WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 00:00:13.140 --> 00:00:14.748 . >> Mr. President: all right. 00:00:15.216 --> 00:00:17.216 Committee this tuesday morning. 00:00:25.194 --> 00:00:27.194 If you haven't testified before us before, we do have a 2-minute limit on oral testimony, so a little chime will go off, if you can wrap it up quickly at that point. 00:00:28.630 --> 00:00:30.630 And other members obvious do have questions. 00:00:31.432 --> 00:00:33.432 So first up for today, we have house bill 2067. 00:00:46.181 --> 00:00:48.181 This amends the offense of abuse of a family or household member to provide for misdemeanor and anti-misdemeanor penalties and allows a deferred acceptance of guilt, no contest plea. 00:00:53.888 --> 00:00:55.888 First up on hb2067 is attorney general with comments. 00:01:07.635 --> 00:01:09.635 All right next is christine judge, deputy chief judge. 00:01:11.272 --> 00:01:13.272 Suppor? Okay, thank you. 00:01:15.743 --> 00:01:17.244 Darcy, state office of the public defender. (Roll call). 00:01:18.813 --> 00:01:20.214 Good morning. Aloha. 00:01:23.885 --> 00:01:25.885 >> so, I just wanted to highlight some of the main points in our testimony. 00:01:26.788 --> 00:01:29.723 As you can see, we did support the bill. But we do have some concerns. 00:01:31.826 --> 00:01:33.826 So it's a little bit of a mixed bag. 00:01:39.635 --> 00:01:41.635 We strongly support the in conclusion ever the option of a deferred acceptance of a guilt plea for a defendant who meets the criteria. 00:01:45.640 --> 00:01:47.640 We do ask that the deferral option is available for those who plead no contest. 00:02:00.722 --> 00:02:02.722 Often times clients May not understand their participation or their understanding of what domestic violence is when they first come into the domestic violence court. 00:02:12.901 --> 00:02:14.901 And after they have taken the classes are they be they often have figured out and learned and taken the opportunity to educate themselves and mature and figure out what's allowed and what's not allowed. 00:02:21.843 --> 00:02:24.211 I just would remind this body that many people who come into domestic violence court grew up in households with domestic violence. It's something that you have to learn. 00:02:24.212 --> 00:02:26.212 It's new behavior. 00:02:31.887 --> 00:02:33.887 And we do think that classes that be provide by the judiciary through adult client services are very helpful. 00:02:37.993 --> 00:02:39.993 The major active our clients do successfully complete their classes and never come back to family court. 00:02:41.329 --> 00:02:43.329 So we do think the classes themselves are work. 00:02:44.399 --> 00:02:46.399 Not everyone is going to stay out of trouble. 00:02:49.838 --> 00:02:51.838 But the majority of them from our perspective do. 00:02:59.915 --> 00:03:01.915 We do have concerns about the definition from a post-fix, which is the proposed language for the petty misdemeanor. 00:03:04.200 --> 00:03:06.200 We do think that the current proposal is too broad. 00:03:19.267 --> 00:03:21.267 It removes some qualifying language that's under the normal harassment statute, and quite frankly he we don't think it's necessary because the harassments statute is already used on the eighth floor for domestic violence court. 00:03:28.844 --> 00:03:30.844 It's always an option for the prosecutor's office to say we don't think we can prove this, so programs we need to attend mend it to something like harassment. 00:03:36.510 --> 00:03:38.510 And the judges have power to require the domestic violence classes anyways as part of the normal harrassment statute. 00:03:38.588 --> 00:03:40.790 So we don't think it's going -- >> Mr. President: your time is up. 00:03:40.790 --> 00:03:42.790 >> sorry. 00:03:50.999 --> 00:03:53.868 I'll just finish by saying that we don't think that the petty misdemeanor proposed actually going to soft congestion problem. We don't think that's the solution. 00:03:58.141 --> 00:04:00.141 And we certainly do have concerns about section seven, but that's in our written testimony and available. 00:04:01.577 --> 00:04:04.312 Thank you so much. >> Mr. President: thank you. 00:04:14.857 --> 00:04:16.558 Commission on the status of women in support fact prosecuting attorney for city county -- good morning. >> good morning. 00:04:21.897 --> 00:04:24.566 Chair, vice-chair, members of the community, prosecutor attorney mark thom for honolulu. The department supports the intent of this bill. 00:04:27.536 --> 00:04:29.536 I just would make some just clarifications. 00:04:39.140 --> 00:04:41.140 On page one, line six, just to address some of the attorney general's concerns that have they been raising in at different committees is it's not the intent to create a lesser included. 00:04:50.927 --> 00:04:52.927 So, removing lesser included from that line would create at least a preamble that this bill is intended to have, which is to create stand-alone petty misdemeanor offense. 00:05:08.511 --> 00:05:10.511 second, we just note to the committee washingtons or concerns that our department is concerned that with the granting of the deferral, that an individual that would be otherwise deemed ineligible would become eligible upon the completion of a deferral period to own a hand -- a firearm. 00:05:14.550 --> 00:05:16.550 So, our department just wanted to raise that concern and keep the committee aware of that. 00:05:28.698 --> 00:05:30.698 Last, in regards to the deferral and contender, I believe in the house committee report, 15 6-20, they wanted to explicitly make it just for deferral guilty. 00:05:41.144 --> 00:05:43.913 If they wanted to exclude lolo contender as well, we just suggest maybe it explicit lisas they're not eligible for a no contest -- a deferral on a no contester. But otherwise we do support the intent of this bill. 00:05:51.254 --> 00:05:53.355 We have been working with state quarters in trying to come up with language that everybody is at least mennable to for the3 year pilot project. >> Mr. President: thank you. 00:05:56.592 --> 00:05:58.592 Next is hpd criminal investigation division. 00:05:59.290 --> 00:06:01.290 -- opposition? Okay. 00:06:10.140 --> 00:06:12.140 Justin, prosecutor attorney for kawaii in support. 00:06:19.683 --> 00:06:21.683 It in support, executive director hawai'I state coalition ever domestic violence, in support. 00:06:22.752 --> 00:06:24.752 Also in support, brian asackson. 00:06:28.291 --> 00:06:30.291 In opposition caroline. 00:06:31.494 --> 00:06:33.494 Joe moss in support. 00:06:35.232 --> 00:06:37.232 Sid in support. 00:06:41.171 --> 00:06:44.139 Laurie planned parenthood votes northwestern hide also in support. Tara carling in support. 00:06:44.274 --> 00:06:46.274 Lisa martin in support. 00:06:48.611 --> 00:06:50.611 That is all the written testimony we have on hb2067. 00:07:07.764 --> 00:07:09.764 Would anyone else like to testify on this measure? Seeing none, member, questions? Maybe I could have both the prosecutor and public defender up here. 00:07:16.239 --> 00:07:17.740 You guyser used to stands next to each other, so -- [Laughter] 00:07:21.244 --> 00:07:24.460 >> all right. This won't be a cage match. 00:07:25.683 --> 00:07:27.683 I just have a few questions on it. 00:07:38.795 --> 00:07:40.795 So, we have in this bill -- or in this bill, actually in both the senate and the house portion, there is offensive touching that is part of what would trigger the petty misdemeanor. 00:07:44.680 --> 00:07:46.680 Is there a definition of "offensive touching" anywhere else in the panel code? 00:07:46.237 --> 00:07:48.237 >> I don't think it is specifically defined. 00:07:53.110 --> 00:07:55.110 But there is a bunch of case law that talks about offensive touching f that's our understanding as well. 00:07:58.849 --> 00:08:00.683 We sat down and tried to come up with language. >> Mr. President: okay. 00:08:14.831 --> 00:08:16.831 And how long can the court keep jurisdiction of someone who's committed of petty misdemeanor? I think the whole intent of the bill is to get people to go through the training and the courses. 00:08:18.736 --> 00:08:20.736 If you went to jail, the judge could hold them to a longer period of time? 00:08:26.376 --> 00:08:28.376 >> I believe it's six, but it can be extended to one year if the court deems f 00:08:37.188 --> 00:08:39.188 >> in petty -- I believe for bail, it would be six months for a pro base period or a deferral period I guess in this case. 00:08:43.160 --> 00:08:44.728 >> Mr. President: year talking about the petty f but like right now -- so they can keep them for six month? >> yes. 00:09:09.219 --> 00:09:11.219 And the concern in the last couple of year, is there a program that would allow them to get the intervention classes within a 6-month period, knowing that right now as as it currently standing, the dvi the domestic violence intervention program, even if they go start to finish and they tried to go to every class on time t takes about nine months at least to finish t that's my understanding. 00:09:12.657 --> 00:09:14.657 And if they Miss Classes, then it could extend. 