On 2/13/2013, at 8:30 A.M. before the House Health Committee, I testified in opposition of HB910. One of the primary purposes of HB910 is to limit conditional release to a maximum of one year, for anyone granted conditional release after he or she was:(1) committed to the custody of the Director of Health, following an acquittal for physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect excluding penal responsibility; or (2) placed on conditional release pursuant to Chapter 704, then had such conditional release revoked if the original charge against that person was a misdemeanor, petty misdemeanor, or violation. When conditional release is granted, the court makes a specific determination that conditional release is necessary, as the defendant is still affected by physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect and still a danger to self or others. The court grants a conditional release because it feels that the defendant can be safely released only if he or she is adequately monitored and given proper care, supervision, and treatment. Without such supervision and treatment, the defendant will continue to be a danger to self or others. Rather than apply a set one-year limitation on all conditional releases granted under HRS §704-412, in which the defendant was charged with a petty misdemeanor, misdemeanor, or violation, the Department would strongly recommend a case-by-case review by the court, involving a thorough review of all relevant facts and circumstances. Inevitably, some cases will call for supervision and treatment beyond one-year, particularly in cases under HRS §704-412, where the defendant was previously committed and/or had their conditional release revoked. Public safety is the Department’s highest priority, and proper supervision and treatment of defendants is critical to preventing future violence or criminal activity. Instead of placing a set time limit on conditional release, the Department respectfully suggests a standardized schedule for court review. When a court finds that the defendant may be released into the community without being a danger to self or others, then it is within the court’s powers to discharge him or her at that time. For all the foregoing reasons, the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney of the City and County of Honolulu opposes HB910.
At 10:00 A.M., before the House Transportation Committee, I testified with comments on HB66 that imposes conditions to ensure that persons arrested for driving under the influence of an intoxicant are sober prior to being released from custody. Although the intent of this bill is good, it infringes due process constitutional rights because when a person posts bail he or she has a right to be released. I also testified in support of HB1181 that amends the definition of a habitual offender to also mean a person who was convicted of habitually operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant prior to the instant offense of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant..
At 4:00 P.M., Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Tricia Nakamatsu and I met with Senator Roz Baker at her office regarding our puppy mills regulation bill.
In the evening, I exercised for the 10th day of 2013 with strength training for my abs, arms, and back, and I ran 7.35 miles in Honolulu.
JON RIKI KARAMATSU 