Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves harassment and offenses bills after sharp exchanges over scope
Summary
The House Labor committee passed two bills aimed at protecting public servants from harassment and expanding who qualifies as a protected public servant; the measures drew starkly different testimony from the judiciary, prosecutors and public defenders over scope and fairness.
The House Committee on Labor on Feb. 12 voted to advance two related bills intended to address harassment and threats against public servants — HB 2091 (authorizing petitioning for temporary restraining orders on behalf of public servants) and HB 2092 (enhancing penalties for offenses against designated public servants) — after heated testimony about scope and constitutional risk.
Nick Severson, a staff attorney for the Hawai‘i Judiciary, told the committee HB 2091 would "permit public employers to seek temporary restraining orders on behalf of public servants" and help maintain safe working environments as incidents of harassment and threats against public servants have risen. "This bill would permit public employers to seek temporary restraining orders on behalf of public servants that face employment related harassment," he said in support.
But the measures prompted sharp objections. Daniel Hugo of the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney for the City and County of Honolulu argued HB 2092 "creates two classes of victims" by elevating penalties only for certain public figures. "This is not a public safety bill. This is a public status bill," Hugo said, contending that selective enhancements risk unfairness and do not address enforcement gaps.
Haley Chang, first deputy with the Office of the Public Defender, cautioned that many behaviors targeted by the bills already are criminalized under existing statutes (including terroristic threatening and harassment by stalking). She warned status‑based enhancements in the penal code could raise constitutional questions and urged narrower drafting and stricter proof requirements such as material interference with duties.
The judiciary’s witness defended the approach as filling a gap where conduct that disrupts a public servant’s ability to do their job can be difficult to prosecute under higher standards for threats; the proposal raises penalties for harassment when it targets covered public servants but does not change harassment elements, the witness said.
After discussion the committee adopted numerous AG‑recommended clarifications (definitions for credible threats and unlawful violence, formal representation procedures, and appropriations language) and amended HB 2092 to expand the definition of public servants to include all public employees before passing both measures.
The record shows divergent views: the judiciary and some labor groups supported tighter protections for public servants, while prosecutors and public defenders warned of overbroad, status‑based enhancements. The committee’s amendments sought to address some legal concerns while expanding coverage to address critics’ calls to broaden protections.
