In a column published on March 25, Nathan Lee of the ACLU took issue with my testimony before the Senate Public Safety and Military Affairs Committee regarding House Bill 128.

I stand by every word I said in that committee. Our office opposed HB 128 because it does nothing to improve the safety or fairness of our criminal justice system. Quite the opposite — it weakens both.

It’s hard to believe anyone would champion a bill that creates loopholes criminals can exploit, burdens our police with unnecessary paperwork, and — most importantly — risks public safety.

The ACLU’s criticism was predictable but unhelpful, calling my remarks “callous” and “incorrect.”

Callous? As a deputy prosecutor, I’ve seen the worst and best of human nature. I’ve worked alongside officers who risk their lives every day to keep our streets safe, and I’ve stood with victims who’ve suffered at the hands of violent criminals. Thick skin comes with the territory.

What does rattle me is the ACLU’s complete misrepresentation of the facts about HB 128.

Here’s the reality: Officers don’t have free rein to arrest anyone, anytime. The law already requires any arrest — with or without a warrant — be backed by solid evidence. Under Rule 5(a)(2) of the Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure, a sworn affidavit or declaration must describe the facts supporting the charge for arrests without a warrant.

A judge then determines, within 48 hours, whether probable causes exists. That’s the law as it stands and it works.

Justifying Arrests

So why the push for HB 128?

The bill would require officers to further classify the justification for an arrest based on four factors: 1) the risk of non-appearance at trial; 2) an outstanding warrant; 3) the likelihood of future police contact; and 4) the necessity to prevent bodily injury.

Some of these are redundant. Others are better left to the courts.

Let’s take the “outstanding warrant” requirement. If there’s an outstanding warrant for someone’s arrest, that’s already enough to arrest them. That’s the point of a warrant. Why do we need another checkbox to confirm what’s already clear?

Similarly, if an officer is arresting someone for assault or drunk-driving, the need to prevent harm is self-evident. Why make officers double-check it on a form when they should be focused on stopping the threat?

These unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles are a waste of officers’ time and a disservice to our communities. If anything, they turn good officers into paper pushers and slow down the process of getting dangerous criminals off the streets.

Factors like the risk of nonappearance and the likelihood of future police contact are better left to the bail judge. A judge can weigh those factors when setting conditions for release.

The most troubling flaw in HB 128 is that it opens dangerous loopholes. Imagine: An officer, exhausted after a long shift, arrests a dangerous individual — say, a domestic abuser. The officer writes a detailed affidavit, outlining the facts supporting the arrest. But, in the rush to finish paperwork, the officer checks the wrong box on the form.

Under HB 128, that mistake could set the criminal loose. That’s right — because of a clerical error, a dangerous person could walk free. Is that really what we want? Do we want to risk the safety of a victim of domestic violence because an officer didn’t check one box properly?

Some might call that callous.

The ACLU’s defense of HB 128 hinged on an emotional appeal, linking this bill to the death of George Floyd. But HB 128 did not remedy any issue of fairness or safety. It did nothing to address racial inequality or abuses of power.

Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Steve Alm committed to increased transparency in police shooting cases. He followed through on that pledge, holding detailed press conferences explaining our charging decisions in these cases based on facts, evidence, and law.

That’s what real leadership looks like. It’s disappointing when others settle for opportunistic manipulation.

Our police and our community deserve better than smears and spin. Like Winston Churchill, I refuse to be impartial between a fire and a fire brigade.

On one side stands the criminal element — ruthless, calculating, and willing to exploit every opportunity for selfish gain. On the other side are law enforcement officers who put everything on the line to protect innocent people.

When it comes to this fight, my loyalties are clear. Let’s stop playing politics with public safety. HB 128 is a dangerous distraction and has no place in a system meant to protect the people. Our office was right to oppose this bill.