00:09:15.226 --> 00:09:17.226 So, most of the time the courts will allow to extend. 00:09:21.699 --> 00:09:23.699 But there was a concern that they May not be able to finish it -- 00:09:26.170 --> 00:09:27.470 >> Mr. President: are you more comfortable with a year? >> yes. 00:09:28.340 --> 00:09:29.707 >> Mr. President: it's already allowed? Okay 00:09:41.819 --> 00:09:44.754 and I think it's not our department's position to go out and revehicle every individual that's trying to get the class done in that timely basis. They are showing up. 00:09:47.392 --> 00:09:49.392 It's just impossible to finish it in the time frame. 00:09:49.794 --> 00:09:51.794 But procedurally -- 00:09:54.198 --> 00:09:56.198 >> Mr. President: but once you're past the six months they don't have to go anymore? 00:10:01.505 --> 00:10:03.505 >> well, they would follow -- well, our department would file a motion for revokation 00:10:06.311 --> 00:10:08.311 >> Mr. President: so the revokation motion can come after the six months is over? 00:10:08.380 --> 00:10:10.380 >> well, we would file it before. 00:10:11.549 --> 00:10:13.549 >> and that would trigger a request for an extension. 00:10:14.485 --> 00:10:16.485 >> Mr. President: I don't want to create a problem if there isn't one. 00:10:23.361 --> 00:10:25.496 >> there is a mechanism to extend to one year, so that you can finish your classes if you're making a good faith effort to finish your classes. >> Mr. President: okay. 00:10:25.496 --> 00:10:27.496 Let's see. 00:10:31.200 --> 00:10:33.737 So you raised a question about the -- during the deferral, the firearm would be taken away, during the course? >> yes. 00:10:34.138 --> 00:10:36.138 >> Mr. President: but if they completed -- 00:10:41.279 --> 00:10:43.279 >> if they successfully complete the deferral period, there's to conviction that would be entered. 00:10:44.349 --> 00:10:46.349 So incompetent evidentbly, they would be allowed to. 00:10:53.491 --> 00:10:55.491 >> Mr. President: is that a concern here? If they completed successfully, then is there any reason to not give the gun back at that point? 00:10:56.395 --> 00:10:58.395 >> I think our department's position is it is obviously a concern. 00:10:59.998 --> 00:11:01.998 Because our concern is always public safety. 00:11:22.988 --> 00:11:25.522 So, one of the main issues that we come across when we sat down with stakeholders and the attorney general is that that is something that at least, as a department, something that we don't want to not address and -- at least make everybody aware that this is the direction on trying to address some of these domestic violence cases. We support the intent. 00:11:27.592 --> 00:11:29.793 We just wanted to -- chair. There is consequence? 00:11:35.367 --> 00:11:37.367 >> yes, and we just wanted to make everybody aware to protect the public. 00:11:40.806 --> 00:11:42.806 >> chair: looked to me like you were arguing that you don't want the misdemeanor -- 00:11:43.642 --> 00:11:45.642 >> no, I think there was a house standing committee report. 00:12:01.492 --> 00:12:03.492 They wrote in there that they wanted to make it specifically for a guilty a deferred acceptance of a guilty plea and not a no-contest plea, which our department doesn't have a stand on whether it's deferral for a guilty or deferral for a no contest. 00:12:10.836 --> 00:12:12.836 However, because that report indicated that they didn't want it for a no contest, they didn't want to allow a defendant to enter a deferral on the no contest. 00:12:17.609 --> 00:12:19.609 It would be prudent to maybe clarify that's what they wanted to do, rather than just left it open ended. 00:12:19.678 --> 00:12:21.678 That would be at the privy of the legislature. 00:12:21.947 --> 00:12:23.882 You can read in between the lines. Chair: all right. 00:12:27.586 --> 00:12:29.586 That's all the questions I have, unless there's anything else? Thank you very much. 00:12:32.491 --> 00:12:34.491 >> thank you. 00:12:49.975 --> 00:12:51.975 Okay we'll move on to hb 2069, hd1, status & testimony relating to property forfeiture. Prohibits civil asset forfeiture unless the covered offense is a felony for which the property owner has been convicted. 00:12:53.979 --> 00:12:55.979 >> good morning, chair, vice-chair. 00:12:59.752 --> 00:13:01.752 I'd like to recognize the department of the attorney general (Indiscernible). 00:13:04.656 --> 00:13:06.656 The department is opposing the bill for several reasons. 00:13:16.690 --> 00:13:17.436 We believe our program is -- coming out certain and to make sure that the program is appropriate for everybody and fair. One. 00:13:25.177 --> 00:13:27.177 Main concerns we have is the bill is consistent with other existing issues. 00:13:35.388 --> 00:13:37.388 One of the statutes is 7-11, which covers judicial forfeiture proceedings. 00:13:46.599 --> 00:13:48.599 And in the statues out, it says a dismissal shall not preclude proceedings under this chapter. 00:13:55.908 --> 00:13:57.908 But the -- this statute has at least a judicial proceeding and not an administrative proceeding. 00:14:05.217 --> 00:14:07.217 It is not clear if the bill is only applying to the other administrative proceedings and not to the judicial proceedings. 00:14:07.553 --> 00:14:09.553 And we are not clear on that. 00:14:21.133 --> 00:14:23.133 And also, another concern we have is the inconsistencies with several misdenial offenses under the statute, forfeiture is specifically authorized. 00:14:30.210 --> 00:14:32.210 I note the misdemeanor such as -- we're concerned about illegal activities. 00:14:43.490 --> 00:14:45.490 Most of the arrests of the governing activities result in misdemeanor charges because it is hard to go after the main (Indiscernible) Governing operations. 00:14:54.000 --> 00:14:56.000 And the forfeiture fat out allows them to forefit gambling machines and seize gambling machines. 00:15:13.753 --> 00:15:16.221 The bill will take the teeth out of the forgive fit you're and other statutes that May be affected includes racing on highways, illegal civil rights and tobacco product, poaching, misdemeanor drugss. And 00:15:17.523 --> 00:15:19.523 and we commend -- chair: okay. 00:15:20.460 --> 00:15:22.995 the time has gone, if you could wrap up please? >> oh, okay. 00:15:25.165 --> 00:15:27.966 So we commend for the studies to be done. Thank you for your time. 00:15:28.101 --> 00:15:30.101 Chair: okay, thank you. 00:15:36.576 --> 00:15:38.576 Member, let's go ahead and wait for the decision-making -- we had a joint yesterday with human service yesterday afternoon. 00:15:38.612 --> 00:15:40.612 And there was a minor change to the bill. 00:15:54.294 --> 00:15:56.294 We passed the amendments to change the number on the four -- I'm sorry, back up a little bit ---- it's related to the hawai'I state lesbian gay trans gender deer, establishes the commission. 00:15:59.666 --> 00:16:01.666 The only change would to be pass the amendments to change the number of 00:16:04.804 --> 00:16:07.500 from eight to seven throughout the bill. The commission has seven members. 00:16:09.108 --> 00:16:11.108 And I think there's text as well. 00:16:23.890 --> 00:16:26.580 Any questions or concerns? 2037td2, the recommendation is to pass with amendments. If. (Voting of members) Send jeff is excused. 00:16:27.728 --> 00:16:29.562 Recommendation is adopted. Chair: thank you. 00:16:33.233 --> 00:16:35.233 We'll now return to hb2069, the civil forfeiture. 00:16:39.172 --> 00:16:41.172 Next up is case chair dionne. 00:16:43.276 --> 00:16:45.210 >> Mr. Chair, we stand on our written testimony. Chair: thank you. 00:16:49.830 --> 00:16:51.830 Next is office of hawai'in affairs. 00:16:55.789 --> 00:16:57.789 Susan arnette? Public defender? The public defender will stand on our testimony. 00:17:01.294 --> 00:17:03.295 Chair: in support in phillip johnson, acting major, hpd. >> opposition. 00:17:04.632 --> 00:17:06.199 Chair. Opposition, okay. 00:17:09.270 --> 00:17:11.270 Chief of police, maui county, also in opposition. 00:17:13.407 --> 00:17:15.407 Victor ramos, hawai'I police department in opposition. 00:17:19.212 --> 00:17:21.212 Mitchell roth prosecutor attorney for hawai'I county in opposition. 00:17:21.983 --> 00:17:23.984 Tricia one of the prosecutorring attorneys. Good morning. 00:17:25.787 --> 00:17:27.787 >> good morning, chair, vice-chair, member 00:17:28.822 --> 00:17:30.822 a. Committee, deputy prosecutor security. 00:17:33.393 --> 00:17:35.393 Tries yeah, we are in opposition to the bill. 00:17:47.408 --> 00:17:49.408 We understand that one of the main concerns that appears for proponents of the bill is that the state should not be able to take people's things without a cop vince beyond a reasonable doubt, essentially. 00:17:56.651 --> 00:17:58.651 However we would emphasize that this is a civil proceeding, civil asset forfeiture is part of the civil system essentially. 00:18:12.232 --> 00:18:14.232 And the entire civil system is based on people having to give up things or surrender things for a standard of proof that, to our knowledge, is never beyond a reasonable doubt. 