deportable, they still have to go through immigration court proceedings. And like the public defender said, this does not just apply for those who are undocumented. This also applies to lawful permanent residents and green like green card holders.

No. I understand. I'm just what is the purpose of this bill? We're- We're trying to accomplish something.

If you could explain, Mr. Ramos. The bill changes it to 364 days. So what will be the impact on noncitizens of the change that this bill will make?

So, essentially, they would be allowed to possibly go for cancellation of removal, which is not allowed if you have an aggravated felony. A conviction that's considered an aggravated felony.

But but if the circumstances warrant an aggravated situation. Even if it's 364 the judge might sentence them to one year or more. Right?

Okay. Okay.

Are you talking about the immigration judge? Are you talking about the criminal state criminal court?

Well, I guess the--

two different two different courts. So the- the change in this that that's contemplated by this bill is what is in criminal court. But so we changed it to 364 then there wouldn't be then the impact on a nonresident would be that they would have you you describe it again. That- That if there is if the sentence is 364 days, then there's not a chance of this automatic deportation.

Correct.

Yeah. They would have the chance to--

They would have the chance in immigration court to apply for cancellation of removal. But if the sent- if the criminal if they're convicted for something that's up to a year, which is considered an aggravated felony, they have no chance to assert a cancellation- a relief for cancellation of removal. Right.

So- So even if it's 364 if the if the judge says they're aggregated felony, they won't be protected by this 364 because of the crime they- they committed, which- which--

Yeah. If- If- It's- if it's- if they're convicted in the state court, if it's deemed an aggravated felony and immigration law, there essentially will be no relief from deportation.

But at 364 days, then that's not the case because it's not to be considered. It would not be considered in immigration court to be a felony.

Yeah. And I agree with the felony. So there's a chance for them to apply for a relief, which is called cancellation removal in immigration court.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much, chair, for your indulgence.

No. It's okay. It's complicated. Alright. Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you very much, Mr. Ramos and everyone else testifying this measure.

Let's move on to the next one. Senate Bill 2737, Senate Draft 1, related to bribery. This establishes the offense of failure to report bribery by state elected official as a misdemeanor and, and others. You can read the, the summary there. First up, we have Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Tina Holt. Today, I'm testifying on behalf of HAPA, and we support SB 2737. Right now, our whole system of accountability relies on people speaking up when they see something improper happening. But right now, in this building and in many others, the incentives run the other way.

If you speak up, you're risking your relationships. Your bills might not get heard. You get frozen out of the cool kids club, and it's not you that ends up paying that price. It's the people you're here to represent. And if your office staff does that, then that can come back on you too.

So, the community that you were elected to represent can get frozen out. So, people tend to stay quiet, not because they don't care about these kinds of things, but because the system makes silence a safer choice. This bill can change that calculus. By making it a legal requirement to report bribery, it, it, it offers cover to people who already are interested in doing the right thing. It lets them say, look, I didn't have a choice.

I had to do this. I had to tell. The law required it, and that protection really matters. It is honestly one of the smallest things that we can do for people who are willing to speak up.

SB 2737 is narrowly written, and it requires actual knowledge of or witnessing, not rumor. It gives sixty days and multiple reporting options. This is workable, and it shifts the consequences so that silence is the problem not speaking up. And silence doesn't carry a legal risk—or sorry, silence carries a legal risk, not speaking up. So, please pass this bill.

Thank you.

Thanks. Anyone else wishing to testify in this measure? If not, questions, members? What questions?

Okay. Thank you very much.

Sorry, chair. Chair.

Yes.

Real quick for—I guess we just have one testifier to ask a question now. Right?

Yep.

So, I, I'll try, try you. Thank you for your testimony.

In this, did you—do you see a part if you so the person that we're hoping to engage to be comfortable and safe enough to, you know, say, you know, say that there's something going on. If they do, is it trick—do you know if self-reporting will trigger the Fifth Amendment to actually implicate themselves for speaking out? Did you read this bill to, to point at that?

