Housing and Land Use Committee (2025-2027) - Regular Meeting

Will the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee meeting, recess meeting from September 2nd reconvene on September 3rd at 9.03 p.m. come to order? and if everyone can please silence their cell phones or other noise-making devices, that would help our cause. Members, in accordance with the Sunshine Law, if you're not in the council chambers, please identify by name who, if anyone is in the room, vehicle, or workspace with you today. Minors do not need to be identified. Also, please see the last page of the agenda for information on meeting connectivity. My name is Tamara Poulton, and I'll be your chair for today's DRIP committee meeting. Committee Vice Chair Nohelani U'uhajins has not joined us yet, so she should be joining us and is excused at this time. Council Member Kawanoe Batangan, aloha kakaiaka.

Aloha kakaiaka kakou.

Council Member Aloha Kaka'iaka.

Aloha Kaka'iaka, thank you. Morning.

Council Member Gabe Johnson, Aloha Kaka'iaka.

Aloha, good morning, Chair, council members, committee members. I'm here alone in my office, or in my workspace, and I'm ready to work. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Council Chair Alice Lee, Aloha Kaka'iaka.

Aloha kakou, Chair. No one's here in my workspace. And from the Cherokee Nation, oseo.

Oseo. Next up, Councilmember Kiani Rollins-Fernandez. Aloha kakahiaka and oseo.

Aloha kakahiaka chair, aloha kakahiaka kākou. I'm at my private residence alone. I do have to step away at 10 for a previously scheduled meeting, but hopefully it'll just be like 30 minutes and I'll jump back on.

Mahalo chair. Thank you. And council member Shane Sinensi, aloha kakahiaka and OCO.

here at my personal workspace. I do have some staff members outside. We have a centerpiece workshop going on, Tanya Kealoha-Shafer and John Yamaguchi.

Thank you so much for contributing to the H-SAC cause. Last but not least, Councilmember Yikelei Sugimura is excused. This is based on the polling. We also wanted to send a special thank you to member Gabe Johnson for allowing us to take up his meeting slot for today so we can continue this important discussion. This meeting of the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee of the Maui County Council is located on the traditional ʻĀina of Kanaka Waiwi, who never ceded their sovereignty to the United States. We recognize that Her Majesty Queen Liliuokalani yielded the Hawaiian Kingdom to the U.S. in duress under threat of violence to avoid the bloodshed of her people. We further recognize that Hawaii remains an illegally occupied nation state by the U.S. as documented in the 2021 scholarly article for the National Lawyers Guild Review by Andrew Reed, adjunct professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Generations of Kanaka Maoli and their knowledge systems have sustainably cared for Hawaii and continue to do so. We're grateful to occupy this space and learn the ways in which we can contribute. As a committee, we seek to support the varied strategies that indigenous people of Hawai'i are using to protect their land and their communities and commit to dedicating time and resources to working in solidarity. From the Department of Management, we had the managing director. He is doing storm prep today, so we may have him at a limited role because of our good friends Lowell, Karina, and Marie. coming to visit. From the Department of the Police, we have Lieutenants Taylor Kamakafiba-Oli and Christina Borna-Carsi, as well as Officer Aaron Mark. From the Department of Prosecuting Attorney, we have Prosecuting Attorney Andrew Martin and Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Chad Kumagai. From Corporation Council, we have Deputy Corporation Council Roe. We also have DRIP Committee staff with us this afternoon, Senior Legislative Analyst James Krueger, as well as Legislative Analyst Jarrett Pasquale, Senior Committee Secretary Yvette Boutilier, and Legislative Attorney Karla Nakata. As a reminder, Public testimony, oral testimony is closed for today. We had concluded it yesterday and written testimony is still being accepted. We have two items on today's agenda. Drip 27, which is Bill 113. Establishing 8.38 Maui County Code on the Disclosure, Sale, and Commercial Use of License Plate Reader Data. And DRIP 26, Bill 112, 2026, Establishing Chapter 8.37 Maui County Code on Facial Recognition. We will continue where we left off from the last meeting. Last meeting, we had one round of three minutes, but not everybody got their opportunity. I think it was just the men. So this, the males, or whatever you guys want to be called, So this today, I wanted to allow five minutes. And for folks that didn't get their opportunity last round, it can be combined to up to eight minutes if you would like. And they realized some of the questions yesterday from members Johnson and Sinensi would be easier answered by Lieutenant Bonacarcy, so that's why they asked her to come today. So before we start off on questions, I guess, Member Johnson and Member Sinensi, if you wanted to repeat your questions, maybe Lieutenant Bonacarsi could answer them.

OK, sure. If you're asking me, Chair, sure. The idea was, which pot of money did we use to buy the county-owned cameras, and how much is left in that pot? Do you guys plan to buy more with that money? And that was the basis of my question, where'd you get the money? Which fund did you use it from? And maybe Council Member Sinensi had more to add to that, but that was my part, thank you.

Member Sinensi, did you wanna, do you remember your question from yesterday? We can ask staff if not.

Yeah, my questions were posed by some of the testifiers yesterday. Who has any of the existing flock cameras? Does the state have any of the flock cameras already up? And then I think the department did answer that some of the license plate shots were from the Motorola cameras that are existing on the traffic lights.

Yes, and then also I did receive a message from Managing Director Nishita. He said he checked with the team. The LPR cameras being used at Wahikuli are under the Department of law enforcement and they are called Genetec, G-E-N-E-T-E-C. Originally, he had thought they were flock, but they're Genetec. Lieutenant Bonacorsi, were you able to answer any of those questions from yesterday?

Yes. Good morning, chairs. Good morning, council members. Lieutenant Christina Bonacorsi. Just a really quick background. Initially, I began this project back, what, two years ago. So I initially have a lot of the information that may not have been passed down. So that's my role. And now I got promoted in HANA now. So just so all of you are aware. Regarding the, I believe contracts is what Mr. Council Member Gabe Johnson referred to. We don't have any pending contracts. We got a contract basically with Motorola back in, 2025 And that is that contract it was already funded funded money that the chief Acquired and that came up with our radios 400 new radios that we need Motorola radios our command central where program which is basically the brains and operation of the our talk which is a real-time op center is and it came with 27 license plate reader cameras. So that was all bundled together. And basically we got a, when you do it like that, it was a lot cheaper. And then on top of that, I got a JAG grant for $150,000 that also went towards these cameras. So that kind of like wiped a lot of the funds out. on that contract. And regarding council members' sentences regarding the flock cameras, we do not own flock, nor will we ever own flock, just because there's a difference. We actually own our information. The information that Flock has, and I'm not, other than a lot of leaks and stuff with Flock, the Motorola system, it actually is in a secured government server, CJIS compliant. So there's, we own that information. Nobody can gain that information unless we authorize them to gain information, and usually that's other police departments. But other than that, I hope that answers your question regarding that.

Member Johnson, before you answer, I just wanted to recognize Committee Vice Chair Nohelani Uhu-Hodgins, Aloha Wina-Lai, and OSEO.

Good morning, Chair. Good morning, everyone. I'm at my private residence alone in my workspace. I apologize for being late. My computer wanted to update when I reopened it this morning, but thank you.

Thank you. Happens to the best of us. Member Johnson, did you have any follow-up on the answers to your questions from yesterday?

Yes, I really appreciate that. Thank you, Chair. So the 27 cameras were bundled with the 400 radios. Thank you for that clarification. How about the subscription fees? You have to pay a monthly fee for these? And how much are they? Where does that money come from?

There's a subscription. I believe it's, I can get that number for you. It's like per camera. I believe it's around like 200 or something like that per camera or 150, something like that for a year for each camera. But we'll get the exact number for you. And that's already budgeted in our fiscal year, 2027.

And it's under contract that you're paying?

It's just a licensing fee. basically because we're using, basically the software is on like a learn platform is where we utilize that, that's the brains, that's where we get our information if we're searching something and Motorola does not have access to that, it's ours, we own that.

I understand that, thank you. $200 per year per camera and for a total of how many cameras?

We have 20, technically we have 27 cameras on this contract. and we had 11 legendary contracts, which we call them legendary because we had a, whatchamacallit, it's a pilot program for the past two years prior to getting this contract. And I'll get the exact number for you.

Okay, all right, thank you. I appreciate Chair following up on me, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Staff, you have the information to follow up with a letter? Yes, Chair. Okay, member Uuhajins, I had mentioned this round would be five minutes and that our male members already had their first round, so the female members will get eight minutes, up to eight minutes if they'd like. So... I guess I would love to go first with Member Rollins-Fernandez because she does have to leave for a moment and I did wanna mention that Member Batonga has a hard out at 11.45 before lunch. Okay, Member Rollins-Fernandez, are you ready? Would you like your opportunity?