00:18:25.679 --> 00:18:27.679 I believe the evidence, those are more civil standards and so we feel that this civil asset forfeiture does not rise to beyond a reasonable doubt. 00:18:39.493 --> 00:18:41.493 We also note that boards and chicagos in hawai'I can take -- can take or suspend people's licenses, their property, various things and they also are not held to beyond a reasonable doubt standard. 00:18:47.301 --> 00:18:49.301 So, we just want to point that out, that it's -- it's not anything unusual in a civil system in that sense. 00:18:55.710 --> 00:18:57.710 We would also address our concern that some property owners, a certain percentage of property owners are never charged with a crime. 00:19:07.489 --> 00:19:09.489 And the reason for that is that it's often not the person committing the crime but somebody letting someone else use their property, knowingly n the commission of that crime. 00:19:11.839 --> 00:19:13.839 Things like grammabling machines, as mentioned. 00:19:19.000 --> 00:19:21.000 It's not the person who owns or is actually the business other than for those gambling machines. 00:19:26.574 --> 00:19:28.574 It's the person at the front desk who's manning it, knowing that they're not supposed to be doing it because there's gambling going on. 00:19:41.356 --> 00:19:43.356 Those people are charged with a crime -- I'm sorry, our testimony goes into a very specific and common type of instance, where a property other than would not be charged t chair: okay, thank you. 00:19:46.828 --> 00:19:48.829 Next is gusmond, prosecutorring attorney, maui county. >> good morning. 00:19:50.965 --> 00:19:52.965 thank you Mr. Chair, vice-chair, members of the committee. 00:19:56.571 --> 00:19:58.571 I'm richard ross a deputy prosecutor for the county of maui. 00:20:05.914 --> 00:20:07.914 Just very briefly, in addition to our written testimony I would join the remarks just made by my colleague from the honolulu prosecutor's office. 00:20:08.160 --> 00:20:10.160 These proceedings are civil in nature. 00:20:17.326 --> 00:20:19.326 And the standard of proof applicable in all civil proceedings essentially in the state of hawai'I is the preponderance of the evidence. 00:20:23.532 --> 00:20:25.532 So you can sue someone and take their property. 00:20:27.335 --> 00:20:29.335 The that is the system that we have for forfeitures. 00:20:36.440 --> 00:20:38.440 The other thing I'd like to touch on very briefly that's not covered in our written testimony is how this bill will interact with the statues out of limitations. 00:20:49.892 --> 00:20:51.892 Currently the statute of limitations for forgive fit you're actionunder 7123a17, which provides the foreget fifth you're proceeding as the same statute of limitations as the underlying criminal offense. 00:21:06.140 --> 00:21:08.140 The problem with that is if you have for example a class c felony a 3-year statute of limitationses in the time the crime is committed to file the criminal prosecution, you could file the criminal prosecution 2 1/2 years after the crime is committed. 00:21:09.678 --> 00:21:11.678 And the criminal case could still be going on at the three-year mark. 00:21:17.352 --> 00:21:19.352 In the meantime, the forfeiture statute has not expired because it's been three years since the crime was committed. 00:21:31.990 --> 00:21:33.990 So, we think that would be somewhat of a major problem for trying to bring forfeitures because you might have a situation where the prerequisite felony conviction has not happened yet. 00:21:38.730 --> 00:21:40.730 But you're still at the mark where you were supposed to file forfeiture under the statutes. 00:21:42.945 --> 00:21:45.146 So, for that reason and the others in our written testimony, we oppose the bill. Chair: thank you very much. 00:21:50.850 --> 00:21:52.553 Next is nukos of health and harm reduction of hawai'I. Good morning. 00:21:54.122 --> 00:21:56.490 >> good morning Mr. Chair, vice-chair, members. I'm nikos. 00:22:02.632 --> 00:22:04.632 I'll testify on behalf of both the drug policy forum of hawai'I and the hawai'I health and harm reduction center. 00:22:07.200 --> 00:22:09.200 Hawai'I has one of the worst assess forfeiture laws in the nation. 00:22:24.520 --> 00:22:26.520 Chief among that is that her hundred percent of the proceeds goes to the law enforcement agencies who are seizing the property f as the auditor's report noted 20 percent of persons were never even charged with a crime. 00:22:40.169 --> 00:22:42.169 We don't have good reporting requirements, where we have a case-by-case, incident-by-incident accounting reported to the legislature and punt lick as to what was seized and how and where it was seized. 00:22:48.176 --> 00:22:50.176 With respect to the civil forfeiture being separate from the criminal, well, you know, they are separate proceedings. 00:22:58.220 --> 00:23:00.220 But fundamentally, people should be charged and disposed ever, of a crime before they have their property permanently seized and forefitted. 00:23:00.790 --> 00:23:02.790 That's the bottom line. 00:23:24.780 --> 00:23:26.780 Further, the rules of the that the attorney general put out, you know t represents sort of the byzantine structure, where property owners have to go in, post bond, perhaps hire an attorney and effectively those with little or no economic needs are left without resource of law, again their property seized under three to $5,000. 00:23:31.287 --> 00:23:33.287 And in other jurisdictions over three years, the value of property seized was about $2,100. 00:23:39.161 --> 00:23:41.161 Use the average found in the auditor's report, it's about a 5,000. 00:23:46.870 --> 00:23:48.870 So what we're talking about here is not enabling left arm-scale criminals to run rampant. 00:23:52.241 --> 00:23:54.241 What we're talking about here is people with little to no economic means. 00:23:58.470 --> 00:24:00.149 And if there is no charges with illicit gaming, well, that's on the prosecutor's office. Thank you very much. 00:24:00.149 --> 00:24:02.149 Chair: thank you. 00:24:03.687 --> 00:24:05.487 Next is sandy mah, executive director good morning. 00:24:07.257 --> 00:24:09.591 We stand on our written testimony in support. Chair: thank you. 00:24:15.164 --> 00:24:16.865 Next is john, President Of hawai'I. (Indiscernible) Good morning. 00:24:18.134 --> 00:24:20.134 (Away from microphone) 00:24:22.305 --> 00:24:24.305 >> good morning. 00:24:25.242 --> 00:24:27.242 Senator rhoads and the vice-chair. 00:24:27.610 --> 00:24:29.610 Kat bradie 00:24:31.647 --> 00:24:33.647 >> Steve: ing in strong support of this measure on behalf of community alliance on prisons. 00:24:36.853 --> 00:24:38.853 I encourage you all to watch john oliver's u-tube about forfeiture. 00:24:46.363 --> 00:24:48.363 It is very enlightening and it shows that it's kind of leads to -- it could lead to corruption. 00:24:50.233 --> 00:24:52.233 So, this is an important bill that should be passed. 00:24:52.769 --> 00:24:54.769 Mahalo chair: thank you very much. 00:25:01.712 --> 00:25:03.712 next is joe kent executive President Grass roots institute of hawai'I? Comments? 00:25:03.847 --> 00:25:05.847 >> good morning, chair, vice-chair. 00:25:08.318 --> 00:25:10.318 Manny fernandez on behalf of the american civil liberties union of hawai'I. 00:25:10.320 --> 00:25:12.320 We are strongly in support of this measure. 00:25:15.626 --> 00:25:17.626 We testified before this committee before on similar measures. 00:25:19.329 --> 00:25:21.329 There have ban lot of points made today that I'd like to address. 00:25:23.833 --> 00:25:25.833 First, all this bill does is change the duration of property storage. 00:25:30.207 --> 00:25:32.207 All it says it that they have to hold on to the property a little bit longer before they can finally forefit t 00:25:37.814 --> 00:25:40.616 the purpose of forfeiture allegedly is to seize, to immediately stop the commission of criminal operations. Law enforcement still is that. 00:25:50.361 --> 00:25:52.361 For the in addition yating agency usually county police departments, this changes almost nothing because they still can seize the property; it just has to be stored for maybe a longer period of time. 00:25:54.131 --> 00:25:56.131 And they might not get that 25 percent kick-back in the end. 00:26:01.505 --> 00:26:03.505 The actual standard of proof for the seizure and forfeiture of the property itself is still that lower standard. 00:26:09.847 --> 00:26:11.847 This doesn't change the standard of proof because it is whether the property is connected to a criminal offense. 00:26:21.358 --> 00:26:23.358 And so the standard of proof for evaluating that is not touched. The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is that whether a particular person actually committed a crime. 00:26:27.364 --> 00:26:29.364 But whether somebody -- whether the property is eligible for forefit you're that, standard is not touched by this. 00:26:45.249 --> 00:26:47.249 The deputy prosecutor from honolulu said that the numbers in the auditor's report, the 26 percent percent of forfeit you'res done without a corresponding criminal charges, that that was because property owners May not have been involved, the actual property owners. 