House Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. Convening our Committee on Public Safety. Today is 03/25/2026, 10AM. We are in Conference Room 411. Members, we have a number of bills that are coming back towards us, that we've already heard.

So, hopefully, this can be done expeditiously. First up, we have Senate bill 3294 House Draft One. This is our wrongful imprisonment imprisonment bill. We have comments from, Judiciary.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Jennifer Wong. I'm the staff attorney for the Criminal Divisions of the First Circuit Court, as well as for Judiciary Administration. The judiciary provided some comments, on the legislation. We do have some concerns operationally, with respect to how, we would be able to implement these provisions in the type key case types that, these original, rulings would be made.

Specifically, if it was remanded from the appellate court, then it would the decision to dismiss the case, would be made by the criminal criminal court. And if it's in a rule 40, proceeding, then rule 40 is limited in terms of, the types of rulings they can make, and they cannot rule on any civil nature type things.

So, ultimately, what would have to happen is we would have to be able to transfer this somehow into a as I described in the last paragraph, into a civil proceeding, so that the proper parties could be served, and so that we could issue those proper orders to say, DCR, to the Attorney General or to Department of, human services and or the comptroller to make those partial payments. So we do have some issues with respect to that.

I will say, that we have been in communication with the Attorney General's Office, and we are speaking with them, with respect to, how we can try and make this, this bill, operationally, workable for us. And I am hoping to, work with them. If not by the end of the session, then definitely in the interim in order to, proceed with this bill.

Okay. Great. Thank you. We have testimony in support from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Director. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'll just summarize my testimony real quick. We just have concerns with page five, section two, and page eight. In short, once the person's released, we have no jurisdiction in the case, so it should be DHS to just assign the case manager to the person. We'll alert DHS as to why we do this as required, but DHS should assign the case manager. And then of course we will work with the person on the ID card issue.

Okay. Thank you, Director. Testimony in support, Office of Public Defender. Testimony, comments. Department of Human Services.

Good morning, Chair, and, and, Vice Chairs. This is Edie Mayeshiro. I'm representing DHS. We stand on our testimony that, written, that we have submitted.

Okay. Thank you, Edie.

Thank you.

Okay. We have testimony in opposition from, Prosecuting Attorney for City and County of Honolulu. Testimony in person, Community Alliance on Prisons.

Good morning, Committee. Kat Brady testifying in strong support of this measure. You know, 38 states have similar laws, but Hawaii's law, as it stands now, is one of the strictest. So, we really believe it's in it was overdue. I know that the chair worked really hard on this bill collaboratively with agencies and the community, and I can't express my appreciation for that strong enough.

We know Alvin Jardine, Ian Schweitzer, Roynes Dural, and Gordon Cordeiro spent decades in prison. Well, Roynes, 8 and a half years, but the the other three, anywhere between 23 years and 30 years. It's ridiculous. And no statute could actually ever restore those decades. But the state can decide whether to compound the inner the injury with procedural resistance. We really hope you pass this bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We have testimony in support, Law Office of Setsuko, Regina Gromley in person or on Zoom. Seeing none, we have testimony in support, from a number of individual individuals, Sarah Cordeiro, Zoom, Gordon Cordeiro, Zoom. Go ahead, Mr. Cordeiro.

Good morning. My name is Gordon Cordeiro. Thank you for having me. I was released on 02/21/2025 after being wrongfully imprisoned for 31 years. When I was exonerated, the Department of Public Safety gave me a thirty day supply of medication, walked me to the gate, opened it, and left me there.

No plan, no support, just gate closing behind me. And the world I was expected to navigate completely on my own. I was lucky. My family was there. They brought me clothes. They gave me a place to stay. They gave me a phone. They gave me a ride. Without them, where would I have slept? They helped me apply for medical coverage and food assistance.

They took me to get an ID. They gave me a starting point. Without them, I would have been free and completely abandoned. No ID, no money, no transportation, no access to basic necessities, no guidance on where to begin. This is just, not just my story.

We have already seen what happens when an innocent person is released without support. It leads to homelessness, instability, and in some cases, tragedy. That's why this bill is necessary. The advance payments are not a windfall. They are not a reward.