I did read the bill. I am not an attorney, nor am I a constitutional specialist, so I'm not sure that I would be the correct person to answer that for you.

I just thought I'd give you a try because you.

Oh, yeah. No worries. I think, I think that, I think that offering as many opportunities for people to say what's going on in a way that protects them. It's like, you know, we all need a carrot and a stick. Yep.

So, I think this is just kind of why it's...but I'm sorry. I can't answer better.

Thank you.

Okay. Can I ask a question, chair? Since you're the only person.

Thank you.

Jeffrey.

Thank you for being here. The bill says sixty days. We did sixty days.

Got it.

Shouldn't it be shorter?

I believe there was a, there was another bill. I'm honestly not sure if it is still live that was thirty days. I personally don't really have an opinion on whether it's thirty or sixty days. Right now, we have nothing. So, I'll take sixty days over nothing for sure.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions? If not, thank you very much for your testimony. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate bill 3294 relating to wrong imprisonment. I'll just read the very beginning of the summary.

This establishes the procedure that a court of the state shall follow upon the reversal or vacation of an individual's judgment or conviction on grounds consistent with innocence and where the charges were dismissed. The summary goes on, and you can read it. First up, office of the public defender.

And good afternoon for the last time this today. We stand in strong support of this measure, and some of the things that I wanna address is, in prior hearings that have dealt with this, there seems to be a misnomer that this may impact a large group of people. And I want to just highlight that the individuals that would benefit from this measure are very few, thankfully, and far between.

These are individuals who have been wrongfully convicted and that their convictions have been reversed or overturned, based on strong evidence of innocence. That's very different from a conviction based on a technicality or conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct or a conviction based on another reason.

So it impacts a very small group of people, and these individuals are egregiously wronged when this occurs. The preamble to the bill is significant and important and outlines the need for why this is important. And we would also just like to highlight as the agency that represents the majority of criminal defendants in our state, We know firsthand how devastating it is to be released from custody with nothing, which is why this compensation needs to occur.

It needs to occur quickly, and it needs to be broader than just monetary compensation. The services, the insurance, the case management, things of that nature are critical to help people rebuild their lives, especially lives that have been taken because of a wrongful conviction.

So I'll be available for any questions. We stand in strong support and hope to see that this, our state makes a change in how we deal with these situations. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation?

Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Michael Hoffman, institutions division administrator for the Department of Corrections Rehabilitation. We stand on our testimony. I'd be available for questions if you have any.

Oh, you support the bill? Thank you.

Judiciary? Jennifer Au Wong?

Hi. Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Good afternoon, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Jennifer Au Wong. I'm the staff attorney for the criminal divisions and the Judiciary Administration. We will primarily stand on our written testimony.

We just have some comments and and concerns operationally on how, these particular findings are going to be made and how these particular orders are going to be issued in either the criminal case, which by definition would already be dismissed, or in a rule 40 case where the parties are are only the prosecuting attorney and the former defendant. And we wouldn't have the the parties for us to be able to order, such payments, to be made. So we're we're still working on it.

My understanding is, there may be some, amendments being proposed by the department of the attorney general, which we'd be interested in in looking at and working with, to try and, make this a little more, workable for us. And I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Department of the attorney general?

Not present. Kat Brady?

Aloha. Community Alliance on Prisons is in strong support of this measure. Currently, about 38 states have similar laws, and, Jeffrey Gutman, who's a professor at George Washington University and he works with the National Exonerations Committee said that Hawaii's law is really strict. It's the strictest law in the country. The consequences of Hawaii's broken compensation law are not abstract.

They're measured in new human suffering. Alvin Jardine spent twenty years in prison, and he died homeless. Ian Albert Ian Schweitzer spent 23 years in prison, and I'm sure a case will be coming up. Roines, Dural spent eight and a half, years in prison for a crime that DNA proved he didn't do. He did get compensated under the claims bill this year as did Elpin Jardim's family.