00:26:52.923 --> 00:26:54.923 But that actually refers to all property forfeitures regardless of person connection to the property of any one person. 00:27:01.399 --> 00:27:03.399 So, in 26 percent of cases they were done without any corresponding charges to anyone in any criminal proceeding. 00:27:05.903 --> 00:27:07.903 Of 16 other states already require a conviction. 00:27:10.340 --> 00:27:12.340 Since 2014, 34 states from reformed their civil forfeiture laws. 00:27:13.110 --> 00:27:15.110 They found that that's creating a direct profit incentive. 00:27:20.518 --> 00:27:22.518 And I think that's proven by much of the testimony we received from law enforcement on this measure. 00:27:30.527 --> 00:27:32.829 If they're relying on these findings that's a problem county should adequately fund their law enforcement. Chair: thank you. 00:27:33.564 --> 00:27:35.564 Next, in support. 00:27:36.100 --> 00:27:38.100 Steven kosta in support. 00:27:38.769 --> 00:27:40.769 Injury arrested silva in opposition. 00:27:40.971 --> 00:27:42.971 Wendy gibson in support. 00:27:43.740 --> 00:27:46.900 Don in support. It choy in support. 00:27:51.382 --> 00:27:53.382 David shaku in support, gary heden in support, andrea stalen in support. 00:27:54.318 --> 00:27:56.318 Heather lusk in support. 00:27:57.955 --> 00:27:59.955 Of that's at written testimony I have on h b 2061. 00:28:16.540 --> 00:28:18.540 Would annapolis like to testify on this measure? Seeing into none, member, questions? Okay. 00:28:49.607 --> 00:28:51.108 Next bill there, hb 2294, hd1 (Hscr940-20) Status & testimony relating to notaries public. Updates the laws regarding notaries public to conform to the revised uniform law on notarial acts (2018), the hawaii uniform electronic transactions act, other state notary laws, and current notary practices. First up on 2294 is clare, attorney general, clare conners. >> morning. 00:28:57.148 --> 00:28:59.148 Good morning, chair, vice-chair, members of the committee, deputy attorney general. In support of this bill. 00:29:00.552 --> 00:29:02.552 The bill is basically trying to update the notary laws. 00:29:14.932 --> 00:29:16.932 It hasn't been updated isn't 2006 and we're trying to bring it into con corporalance with the hide uniform electronics transactions act and other current notary practices. 00:29:21.173 --> 00:29:23.173 One of the main reinforce the bill is to allow for a more online operations. 00:29:28.460 --> 00:29:30.460 We have met with various parties regarding this. 00:29:33.170 --> 00:29:35.170 And I believe additional amendments to this have been submitted. 00:29:36.421 --> 00:29:38.421 We are not in objection to these amendments. 00:29:43.610 --> 00:29:45.610 Another reason why we strongly suggest that this bill move forward is we have an aging population. 00:29:51.135 --> 00:29:53.135 And this aging population does not have the current id, current driver's license, current passport when they travel. 00:30:07.452 --> 00:30:09.452 And we want to allow the notaries to be able to take other forms of id information to be able to allow these people to have their documentation notarized. 00:30:22.134 --> 00:30:24.134 We have knowledge that there has been cop fusion regarding whether general notaries are public government official, government employees and have asked us to represent them. 00:30:31.760 --> 00:30:33.760 So, because we do -- because we need clarification under this, we have put that into our bill, also. 00:30:33.479 --> 00:30:35.479 And I think that's basically about it 00:30:36.648 --> 00:30:38.648 so, we respectfully ask that committee pass this bill. 00:30:38.650 --> 00:30:40.650 Chair. 00:30:42.454 --> 00:30:44.454 Okay, thank you. 00:30:44.557 --> 00:30:46.240 >> the commission stands on its testimony. Chair 00:30:47.726 --> 00:30:50.610 in support, okay. Neil, hawai'I bargers association. 00:30:54.499 --> 00:30:56.534 We stand in support of the amended bill. Chair thank you. 00:31:02.208 --> 00:31:04.942 Cheryl castor, honest might don notaries? Good morning. >> good morning. 00:31:08.470 --> 00:31:10.470 >> thank you, senator rhoads, vice-chair, members of this committee. 00:31:17.222 --> 00:31:19.222 I became a notary in April 1997 so, this is the ending of my 23rd year as a hawai'I notary public. 00:31:24.530 --> 00:31:26.530 At that time, I didn't know what was accept number hawai'I or what it meant to positively identify a signer of a notarized transaction. 00:31:30.135 --> 00:31:32.135 I had no idea of my duty of care to all parties of the transaction, not just the signer. 00:31:37.276 --> 00:31:39.276 This continues to this very day, to the status of people who receive notary commissions in the state of hawai'I. 00:31:41.714 --> 00:31:43.714 Notarization is meant to be performed with integrity, diligence and skill. 00:31:54.260 --> 00:31:56.260 Is an incredibly complex f the difference is between myself and other notaries in the state is that in 2001, I embarked to educate myself. 00:32:16.480 --> 00:32:18.480 I am sitting here, as I sit here, I am sitting here as the closest thing to an expert on notarial practice in the safety hide, over and above this legislature, over and above the notary process, because we don't do not have any comprehension as to what this actually means to be notary public. 00:32:23.189 --> 00:32:25.189 I'm pleading it you to take a deeper look at the oversight of this legislative body and the notary public office. 00:32:34.333 --> 00:32:37.236 The senate committee on judiciary is in a unique position to pull back the curtain and reveal the wizard of convenience and quinn adequate notary consumer protection for what it truly is. Thank you very much. 00:32:37.236 --> 00:32:39.236 Chair: thank you. 00:32:41.240 --> 00:32:42.907 Next it hawai'I land titles association. In support. 00:32:49.215 --> 00:32:51.283 It government strategies for first hawai'I title? >> good morning. 00:32:55.288 --> 00:32:57.288 Good morning, chair, vice-chair, members of the committee. 00:33:01.760 --> 00:33:03.760 We're in support of this bill and specifically the notary provisions of the bill. 00:33:09.680 --> 00:33:11.680 Have with me today kelly miller general council and also was a former notary herself. 00:33:13.873 --> 00:33:15.873 They have 42 notaries currently within its offices in the state. 00:33:22.816 --> 00:33:24.816 And we believe that remote online notary is a safe, secure option for people seeking to effect various transaction. 00:33:29.222 --> 00:33:31.222 We did not note in our testimony that we would be proposing a minor amendment to this bill. 00:33:32.224 --> 00:33:34.224 We did discuss it with the other stake holidayers. 00:33:41.268 --> 00:33:43.268 And the purpose is just to ensure that insured banks can participate in the online notary process. 00:33:43.436 --> 00:33:45.438 Happy to an any quest. Thank you. 00:33:45.438 --> 00:33:47.438 Chair 00:33:47.474 --> 00:33:49.474 next is michael castor in opposition. 00:33:51.844 --> 00:33:53.844 And that's all the written testimony we have on hb2214. 00:33:56.181 --> 00:33:58.181 Would anyone else like to self on this measure? Seeing none, members, questions? 00:34:00.821 --> 00:34:02.821 >> I have a question. 00:34:08.228 --> 00:34:10.228 Attorney general, I guess. 00:34:12.165 --> 00:34:14.265 So, would this bill prevent (Away from microphone) 00:34:16.236 --> 00:34:18.871 Chair: pardon? >> would it prevent (Away from microphone) 00:34:25.879 --> 00:34:28.747 I mean t seems as though we don't have very much oversight over notaries. and -- 00:34:30.483 --> 00:34:32.483 ls and d was never registered with us, basically. 00:34:37.357 --> 00:34:39.357 She was never registered with us. 00:34:42.696 --> 00:34:44.730 She was not a notary, so we don't oversee her. >> o right. 00:34:46.199 --> 00:34:48.734 But you're supposed to oversee them -- [Overlapping speakers] 00:34:48.901 --> 00:34:50.901 >> okay. 00:34:57.844 --> 00:34:59.979 So, we do have -- if there a complaint as to unauthorizedized practice as a notary, yes, we do have that authorization. >> how do you find out 00:35:03.210 --> 00:35:05.210 (Away from microphone) 00:35:10.958 --> 00:35:12.958 >> that's the way the cca worksl is unauthorizeed practice, there is complaints. 00:35:17.397 --> 00:35:19.365 Because otherwise we'd have to go through every single person. >> so, (Away from microphone) 00:35:30.511 --> 00:35:32.545 What are the conditions or the unintended consequences of a fake notary? Currently it's a misdemeanor. >> yeah. 00:35:38.785 --> 00:35:40.785 Well, what happens to people, who have a dispute about a fake notary that notarized something? 00:35:41.923 --> 00:35:43.923 >> so, they go through court. 00:35:49.797 --> 00:35:52.298 We offer testimony that, you know, this person is not a commissioned notary. Therefor, we take that to court. 00:35:57.237 --> 00:35:59.237 And a misdemeanor judge will return and 00:36:07.815 --> 00:36:09.815 >> so,, is it simple for somebody like an allison b, we go online n so how does it work? 00:36:10.451 --> 00:36:12.451 >> so, we also have a search. 