Mahalo, Chair, and mahalo to our, resource personnel for being with us today and yesterday. Okay. I did have to step away yesterday and leave a little early. So I did go back and watch the last 15 minutes of the meeting that I missed to hear some of the questions and answers by the male council members. And, you know, so Member Poulton and I, and I don't think this was explained yesterday, that when we participated in the NACO conference in New Orleans, we were able to join the site visit that took us to New Orleans real-time crime center. It's a real-time crime center, yeah. And they took us on a tour and they shared the best practices. And so, you know, I just want to commend Chair Poulton for very quickly introducing legislation, you know, kind of based on some of what they've done that was successful there and that what would make sense for us here. I wanted to understand and then I'll ask my questions. Testifiers that shared their mana'u with us yesterday were often just using flock cameras as any surveillance camera. and our cameras are Motorola. And flock cameras are known for its facial recognition and I guess the data is collected by the company. I'm not an expert in flock, so I don't super know, but I was kind of basing it off of what Officer Bonacoski was explaining, that county's Motorola cameras do not have facial recognition software pre-installed, and the data that is collected by the county is owned and held or stored by the county. That county does not own or operate cameras with facial recognition. but the county does own and operate cameras with license plate readers. Okay, so my question is, how many cameras and how long is the data currently stored?

for your question council member so currently we have 27 cameras out these 27 cameras are all you know throughout our main thoroughfares you know keeping track of of you know anything that as far as the criminal activity or vehicles that may be involved in a crime or maybe stolen or whatnot the information is stored on an SD card that's within the device itself alerts and real-time information is sent to motorola but that basically comes right back to us in a vehicle alert that we receive in our email so the officers that have access to vehicle manager they're not able to input information They're basically receiving alerts that this vehicle, possibly the stolen vehicle that was reported that was on the hot list, was last seen on this roadway this time. And depending on the position of the camera, will give the direction of travel. As far as the flock, and like you mentioned about the flock cameras, it's a bunch of information that people are gathering offline. And when you look up LPRs, the first most popular searches will be flock. So a lot of the Motorola cameras that we have installed are being associated with flock. Flock has had their issues of being hacked. That's one of the reasons why when we One of the reasons why we won't release the make model and information on the camera because if you have that information, hackers will be able to find a way to get into the camera systems. The access to the information will be monitored by those who are in charge of the program currently. But as far as our Motorola cameras and everything else that we have, it is for the safety and for basically tools. The way that we look at the ALPR cameras is that instead of posting officers on the corners of every street looking out for these vehicles that are traveling, we have tools and other set of eyes. And that will alleviate and will save a lot of manpower. And as you folks know, it's already hard to fulfill a lot of the positions that we have. You know, if we were fully staffed, you know, it would be a lot easier, but it's just the current climate across the nation right now. Every police station, every police department, every sheriff's department, law enforcement in general are having hiring issues at this time.

Okay. Mahalo, Officer Kamakaviwaole. Oh, no. Yeah? Lieutenant. Lieutenant. Sorry.

Yeah.

Okay, so you said that when the license plate reader potentially reads a plate of a vehicle that could be stolen, is that a photo that is sent to Motorola and then is sent to MPD? or what does that information look like?

So yesterday in a PowerPoint presentation, the images that we showed is basically what will be received. So that would basically show to the officer, but the officers still have to physically go out there and locate the vehicle, make contact with the vehicle before any type of search, any type of stop or whatever it may be. The vehicle information has to be verified by a human body.

Okay, the part that I was trying to clarify was you said the information goes to Motorola first and then it like the company and then it and then it comes to MPD.

Okay, just to clarify. Motorola doesn't see any information. It's the platform that we're using that they developed. They do not see. So it's like a platform. So like any brains of it, it goes up into the cloud. Say you take a picture, it goes up into the cloud, which is a secured government, CJIS compliant entity. Then when we say, okay, we're looking for this license plate that, and it's just a picture of the vehicle with the license plate, it goes into, then when we ask, okay, where is this license plate? And then all those pictures of that license plate comes down to our desktop or whatever we're using, that secured system. So Motorola doesn't know what the information is up in there. They just supplied the system that we're utilizing. Kind of like our CAD system, kind of like our radios. They don't know, they're just supplying the information. Like they just have the program, but they do not have access to it, if that helps. It's just like basically standing on a corner, like LT said, taking a picture of every vehicle that passes an officer doing that or an officer with a pad, a notepad and writing down every single license plate that passes you. That's all the system is doing. It's just taking a snapshot of a picture of a vehicle. No personal information is stored. We have to investigate that information further. It's just like a lead. Yeah, it's just a lead leading to the investigation.

Real quick, just to clarify, because like I said, I'm just trying to understand what the current situation is right now. Bill 113 is attempting to protect and regulate the data. I'm trying to understand how data is currently stored. When I asked that question, the data is stored on an SD card on the device itself. That data is not video, that data is only photos.

Correct.

The data is only photos, pictures, not live images, not videos, just a snapshot, like a portal, like if you took a picture.

Okay. And then that data, when it matches a plate that we could be looking for, then that photo is sent into the software in the cloud and then it goes to MPD.

Yes, the perfect example was the one that she used of an officer standing on the corner, you know, looking for a vehicle. When he sees the vehicle, he'll take a quick snapshot with his cell phone and then basically text the message out to the officers. So basically the Motorola program is basically that. You know, we take the pictures, the system, you know, does its job, recognizes that, hey, do we have a possible hit, sends the alert. all to the officers. So none of the information that is sent, that is collected, is stored by Motorola. Everything is held, stored, and controlled by us.

The reason I asked that follow-up is because I want, I'm trying to understand what stays on the SD card and what is then like released and like how it's released and to who it's released, right? And so I understand what you're explaining, but I think like these details need to just kind of be teased out a little more, which is why I'm asking the questions. So I appreciate your responses and I appreciate the flexibility and the follow-up questions. I will have more questions. Mahalo, Chair.

Thank you. And just double checking, were you able to hear the bell? Yes. Okay. All right. Either Council Chair Lee or Committee Vice Chair Nohue Uhuha-Jins, do you have... Chair Lee, did you want to go first?

Yeah, sure. My question is for our prosecuting attorney, Andrew Martin. Given all the testimony we heard yesterday, given all the concerns that were expressed and knowing what these two draft ordinances are proposing, Do you have any more suggestions to perhaps bring a little bit more comfort to the general public that we are not overreaching, that this is a very well-controlled system that we have, but if there's anything else we can include in the ordinance, to ensure that there is no misuse or abuse of the camera systems.

Chair. Yes, and thank you Chair Lee for the question. I think the most important pieces of this proposed legislation are number one, the limits on utilizing these systems for law enforcement purposes only where there is a criminal nexus. That is one key. The second key is the imposition of the documentation requirements. Those are the two key pieces of this legislation that set up the safeguards. Number one, that I think the committee is looking for, but that also provide the public with the reassurance that the use of these systems is well regulated and limited to legitimate law enforcement purpose only. We do have some suggestions on just how to tighten up some of the language to make sure that the legislation doesn't cross over into areas that create ambiguity and concern down the line. Number one, as I mentioned yesterday, with subsection in Bill 112, Subsection 8.37.020. Subsection E. We'd recommend striking the language after documentation where there, we'd recommend striking the language is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to a person and instead rewriting that section to read facial recognition technology may be used without prior documentation where there is an exigent circumstance requiring its use. The documentation required by subsection B, together with a description of the circumstances constituting, again, adding in exigent circumstances, must be completed within 24 hours after its use. The reason that becomes as important is it appropriately tracks the warrant clause in the Constitution, the exception to the warrant clause as set forth in case law, and make sure we don't miss an opportunity to use the system under all possible exigent circumstances, which we think is a key requirement.

Thank you. Chair, could you have the staff email us what he just said? So we can consider it as a possible amendment. Okay, I wrote it down. And then now, can I ask?

You wrote it down. Circumstances 8.37.020.

Anyway, could you just email it to us? Now, can I have the police comment on what the prosecuting attorney just said? and because you're the actual boots on the ground that implement the system. So what he's suggesting, is it reasonable or do you have any more suggestions? Anybody from the police?

So the question to the police is, are you okay with changing out what was said for exigent circumstances, or would you like more language in there besides exigent circumstances?

No, I agree with Prosecutor DA Andy Martin. I do agree with that. That cleans it up a lot for us. Very helpful, so thank you.

Any other suggestions you may have?

Yeah, it's just to keep it a little more broad because exigency, I mean, it all depends on the circumstance and the type of investigation that is occurring. You know, nothing is cookie cutter, nothing is in a box. So that's why, I mean, we don't have any more suggestions, but we do agree with Andy Martin on this one.

Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Chair?

Thank you, Chair Lee. Member Uuhajins?

Thank you, Chair. A couple of comments before I start asking my question. So we live in a world now where I feel like everywhere you go, you can be recorded. We all have a camera in our back pocket. Majority of our job includes being filmed. Our words are memorialized. Our video is memorialized. I'm taking this meeting from home. and i choose to face my back where you see my backyard but not any personal effects in my house and that is um a choice i make right um our jobs are so public and i have to remind my children um as they're growing up they will be making mistakes but please don't photograph those mistakes and post them on your social media because that will live forever And so it's interesting to see that discussion I need to have with my kids in a larger discussion as we deal with adults and what that looks like in our everyday life. And I know we have to find a balance between technology, privacy, and not living in some minority report of the world. But So I just wanna say, I get that finding the balance is difficult, right? Like I get that. How many times we've watched the recent fights, I guess there was in Safeway in Kihei, that was filmed, that was online, right? We had fights in the mall, that was filmed, that's online. All of this stuff is just filmed. Whether or not it's by our police officers or by our regular shmegular people, half of our life is being filmed. Yeah, regular Schmeigler. So it's just what's happening. That's our normal. And it's a weird normal, but that's where our normal is going. I guess a couple questions I have is, right now we currently have cameras that can read license plates, but we do not have cameras that can read our faces. So if we do install these other facial recognition cameras, are we having two separate cameras, or What does this technology look like? Are we placing them in the same places that we have the license plate reader cameras or are we just gonna be like littered with cameras everywhere? How does this look in its totality?

May I? Yes. Thank you, Uha, just appreciate that question. You are absolutely right about things live forever, social media. I mean, it's very, it's scary. And every kid lives on social media nowadays. So I agree with you on that. This county is already littered with cameras. You got the traffic cameras, you got our cameras, you got the DLE cameras, you got, I mean, It's crazy as it is already. The facial recognition cameras and LPR cameras are two separate entities. There are ones that are together, but we do not have any of those. Those are a lot more pricier. But we do not have. There's also live feed cameras that we could also purchase. Anything that helps our officers, if you've gone to any real-time op centers in the mainland, they can follow a subject from like a robbery all the way down the street and tell officers in real time where this guy is. So I would love to get to that. But we're also... getting permission to access the street cameras. So it's not our cameras. We're kind of a double, like a multiple force multiplier where we're using other entities, which goes in a secure system that we can get the feed. You know what I mean? But we want it in real time. Not like, you know what I mean? Not weeks later when the lead is now gone and we can't get any evidence. So that is our goal in the future. But right now the cameras are two separate entities and we don't have any facial recognition cameras here.