And Gordon Cardero, who was recently released, spent thirty years in prison. And I've talked with a lot of guys in Saguaro, and they know him. And they were like, he didn't do it. And finally, it was proven by DNA that he did not do it. So he's trying to get his life back together.

And in the House Bill, actually, he appeared on Zoom from Maui and said, you know, I was one of the lucky ones. I had a family that came and picked me up. They bought me clothes. They, they actually helped me reintegrate into the community after thirty years in prison. So we we let people out when they're already aging and have no work experience.

What what is gonna happen? So we have to think about that, and we have to take responsibility for that. And we want the state to take the responsibility, the things that they ask the people in their care and custody to do. We want you to be honest. We want you to work hard.

We want you to rehabilitate yourself. We want the state to do that as well. So no statute can actually repair lost decades, but the state can do something, and that's what this bill does. And we hope that you pass it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, Kenneth Lawson, Hawaii Innocence Project on Zoom. Not present. Next, Gordon Cordero on Zoom. Mister Cordero?

Yes. Good afternoon.

I hear you. Please go ahead.

Alright. Thank you for having me. I'm in strong support of this bill. I was released from prison on 02/21/2025. I filed the rule for a petition.

There was a hearing held. Evidence was presented. The prosecutor had a chance to answer. The judge made a decision based on the evidence presented that I was actually innocent of these charges and released me from prison. Later that day, they walked me to the gate, opened the door, and shut it behind me.

If I had not had any family, friends, or attorneys waiting at the gate, what would I have done? Where would I have gone? What would I have eaten? Where would I have slept? This bill is essential to anyone released from prison.

When you're in prison and you're convicted of a crime and you're guilty, you get a case manager. They help you with a ID when you get out. They help you get a job. When you're innocent, they don't wanna give you nothing on your way out. I was at the house hearing last month, and I heard the attorney general's comments that they don't agree with the $5,000 advance payment.

Why not? It costs the state of Hawaii between 60 and $115,000 a year to house an inmate. If that inmate was spent 30 years in prison, was innocent, nobody complains about that money. Why are we complaining about $5,000 to eat, to live, just to survive until you can get on your feet? I think this is a great bill.

Six 61 b, which was the original bill that Senator Rose drafted was also a great bill. However, it's been abused by the attorney generals who fight, argue, and try to plea bargain, which is not part of that law. That's not part of the bill. There should not be negotiation process. If you're deemed actually innocent by a judge, you should get paid.

That's what 661 was intended to do when it was written, and that's what this bill intends to do now. It shifts the burden onto the state to prove why innocent people shouldn't get compensated. They shouldn't have to prove why they should get compensated. There's not gonna be hundreds of people lining up for this. This is very rare.

This doesn't happen every day. I fought thirty years to be prove my innocence. It's not easy. People give up. People die.

People move on. The state needs to take care of those innocent victims when they make a mistake. They need to make it better. I support this bill. Thank you for bringing it up for hearing, and I hope you vote yes.

Thank you. And if you have any questions, I'll be here.

Thank you very much, mister Cordero. Next, Sarah Cordero on Zoom. Sarah Cordero, are you available?

Okay. Well, we heard from No. Oh, I hear you. Go ahead.

I'm sorry. Sorry. I'm new to Zoom. I'm so sorry. I'm still figuring it out.

Hi. My name is Sarah. My brother is Gordon, who just testified. Gordon was released over a year ago, just over a year ago. And while it's been a year of reconnection, attempted healing, and making up for lost time, it's also been a year of struggling to reacclimate.

Gordon was left at the gate with a paper bag, released without resources and without structured support, needed speaking again. I shudder to think what it would have been like for him if we weren't there to receive him. I could speak to you for hours about what he and our family endured during his three decades of wrongful incarceration, but that's not why we're here. Today is about the injustice that follows release. It's about what happens next.