00:36:13.320 --> 00:36:16.880 And if you search for her name, it's a public search. It's a public search. 00:36:16.558 --> 00:36:18.558 >> okay, I'm going to stop you there. 00:36:18.893 --> 00:36:20.893 I'm not necessarily talking about allison b. 00:36:25.332 --> 00:36:27.967 I'm talking about thing fact that fraud can be committed in person -person types of notaries. 00:36:33.506 --> 00:36:36.410 On line, what are the chances of more of this kind of fraud that can take place? >> first american title would be better to discuss that. 00:36:47.521 --> 00:36:49.521 We are trying to -- we are going to implement rules and my understanding is the online process is actually better suited to catch fraud. 00:36:52.493 --> 00:36:55.395 They have to do usual lay3 part verification. One is to check the id. 00:36:58.320 --> 00:37:00.320 Two is to check that the type of id is actually valid. 00:37:04.371 --> 00:37:06.371 So, there is a database of how to do that. 00:37:10.144 --> 00:37:12.144 There is a -- sorry, there are questions that they would have to answer. 00:37:21.956 --> 00:37:23.956 But because of the technology being so new, we have to bring in the administrative rules because the technology has changed. 00:37:26.561 --> 00:37:28.495 But from what I understand and we are going to be (Away from microphone) 00:37:40.408 --> 00:37:42.408 One ever them is going to be did do you want to be a part of this? To make sure that these things come into play correctly, you know. 00:37:46.147 --> 00:37:48.147 Like I said, one ever them is to ask questions that only that person would know the answer to. 00:37:50.985 --> 00:37:52.985 The other is to ensure that that type ofism d is a valid id. 00:37:57.910 --> 00:37:59.159 There are certain ways to make sure that that is a valid id. >> okay. 00:38:09.700 --> 00:38:11.700 And finally, how do you respond to the testimony by cheryl castor? 00:38:13.441 --> 00:38:15.441 >> we are actually doing training for notaries. 00:38:19.414 --> 00:38:21.414 My division of the training is just to over 00:38:23.451 --> 00:38:25.451 in the notary public office since 2017. 00:38:27.155 --> 00:38:29.155 so we started doing training for the notary publics. 00:38:29.958 --> 00:38:31.958 There are approximately 6,000 notary publics. 00:38:34.629 --> 00:38:36.629 So we're trying to get to as many as possible. 00:38:42.637 --> 00:38:44.637 To put it in perspective, we're trying to explain to them as much as possible what we can do for them, what the notary is all about. 00:38:55.117 --> 00:38:57.117 We also put online the various documents such as the statute, the rules as to what the current notary laws are. 00:39:03.925 --> 00:39:05.925 We also have -- we also encourage e-mails to us if they have any questions and we try to answer them. 00:39:06.194 --> 00:39:08.194 >> so, was there ever training done before? 00:39:08.196 --> 00:39:10.196 >> I believe there was once. 00:39:11.700 --> 00:39:13.700 I'm not sure, again, it wasn't in 00:39:14.102 --> 00:39:16.102 was in my division and I just took over. 00:39:19.141 --> 00:39:21.141 So, we are trying to be more pro active. 00:39:30.686 --> 00:39:33.200 >> so, what about the term -- the attorney general, notary public office understood and understands what national standards as related to notary practices are? >> we're not sure. 00:39:34.156 --> 00:39:36.123 Because again, we're trying to make it into -- [Overlapping speakers] 00:39:36.658 --> 00:39:38.658 >> well, what is the national standards? 00:39:41.963 --> 00:39:43.963 >> there is a model -- model law. 00:39:46.000 --> 00:39:48.000 So, revising it from laws to notaries -- 00:39:50.773 --> 00:39:52.340 >> does the law constitute a national standard? Because the law can be there, but people -- [Overlapping speakers] 00:39:56.110 --> 00:39:58.110 >> that's the closest thing to a national standard, unfortunately, or fortunately. 00:39:58.580 --> 00:40:00.580 >> well, that's kind of scary to hear that. 00:40:04.220 --> 00:40:06.220 >> so, we are trying to make it in accordance to what is out there. 00:40:13.328 --> 00:40:14.795 >> so, do you talk to -- to people who have been notaries? >> yes. 00:40:16.298 --> 00:40:19.200 I talked to cheryl castor. She has talked to us. 00:40:19.501 --> 00:40:21.501 >> what about folks other than just -- 00:40:21.637 --> 00:40:23.637 >> well -- 00:40:26.750 --> 00:40:28.760 >> you know -- >> no. No. 00:40:31.146 --> 00:40:33.181 If we think it's a good idea, we do implement the ideas. >> thank you. 00:40:34.850 --> 00:40:37.685 >> we have done so. Chair representative, any other question? 00:40:37.785 --> 00:40:39.785 Okay, thank you. 00:40:40.623 --> 00:40:43.324 Now I'll turn it over to the vice-chair for a while. Go ahead. >> okay. 00:41:06.615 --> 00:41:08.615 We'll more to the next measure, hb2549. Status & testimony relating to constitutional amendments. Requires the language and meaning of any proposed constitutional amendment and ratification question to be simple, concise, and direct. Allows the presiding officers of the legislature to request a written opinion of the supreme court regarding the legality of a proposed amendment to the hawaii state constitution and the corresponding constitutional ratification question. Requires the court to provide a written opinion within 48 hours of receipt of the request. Requires, for any written opinion by the court that invalidates a constitutional ratification question, a detailed and specific explanation of the reasons for this opinion. Prohibits any appeal of a written opinion. 00:41:09.785 --> 00:41:11.785 First up, hide state judiciary. 00:41:15.758 --> 00:41:17.758 >> good morning, chair, vice-chair, members. 00:41:20.196 --> 00:41:22.831 We support this bill on our written testimony. >> thank you. 00:41:22.832 --> 00:41:24.832 It thank you. 00:41:27.436 --> 00:41:28.936 And the league of women voters? In support. Thank you. 00:41:30.205 --> 00:41:32.205 That's all the testimony we have received. 00:41:41.818 --> 00:41:44.619 is there anyone else who would like to testify? Seeing none, members, questions? Okay. Then we'll move on. 00:42:02.171 --> 00:42:04.171 Next bill is h b 2610 hd2. Hb 2610, hd2 (Hscr1003-20) Status & testimony relating to domestic violence. Allows a narrow hearsay exception for statements made by domestic violence victims to certain government officials within 24 hours of an incident of domestic violence and prior to the arrest of the defendant, even if the statement is testimonial in nature, as long as the statement bears sufficient indicia of reliability. Effective 7/1/2050. 00:42:13.883 --> 00:42:15.883 As long as the statement bears sufficient in difficult cia of reliability. 00:42:18.654 --> 00:42:20.654 Judiciary? They're in opposition. 00:42:23.826 --> 00:42:25.826 This is the hawai'I state judiciary supreme court standing committee on the rules in evidence in opposition. 00:42:30.767 --> 00:42:33.702 Office of the public defender? A. Good morning u again. I'll be brief. 00:42:34.303 --> 00:42:36.303 We did submit testimony. 00:42:44.347 --> 00:42:46.347 I just want to remind -- not remind -- but reiterate the due process clause. 00:42:48.384 --> 00:42:50.384 The confrontation clause is a fundamental component ever due process. 00:43:14.711 --> 00:43:16.711 It means that if someone has accused you of something, you have the opportunity to observe them, testify, ask them questions in the form of cross-examination, and allow a jury to hear that testimony and to hear the cross-examination questions to, determine whether or not someone's credible, whether they have shared the complete story or not. 00:43:26.856 --> 00:43:28.856 Our concern with this measure is that basically, someone could within 24 hours give a testimonial to the police which could be hours long. 00:43:33.262 --> 00:43:35.262 And that would simply be allowed in a court of law as heresay exception. 00:43:39.403 --> 00:43:41.403 And suddenly, if that person is unavailable, you wouldn't get to ask them a single question to clarify anything. 00:43:42.905 --> 00:43:44.905 We strongly oppose this measure. 00:43:46.976 --> 00:43:48.976 We don't think that it would pass constitutional review. 00:43:53.584 --> 00:43:55.584 We do think that the supreme court -- the hawai'I supreme court would find it unconstitutional. 00:44:02.580 --> 00:44:04.580 And we are troubled by the lack of statistics and data to justify some of the claims that were made in support ever this measure. 00:44:06.429 --> 00:44:08.230 So, thank you thank you so much. Vice-chair: thank you. 00:44:15.380 --> 00:44:17.380 Also the prosecutor attorney, county of honolulu? Good morning. 00:44:17.307 --> 00:44:19.307 >> good morning. 00:44:20.110 --> 00:44:22.110 Employees security attorney, good morning. 00:44:25.849 --> 00:44:27.849 In terms of background I'm currently employed by the office of the prosecutor attorneying for domestic violence issues. 00:44:28.419 --> 00:44:30.419 I was a prosecutor in new york city for 30 years. 