I support Bill 112, with several amendments to make its protections even stronger.
Much of the opposition appears to be reacting to the words “facial recognition” instead of reading what the bill actually says.
Bill 112 does not purchase a camera, create a facial database, or allow a computer to arrest anyone.
Except during an imminent threat, it requires a documented criminal offense, a police case or agency report number, and a written investigative purpose before facial recognition may be used.
The bill says a computer-generated result is only an investigative lead. It is not an identification. It cannot, by itself, establish probable cause or justify an arrest, search, or search-warrant application.
Before it may even contribute to reasonable suspicion, a trained user must review the result and police must develop at least one independent fact corroborating it.
The bill also prohibits using facial recognition for civil traffic enforcement, immigration enforcement, targeting people because of protected characteristics, or monitoring lawful protests, worship, political activity, and other constitutionally protected conduct without an independent criminal nexus.
Access is limited to trained, designated users. Every search must be logged. The police chief must audit its use at least every three months. Misuse may result in discipline, termination, or criminal referral.
Those are restrictions—not unrestricted surveillance.
Opponents should therefore answer several straightforward questions.
If a child is abducted and the abductor is recorded on camera, should police be prohibited from using technology to help identify that person?
If an elderly person with dementia disappears, should police deliberately take longer to locate that person?
If a murderer, rapist, or hit-and-run driver is clearly recorded, should detectives be required to compare that image manually against thousands of photographs because using a computer makes some people uncomfortable?
If someone subject to a valid felony arrest warrant enters or attempts to leave Maui through one of our limited entry points, why should police be required to look the other way?
Maui is an island. Our airport and commercial harbors are our actual entry and exit points. In cooperation with the agencies controlling those facilities, narrowly targeted facial recognition could help locate a dangerous fugitive, identify a serious-crime suspect, or find a missing or endangered person before that person disappears into the community or leaves the island.
The government does not have the power to decide which lawful visitors “belong” on Maui. But it does have a duty to locate people whom a court has lawfully ordered arrested. Facial recognition does not create that authority. It can help police carry out authority that already exists.
Privacy protects innocent people from indiscriminate government surveillance. It should not require police to remain intentionally blind when they possess an image from a documented crime and have a lawful reason to identify the person shown.
There are legitimate questions about live facial recognition. I would strengthen Bill 112 by limiting live searches to active felony warrants, serious violent crimes, imminent threats, and missing or endangered persons. Nonmatching images should be deleted immediately. Council should approve the databases that may be searched, prohibit databases built from indiscriminately scraped personal photographs, and require an independent annual public audit.
Those amendments would address the genuine dangers without disabling a legitimate investigative tool.
Every police power can be abused. Arrest authority, firearms, DNA, fingerprints, body cameras, and criminal databases all carry risks. The answer is enforceable law, independent oversight, documented use, and consequences for misuse—not forcing law enforcement to ignore useful technology.
Anyone seeking a total prohibition should state plainly whose interests are served when police have a clear image, a documented serious crime, a lawful basis to act, and an available tool—but are forbidden from using it.
Fear is not evidence. Volume is not analysis. Technology is not guilt.
Aloha Chair and Members of the DRIP Committee,
My name is Edward Codelia, a resident of Kula.
I support Bill 112, with several amendments to make its protections even stronger.
Much of the opposition appears to be reacting to the words “facial recognition” instead of reading what the bill actually says.
Bill 112 does not purchase a camera, create a facial database, or allow a computer to arrest anyone.
Except during an imminent threat, it requires a documented criminal offense, a police case or agency report number, and a written investigative purpose before facial recognition may be used.
The bill says a computer-generated result is only an investigative lead. It is not an identification. It cannot, by itself, establish probable cause or justify an arrest, search, or search-warrant application.
Before it may even contribute to reasonable suspicion, a trained user must review the result and police must develop at least one independent fact corroborating it.
The bill also prohibits using facial recognition for civil traffic enforcement, immigration enforcement, targeting people because of protected characteristics, or monitoring lawful protests, worship, political activity, and other constitutionally protected conduct without an independent criminal nexus.
Access is limited to trained, designated users. Every search must be logged. The police chief must audit its use at least every three months. Misuse may result in discipline, termination, or criminal referral.
Those are restrictions—not unrestricted surveillance.
Opponents should therefore answer several straightforward questions.
If a child is abducted and the abductor is recorded on camera, should police be prohibited from using technology to help identify that person?
If an elderly person with dementia disappears, should police deliberately take longer to locate that person?
If a murderer, rapist, or hit-and-run driver is clearly recorded, should detectives be required to compare that image manually against thousands of photographs because using a computer makes some people uncomfortable?
If someone subject to a valid felony arrest warrant enters or attempts to leave Maui through one of our limited entry points, why should police be required to look the other way?
Maui is an island. Our airport and commercial harbors are our actual entry and exit points. In cooperation with the agencies controlling those facilities, narrowly targeted facial recognition could help locate a dangerous fugitive, identify a serious-crime suspect, or find a missing or endangered person before that person disappears into the community or leaves the island.
The government does not have the power to decide which lawful visitors “belong” on Maui. But it does have a duty to locate people whom a court has lawfully ordered arrested. Facial recognition does not create that authority. It can help police carry out authority that already exists.
Privacy protects innocent people from indiscriminate government surveillance. It should not require police to remain intentionally blind when they possess an image from a documented crime and have a lawful reason to identify the person shown.
There are legitimate questions about live facial recognition. I would strengthen Bill 112 by limiting live searches to active felony warrants, serious violent crimes, imminent threats, and missing or endangered persons. Nonmatching images should be deleted immediately. Council should approve the databases that may be searched, prohibit databases built from indiscriminately scraped personal photographs, and require an independent annual public audit.
Those amendments would address the genuine dangers without disabling a legitimate investigative tool.
Every police power can be abused. Arrest authority, firearms, DNA, fingerprints, body cameras, and criminal databases all carry risks. The answer is enforceable law, independent oversight, documented use, and consequences for misuse—not forcing law enforcement to ignore useful technology.
Anyone seeking a total prohibition should state plainly whose interests are served when police have a clear image, a documented serious crime, a lawful basis to act, and an available tool—but are forbidden from using it.
Fear is not evidence. Volume is not analysis. Technology is not guilt.
Please strengthen and pass Bill 112.
Mahalo,
Edward Codelia
Kula