SB1249, known as “Duke’s Law,” is a broad agricultural enforcement and anti-theft bill. It creates a temporary Agricultural Enforcement Pilot Program within the Department of Law Enforcement on Oahu and Hawaii Island, with an assistant chief, investigators, and patrol officers focused on agricultural theft and related offenses. The bill also appropriates $949,856 in each of fiscal years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 to staff and operate the pilot program.
The measure substantially revises Hawaii’s agriculture and livestock laws. It adds new administrative penalty authority for the Department of Agriculture, creates a new felony offense for “habitual agricultural crime,” requires pre-slaughter brand inspection and weekly submission of livestock ownership and movement certificates, and increases or reclassifies penalties for a range of livestock, branding, transport, quarantine, and animal-health violations. It also updates reporting and recordkeeping requirements for livestock slaughter and sales, and directs certain fines and recovered amounts into the animal industry special fund.
The bill further expands protections for agricultural lands by defining “agricultural land” in statute and creating a new criminal trespass offense specific to agricultural land. That offense carries mandatory minimum jail time and fines, with a higher felony penalty if the person is armed with a dangerous instrument. The bill also amends hunting laws so that night hunting on agricultural land can trigger forfeiture, and it adds agricultural land trespass to the list of offenses subject to forfeiture under Hawaii’s forfeiture chapter.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly supportive and largely unanimous. The bill passed every recorded committee vote without any dissenting votes, including in the Senate Agriculture and Environment, Judiciary, and Ways and Means committees, and later in House and Senate conference. That pattern suggests broad agreement that agricultural theft, trespass, and related crimes are a serious problem requiring stronger enforcement tools and penalties.
The main points of contention are not reflected in recorded votes or transcripts, but the structure of the bill suggests likely policy tensions around increased criminal penalties, expanded enforcement authority, and the creation of a specialized police pilot program. Potential concerns include the scope of criminalization on agricultural lands, the use of mandatory minimum sentences, the new administrative penalty regime, and the costs and civil-liberties implications of enhanced inspection, seizure, and forfeiture powers. However, the available legislative history does not show organized opposition in committee.
SB1249 amends multiple chapters of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, especially chapters 142, 145, 146, 183D, 708, and 712A. It creates new statutory sections for agricultural enforcement, administrative penalties, habitual agricultural crime, and criminal trespass on agricultural land, while revising existing provisions on branding, livestock movement certificates, slaughterhouse reporting, animal quarantine, hunting, trespass, property damage, and forfeiture. The bill also establishes new funding and positions within the Department of Law Enforcement and directs revenue from fines and fees into the animal industry special fund.
The bill appears to have enjoyed strong bipartisan or at least broad institutional support throughout the legislative process. Every recorded committee vote was unanimous, with no nays, and the bill advanced with amendments but without recorded controversy in the available materials. The general sentiment is that the bill responds to a real and growing problem of agricultural theft, trespass, and related offenses, and that stronger enforcement and clearer penalties are warranted.
The likely areas of contention are policy-based rather than reflected in the recorded votes: whether Hawaii should create a dedicated agricultural police pilot program, whether mandatory minimum penalties and felony enhancements are proportionate, and whether the bill gives the Department of Agriculture and law enforcement too much authority to inspect, seize, and forfeit property. The new agricultural trespass offense and expanded hunting restrictions could also raise concerns from land access, hunting, and civil-liberties perspectives. No specific opposing arguments are documented in the provided transcripts or vote history.