They are basic survival. Temporary support, like 5,000 a month, means the difference between stability and homelessness. It allows someone to secure housing, buy food, access transportation, and begin rebuilding their life. The state spends tens of thousands of dollars each year to incarcerate a person. When that person is innocent, we should not hesitate to invest in helping them recover from the harm that was done.

This bill must also restore critical legal protections ensuring that accepting state compensation does not force an innocent person to give up the right to seek justice to the courts. Those are constitutional rights and they must be preserved. It must also restore medical coverage and benefits continuity, not just to for the individual, but for their families because wrongful incarceration does not just impact one person.

It affects spouses, children, entire households. Families lose income, stability, and access to care. And when their loved ones finally come home, they're all trying to recover together. No one walks out of prison and immediately into stability. There is always a gap, a period of rebuilding. Without support, that gap becomes a crisis. Freedom without support is not justice.

It's neglect. When a state takes 31 years from an innocent person, it takes birthdays, families, and futures that can never be returned. And when that person is finally proven innocent, the state cannot simply open a gate and walk away. If we know this happens and we choose not to fix it, then we are not delivering justice, we are continuing the harm.

No innocent person should have to stand at the gate wondering how they will survive. Pass this bill. Take responsibility and make sure that when state finally does the right thing, it doesn't stop at opening the gate. It helps people walk through and truly live again. Thank you for your time, and I hope you pass this bill. It's very important.

Thank you, Mister Cordeiro, and thank you for continuing to track this measure for future folks.

Thank you. Thank you for continuing to to move it on. appreciate it.

Okay. Mister Will Caron in support, Paul Bernstein in support, Douglas Hagan in support, John Kawamoto, Barbara Polk, Carolyn Eaton, Denise Cordeiro, Noel Morin, and Sam Mitchell, all in support. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers on Zoom? Seeing none, Members questions?

Question, Chair?

Go ahead, Representative Shimizu.

Jennifer? I'm trying to, thank you, Jennifer, for being here. I'm trying to understand your testimony. And are are you saying that according to this bill, the Judiciary is is flagging some concerns, but it is doable or there are some things that need to be corrected in the bill in order for it to be implemented? I'm not sure.

Yeah. So thank you for the question. Essentially, when a case is either vacated when a, when a conviction is either vacated or, and then the case is dismissed, that all happens in a criminal context.

It either happens in a Rule 40 proceeding or if the appellate court is the one that vacated the conviction, then it gets remanded down to the criminal case, and the criminal court will then determine whether or not the case is going to be dismissed or not, or if it's gonna go for a new trial. Those criminal courts, have very limited, jurisdiction in terms of what we can do.

We are basically prosecuting defendants. In civil courts, you can have, equitable relief. So you can order payments to people. You can, do all of the things that are in this bill. So in essence, it has to be transferred to a civil court in order to make all these payments ordered and direct based direct, like, DHS to appoint a, case manager to direct the Department of, Corrections Rehabilitation to inform us how long the defendant has actually been in custody.

They are not a party to the criminal case, So we don't actually have any authority to order them to do anything or to order the comptroller to pay $5,000 a month. Because they're not a party to the criminal case, we don't have the authority to make those those orders. We would have to transfer it to civil and we would have to serve those entities. Most of them are represented by the state so we could serve the Attorney General's Office.

But we would have to create a new, case, serve the proper parties, and then be able to, have authority over them to order them to do the things that are in the bill.

So you're just pointing out the complexities of the process then, but it is, it is doable or are you suggesting, something that could be done better in the bill to to make it better?

I'm hesitant as the Judiciary to, draft legislation, due to the separation of powers. So I, I can't exactly answer that specifically, but I can tell you operationally how we would need it in order to, effectuate the intent of the legislature, which is for us for the Judiciary to order, specific entities to do specific things.

So you're not able to provide specific amendments then? Is that, is that what you said, just said?

I mean I can say that we are we are going to have to transfer it into a civil matter. So much like the other provisions of 661B which require a petition to be filed in the circuit court, that is a civil case. This particular bill creates a new provision of 661B that seems to require the judiciary to do all of this in a criminal context, which I'm not clear can be done.

We would have to transfer it into a civil type case such as the 661B, I believe it's three, petition area. Similar, we'd have to do something similar to that. So it's already in the bill. It's just, I'm sorry, it's already in statute.

