Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drone Felonies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prosecutor backs amendment to close drone-use loophole in felony prosecutions; committee advances measure
Summary
The committee advanced HB 389 with an amendment request from the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office to add an anti‑merge clause so use of an uncrewed aircraft in committing a felony can be charged separately; prosecutors cited prison contraband and privacy concerns as local drivers for the change.
The Senate Committee on Transportation advanced HB 389 on March 12 after hearing from the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office, which supports the bill but asked the committee to add a non‑merger clause so charges for using an uncrewed aircraft in the commission of a felony would not merge with the underlying crime.
"The original purpose of this bill had been to close the one MOA loophole in the use of a drone in the commission of a felony," said Daniel Hugo, speaking for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. Hugo told the committee that because of existing grading rules some aggravated offenses could be downgraded under current statutory language, and prosecutors want to ensure drone‑use penalties remain distinct, similar to how use of a firearm in the commission of a felony is treated.
Hugo said the office sees many cases nationwide involving drones used to smuggle contraband into correctional facilities and noted privacy violations can be felonies that would be charged together with drone use under the proposed language. In response to members' questions about local incidents, he said he could not discuss pending cases but acknowledged advisories and news reporting about drone privacy complaints.
During decision making the committee adopted the prosecutor's suggested clarifying amendment to subsection (g) to state a conviction under the drone‑use provision "shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any conviction and sentence for the separate felony," and that sentences may run concurrently or consecutively. The committee voted to pass HB 389 with the amendment and reported the measure out with the recommendation to pass.
The committee record did not include a full statutory citation beyond references to offense grading (Class A/B/C) and the MOA-related grading issue; the prosecutor requested the anti‑merge language to avoid the two offenses being treated as the same conviction.