Gordon is trying to rebuild his life in a world that is completely changed. He faces enormous challenges medically, emotionally, physically, and financially. And what if we weren't there? Where would he be today? Homeless, alone, unable to meet his basic daily and medical needs, or worse, like Alvin Jardine?

If a conviction is overturned, it means the case was never proven. The system returns to step one, but families like ours have already lost years or even decades. Those years were never owed. They were taken. And while the state may choose to retry a case, we don't get a do over.

Gordon gets the start over. This bill is important because it recognizes that when someone loses decades of their life to wrongful imprisonment, they need immediate support, stability, health care, financial assistance, and guidance. They need dignity. They should not have to struggle alone after already enduring such a profound loss of time. Nothing can be important for our family back the 31 years we lost, but this bill can give him and others like him a real chance to rebuild.

It represents accountability, compassion, and a real commitment to justice. Please do not let another innocent person walk out of prison with nothing and no place to begin again. I respectfully urge you to pass this bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Sarah Cordero. And thank you, Gordon Cordero. The strength that you are demonstrating by testifying on this after enduring the trauma that you went through is admirable, and I really acknowledge and honor your work to try to make sure this doesn't happen to other people, what happened to you.

Thank you so much.

I I appreciate you taking the time to testify today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to testify on Senate bill 3294? If not, questions, members? Nah. Thank thank you very much to all the testifiers. I appreciate your input on this.

We're gonna move on to the next bill. We'll make the decisions on all the bills at the end. Senate bill 2983 relating to natural resources. This has to do with creating a fence for criminal destruction of a tree. We don't have anyone testifying in person, so you can read the testimony from Mr. Curran.

Anyone else wishing to testify in person on this one? Nope. Okay. Let's move on to the next bill. Senate bill 2528 relating to partial public financing of elections.

This increases the expenditure limit and amount of partial public financing available to all elective offices, adjust the minimum amount of qualifying contributions certain candidates must receive, and increases the matching fund payments for excess qualifying contributions and appropriates funds. Let's camp let's have the campaign spending commission. You've been very patient. Thank you for being here.

Thank you so much for hearing our bill. Good afternoon, chair Tarnas, vice chair, for a point, members of the committee, Christy Chang from the Campaign Spending Commission. This is the commission's, administrative bill and of course we strongly, strongly support this bill. As you mentioned, it does some adjustments as far as the amounts that candidates can receive or artificials can receive. The last time, I guess I should back up that this, partial public financing is mandated by the constitution.

And the last time it received the boost was in 1995, and we really feel like it's, long overdue to level the playing field. And I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Next, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in support. Not present. Next, Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action.

Hello again. My name is Tina. I'm testifying on behalf of Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action, and we support sb 2528 SD one. I live in Hilo, and I still work four jobs to keep my family housed at bed. And I'm not an exception.

That's just what life looks like for a lot of families here. So when I think about who runs for office and who doesn't, I always think about that. I think about how many people in my community have experience, have values, and have deep roots, but we don't have the donor network. We don't have the connection to people who can write big checks. What we really need is full public financing.

No war chests, no donor class, and any money, in my opinion, left at the end of a general campaign should go right back into that public fund, not sit in someone's account waiting for the next race. This is the system that we deserve, but we're not there yet, and that's okay. We'll take the baby steps. We can move in the right direction today. Hawaii's partial public financing program hasn't been updated since 1995.

Thirty years. I'm 35, so that's, like, ridiculous. I was like this. Right? Just like the cost of everyday goods, the cost of running a campaign has gone up dramatically, and the program has just sat there becoming less and less useful for candidates for all the candidates that it was meant to help.

This bill can really change that, especially changing the matching rate, which will shift it from one to one to four to one. That means that every $100 a neighbor donates can become $500 in campaign resources. That is what makes community funded candidates actually competitive. When candidates are funded by their communities and they govern they govern for their communities, So please pass SB 2,528. Start to catch us up. Mahalo.