We would just have to be able to, make it clear to the legislature that the things that you're asking us to order, in this new provision could not technically be done in a in the criminal case or in Rule 40 proceeding. We would have to transfer it into a civil proceeding, which is already contemplated by the rest of 661B..

So so it is it is doable. It's just a lot of bells and whistles and.

And some moving parts. Yes. You know, essentially, there's a five day Okay. Requirement in this in this new subsection, which would be difficult for us to because the the way the the bill is written right now, it appears that the judiciary is required to basically create this petition for the former defendant, now petitioner.

And in order for us to do that, we would have to file a petition on their behalf somehow and then serve the appropriate entities on their behalf somehow.

I'll yield and hand it off to my colleague.

Any other questions?

I think, well, I think that what can happen is that the Attorney General can wait. It can hear your concerns, and then I'll work with the Judiciary Chair to amend as it keeps moving the language that we'll implement, so that it's not the Judiciary making law. Right?

I'll just do a quick follow-up. So on that issue of the five days, to me, this is a mechanical question. So if we extend it to ten days with the idea because service and all that, it just takes time. That's just the nature of, like, the filing of of a petition.

It may, it's like a ten day window. Would that be something that would be more doable?

For for us, for the Judiciary, for us to file it and serve the appropriate entities in order for us to issue the orders that you're asking us to issue, yes. The 10 days would be much more palatable than five days.

Because it it could, like, fall on a Friday and then you have a holiday and then so you're, what we're doing is we're making sure all the bureaucratic milestones are met.

Yes.

Okay. And then at the end of the day, we actually want the court to order this.

Correct.

Because then it holds the attorney general accountable.

Right. And, and, I, I understand that as well. There, there is a little provision in the bill currently that requires the judiciary to determine the amount of days that the defendant has been in custody as one of the preliminary findings. I would just like to point out that that's not necessarily something that we would have in either a Rule 40 or a criminal court case.

That's something that we would have to ask the DCR for, which is another thing that we would probably prefer to transfer to the civil so that the, they can order, DCR to provide us with that information. And they will provide us with that information. It's just we don't have it in the criminal case or the Rule 40 case. Because they're not a party to the action.

Okay. I wanna follow-up one other thing in your testimony. The parallel cases on same issues being occurring under Rule 40 versus, HRPP Rule 40, the other. So, you know, procedures. Yeah. Can that be resolved somehow?

So, the thing I'm pointing out there is that, even if a Rule 40 court were to, make, the, the rulings that are being asked for, that it's consistent with innocence, and, that they were held in custody. There is a right to appeal in a Rule 40. In Mister Cordeiro's case, the Maui Prosecutor's Office is appealing the Rule 40 decision. So that case is currently on appeal. We lose jurisdiction at that point to make any further orders.

So the concern is that if we were required by this bill to then transfer some things over to civil, we would have a Rule 40 proceeding that is going up through the the appellate courts, on that ruling and then we would also be going forward in a civil case as to whether or not, any relief is going to be granted due to the vacation of the conviction in the Rule 40 proceeding.

So, I mean technically Mister Cordeiro's case has not been dismissed yet, his underlying criminal case. So it's kind of, he's in that situation where we could end up with parallel things. I, I don't know how that would come out and I cannot comment on how that would come out if they went to the appellate court.

Have you seen that kind of bifurcation in, occurring in other states with this kind of...

I have not.

And I would be happy to hear, anybody's position on that.

Statutory framework?

Okay. Maybe that's something we take up with, actually the advocates. Because that is, now that's becoming clear what the problem is. Okay. Thank you. And then go ahead.

So so has this been done before as far as what, what is already currently in law and, on both imprisonment and reimbursement so far?

You mean here in Hawaii?

Yeah.

So I only know of the four cases that we have been discussing, throughout the legislative session. I know that two of the cases, were settled, and it is part of the AG's package requesting payment, for those settlements.

And the other two again, Mr. Cordeiro's case, his his actual criminal case is still pending because, the whole Rule 40 thing is still going up through appeal. In the Schweitzer case, I, I believe that their actual, I'm sorry.

Oh, no. Go ahead.

I believe that their actual case is still with the the civil court, on the Big Island.

So what you described in your testimony is, is playing out right now then?

Yeah. In Mr. Cordeiro's case, certainly it is. Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions? I, I have a question for, Director. Is this, I appreciate your, amendments. Is this worked out with Department of Human Services? Just to make sure that the lines, the clarity of.