Okay, you said you toured other facilities. I know some of our other council members did. I did not go to New Orleans. It's too hot for me, so I didn't go. What are some lessons learned, which is a question one of our testifiers asked that we don't also have to learn the hard way. Do you have any of those you would like to share?

Yes, absolutely. Working with you guys, council members, a lot of you guys, the mayor, other agencies, they said once you work together and have an open dialogue with the community of what you're doing and why you're doing them, then they understand. Because it's the ones that are doing something wrong. You know what I mean? If I had somebody missing or hit and run, we're gonna be able to catch them like that. And we have using these cameras. But having our policies and stuff tight where if any of our officers do anything illegal, they will get in trouble. And that's what the other agencies already have done. So we're kind of helping, working towards that. So we do not make the same mistake.

Okay. About last year or so, I think it was last year, one of my son's classmates from Kekaulike went missing for a long time. And I don't know what I would do if that was my son, but it was my son's classmate. We spoke about it at length at home. And we live in a more rural area where we don't have major intersections other than maybe the one by Kekalike. So in our rural places, where would you be putting any cameras, seeing as the easiest place would be on our large intersections? How would that look for our rural communities?

So the cameras, they can either work on Wi-Fi or cellular. That's what the SIM cards are, just like your phone. It's a cellular information that gets the information to us. On the rural areas, I think they're trying to work on technology to get, like Keikolike, you already know that that's really spotty cell phone service up there. So sometimes it hit and miss, but it does, once the information stores on there, once it has service, it sends it to us. So there was a camera up there by Keikolike I think somebody stole it. You know what I mean? It's gone. So there was one up there. Yeah, we have those too. But in rural areas, like there's one that's supposed to go to Twin Falls. We can jump on their wifi. It's on a private place where they can allow us, authorize us to put one camera out there. One at the, you know, certain areas like that. But if it's really like rural area where you have no cell phone, no wifi, that's a bit difficult for us. but at least we know which way they went the last time. It's no longer a needle in a haystack. Now we know if this person passed Twin Falls, we know they're probably going to Hana or something. So if that helps a little bit.

Okay. One of the questions I found a little interesting, and I don't know how we find this balance, but, you know, somebody wanted to say they would prefer to tour our places, like we did, like a couple members did. So If you do allow tours, which I'm not suggesting you do or you don't, how do you prevent like a breach of information? Maybe I watch too much Ocean's Eleven, but that is like getting the tour is where the beginning of the end. So how does this work to be transparent, but also to protect people's privacy?

Thank you for the question. See, the hard part will be, you know, like our water treatment plants, you know, our critical infrastructure locations.

We don't do tours. We don't give masks because we are afraid of bio warfare.

Exactly. And, you know, it would be the same thing with our, you know, if we ever get to the point or when we finally complete the project. you know, we would basically vet certain officers and only those people will be allowed in that information or into that, uh, secure facility. And only reason being it's, it's not so much the, um, you know, that we don't want to be transparent. It's the fact that there is a lot of secure information that is up there. I mean, you know, in the event that something does happen during a tour, you know, that information, you know, we can't go and pull our MIB wands out and look into the flash and make you guys forget what you guys saw. You know, so, yeah, so I'm saying that, yeah. So, yeah, so as far as tours, you know, when the...

you know the uh the crime center is operational or whatever may be yeah we will not probably allow tours into that area thank you chair heard the bell thank you very much thank you um for my opportunity um so many questions um i just wanted to clarify like some ground terms like um RTCC would be a real-time crime center, and that's located at the Kihei Police Station. But that's different than the real-time ops center. Real-time crime center is all police. Real-time ops center is like any first responder. Is that correct?

they currently have the, I think, is it MEMA that runs the Emergency Operations Center? They have a facility.

Yeah, that's the M-E-O-C, right?

Yeah.

Maui Emergency Operations Center. So you have Real-Time Op Center, Real-Time Crime Center, and Maui Emergency Op Center.

Yeah, all the acronyms. So eventually, our hope is to have a Real-Time Operations Center. So...

So we don't have that.

Currently, there's nothing operating. There's no physical location for it. We have an office in the Kiai Station that we meet and we continue the process to develop this real-time operation center. But currently, we do not have a facility for it or an office specifically for that.

Okay, and does the real-time crime center talk to the Maui Emergency Ops Center?

there's a lot of things that we assist with. So if like during the last Kona lows, um, we have our drone teams that are, they fall under technically the real time operation center, um, leadership. So we were tasked with going out and assisting with different things, um, as far as damage assessment or whatnot with the drones. Um, so when they need help, help with things and we go and we assist.

Okay, and then, Since you've had these since 2025, except for the 11 legendary ones, if we would have had these, like say during the fire in West Maui, they wouldn't have been operational because we didn't have any wifi cellular. Is that how that works? Would they still be taking photos and just not transmitting them until the wifi cellular is operational?

Yeah, so basically if we had them during the fire, all the images would have been stored on that device. And then once the cellular and Wi-Fi went back up, then all those images would be flowing back into the system where we can actually see them. If the device isn't. If it didn't burn down.

Yeah. Or get damaged from the heat. And so we have currently 38 cameras. The 27 that we got through the... Radio purchase and the 11 legendary.

Yeah, and I believe there's some that stolen so I think there was like two or three that were taken the Empire of course and then Yeah, and Kihei and there's a couple that they're trying to change out. But other than that, there is actually let's see here about 32 32. Yeah, we would have have been and to National Park Service bought a camera. We're trying to get theirs online. We can see theirs. They wanted us to see their feed. That one is not up yet. And then the Hawaii Visitor Bureau, that's the one that they want to put at Twin Falls. We are trying to get theirs live, but we're having issues with that camera itself. So technically that's two more. So it would be if we had all of them working, it would be 40. Okay. Okay.

And then I think in some of the written testimonials brought up like we're not, are we, is the public allowed to know where the cameras are or is it more general terms and is there specific areas where they cannot be like, I'm thinking obviously you don't want them in. or like changing rooms or those types of places, but is there places where they absolutely cannot be and can the public know the locations or just the generalities of where cameras are, could be, cannot be?

Thank you for the question. It's on any public roadway. So like bathrooms, there's no way we would ever put anything even outside. There's case law against those things. So it's just on any public roadway. Private property, if they have LPR cameras, that's on them. If they want to share their information with us, then we are grateful because then that helps us. But there's no two-way sharing. We get the information, we do not share it back. And if the public wants to know where the cameras are, either you can see them on the roadways or there's that, I think there's an app that you can, I don't know how it detects them, but it can detect, but it doesn't, all it says is where they are.

And so what I'm hearing you say is the county only puts them on public roadways. I've heard from folks that there might be some in parks or things like that. Would that not be the county?

If there are cameras in the parks, it wouldn't be our cameras. It would be either the parks department or some kind of security cameras that were put into those areas. I know the concern that one of the testifiers yesterday had mentioned was the cameras that face public, actually private homes and whatnot. I think that was our first testifier from yesterday. All of our cameras face directly down public roadways where there is no real expectation of privacy because we are only looking for vehicle license plates. We're not looking for faces, we're not looking for or workouts in the backyard or those types of things. We're only concerned with vehicles.

Maybe I should clarify. There could be counting cameras in the parks, but they're not police's ones. It could be parks' one because they're dealing with a lot of vandalism or things like that.

Yes, correct. And I know for sure Colombo Park has them, but they're mainly for the ocean as far as safety and whatnot. I know that there's other cameras that were put into certain locations, like the Park Maui, just to monitor the parking areas and whatever it may be. But yeah, we do not... have access currently. Again, as Lieutenant Bonacorse had mentioned, if they want to share the feed, then we'll take it and we'll use it for whatever public safety purposes that we may have.

So if parks had a situation where they called the police because of vandalism, then you may pull their camera feed to see if you can get any information. Or if a private citizen, I guess there is a string of at Mala Boat Yard and they have their own cameras and then you can put a camera feed because they reported a crime and you're trying to solve it.

So in those cases, we would actually contact the head of security who would look through their feeds and then basically download the information that we'll have that may help us in our investigation. But as of this time, we do not have access and we cannot currently pull live feeds at this moment.

And then since you said that this mainly started in 2025 with the 27 cameras, have you developed qualitative and quantitative measures of success? What are your key performance indicators?

So it's basically before I left about a year ago with the time we started recording because we had the older cameras. Yeah, we were doing a demo for like two years and only the year we were actually recording data. And because of our new... our mess system, which is our report management system, it's a lot easier. It's going to be a lot easier for us to record these solvable crimes, basically solvable crimes, meaning like if your vehicle was stolen or missing person, we found them, we found your vehicle, or if there was a hit and run and we found the guy and we found the vehicle, we found the guy. These are all things that we did, we have done. That was about a year ago, and we had at least 40 cases solved, and that was within a year span. And that was attempted murder suspect, that was hit and run robbery suspect, just from these cameras, just from finding them, going through one of the cameras, and mind you, that was 11 cameras. That was only 11 cameras. Now we have a lot more. So it leads to a solving of a case. It leads to something. That is what we want. We want that information. And with the retention, I know you guys said like seven days, 30 days, and I know I'm going off script here, but the longer, the better, because a lot of times we can't do anything within the 30-day span if it's a case that our detectives get. So if you guys can, please go longer, at least three to five years, because that's other departments. If it's seven days, that information is going to be gone.

