SB116 creates a new civil cause of action for “discriminatory reporting” to law enforcement. Under the bill, a person who knowingly causes police to come to a location to contact someone because of that person’s actual or perceived protected characteristics — including race, color, ancestry, ethnicity, national origin, place of birth, sex, age, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression — and does so with the intent to discriminate, harass, humiliate, expel, damage reputation, or harm economic interests, can be sued in civil court.
The bill authorizes injunctive relief, damages (including punitive damages), and other appropriate relief, and it sets a minimum award of $1,000 plus attorneys’ fees and costs if the plaintiff prevails. It also directs the Department of Law Enforcement, in consultation with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, to provide public guidance on the new civil liability and remedies. In addition, SB116 amends the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission law’s purpose-and-intent section to add “place of birth” as a protected class, and it is scheduled to take effect on September 1, 2025.
SB116 would add a new chapter to the Hawaii Revised Statutes creating a private civil remedy for discriminatory misuse of police calls, expanding the legal tools available to people targeted by biased reporting. It would also amend HRS §368-1 to expressly include “place of birth” among the protected classes referenced in the state’s discrimination policy statement, while leaving existing rights and remedies intact. The bill primarily affects individuals who make discriminatory reports, potential plaintiffs who are targeted by such conduct, the Department of Law Enforcement, and the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.
The available voting history shows clear committee support, with the bill passing the Senate Public Safety, Intergovernmental and Military Affairs Committee 5-0 and the Senate Judiciary Committee 3-0, both with amendments. That pattern suggests broad agreement on the bill’s general purpose and a willingness to refine its language rather than oppose it outright. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or hearing debate to indicate broader public sentiment beyond the favorable committee votes.
The main policy issue is how far the state should go in regulating discriminatory 911 or police calls and whether a civil remedy is the right enforcement mechanism. Supporters of the bill appear to view biased reporting as a harmful misuse of law enforcement that can intimidate or exclude protected-class individuals, while any concerns would likely center on proof of intent, the breadth of the protected categories, and the possibility of chilling legitimate calls to police. The addition of “place of birth” as a protected class may also be a point of interest because it broadens the state’s discrimination framework beyond the more commonly listed categories.