I didn't contact them. That's my fault. I'll contact the director.

Okay. All right. Thank you for, for, for this and for pointing out that we lost this element in the transfer of the, of the case or the, of the bill, is DHS still there?

Yes.

Okay. Quick question on yours. Have you been able to see the testimony by a Director?

Yes.

Does that clarify and make clear what DHS's responsibilities will be?

Semi and and I understand that. So we, if there was still, we need some time to go through and how exactly would work. And I, if you read our testimony too, there's things that we're already doing with, you know, DCR with our 1115 and things like that. So I, I understand, but I think there still needs to be more conversation and collaboration.

Okay. On the issue, hold on, on the issue of advanced compensation that would affect the bills the person's eligibility under Medicaid, Are you aware that, of course, settlements can be structured so as to preserve? So that's not really a nonissue, that's a nonissue.

So, in some of our programs, we don't even look at assets. And so it, it's a case by case, and we were discussing ways to work around this. But, yes, I understand that.

Great. And I really appreciate the work that you folks are doing on 1115 waiver. As the work on that progresses, will the operationalizing of, this kind of movement of individuals be easier?

So it's, it's, it's a different kind of thing, because it I feel like any this these, the the ones that are released because they were, you know, incorrectly, you know, put in prison, we could, we would always look at them and help them when they get out.

What we're doing also now for those that are actually in there, doing the ninety day prerelease, all the things that we're working on trying to implement, those are helping people that are there now and also to do a school transition. It would assist anybody who's already in there and and part of this group could be part of those people. So all the work we're already doing with DHS is facilitating helping, you know, the, justice involved individuals.

Good. Thank you. I mean, I think this is really important. Like, as you folks make progress, and I know department, DCR and DHS are working hard on making, sure that the 1115 waiver gets executed upon. I, I just the overlapping nature, of of that work with helping individuals who are subject to wrongful imprisonment, it the overlap is there. It's just there.

There's overlap. Yes.

So thank you very much. And thank you for being here on behalf of, the Director, Edie.

Alright. Any other questions? Alright. Seeing none. Let's move on to the next bill. We are at Senate Bill 2614. This, thank you, Director. This is our authorizing DOE toward a high school diploma to a qualified person who did not receive a high school diploma as a result of compulsory or voluntary induction into the armed services of the United States.

Or whose high school education was interrupted due to wartime practices during World War 2, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War. Hopefully, this is an easier bill. First up, we have testimony in support from US Defense State Liaison Office, testimony in support from Hawaii Office of Veteran Services, testimony in support in person from Department of Education.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Elizabeth Higashi on behalf of the Department of Education. We are here to testify in support of this measure. And we are asking for an immediate, respectfully asking for an immediate effective date, as the department is ready to implement upon approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Good news. Testimony in support from Hawaii Military Affairs Council, testimony in support from VFW Department of Hawaii. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom?

Members questions? Okay. Seeing none. Moving on to, Senate bill 3118. This is relating to the interstate compact and education opportunity for military children, updates references to the US code.

We have testimony first in support from US defense state liaison office. Testimony in person in support from, Hawaii department of education.

Hi, chair, vice chair, members of the committee.

This is with Elizabeth Higashi again from The Department of Education. We started our testimony and support, again asking for, especially asking for immediate effective date upon approval as this is just the housekeeping measure in regards our Military Interstate Compact. Thank you.

Thank you. Testimony in support from Military and Communication Relations Office. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers on Zoom? Seeing none. Members, moving on to our last bill. Senate Bill 3156, relating to federal military installations. Authorizing the Department of Transportation to enter into agreements with the US Department of Defense. First up, we have in support Department of Transportation.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Curt Otaguro, Deputy Director for Airports, Department of Transportation. Department stands on its written testimony in support. Happy to answer any questions. As you know, this is a very important initiative for us, and we hope that the committee will give favorable consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Wonderful to see you, Mr. Otaguro. We have testimony in support from Military and Communications Relations Office. Testimony in support, Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. Testimony in support, Hawaii Military Affairs Council. Testimony in support from individual Mike Golojuch, Sr. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Seeing none. Members, questions? Okay.