Okay, and I did hear the bell. I just was wondering, so to follow up on your key performance indicators or qualitative and quantitative measures of success, it would be 11 cameras, one year, 40 cases solved. That's how it would, like if somebody were to say an executive summary or whatever you call it about measures of success, that's how it would be reported?

Yes, and we can also go back through our records over the last period since we've installed the cameras to time now that we can actually go back and try to find out and get those numbers back to you folks.

Okay, because I think in New Orleans, their measure of success was like hours saved on, like manpower hours saved, like... I don't know, it's probably apples to oranges, but the Sands of Kahana situation, you were able to go into their cameras, which I think are probably closed caption, but would the difference be if you had access to their closed caption? I think the gentleman, unfortunately, was found many hours later. If it was in real time, maybe you could've got to him sooner or something like that and then that's hours and potentially a life saved or how can you measure or can you measure man hours expedited through the use of cameras or whatever?

Yeah, with the hour saved measure, I mean, it could be, you know, described as being either the amount of hours saved because of the technology cutting down and making police work a little more precise, or the hours saved as far as special operations to look for certain vehicles and whatnot. That's something that we could actually look into, that we could actually discuss and maybe, I guess, develop a reporting system or a report that would actually verify or give you the up-to-date information on that.

Thank you. Yeah, I think that would be important so that people can see why are we doing this. We're not trying to spy on people. We're trying to solve issues that get reported, but it maybe needs to be worked out a little bit more. I think everybody had their first and second round opportunity so I can go by hands raised and we'll be five minute rounds from here. Maybe one or two more rounds of just general questions and then we can maybe work on the bills. Okay, so whoever wants. Okay, Member Rollins-Fernandez followed by Member Cook.

Hello, Chair. I'll have to leave in a couple minutes. Okay, so in New Orleans, their real-time crime center was just like a wall of TV screens with videos of traffic in real time. And so... In my round one questions, I understand that the county's Motorola cameras do not take video, only photos, images. With the Twin Falls, in your response to, I think this is Officer Bonacoski, in your response to member Paulton, Lieutenant Bonacoski, sorry. You said that it's not live. When you say live, you just mean live as in like taking photos.

Thank you for the question. Yeah, my name is a little hard sometimes. It actually isn't up yet. We were having issues with the camera. So meaning live, it's just not there yet. Yeah. Okay, I'll have that clarification.

Oh no, I got your title wrong, but am I also butchering your name?

but that's okay. That's a hard one, thanks.

Okay, all right. With these cameras, can they take video? And the county is choosing not to and is only just taking photos right now.

these cameras cannot take live feed they have newer cameras out that do both that take live feed and that and that you can access but these these do not these actually these cameras are actually equipped to do speed too but we are not doing that like to see if vehicles are speeding in areas but we're just getting snapshots we're not doing that okay

All right, so some of the questions or concerns that we heard in testimony, like in other places where, like in Chicago and Indiana, Kentucky, you have officers watching women of interest, but this camera cannot do that.

Women's of interest, are you talking about like? Stalking. Stalking, okay, yeah.

Like ex-girlfriends or wives or- So there are departments that even- I know when you say people of interest, you mean like potential violators of crime. I mean like attraction.

So these cameras don't take any live feed or anything like that. There are departments that have caught officers trying to find out where their exes are. And that's, you know what I mean? But those officers got in trouble and got fired. And those are other departments. That's why we have a policy in effect that if anything is ever caught, because everything is logged. Whoever goes on, whoever tracks anything, every single thing is logged, dated, and timed. So we will know, the administrators on the system will know who does that. Does that add to your question?

Yes. Mahalo. OK. I'm going to go to my meeting, and I'll be back. Mahalo, Chair.

Thank you. Member Cook?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you again for having this. This has been a really challenging, for me personally, this has been one of the most distressful issues and topics. The way I've been approached by people from Maui Indivisible representing and doing what they're doing. From dear friends who are writing me and going like a cook. I've known you forever You got to tell me that you're not supportive of this what's going on? I can't support you if you do this kind of stuff so I want to I'm going to talk for a minute. I want to frame how I see this conversation and hopefully how I see it being represented and then where I am as being a local resident and fortunate to be sitting here as a council member. Most of the testimony that we've received and people who have written to me about concern, it's basically like this national surveillance narrative. It's this, you know, quoting places all over the country, Washington DC, which whatever, I'm just really disappointed and just disgusted with how the direction has gone. But framing the use of the data platform like Flock in particular or similar tech is a broad coordinated privacy threat connected to federal overreach and now with the testimony here to Maui County MPD overreach. I've strived to kind of like do what I do, talk story, and it's like, yeah, but this is different. I look at it, and it hasn't resonated with the people I'm talking to. We have a small community reality. Maui's a tight-knit community, utilizing technology for local safety, traffic management, emergency response, not for political weaponization. And so I just want to foundationally, that's how I see it. And I want to, I want to be real personal for a minute. The nine of us have many different backgrounds and many different political positions and we, we clash radically. We care for each other. It doesn't matter how much I disagree, disagree, whatever. It isn't like wanting harm or bad or undermining and I get emotional because, I mean, I feel that. I think we all feel that. And so this stereotyping, and I feel this from outside, and I'm not negating it because it happens. It's happening all over. But I don't think it's happening here. And to be, I feel like I'm playing defense, I want to represent. I don't want to defend. gotten familiar with MPD since I've been in office, Kalama Park, meetings, uh, you know, community, uh, policing, all of these things. I've seen this interaction and this willingness. And also I know you guys got one tough job. The police department, um, And I was joking with somebody the other day, it's like, people don't come up to you and go like, oh, I'm guilty, arrest me. I did it, I did it. People lie all the time. People are deceptive all the time. I'm sign waving and everybody's on their camera at an intersection and everybody, it's just a habit. People drive 60 miles an hour and a 35 mile an hour, but everybody's doing it, so it's safe. So I'm just sharing with you, and I'm hoping that people hear this and see this can pause and open up their hearts to understand that this is a very intense issue. It's a very serious issue. And also, thank God this is Maui. We're an island. People aren't driving in and out of here. And I never got at people stealing cars here. There's nowhere to go. So having said that, that sort of set the stage for my questions. I see the question that my colleague made, so it goes into the cloud for Motorola. I interpret that sort of just like the hard drive landing point that the other cloud services use. You can access it when you need it, and it's stored. I guess the question for that is, how secure is that?

So it's a CJIS compliant. So that is what police departments go off of, is the criminal justice information system. That's a CJIS compliant government entity server. That is where the information is stored. I know people get scared when it comes to technology, but technology is here. We are just doing our due diligence and making it the safest for anybody's information. And nobody's personal information is ever even kept on there. No personal information. That's all you have to, like, just because we have a license plate up there doesn't mean I know whose one that is. Unless I have an investigation, then I can grab it.

if I may, in closing, because I heard the bell. The bottom line is developing trust, and I'll just say again, pausing in the, is this happening here, and if the people I'm working with, and so I'm just hoping that the people who are very concerned about this, and the concern's real, It's just how applicable is it to hear what opportunities we collectively have as a community, government, the agencies, the administration, and the public to work together to identify that, okay, we don't want that here. Let's have the best transparent communication we can have.

Okay, thank you for your, and just sharing your heart on this whole topic. Your job is just as hard as our job. You guys have to make decisions and take in the best information you can to make those decisions. For us, it's a lot of times it's damn if we do and damn if we don't. When the person has their cars, social media for instance, anytime someone's car is stolen, if you look on there, it's like, oh, where's MPD? How come MPD's not looking for my car and everything else? I mean, it's never needed until they need it, if that makes sense. You know, people never think about it until they actually need it. You know, if their loved one is injured, if their loved one is missing, or whatever it may be, or their car is stolen, you know, help me to find my car. I know one of the testifiers had mentioned coconut wireless, and, you know, we do use some coconut wireless as well. But for some reason, you know, the coconut wireless is always anonymous, and anonymous information isn't useful information. Unfortunately, and that's just the truth of the game. But for this particular topic, it is our goal, our 100% goal to build trust. The whole platform of 21st Community Policing came from Barack Obama. So if it is a political issue, I know a bunch of the testifiers had mentioned that we're under a MAGA regime. But the fact of the matter that this whole policing thing, community policing, the six pillars of community policing, came from Barack Obama. So if it is a political issue, then it actually started off from a different party, not the party we're under, correct? Yes. So with that being said, our goal, again, is to ensure community safety, protection of life and property. That's always our goal. And tools like this will assist us in doing so. I mean, I know, you know, you look at any type of job, you know, McDonald's, Burger King, Taco Bell, you know, to the top of the platform, you know, is there issues in those workplaces? There's always going to be work issues and it always comes down to the intent and the heart of the person who's in control of it. You know, so, I mean, our thing is that, you know, we, We endure. We serve with our hearts. We give our all. Do we have family members in our lives that make mistakes? Yeah, we do. We all have them. We don't have perfect families. We don't have perfect ohanas. But the thing is that we continue to move forward and stick to our goals, stick to the plan. And our goal is to provide the best service that we can to our community.

Thank you. Member Johnson?

Thank you chair. This is just a couple follow-up questions in regards to the the radios that got bundled or I mean the cameras that got bundled with the radios. Was the council ever informed that the cameras were going to be bundled with the radios? I don't recall that during that discussion. I remember how expensive the radios were and I just didn't know that that included cameras. Were we ever informed? Did you guys ever tell us that?

I do not know. I wasn't there during that time. I know that the AWARE system, the real-time operation center brains of it, I know that was mentioned that it was going to be in the next contract during the RMS CAD system contract.