00:44:31.955 --> 00:44:33.955 I'm currently a law professor at columbia university school of law. 00:44:49.406 --> 00:44:51.406 I taught at st. John's university school of law for 24 years as well. I had an opportunity in my job as a consult ant to look at the domestic violence in the state of hawai'I. 00:44:55.846 --> 00:44:57.846 The batterers are battering the victims. 00:45:06.957 --> 00:45:09.920 If a defense attorney was asked by a defendant, charged with batteriering their wife or girl friend, what happens in my wife doesn't come in? The honest answer would be absolutesly nothing. Nothing is going to happen. 00:45:12.829 --> 00:45:14.964 They're not going to hold you accountable and in a few months the case will be dismissed. Victims have rights, as well. 00:45:20.838 --> 00:45:22.838 And one of the rights victims have is the right to be safe that in their home. 00:45:37.155 --> 00:45:39.155 The 2017 audit reported 27 percent of all domestic violence -- rates are increasing and most cases are being dismissed, giving batterers immunity and in mpunity and the powers to do it again. 00:45:54.500 --> 00:45:56.500 In addition, domestic violence victims also have the right not to be intimidated once the defendant is arrested n my testimony you'll see that I have a recording from an inmate, who's telling his wife not to cloth come to court and if she comes to court to take the fifth amendment. 00:46:02.580 --> 00:46:04.580 We talk about a process server who served the victim on a stun, who was shock she's was being served. 00:46:17.962 --> 00:46:19.962 The important rights that victims have I think is the right that of the government to try and protect them by act acting laws that will protect them and same, not deprive the defendants of their constitutional rights which is what this bill does. 00:46:25.502 --> 00:46:27.502 It levels the plays field of the prosecutors who are being controlled by defendant, who then are also controlling the victim in connection with the case. 00:46:33.644 --> 00:46:35.644 I'll talk more if you wish to discuss the legality of the statute and in michigan versus bryant. 00:46:42.953 --> 00:46:44.953 But I think what have you is your judiciary committee is un unconstitutional. 00:46:46.491 --> 00:46:48.491 In the house down location, it could be constitutional. 00:46:54.499 --> 00:46:56.499 I believe based upon the case of mish versus bryant that the way it's written, it's not any statement in 24 hours. 00:47:12.683 --> 00:47:14.683 Have you an entire judicial review, allowing the judge to look at whether or not the statement is corroborated, the judiciary can look to see how long the period of time was, did it elapse? There are four factors the court has to look at whether it was judicial liability. 00:47:16.530 --> 00:47:18.755 I believe the statute as it is written it is constitutional. The first draft was not. 00:47:20.570 --> 00:47:22.570 Our office opposed the first draft. 00:47:29.133 --> 00:47:31.133 Now with allowing a statement that is only given by a victim prior to the defendant's arrest, I believe that it could be constitutional, yeah 00:47:42.800 --> 00:47:44.800 so, in conclusion, if you pass this bill, I think that the next time an attorney is requested by his client whether what happens if the victim doesn't appear, the answer will not be the same. 00:47:46.117 --> 00:47:48.117 and the answer should be it will depend. 00:47:53.724 --> 00:47:55.724 They could prove their case without her, so maybe you'll want to think about some counseling. 00:47:56.280 --> 00:47:58.280 >> domestic violence prevention center in support. 00:47:58.663 --> 00:48:00.663 Darla carling in support. 00:48:00.866 --> 00:48:02.866 And jay ashman? In support. 00:48:03.134 --> 00:48:05.134 That's all the testimony we have received. 00:48:06.137 --> 00:48:08.137 Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay. 00:48:11.776 --> 00:48:14.378 Seeing none, members, questions? (Away from microphone) 00:48:21.520 --> 00:48:23.821 So, looking at the testimony, it indicates that there's a 24-hour limit that makes this constitutional. Am I misreading that? 00:48:24.589 --> 00:48:25.923 >> yeah, you're misreading that. Sure. 00:48:29.761 --> 00:48:31.761 So I think everyone's correct, both the judiciary and the defense is correct on the law. 00:48:34.433 --> 00:48:36.433 In order for a statement to be introduced into evidence, the court has to rule it is non-testimonial. 00:48:42.207 --> 00:48:44.207 To make that decision, to determine whether it's non-testimonial, you have to look and determine whether or not the statement was made during an ongoing emergency. 00:49:03.161 --> 00:49:05.161 Our position is and I think the position logically is when a victim of domestic violence makes a report to the police and the defendant is not arrested at the scene and they're asking the victim what happened, who did this to you, do you need medical attention, where is he, has he threatened anyone else, all those statements are made with an ongoing emergency. 00:49:08.634 --> 00:49:10.634 And therefore, will be deemed non-testimonial and cons institution will be introduced. 00:49:21.813 --> 00:49:23.813 If the defendant is arrested however and once the defendant is arrested, any statements the victim made are no longer non-testimonial but become testimonial and no longer will be allowed into evidence under the constitution of both hawai'I and -- 00:49:29.254 --> 00:49:30.688 >> it I mean, the emergency conceivably could continue for a week or two or a month if you can't find the guy. >> exactly. 00:49:43.335 --> 00:49:45.335 And remember that once the domestic violence victim is home, the defendant has access to know what time she leaves foreign buyer's tax working where her children goes to school, could have access to guns. 00:49:46.805 --> 00:49:48.805 >> the current version of the bill has a 24-hour limit. 00:49:53.445 --> 00:49:55.445 >> that's correct, as is the oregon statute, deemed constitutional by their supreme court. 00:49:56.715 --> 00:49:58.715 >> so it's not 24 hours are not more than 24 hour? 00:50:00.920 --> 00:50:02.920 >> correct, and it could be shorter if the defendant is arrested within that 24 hours. 00:50:03.656 --> 00:50:06.224 And remember, it's not a per se rule. There's a whole judicial review. 00:50:12.230 --> 00:50:14.230 There's factors the court will look at to determine whether or not the statement should come in, crab race. 00:50:16.235 --> 00:50:18.235 There are four factors the court will look at before the statement comes in. 00:50:28.313 --> 00:50:30.313 It is in response to the problem that's going on now, that your victims are being told, coerced and threatened not to appear over and over and no one's held accountable for it. 00:50:39.458 --> 00:50:41.459 So the defendant is controlling the outcome of the criminal case by controlling the victim, giving the prosecutor an even playing field and is still constitutional ins or and I believe in the U.S. Supreme court as well. >> okay, thank you. 00:50:41.460 --> 00:50:42.794 Chair. Okay. 00:50:45.264 --> 00:50:47.264 Any other questions? Okay, thank you. 00:51:03.849 --> 00:51:05.849 Seeing none, we'll move on. Hb 2679, hd2 (Hscr821-20) Status & testimony relating to penalties. Requires the judiciary to conduct a study regarding income-based fines and how other states address habitual offenders who have low incomes. Takes effect on 1/1/2050. (Hd2) 00:51:06.785 --> 00:51:08.785 It's also got an effective date. 00:51:08.922 --> 00:51:10.922 Hide state judiciary in support. 00:51:11.324 --> 00:51:13.324 Office of the public defender. 00:51:13.459 --> 00:51:15.994 We stand on our written testimony. Chair: in support, thank you. 00:51:21.400 --> 00:51:23.801 Community alliance on prisons? >> we've done some research on. 00:51:26.306 --> 00:51:28.306 This thank you for hearing this. 00:51:34.180 --> 00:51:36.180 And many jurisdictions have actually looked at this and have reformed their penalties. 00:51:46.826 --> 00:51:48.826 So, in my testimony I have a piece from san francisco, where they started something in 2016 and it's been really successful and it's a whole range of penalties on different things. 00:51:50.763 --> 00:51:52.763 But we know that there's lots of research out there. 00:52:03.209 --> 00:52:05.711 And we're really budder ending people -- budder ening people who just -- these things just pile up and pretty soon, they have an unbelievable amount of penalties that they cannot pay. So, what do we do? 00:52:12.952 --> 00:52:14.952 and I think we should look at the research; see who what other jurisdictioned are doing and we should just do it. 00:52:15.540 --> 00:52:17.756 We're studying stuff until it's -- people are brock. So, let's just do it. 00:52:17.790 --> 00:52:19.458 Thank you. Chair thank you. 00:52:25.365 --> 00:52:27.365 Hawai'I health and harm reduction center? In support, thank you. 00:52:27.800 --> 00:52:29.800 Aclu? In support thank you. 00:52:31.971 --> 00:52:33.971 We also have testimony from steven costa? In support. 00:52:34.400 --> 00:52:36.400 That's all the testimony we have received. 