Members, let's, I'm gonna, we're gonna recess for decision making. Likely, we will be moving out all of these measures. Testifiers, you don't have to stick around if you don't want to. I'm gonna move this to our next agenda, which is set at 11am, I believe. Our next agenda is 11am? So we will pick this up and do DM at 11am. Members, any questions? Alright. See y'all at 11am. We are in recess.

Good morning. We convene our 10AM agenda for Wednesday, 03/25/2026, Conference Room 411. This is the committee on public safety taking up measures on our 10AM agenda members first, on Senate bill 3,294 relating to Ramapo imprisonment. Chair's recommendation is going to be to adopt the amendments from DCCR.

Any tech amendments identified by, HMSO for HMSO for clarity, style, or consistency. This measure, I believe, already has a defective date, so I wanna make sure. Yes. We'll keep that same defective date. Members, comments, questions, or concerns?

Yes. Chair, did you want to do the extended ten days?

No. I think for that, thank you for reminding me. I think we understand the problem more. So five days is there. This is something that can go to conference.

That number can always flex if we get more information from the department, as well as DCR over the judiciary. Okay. K. Go ahead, vice chair, for the vote.

Okay. Voting on SB 3294 SD2 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Let's see. Sorry. [ROLL CALL]

Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to Senate Bill 2614 House Draft onOe relating to education. Again, members, we've seen this bill, I think, two years in a row, possibly three. Chair's recommendation is to move this with effective upon approval date. We have gotten in billing communications with Chair Woodson and, the back end chairs.

So we're going to move this with, effective date. Comments, questions, or concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 2614 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting that all are present. Are there any members wishing to vote no? Any members wishing to vote with reservations? Seeing none, Chair your recommendation is adopted.

Great. Members moving on to Senate Bill 3118 House Draft One, relating to the interstate compact on educational opportunity for military children. Again, Chair's recommendation is to put an effective upon approval date for this. Again, we've had clearance, from the, other committee chairs. Questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on SB 3118 SD1 HD1. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Noting that all are present, are there any members wishing to vote no? With reservations? Seeing none, Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Members, Senate Bill 3156 HD1 chairs recommendation is to pass unamended. This has an HD1 on it, so it's got a defective date, and it will go on to move to finance. Questions, comments or concerns?

Sorry. I just want to clarify is, so it's an pass as is?

Pass is, pass as is. Yeah.

Chair, I'll be voting with reservations only. For the reasons I stated in the on the House Bill version, which is that, from my understanding, they can currently engage in this work, and my concerns are using state resources to build the federal facilities when we often find ourselves having so much shortage in so many areas. Anyway, that's all. So with reservations.

Alright. Thank you, Vice Chair. Any other comments, questions, or concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Okay, voting on SB 3156 SD1 HD Chair's recommendation's to pass as is. Noting that all members are present, are there any members wishing to vote no? And any reservations other than my own?

Reservations.

Okay.

Thank you. Chair, your recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. So we are adjourning our 10AM agenda, opening up our Wednesday, 03/25/2026, 11AM, notice of decision making agenda. Members, Chair's recommendation is going to defer this for further decision making until Friday on our 11AM agenda. Members, we have a 10AM agenda on that day as well for Concurrent Resolutions.

This Friday. This Friday.

Yes. I know it's a recess, but we're still, we're still working. Right? Or so I just need a recess day, but it's still a work day.

Yep. Right? It is still a work day. I know it's not, I know, I know we're not happy about that number as well.

Well, again, we have. On, on a legislative date. It is also numbers. It is also a deadline. It is a second, lateral deadline.

Are we gonna DM at eleven on everything?

Yes. We'll DM everything. Yes. Everything will be DMed on that day. Okay? Yeah. We, we will, okay.

Flores who's also talking.

Yeah. We will make sure we'll work to make sure we have quorum, whatever whatever is the case. Sorry. I know who I'm going to try and trying last two weeks for all of our communities. So chair's recommendation is to move this to DM on at 11AM on Friday, 03/27/2026, this room conference Room for conference Room for eleven.

Thank you. Members. Thank you

for your hard work. We go

to the last one.

Do we? I got

one more.

Just one more.

Both. I'm gonna differ both for DM differ both Senate Bill 2109 and Senate Bill 2151. Thank you. Members are adjourned. Thank you, madam chair.