Okay, yeah, I just remember the discussion and I don't recall having cameras included in the radios. um i i want to pivot and i really appreciate you guys have an anti-stalking policy because that's a big concern of mine uh it's just uh i know we we talk about bad apples and everything but the idea that you guys are getting ahead of it which is great i love that thank you for that um i know that there the cameras that we have now are just taking pictures but Is the department's intention to eventually move to taking video? And if so, will you guys let us know if you're planning to do that?

Yeah. I mean any purchases that we are, you know, we either procure through RFPs or, you know, sole source, sole sources, you know, have to go through, you know, our purchasing department. So if we are moving towards, you know, purchasing any new equipment that may, you know, due to the things that we are addressing here today, yes, you will be notified.

Is that your intention?

Yes. Eventually, again, it was just a matter of tools. What tools can we have under a tool belt in a better server community?

All right. I'll save my discussion for when we do get into the bill. But I was looking at the bills and I was looking for ways that we could just outright put a moratorium on county buildings and county roads, but I don't think there's a way for me to make an amendment. And I also feel like If we're at 40, I would prefer to maybe cap at 40. But I don't really feel that I'm having any kind of traction in that opinion. But that's where I'm at on this. I think my questions were answered for now. I appreciate that. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Member Johnson. Member Sinensi?

Hello, Chair, and I apologize if there was a previous discussion on data, particular data centers. I know some of the testimony referred to data centers, the collection of the amount of data. So who would be storing this data? Does it require that we get more storage or more? units to store this data, if the data will be protected and only accessed with a warrant. And for budget purposes, will this also be a request for next year's budget?

So you're asking if the data is stored anywhere else than the SD card, basically, on the camera?

Thank you, council member. So the SD card is like SD card because I know there's a little confusion, but it's just like the one in your cell phone. So it's like a link that goes up. So once that information, say if it blocked with wifi was out or there was no cellular in that area, it would store on that and then go up into the secured government CJIS compliant entity is where it's stored. Nowhere else is it stored. You can't grab the SD card off of one of the cameras by breaking it open and taking the information. You cannot. And the only information is those steel pictures of a vehicle with a license plate.

Okay, thank you for that. clarification i think you know hearing all about this huge data centers across the nation we might we're we're not at that level of data collection yet

I just add to that real quick. I know there's a scare with the whole flock and the whole hacking of that information, right? And that's why a lot of people are scared, right? And they don't trust government entities and stuff like that. Totally understandable. Flock owns and keeps the data. So they want the more people they have that buy their cameras, they keep that data. We keep our data, our analytics, white data. white Toyota truck. We want to search our information, we can search it that way. We keep that information, nobody else gets that information. Not Flock, not Motorola. We have that data and that is ours and that's owned by us.

And that's written part of if we are in contract with any of these companies.

Yes, through Motorola Solutions. So it is in there when we get that information that they cannot access these cameras.

All right, thanks LT. Thanks, Chair.

Sure thing. Member Batongan.

Thank you, Chair. I guess I'd like to start off by also acknowledging the tension between civil liberties and public safety. And I want to commend you for bringing this conversation forward and trying to thread the needle with these two bills. I think we heard the sentiment from the community and I think the conversation we're having now goes a long way in addressing some of the concerns in building public trust. I especially like the portions of the bill that limit access, require audit and accountability. I guess I just want to start there. I asked yesterday about questions related to court counsel and prosecuting attorney's requested amendments. I think we heard from prosecuting attorney. I saw an email with one of them. Did we get both of your requested languages? No, no, we have additional suggested language when the time is right. Okay, so I guess I'll hold for that then I do have a question for police And the license plate readers, you know the bill before us limits used to criminal activity Has the technology been used for enforcement on civil traffic violations? And is there any contemplation of that doing so? Are you guys doing so?

No, so currently all we're focused on is criminal activity. There has not been any citations issued with the use of the cameras. As Lieutenant Bonacorsi said, the cameras do have the capabilities, but we haven't used it. Okay.

Did you want, I think there's a state statute that prohibits that.

Oh, you mentioned that previously. Thank you, Chair. Okay. And then for Corp Council, on the definition of criminal intelligence information under Bill 113, or it might be the same for both, but I have it up on 113. Criminal intelligence information means information is relevant to the identification of and the criminal activity engaged in by an individual or organization reasonably suspected of involvement in criminal activity, et cetera. Can you help me understand this? Because on one hand, I read this to mean that you have to be already reasonably suspected of involvement in criminal activity, but on the other hand, that the information can be used for identification. Am I just misinterpreting this? Thanks. Can you help me understand the definition of criminal intelligence information as it's presented in Bill 113? Because I see that it's information relevant to identifying criminal activity. But on the other hand, you also need to be reasonably suspected of being involved in a criminal activity. So I see tension in this definition here. I would like either you to clarify that I'm mistaken or provide alternative language to help clean that up.

That's the section that talks about consistence with Title 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23. I do have a copy of that if it would help, but I'll also yield to our attorneys and I can have staff.

He looks like he's contemplating, so if you could give him a minute, would you mind?

Yeah, yeah, and I can have staff upload what we have about 20 CFR 23 as well, because I guess federal regulations are higher than state regulations, are higher than county regulations, kind of like Mr. Martin had previously said, so we gotta abide, stay in our lane.

But if this is language taken from elsewhere that's already been approved, then I'm comfortable, thank you, Chair.

Did the lawyers have anything to add to his?

So I did have title 28 code of federal regulations part 23 up that definition that is included in here is fairly consistent with it Okay, I understand your question about it being consistent But I means information relevant so I It means that there's a person or an individual, an individual or an organization that is suspected of involvement in a criminal activity, and this just means information that's relevant to that suspected criminal activity. That's how I interpret it.

Okay, so it's to the suspected activity, not that you have to be previously identified? Correct. Okay, understood. Thank you, Chair.

and staff is gonna make copies and upload the 28 CFR Part 23 to Bill 113, so when she finishes that, you can refresh and get a copy of that as well. Thank you, Chair, thank you, Corp Council. Member Uuhajins?

Thank you chair. I know I was talking about movies. I don't mean to make just super light of this situation, but sometimes I feel like that's my only reference point to really get a grasp on how this works because all of it is a lot for me. And this might be kind of simple, If we ever do have facial recognition technology, how do you get an image of the person to look for? Is it when somebody is going to provide it to you, like if there's somebody missing, or you do a Google search, or how do you get the photo to start doing your facial recognition in those cameras?

Thank you for the question. once or if we move that direction um i'm not in that section anymore however the way that would work is if you get it from say it's a missing person say you give me a picture on your phone or print it out picture whatever it is it would go in a separate program that we would have we would scan it in and then that scan will look at all the images throughout the facial recognition or whatever cameras have, this is how this normally works, or into that system. So it would alert similar features and stuff like that that would pinpoint on this photo. So that way we would actually look at the photo again and run it through different additional checks. So it's just not some Joe Small on the road, you know what I mean? It is actually in fact that person. And that's just a lead leading to who that may be.

And then in the event where it's more of a criminal activity, like in haiku recently, we had a couple of teenagers attempt to break into a smoke shop. And there was video online, and they're throwing rocks at the window. I think one of the children had a gun in their hand, and they were using the butt of the gun to attempt to break the window. in that case where you know we have cameras there's clearly footage it's not like a parent is providing you with a photo that i know of how do you take an image from somebody else's private camera and put it onto your camera to potentially find those individuals how does that work

It's the same concept. So like if we get a clip of whatever it is and now we have it, say it's on a flash drive or something, or they sent it to us via email or however we got that actual footage, that footage or clip of that would be placed through our software. And again, we do not have that sort of software right now, but that's how it usually works. You put that image or video through the software and then it takes frame by frame still images of that face or whatever you're looking at and then it goes through our software to identify who that person would be. That's usually how that works.

And then I have another question and it seems silly, but to me it's not silly. So it's easy to change what your face looks like. Like right now, Andy Martin looks like Jeff Goldblum, you know, with his beard. If he was to shave his beard, how would we track his facial features hypothetically? you know like if somebody like nahulu shaved yesterday he looked like a whole different person so and women can do all kinds of things to their face we can dye their hair how do you track and i i know this sounds silly but it is legitimate like how do you track potentially somebody's face When you can shave your beard or you can dye your hair orange or you can, you know what I mean, do choke Botox and look completely different than the week before. How do you keep up with like somebody's ever changing face? Like if I was to put my hair down, I look like a whole different person. So how do you keep track?

So using Andy as an example. so if you're the color is hair red you know give him a green beard you know it still recognizes you know the brow structure you know cheek structure and nose so all those are identifying factors and the same way that okay you know an artist would draw a picture of a sketch you know they'll describe you know how does this person's nose look and whatnot but the technology will do that for us and you'll probably look good to red hair by the way you know i think you can pull off anything so

Okay. What happens when our technology advances? Because it is advancing every single day. How do we catch up to what's available and how we create legislation and policy? I feel like we... apparently are late to the party. And then I was told around the wrong side of history in testimony. So how do you think as somebody who has to work with this technology, and us on our end that we have to legislate this technology? What do we do when technology advances? How do we communicate with you folks? How do you communicate with the public to let us know when there's changes and whatever is being proposed or whatever type of camera is upgraded or whatever? And Chair, I heard my bell, but thank you.

Yeah, and to address that, we're always going to be approached by companies that are coming out with new technology tools that better certain departments in certain organizations around the world or around the country. We look at it and we determine if it's going to help us here. you know, if it's an improvement from what we have right now. We don't just get the latest and greatest because it's the coolest thing and we just want technology. We want to see if we can develop it to make it work for us and better the community here.

Okay.

So, and of course we have, that's why this legislation is important. So we can follow the guidelines that are here or we try to request a change or whatnot, but you know, it's not just, okay, this is the latest, let's go forward and not tell anybody. We follow the process to get this stuff.