00:52:38.745 --> 00:52:40.745 Anyone else who would like to testify? Members, questions? Okay. 00:53:01.968 --> 00:53:03.968 We'll move on to hb2738. Hb 2738, hd1 (Hscr904-20) Status & testimony relating to campaign finance. Prohibits foreign nationals and foreign corporations from making independent expenditures. Requires every corporation that contributes or expends funds in a state election to file a statement of certification regarding its limited foreign influence. Requires noncandidate committees making only independent expenditures to obtain a statement of certification from each top contributor required to be listed in an advertisement. 00:53:06.839 --> 00:53:08.674 State office of the elections? >> with comment? 00:53:11.111 --> 00:53:14.130 State campaign spending commission? >> thank you. 00:53:15.480 --> 00:53:16.615 (Away from microphone) Vice-chair 00:53:17.417 --> 00:53:19.417 thank you. 00:53:20.453 --> 00:53:22.121 We stand on our testimony in support. Morning. 00:53:23.590 --> 00:53:25.590 Sandy mah for common cause hawai'I. 00:53:34.100 --> 00:53:36.100 We support hb2738hd1 prohibiting foreign nationals and foreign corporationing from making independent expenditures in hawai'I's electrics. 00:53:42.375 --> 00:53:44.375 This provision is mostly covered by federal law, but hawai'I prohibitions are certainly welcome. 00:53:49.516 --> 00:53:51.516 We also understand that there is a disclosure requirement for corporations and we fully support that. 00:53:58.558 --> 00:54:00.558 We understand that disclosures required by this bill hb2738hd1 states that disclosure should be filed with the chief elections officer. 00:54:06.967 --> 00:54:08.967 We have no problems with the disclosures being filed with the hawai'I campaign spending commission, who has jurisdiction over this matter. 00:54:09.903 --> 00:54:12.471 Thank you. Chair: thank you. 00:54:12.606 --> 00:54:14.606 Hawai'I initiative in support. 00:54:17.477 --> 00:54:19.477 Americans for democratic action in support. 00:54:23.170 --> 00:54:25.170 League of women voters in support. 00:54:32.250 --> 00:54:34.250 Barbara best, andrea quinn tkokuda, terry heady all in support. 00:54:38.199 --> 00:54:40.199 We also have edward hanel, susan and david anderson all in support. 00:54:46.730 --> 00:54:48.410 Okay is there anyone else who would like to testify? Seeing none, members, questions? A. Question. 00:54:59.220 --> 00:55:01.220 So, the current rule is for committees we cannot accept a foreign con ever contributions, correct? And non-candidate chicagos. 00:55:05.225 --> 00:55:07.225 So this is only applying to independent expenditures which are -- 00:55:10.130 --> 00:55:12.130 >> it if they only do independent expenditures, then yes, from packs. 00:55:14.635 --> 00:55:16.635 But the committee can't do an independent expenditure that's not. 00:55:21.475 --> 00:55:23.475 >> but under current law, they can't take foreign money? 00:55:26.130 --> 00:55:28.130 >> as a committee a super spark a non-candidate committee. 00:55:30.919 --> 00:55:32.219 And at this point in time, they cannot accept foreign contributions. >> okay. 00:55:33.488 --> 00:55:35.488 So what do we need the bill for then f it's. 00:55:43.664 --> 00:55:45.698 >> this bill is prohibiting foreign entities from making end expenditures, so they're sentencing money, they're not receiving any contributions. >> oh, I see, okay. 00:55:46.500 --> 00:55:48.500 All right. 00:55:50.739 --> 00:55:52.739 So they are covered currently then? 00:55:56.100 --> 00:55:57.978 >> hawai'I law does not have a prohibition on foreign entities making independent expenditures. okay, all right. 00:56:00.247 --> 00:56:02.247 I just wanted to be sure, thank you. 00:56:03.784 --> 00:56:05.985 Chair. Okay. Any other questions? 00:56:51.532 --> 00:56:53.532 Seeing none, we're going to recease. 00:57:18.993 --> 00:57:21.596 >> Chair: we're going going to move to hb2747 which proposing an mendment cots to be nation. Jdc, wam hb 2747, hd3 (Hscr976-20) Status & testimony proposing an amendment to article xvi, section 2, of the hawaii state constitution, to authorize the legislature to require the forfeiture or reduction of pension benefits of a member, former member, or retirant of the employees' retirement system who is convicted of a felony related to the member's, former member's, or retirant's employment with the state or any political subdivision thereof. Proposes a constitutional amendment to article xvi, section 2, of the state constitution to authorize the legislature to enact laws to require the forfeiture or reduction of benefits of any member, former member, or retirant of the employees' retirement system who is convicted of a felony related to the member's, former member's, or retirant's employment with the state or any political subdivision thereof. Effective 7/1/2030. (Hd3) Hawai'I state ethics commission, thank you. Common cause? >> good morning. 00:57:21.596 --> 00:57:23.797 Sandy mah for common cause hawai'I. Good morning, chair, vice-chair, members of the committee. 00:57:26.701 --> 00:57:28.701 We support hb2747 as the state has been taking a beating lately. 00:57:31.606 --> 00:57:33.606 And we feel like this measure will help restore ethics. 00:57:34.543 --> 00:57:36.543 So please, we hope you vote in favor. 00:57:37.279 --> 00:57:39.279 Thank you. 00:57:40.649 --> 00:57:41.949 >> Chair: thank you. Okay. 00:57:44.252 --> 00:57:46.687 Let me turn it over to the chair. >> Chair: okay. 00:58:13.915 --> 00:58:15.850 So, we could break for decision-make organize we could just go through this and -- okay? So the first one hb2067. Hb 2067, hd1 (Hscr826-20) Status & testimony relating to domestic violence. Amends the offense of abuse of family or household members to provide for a lesser included petty misdemeanor offense. Allows a deferred acceptance of guilty plea in cases involving misdemeanor and petty misdemeanor abuse offenses. Requires the judiciary to submit annual reports to the legislature on the number and outcome of abuse of family or household members cases. Sunsets pilot program 6/30/2023. This has been a problematic bill for a time. 00:58:25.728 --> 00:58:27.728 We'll propose this including the following elementing, we'll insert the original investigator of sd2638, which was the senate version with two amendments. 00:58:41.409 --> 00:58:43.409 The original version strike or kicking or otherwise in an offensive manner, allows the court to pro propose upon non-compliance with prohibition requirements and that's also a five-year program. 00:58:50.952 --> 00:58:52.952 Require the judiciary to report only information key to testify self and have a report due 40 days before the legislature opens f the reports are required. 00:58:54.689 --> 00:58:56.689 And we'll be sure to specify that this is not a lesser included offense. 00:58:56.892 --> 00:58:58.892 It is its own separate thing. 00:59:04.320 --> 00:59:06.320 We will post this and we will rehear that a week from today. 00:59:07.169 --> 00:59:08.703 At 10:00 here in this room. Okay. 00:59:20.216 --> 00:59:22.216 Moving ton hb2061. Jdc, wam hb 2069, hd1, status & testimony relating to property forfeiture. Prohibits civil asset forfeiture unless the covered offense is a felony for which the property owner has been convicted. Excludes the forfeiture proceedings for an animal pending criminal charges. Requires the attorney general to deposit the net proceeds of the forfeited property to the credit of the state general fund. 00:59:29.391 --> 00:59:31.391 We will go ahead -- the senate passed a bill last year that I think is -- well, I won't characterize t it's different. 00:59:31.927 --> 00:59:33.927 And here's the substance of the amendments. 00:59:38.901 --> 00:59:40.901 Much of the substance was passed in the 2019 session by the judiciary. 01:00:34.490 --> 01:00:36.490 Narrows the list of offenses to felony and misdemeanor offense; requires that the property owner has been convicted of an offense fence in order to have their property forefitted; changes the standards of proof -- excuse me -- in order for property to be forefitted from preponderance of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; storage of property such as receipts and makes mend innocent manies to procedures and appeals the administrative forfeiture statute, prohibits forfeiture proceedings except in special circumstances such as when the defendant disappears; debts all proceeds to be deposited into the general fund of the youth for public education purposes; it has a longer preamble with additional information and makes formal amendments. 01:00:40.429 --> 01:00:42.429 We'll make the bill effect titch on December 31, 20 20, and there will be technical amendments as well. 01:00:53.750 --> 01:00:55.750 So bottom line is the law enforcement will still be able to seize, but they won't be able to dispose of the property until there is still some kind of a conviction. 01:00:57.446 --> 01:00:59.446 But it will include the misdemeanor in addition to felonies. 