Okay, thanks. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Chair Lee, did you need an opportunity or should I go? Okay, before I get into my questions on Bill 113, which is where I think we'll start, because you've said that we don't have any facial recognition technology software, so maybe we're ahead of that one, but behind of the ALPR one. You mentioned that there's newer technology that does live streams that combines facial technology and like that, and that I think there was money included in the budget and you would like to expand the ALPR. Is it the same exact technology that you're looking into for the expansion? Or were you going to use the budgeted funds for live stream type capabilities, facial recognition integration capabilities? Or is it the exact same capabilities as what you've currently described that we have?

yeah right now with the lpr the license plate readers any expansion would be similar technology just more of them throughout the island and we don't have just the positioning of the cameras i don't see how they could be beneficial for facial recognition anyway even if they say oh yeah they do this it's one tool that does one thing and there's much better ways to do facial recognition that we'd look at versus trying to combine it into these systems

Okay, so your intention is to expand on intersections, roadways, still cameras, taking shots of license plate,

Yeah, and we wouldn't do live feeds with these cameras either. They're fixed in place and they have a very narrow field of view that will actually check for optical character recognition the way the cameras work.

No pan, tilt, zoom or anything.

I'm sorry?

No pan, tilt, zoom.

No, none of these can do that. They're fixed in place.

okay okay i had some questions um i'd love to start with bill 113 since we currently have lprs and we don't currently have facial recognition technology um for police or corp council on bill 113 could number three where it says documented oh i'm sorry documented law enforcement nexus definition be shortened to say, connect the query to disclosure, oh sorry, connect the query or disclosure to a legitimate law enforcement purpose because the requirements in Number three are already defined for legitimate law enforcement purpose. Um, that's on page two of Bill 1 13 8.3 8 0 1 0. Number three, if we say connect the query or disclosure to a legitimate law enforcement purpose because that is described below, we could amend a criminal offense to say a specific criminal offense. Is there any issue with cutting out part three because legitimate law enforcement purpose is defined below?

Thank you chair. Um, yeah, I actually think that that's a good idea cause it is a little bit repetitive as written. Um, the kind of five standards that you have under the query or disclosure are consistent with the five things listed under legitimate law enforcement purpose. Okay, great.

And then on the next page three where it says a private entity, What agency is being referred to where it says private entity means a person except for an agency or other governmental entity? Is the agency being referred to a law enforcement agency or? Mr. McKnight had helped us with some of this legislation, but I think he's on vacation.

Yes, the private entity refers to anyone besides a law enforcement agency. So it'll be anyone, I guess, that owns a camera or whatever it may be. I think that's what he's referring to. And it's not like a law enforcement agency. So it could be the DLE. It could be anyone who possesses those cameras.

So would it make sense to say private entity means a person except for a law enforcement agency or any other governmental entity? Would that make sense?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. And then for police or court counsel in subsection 8.38.030A of Bill 113, could it be simplified to say A, an authorized ALPR user may query ALPR data only where a documented law enforcement nexus exists? because the definition for documented law enforcement nexus appears to contain the same specifications in subsection A. Yeah, that would make sense to me.

Would you, sorry, you'd be saying that you would be law enforcement nexus instead?

Yeah.

Yeah. That would make sense because the definition that we discussed of law enforcement nexus and references law enforcement purpose. So they kind of saying the same thing here twice.

Okay. Members, I had two more questions related to the bill. You guys mind if I take Charlie's time? Okay, thanks. Um, and then for Corp Council on Bill 1 13, Because an amendment will be needed to say the county must not execute or renew contract should the section title be revised to say vendor disqualification or vendor ineligibility. That's on page 538.060.

Yeah, I'm not really sure that that necessarily matters because part of their eligibility is whether or not they're ineligible, right? So I don't, I think it doesn't matter. It's at your guys' discretion.

Okay. And then the last one is on 8.38.050 on contracts and special conditions will work in practice and if there's any suggested revisions to the language.

So I did actually have a suggested revision on this one. So it says every county contract for an ALPR system or for the ALP service must include the following special conditions. I would suggest maybe having that instead say something along the lines of must include special conditions consistent with the following. That would kind of allow us to adjust the language a little bit as written. This specific wording would have to be in there. If we have something in there that says consistent with these conditions, we could wordsmith it a little bit to more contract-appropriate language.

Okay. All right. Thank you. We had considered Part C of 18.3, 8.030, could potentially be in administrative rules, but then we were informed that police don't generally have administrative rules. What they have is general orders, which aren't so much a public process. So then in that case, it made sense to codify it here. But as this works out, if there are changes, then we'll just have to come back in and make amendments to this section of the code. That being said, I think on the next round, if we can start working on Bill 113, that would be great. How do folks feel about five to 10 minute recess at this point? Yes? Five minutes, 10 minutes? 10, okay. We will be back at 1047 recess for 10 minutes, 1047, thank you. Will the DRIP committee meeting of September 3rd recess from September 2nd return to order? The time is 11.01. Thank you, members, for that break. We did work on some verbiage. If there are no objections, at this time, I would love to move on with bill number 113CD1, a bill for an ordinance establishing Chapter 8.38 Maui County Code on the Disclosure, Sale and Commercial Use of Automated License Plate Reader Data. Any objections to that course of action?

Member Batonga. Sorry, Chair, you said CD1? I am working off of, just, I don't have a CD1 version.

Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I don't know why it says CD1 on mine.

Staff, am I missing something on Granicus?

Apologies, Chair. So we did send a CD1 version to Corp Council just incorporating non-substantive revisions just for their review and comments. So we don't have an amendment. Okay. All right.

So during the break, we had been working briefly with the prosecuting attorney and court counsel on some of the amendments to this bill, because it was rushed because we wanted to try and take it up before the South Maui Community Plan, which is gonna shut things down for like about a month. of other committees. So at this time, I would love to entertain a motion to recommend passing of Bill 113, 2026 on first reading. Moved by Member Batonga and seconded by Member Uuhajins. Okay. Excuse me, Chair. Yes. The CD1 version is under Granicus number three. Okay, we'll be working off the CD1 version on Granicus number three, folks. And it would include any non-substantive changes or revisions. Okay, so. Looking at page two, Granicus number three, the CD one version. Um, the first potential amendment based on Deputy Corp Council rose notes. Um, to see if an amendment is necessary to the definition of authorized ALPR user to see an agency authorized under this chapter to operate an ALPR system. Deputy Corp Counsel Rowe, is that?

Yeah, that was a suggestion that I first flagged. But now that I think about it, because there is a Code of Federal Regulations that is also kind of on point on this, I think that leaving it as authorized by law would also encompass that as well as this chapter. So I actually think maybe we should just leave it.

Oh, okay, great, great. All right, so moving on from that. Still on page two. If you guys are following on number 3, 8.38.0103, it's kind of the same as right below. So I would entertain an amendment to Amend number three to say connect the query or disclosure to a legitimate law enforcement purpose striking A, B, C, D, and E under there. and connecting it below to the definition of a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Means one, two, three, and four. Striking number five, because that's covered under criminal offense. And then just... We can strike the in the sentence. Law enforcement agency means a federal, state, or county agency with statutory authority to investigate criminal offenses or enforce criminal laws, striking the word the. So does everyone understand that First Amendment? Would somebody like to move to make that amendment? moved by member Batonga and second by member Uhu Hodgins. So any discussion on that? It's just tightening it up instead of kind of repeating the same thing twice. Number five is being stricken because it falls under number one. Any discussion by the members? Nope. All in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Okay.

Aye.

Chair, you have eight ayes, zero noes, one excuse. Member Sugimura, motion passes.

Thank you. Moving on to page three, definitions. under private entity, did we wanna add means a person except for a law enforcement agency or other government entity? Was that something that we did say we wanted? The PD Corp Council rule?

Yes, thank you. I think that that would clarify what's meant by agency.

Okay, so I'll entertain an amendment to insert the word except for a law enforcement agency or other government entity here for this definition at the top of page three. Moved by Member Uuhajian, second by Member Cook. All in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Aye. Chair, once again, eight ayes, zero noes, one excuse. Member Sugimura, motion to amend passes.

Thank you. Okay, the next one is also based on comments by Deputy Corp. Counsel Rowe, 8.38.020, Recommendation is to strike number D3 because it's incorporated under D4. So we're gonna be striking number three, disclosure to a person of a recording concerning that person if required or permitted by Chapter 92F Hawaii Revised Statutes or Section 13-9 Revised Charter of the County of Maui. 1983 as amended because that is sufficiently addressed by number four. Any motion to amend 8.3, 8.020 by striking D3 and renumbering number four and five? Moved by Uu Hajin, seconded by Member Cook. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Aye. Chair, eight ayes, zero nos, one excused. Member Sugimura, motion to amend passes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next would be I'm gonna skip ahead here to 8.38.030 E and F on page four. deputy court counsel rule is an amendment needed to 8.3 or three or E and F to rephrase the language.

I think it would be a good idea just because the way that it's presently written, it sounds like it's saying that the receiving agency must agree to further disseminate, which I don't think is part of what's intended. So the suggestion that I had would be to Have the first sentence be, before release, the receiving agency must agree in writing to receive, maintain, and secure the data consistent with the policies of the disclosing agencies. In addition, the receiving agency must agree in writing to limit dissemination to the extent that it is permitted under the policies of the disclosing agency. Just so it's the word must and further disseminate aren't together, if that makes sense.

and then F you're okay with?

For similar reasons, instead of N disseminated there, I would maybe have, instead of N disseminated, have N dissemination limited in accordance.

and dissemination limited. And then I think Mr. Martin said at the end is not criminal intelligence information and is governed by subsection A when exigent circumstances exist. Is that correct, Mr. Martin?

That's correct, Chair.

Okay. Staff, did you get the recommendation for E that Mr. Rowe had read out?

Thank you, Chair. I believe Deputy Corporation Counsel Rowe sent over his revisions to us, so we do have it in writing.

Oh, great. Could you read it for one of the members to make a motion to amend?

Okay. If you could give me one moment to pull up his notes.

So I'll be entertaining a motion to amend 8.38.030E to say,

Chair, in subsection E, in the sentence to delete, further disseminate, and then to include as a second sentence, the receiving agency must agree in writing to limit dissemination to the extent that it is permitted under the policies of the disclosing agency.

Okay, so that's what we're amending E to. And then F, we're gonna change, dissemination, maintained and disseminate. Sorry, can you repeat Mr. Rowe for F?

Sorry, so it would be changed from and disseminated to and dissemination limited.

And dissemination limited in accordance with Title 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23. And then the last sentence would be amended to say is not criminal intelligence information and is governed by subsections A through... or A through E when accident circumstances exist.

Members? I think that the language is slightly different than what Mr. Martin had said.

Okay. Mr. Martin, go ahead.

Sorry, Chair. My suggestion wasn't to regarding subsection F, but rather subsection G. Oh, okay, okay, okay. And that first sentence reads, this section does not limit disclosure when exigent circumstances exist.

Thanks, I made that much more confusing than it needed to be.

No, no, thank you, Chair.

Okay, so we're making a motion to amend E, as stated by our staff, James Krueger, F, as stated by Corp Council rule, dissemination limited in accordance with, and then G, to say this section does not limit disclosure when exigent circumstances exist. A disclosure for this purpose must be documented as soon as possible. So that's the proposed amendment. that'll be entertaining if somebody wants to. Moved by Member Batonga and seconded by Member Uuhajins. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Okay, thank you. Chair, eight ayes, zero noes, one excuse. Member Sugimura, motion to amend passes.

Okay, the next amendment, 8.38.050, I'll entertain a motion to amend by seeing every county contract for an ALPR system or for ALPR services must include special conditions consistent with the following colon. Right, Mr. Rowe? That's correct, Chair, thank you. Okay. Anyone want to make that motion? Made by members U'uhajan, seconded by members Sinensi. Any discussion? All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, once again, eight ayes, zero nos, one excuse. Member Sugimura, motion to amend passes. Thank you.

Okay, and the next amendment for 8.38.060, kind of an important one, to insert the word not. The county must not execute or renew a contract for an ALPR system or ALPR services with a vendor who's Moved by Member Uuhajian, seconded by Member Sinensi. Any discussion? All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, eight ayes, zero noes, one excused. Member Sukumura, motion to amend passes.

Okay, next on page six, 8.38.070. It would say, I'll entertain a motion to amend to say unless explicitly stated in this chapter, comma, this chapter does not limit the performance of duties, blah, blah, blah.

Sorry, can you repeat that one?

Sure. Unless explicitly stated in this chapter, this chapter does not limit the performances, duties, Moved by Member Uuhajins, seconded by Member Johnson. Any discussion? All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, eight ayes, zero noes, one excuse. Member Sukimura, motion to amend passes. Okay.

Yes. Can you explain that last one? So unless explicitly, sorry, what is the language?

Unless explicitly stated in this chapter, this chapter does not limit the performance of duties imposed by state law, compliance with a judicial warrant, court order or subpoena, participation in mutual aid or the provision of information expressly required by federal or state law.

Sorry, so... we are now saying that this chapter would prohibit the county from complying with a judicial warrant and a court order? Am I reading that correct?

Unless it's explicitly stated in this chapter, yeah.

Can we do that?

Deputy Rowe. Right. So as far as a judicial warrant, there's nothing in this chapter saying that you can't comply. So the reason that I suggested that is really the participation in mutual aid. And that's partially due to Section 8.38.040 regarding immigration enforcement. So because we're explicitly stating that consistent with Act 141, an agent must see, must not disclose, we're saying that because it's explicitly stated in there Participation in a mutual aid agreement would not be.

Okay, so that part I understand. But in general, we can pass a code that says the county will not comply with a judicial warrant or a court order?

If the state already passed the law to allow for us to not comply, I'll leave it to the lawyers.

We're not doing that in this bill.

Okay, so I'm just misunderstanding what was...

The purpose of this bill is really related to the participation in mutual aid section. So it is applying to all of those, but nothing in this chapter is doing anything on a judicial warrant, for example.

I'm just trusting the Corporation Council on this one. Thank you, Chair.

I know it's difficult to trust corporation counsel sometimes, but.

So I guess if you guys did have something in here that tried to prevent compliance with the judicial warrant, I would have flagged that earlier and that would not be in this chapter.

Okay.

I'm glad we don't have to do a reconsideration. Okay, sorry folks, let's return to 8.38.030 to tighten some more language. I would entertain a motion to strike number one and say aye. queries and disclosures and authorized ALPR user may query ALPR data only where a, so striking number one and just the number two to say where a documented law enforcement nexus exists. And then it looks like we can strike that section because it's addressed. in the following part B, strike everything under about the case report incident number because it's already included in C and D, B, C and D.

I call on my chair, I didn't follow that one. So this is under 8.38.030, queries and disclosures. We're striking number one. Number two becomes the new number one and we're going with your proposed language.

I think we don't need any numbers because it's just a statement where a documented law enforcement nexus exists. I see. and then go on to B, striking the case report part of it and going straight on to B from there.

Okay, sorry, can you repeat, how would it read?

It would just read 8.38.030 Queries and Disclosures A, an authorized ALPR user may query ALPR data only where a documented law enforcement nexus exists. And then it would go on to B.

Okay, understood, thank you, Chair.

And the part that we're striking, is pretty much covered by C and D and E to some extent. we had considered making that part of admin rules, but police don't really have admin rules. They have general orders and general orders are not public facing or a public process. So that's why it was determined to leave this in code because that's a public process and the public can see what the process is, I guess. So yes, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Hello, Chair. Okay, so we're on Bill 112, the facial recognition technology.

Bill 113. Oh, 113 still. Okay.

Yeah. 8.38.030 at the bottom of page three.

Okay.

I don't have a question.

Okay. Is anyone, oh, member Uhuahashins makes that motion and member Sinensi makes the second. Any discussion? All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Aye. Chair, eight ayes, zero noes, one excuse. Member Sugimura, motion to amend passes.

Those are all the amendments that I had in my notes. Are there any further amendments the body wishes to consider?

No, but can I just confirm with the legal representatives here that we captured all of the requested amendments? Yep, thank you, Chair.

Okay, so... That was my next question. Any additional comments from police, prosecuting attorney, or Corp Council? And you guys indicated no to Member Batton gone. Okay. At this time, members, any discussion on the main motion as amended? Chair Lee, did you wanna say? Nope, nothing. Okay, Member Johnson?

Thank you, Chair. Well, first off, I support the majority of our police efforts, and I want to appreciate that. Once again, 14% reduction in crime in crime in Maui County is an excellent job, so I want to thank you guys for doing that kind of work. And I also support Councilmember Paulson's attempts to work together to make this bill even better. But at the end of the day, we all vote with our guts. And I live on Lanai, and I know a thing or two about heavy-handed uses of power. And I'm a proponent of more of a light touch instead of a heavy hand. I think the the police officers, as well as everyone, all of our resources make a very good point that we don't want it until we need it. But I know this department can be capable of keeping people safe as well as respecting privacy rights. And there is a balance and that I would hope we call it would achieve. So I voted yes on all the amendments. But I think as the main motion is amended, I would like a roll call. Thank you, Chair.

Sure thing. Members, any other members with discussion? Okay, I guess for my discussion, It was stated, I believe that there are, the Maui Police Department has 32 ALPR cameras in use, and this is establishing how that data could be used potentially shared and we can't just see how we want it to be because we're under the jurisdiction of the federal and state government. And so the federal limits us with that 28 CFR part 23. and thankfully the state has enacted Act 141. Mr. Rowe, was there another state HRS about using humans to do traffic tickets that we needed to add into this that you had said that there was state legislation passed?

The state legislation that was passed that I referenced yesterday was regarded the facial recognition technology. Oh, okay, okay.

Thank you. Sorry, wrong bill. So the state thankfully limits us that we cannot share the information for immigration purposes. The Code of Federal Regulations says that we have to share information stuff in it that has been the parameters of how that works has been uploaded into granicus um so this bill as people said maybe a little bit late as alpr um data was used in 2025 and this is 2026 um i guess better late Any further questions? Shall I call for a roll call at this time? Any further discussion? I'm sorry. Seeing none, go ahead.

Chair, proceeding with the roll call vote, Council Member Sugimura. Excused. Council Member Sinensi.

Aye.

Council Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Aye.

Council Chair Lee.

Aye.

Council Member Johnson? No. Council Member Cook? Aye. Council Member Patangan? Aye. Committee Vice Chair Uhu Hodgins?

Aye.

Committee Chair Paltin? Aye. Chair, you have seven ayes, one no, one excused. Member Sugimura, main motion as amended passes.

Okay, members, I know Member Batonga needs to leave in 15 minutes. The department has stated that they do not have any facial recognition technology at this time. So I leave it in your hands. Do you want to continue on with this? today, or would you like to defer? You do wanna continue on with this today. Okay, all right. So next up we have Bill 112, which is a bill for an ordinance establishing Chapter 8.37 Maui County Code on Facial Recognition Technology. So we're not, behind the curve on this because the county or the police department and I think the county doesn't use this. So we're setting up the framework on how it could be used if it ever becomes a technology. Is that correct? Lieutenant Bonacarty? It's correct. Okay. Um, Charlie nodded her head, yes, let's continue on. Okay, so I'll entertain a motion to recommend passage of Bill 112, 2026 on fresh reading.

So moved.