01:01:01.951 --> 01:01:04.486 Any questions or concern? Accept senator kim? 01:01:10.326 --> 01:01:12.326 >> there seem to be a lot of changes. 01:01:14.196 --> 01:01:15.997 Isn't it time to testify? >> Chair: we could, I suppose. 01:01:16.832 --> 01:01:18.832 I don't know. 01:01:19.468 --> 01:01:21.468 We've already got a lot it hasn't changed that much. 01:01:24.107 --> 01:01:26.107 I guess my preference would be to go ahead and move forward and deal with it -- 01:01:32.949 --> 01:01:34.949 >> I'm going vote no, then, because I just feel that -- 01:01:39.389 --> 01:01:41.389 >> Chair: okay. 01:01:44.600 --> 01:01:46.600 >> there's significant changes; it should be heard. 01:01:47.630 --> 01:01:49.630 >> Chair: it does go to ways and means next. 01:01:50.660 --> 01:01:52.433 >> but only decision-making -- >> Chair: let's go ahead. 01:01:54.570 --> 01:01:56.570 I think we've hashed over this bill a lot. 01:01:57.407 --> 01:02:00.142 So, if it dies here, it dies here. So, that's the recommendation. 01:02:02.979 --> 01:02:04.979 Any other concerns? If not, vice-chair? Step 01:02:10.586 --> 01:02:12.954 >> Chair: the recommendation is to pass with amendments. (Voting of members) 01:02:13.657 --> 01:02:15.570 Recommendation adopted. Thank you. 01:02:32.475 --> 01:02:34.475 Next up is 221 4 hb 2294, hd1 (Hscr940-20) Status & testimony relating to notaries public. Updates the laws regarding notaries public to conform to the revised uniform law on notarial acts (2018), the hawaii uniform electronic transactions act, other state notary laws, and current notary practices. 01:02:35.512 --> 01:02:37.512 Any questions or concern? 01:02:39.820 --> 01:02:41.820 If not, senator? 01:02:43.653 --> 01:02:45.653 >> 2294hd1, recommendation is to pass with amendments with four members present. 01:02:48.459 --> 01:02:49.892 Any opposition or reservations? Seeing none, recommendation adopted. >> thank you. 01:03:09.613 --> 01:03:11.613 Next up is hb2549. Status & testimony relating to constitutional amendments. Requires the language and meaning of any proposed constitutional amendment and ratification question to be simple, concise, and direct. Allows the presiding officers of the legislature to request a written opinion of the supreme court regarding the legality of a proposed amendment to the hawaii state constitution and the corresponding constitutional ratification question. Requires the court to provide a written opinion within 48 hours of receipt of the request. Requires, for any written opinion by the court that invalidates a constitutional ratification question, a detailed and specific explanation of the reasons for this opinion. 01:03:14.510 --> 01:03:16.510 Recommendation is to go ahead and pass with some amendments. 01:03:26.697 --> 01:03:28.697 We will lengthen the time period for the supreme court to respond to 14 days; delete the requirement that the court provide a detailed and specific explanation that does not validate the language of the question. 01:03:33.670 --> 01:03:35.670 So, the court is only asked to provide an opinion whether it's a valid question or a simple concise and direct. 01:03:44.748 --> 01:03:46.748 I'd like to amend the language to require that question be as simple and direct as possible, considering the complexity of the subject matter, some constitutional amendments. 01:03:49.860 --> 01:03:51.860 So, I'd like to put that change in there as well. 01:03:55.225 --> 01:03:57.225 Any concerns or questions? If not -- 01:04:28.258 --> 01:04:30.258 >> 2549 the recommendation is to pass with amended? Recommendation adopted, seeing none. Hb 2610, hd2 (Hscr1003-20) Status & testimony relating to domestic violence. Allows a narrow hearsay exception for statements made by domestic violence victims to certain government officials within 24 hours of an incident of domestic violence and prior to the arrest of the defendant, even if the statement is testimonial in nature, as long as the statement bears sufficient indicia of reliability. Effective 7/1/2050. 01:04:32.129 --> 01:04:34.129 Testimonial nature of the state is not merely the timing. 01:04:40.304 --> 01:04:42.304 And we'll clarify that it's not any statement up to 24 hours but that at 24 hours, the exception would not apply. 01:04:43.700 --> 01:04:45.700 So, it's no more than 24 hours. 01:04:48.450 --> 01:04:50.450 The non-testimonial situation could end before the 24 hours. 01:04:51.249 --> 01:04:53.249 Questions or concerns? If not, vice-chair? 01:04:58.689 --> 01:05:00.689 >> ever the four members present, any reservations? Recommendation adopted. 01:05:06.864 --> 01:05:08.864 >> Chair: thank you. Hb 2679, hd2 (Hscr821-20) Status & testimony relating to penalties. Requires the judiciary to conduct a study regarding income-based fines and how other states address habitual offenders who have low incomes. Takes effect on 1/1/2050. (Hd2) 01:05:13.171 --> 01:05:15.171 Well days here is to pass with some amendment, the report due 40 days before the legislature goes into session, not 20. 01:05:15.740 --> 01:05:17.740 Any questions or concern? 01:05:19.176 --> 01:05:21.176 >> pass with amendments with the four members present. 01:05:23.614 --> 01:05:25.214 Any no, sir? Any reservations? Recommendation adopted. >> Chair: okay. 01:05:30.721 --> 01:05:32.721 We should finish the testimony on this next one. 01:05:32.790 --> 01:05:34.790 Yes. 01:05:42.633 --> 01:05:44.633 Okay. Hb 2738, hd1 (Hscr904-20) Status & testimony relating to campaign finance. Prohibits foreign nationals and foreign corporations from making independent expenditures. Requires every corporation that contributes or expends funds in a state election to file a statement of certification regarding its limited foreign influence. Requires noncandidate committees making only independent expenditures to obtain a statement of certification from each top contributor required to be listed in an advertisement. 01:05:46.371 --> 01:05:48.371 Recommendation on this one is to pass with some amendments. 01:05:53.911 --> 01:05:55.911 We changed the office regarding the status ooze a foreign corporation, and filed in the office of the campaign spending collision. 01:06:03.221 --> 01:06:05.221 Threat the exceptions and allow foreign corporations to make contributions and expenditures so, they wouldn't be able to make any. 01:06:06.357 --> 01:06:08.759 Technical amendments and we'll leave the date effective. Any questions or concern? 01:06:09.393 --> 01:06:11.393 If not, vice-chair? 01:06:15.333 --> 01:06:17.267 >> passing with amendments of the four members present. Adopted. >> Chair: okay. 01:06:17.769 --> 01:06:19.769 That's as far as we got. 01:09:32.565 --> 01:09:34.565 So we will recess briefly and try to finish up the rest here in a couple of minutes. 01:09:39.605 --> 01:09:41.605 >> Chair: in support, americans for democratic action, we also have pd in opposition. 01:09:44.510 --> 01:09:46.510 And five individual testifiers in support, who have indicated that they will not be present. 01:09:47.614 --> 01:09:49.614 Is there anyone else who would like to testify. 01:09:51.170 --> 01:09:53.170 Seeing none, questions, members? 01:09:55.121 --> 01:09:57.121 >> sandy, your testimony, Ms. Mah? 01:10:00.492 --> 01:10:02.492 >> Chair: so, in your view, what's the state of play? 01:10:19.545 --> 01:10:21.545 >> our position is that we feel like there isn't a need for a constitutional amendment, given that we could -- reduce or limit benefits to a member by permitting the benefits to be provided to the family, under the member's passing. 01:10:23.450 --> 01:10:25.450 That's permitted under the hawai'I state constitution. 01:10:27.920 --> 01:10:29.920 >> Chair: so basically you don't really think we need the bill? 01:10:34.493 --> 01:10:36.493 >> no, but given concerns surrounding t perhaps we should move the bill through. 01:10:37.290 --> 01:10:38.630 >> Chair: all right, thank you. Any other question? 01:11:01.954 --> 01:11:03.954 If not, we're going to move to the two resolutions at the end of the agenda as cr13 and sr14, urging congress tie mend title 19 of the social security act to require coverage of routine costs for patients with life-threatening condition, who are enrolled in clinical trials. 01:11:09.529 --> 01:11:11.529 State department of human services, offering comments? And they're the only testifier on this. 01:11:13.990 --> 01:11:15.990 Anyone else who would like to testify? Seeing none, questions? Okay. 01:11:35.155 --> 01:11:37.155 Let's recess for decision-making. 01:11:39.526 --> 01:11:41.526 Hb2747 for part of the forfeiture of reduction of pension benefits. 01:11:46.633 --> 01:11:48.633 My and my legal staff's analysis is that we don't need this to pass the statutory restrictions. 01:11:50.237 --> 01:11:52.237 So I'm going to go ahead and defer this indefinitely. 01:11:56.743 --> 01:11:58.743 For sr, 14 recommendation is to pass the two with clarifying technical amendments only. 01:12:01.281 --> 01:12:03.281 Questions or concerns? Okay. 01:12:08.222 --> 01:12:10.122 With amendments of the three members present, any reservations? Seeing none, recommendations are adopted. >> Chair: thank you very much.