Moved by Member Lee. Is there a second? No. Oh, Member Batonga, and there's a second. Okay. Um, so the potential first amendment I have based on Deputy Corp Council Rose response. Um, we might want to consider an amendment to section 8.370308, which is on page four. Um, H currently says facial recognition technology must not be used for the enforcement of civil traffic infractions. Um, He suggested we may want to include that facial recognition technology must not be used in photo red light imaging detector systems or automated speed enforcement systems in accordance with Act 212-2025, which is, I guess, what he just said, that it was on Bill 113. Is there a desire to, oh, go ahead, Mr. Rowe.

Sorry, it apparently has been codified as chapter 291, it looks like J and L. So we don't have to reference the bill, we can actually reference the sections, so.

Okay, is there a desire by the members to include that in letter H of 8.37030 that, limitations of use include that facial recognition technology must not be used in photo red light imaging detector systems or automated speed enforcement systems in accordance with Chapter 291 J and L. Is there a desire to make that amendment? Moved by Member Uuhajins, seconded by Chair Lee to amend Section H to include limitations on photo red light imaging detector systems and automated speed enforcement systems. Any discussion? Member Uuhajins.

Thank you, Chair. I know Chair Lee wants to work on this, so I'm happy to kind of go through this, but I don't know if I'm ready to pass it now. I know you have another bill that you're working on. I know we're going to have to take a month hiatus from all of our other committee meetings. I would appreciate a little bit of time to kind of suss out how I feel on some of this bill. The other one I think was a little bit easier for me, but I just wanted to throw that out there. I'm not trying to take up any more time in your committee. I know you're super busy. So if you want to talk about this today, cool, happy to do that. But I don't... It's all a lot for me right now, I'll be honest, for this one especially.

Thank you. Sure thing. I'll go to Member Rollins-Fernandez and then you, Charly, if that's all right? Or Duncan O'Poole? Okay. Member Rollins-Fernandez?

No, she can meet me in Octagon. Just kidding, Charly. Similar to Member U'uhajan's, I won't vote to support passage of this bill. Since we don't have facial recognition, since our county is not using facial recognition technology, I would support something like not uh using facial um recognition technology um and just like disallowing it um that that's something i could i i could get behind right now uh just just so that it's clear what our position is and um you know i i commend you for uh introducing this bill to try to get ahead of of it um i think like um you know just like with all the concerns um that was shared that we know is going on like it would be better to just like super pump the brakes on it and just say like not no to to us moving in that direction at all that it hadn't been that we didn't have the software i thought we did yes yes yes so when i thought the same thing you know i i you know i was on board but now that learning that we don't then i'm more like let's not have it at all um and then we can have that discussion later if necessary um but that's kind of where i'm at okay i was only thinking of the schedule

We have a very tight schedule down the homestretch till December 31st. This is like a non-issue at this point. So I didn't think it would generate that much discussion. But in all fairness, this should be taken up next year.

Okay, I have no problem taking a break. It's been a long day. Eight years. Anyway, go ahead, Member Johnson.

Thank you, Chair. You know, I support what the conversation's been heading, but I do want to thank you because working on these bills takes a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of research. So just because we might, what I'm feeling is maybe weight or table, I do want to show mutual respect to you for doing this kind of work. This is so complex, and thank you for that. Thank you, Chair.

Sure, yeah, I have no problem deferring that second item and adjourning the meeting before Member Butongan has to leave. I do have that third bill that was direct referred. It talks about the length of time data can be held onto and all the rest of the stuff, and we can work on it. I could work on Bill 112 to get the amendments that folks want in, but it seems like the direction is more so like let's not have facial recognition technology. As I am prepping and going into the South Maui Community Plan, I just wanted to put it out there that I won't be the one to introduce that type of bill, but feel free because sharing the load and whatnot. even if I have to facilitate the meeting, I don't mind, whatever, but somebody else can write the bill on that and then we can take it up maybe at the same time as the other bill and it'll give us time to refine that third bill. So if there's no objections to deferring Bill 112,

No objection, Chair.

Go ahead.

I do have a question. So with our resource folks, since they heard, you know, kind of like the council members' position on this, do we need to pass a law to, you know, like put a moratorium or to prohibit the use of facial recognition technology or, you know, Is what the intention of the council members expressed sufficient for the county not moving in that direction? I mean, I guess if it comes up in budget, we could vote against it. I'm just thinking through how clear of a direction.

There was a memo sent out by the administration today regarding placing a pause on the real-time crime center and installation of new surveillance equipment. I don't know if that request would be honored because the administration isn't the entity that oversees per se. I don't know if they can stop monies from being released, or how that all works, but that, I've been informed that that occurred today, which is probably because of yesterday, maybe, or maybe not, I don't know, I don't wanna speculate. But yeah, I'll let the lieutenants, if they wanna answer your question. If, yeah, facial recognition technology, would you, based on the council members' statements, would you guys still pursue facial recognition technology for the police department?

I would say that I know facial recognition is a scary thing. I think we all need to kind of maybe get in a room and discuss it, you know, on the side and do like demos and see what it's capable of doing. Because I think there's a lot of misinformation out there. So I think if we were able to do that and just to discuss it, and see what it's capable of doing and see what other counties and other states are doing, then go that route before making a decision at this point. That's my personal opinion.

And we would be willing to work alongside the council members and whatnot. Again, kind of like how you folks tour the RTCC in New Orleans. It gives you a first look and you guys a better understanding of what the technology does and the capabilities of it doing. So in the same sense with this technology, I mean, it would be good to sit down, see a demo, and actually see it firsthand. I mean, like as Lieutenant Bonacorsi mentioned, there's a lot of... you know things and items out there on the internet and you know different points of views of the goods the bads and then also you know i mean of course you know the mention of 1984 and the terminator but i mean those types of things i mean it's just it is the more information we have it helps us to make a better decision remember rollins fernandez

Mahalo for your responses on that. And I know there were books and movies that were referenced. But there's also actual indictments that are happening in Kentucky and Chicago and across America. So there's actual abuse happening. with surveillance cameras. And so there is real concern, legitimate concern for community members to have. And so just to clarify, was the answer to my question about the department not pursuing facial recognition technology based on the statements made today sufficient or do we have to pass the law for that.

That might be above their pay grade. Yeah, that is. I was going to say that. Let's get a response to you in a letter.

They'll respond by letter. Did you get the question? Yes, Chair.

But in response to the things we're seeing nationwide as far as abuse of ALPR, facial recognition, the beauty of the way our system was set up by Lieutenant Bonacorsi and her predecessors, we've locked down. It's not just anybody can use the system like they've used in other agencies where they've abused it. We require a report number. We require that nexus to a criminal complaint system. or what have you, it's not just an open system that anybody can use, and that's what people have been taking advantage of across the country, and that's what they're getting in trouble for. So we have these systems in place that will prevent 95% of what was going on, what you've seen in the news, our system would not allow what's been going on there. And then the 5%, another case where it was just a single person that's doing the checks and checks and balances. We'd have multiple people that do these audits, even as far as automated audits that flag things in real time. So it's not just waiting for this quarterly audit or whatever timeframe we've set up, but we have these checks and balances in place to prevent what you're seeing nationwide.

I appreciate you sharing those policies with the council. I hear best practices being built in, but the best practices do rely on humans who are such flawed creatures. With the MPD being in the news in the past few months, I'm sure you can understand where the community members are coming from right now. Even with everyone's best intentions, not everyone has the highest level of integrity.

and addressing that if that was not technology related, if it was, he would have been caught a hell of a lot sooner and we'd not be, you know, it was not tech related and that stuff, you know, tech catches and has these audits and whatnot. So unfortunate, but yes.

Remember, remember who Hodgins

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate how Member Rawlings-Renández feels. I just wanted to make clear, for me, I would like more time to kind of sit and learn about all of the new technology that we're going to have to discuss. And I appreciate you deferring this bill so we can continue to discuss it. Because like I said earlier, there are cameras everywhere, whether they belong to us or not. Everybody has one in their back pocket. I have cameras in my house. You cannot come to my house without me knowing that you came to my house. So I just would like a little bit more time to understand how this really applies to all of us. And I appreciate MPD willing to work with us. So I will take them up to see what this does. And I appreciate your hard work on this too. And that's kind of all I have to say.

Thank you. Yeah, I did want to mention that the facial recognition technology bill was a little bit more stringent before collaborating with MTD and one of the things that the chief shared with me is he went to a conference where people who are not MPD with open source facial recognition things could determine things that were far ahead of what they could do and like how it would be like if on their off duty they used open source facial recognition technology to gain the information that other folks would do. But I don't really understand what all that means. So I agree that time and education is worthwhile for not just us, but the county as a whole, including our residents. Like what the chief had said is he doesn't want people that aren't police to overtake what the police capabilities are. And I get that as well. So kind of like what you're saying is where is the balance? How do we thread the needle? criminals to have more information than our police have access to but we also want to make sure that police are held accountable and there is Legitimate maybe whether it's third party oversight or what so I mean um Yeah, I think the most important thing to take away from this whole experience is that we should all continue to keep the lines of dialogue flowing and ask questions when we don't know the answers and work with the public, law enforcement, prosecuting attorneys, office managing director and corporation counsel to get the information that the public would like to know and what is legal, what is not legal. I think some people genuinely believe that cameras on highways are an infringement of their privacy. Lieutenant Bonacorsi gave me a couple examples Supreme Court law cases regarding ALPR readers and our technology and reasonable expectation of privacy. So what we believe and what the law states are not always one in the same, which I mean, that's why I'm not really that fond of lawyers, sorry guys. But there's that. So did we get no objections on deferring Bill 112? No objections, okay. And then, let me find my notes. This concludes today's Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee meeting. Thank you very much, everyone. We'll see you at 4.30 for our next listening session. The time is now 11.52 and this meeting is adjourned.