SB1257, known as “Duke’s Law,” addresses agricultural crime in Hawaii by creating a permanent agricultural crimes task force within the Department of Agriculture and by establishing a new criminal offense for certain conduct on agricultural property. The task force would include representatives from agriculture, law enforcement, prosecution, and academia, and would be responsible for developing prevention strategies, coordinating responses with law enforcement and prosecutors, promoting farmer education and outreach, and reporting recommendations to the Legislature each session.
The bill also adds a new offense of “agricultural crime” to Chapter 708, Hawaii Revised Statutes. A person could be charged if, while on agricultural property, they commit certain offenses under the criminal code, violate specified wildlife laws, or commit negligent failure to control a dangerous dog; a parent or legal guardian could also be liable for a minor’s violation. The offense is classified as a class C felony, with escalating penalties for repeat offenses and mandatory restitution to the agricultural property owner. The bill further appropriates general funds for fiscal years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 to support the task force’s operations, staffing, equipment, and outreach.
In terms of legal impact, the measure would create a new statutory framework focused specifically on crimes affecting farms, ranches, livestock, crops, and related agricultural assets. It would expand criminal liability for conduct occurring on agricultural property and direct the Department of Agriculture to administer a new interagency task force. It also amends state law to require restitution for losses caused by violations and would add a new category of felony offense tied to agricultural settings.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears strongly supportive. The bill passed the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Senate Ways and Means Committee unanimously or near-unanimously, with no recorded opposition in the provided votes. That suggests broad agreement that agricultural crime is a serious problem and that a coordinated state response is warranted.
The main points of contention, based on the bill text itself, are likely to involve the scope and severity of the new offense, including what conduct on agricultural property should trigger felony liability and whether the penalties are proportionate. Another possible issue is the breadth of the task force’s mandate and the need for ongoing appropriations. However, no specific objections or dissenting arguments are included in the provided committee materials.
This bill would add a new section to Chapter 141 establishing a permanent agricultural crimes task force within the Department of Agriculture and a new section to Chapter 708 creating the offense of agricultural crime. It would also appropriate state general funds for the task force’s operating costs and require restitution for damages or losses caused by violations. The measure would affect farmers, ranchers, agricultural organizations, law enforcement, prosecutors, and people who commit qualifying offenses on agricultural property.
The available voting record indicates strong support for the bill. It passed the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee with amendments and then passed the Senate Judiciary and Senate Ways and Means Committees unanimously, with no recorded dissent in the provided history. The bill’s framing as a response to theft, vandalism, trespass, and related harms to food security and farm safety suggests a generally favorable reception among lawmakers.
The likely areas of debate are the breadth of the new felony offense, the inclusion of multiple underlying offenses and parental liability for minors, and whether the penalties are too severe or sufficiently tailored to agricultural settings. There may also be questions about the size and permanence of the task force and the need for ongoing appropriations. No explicit opposition is shown in the provided committee votes or transcripts, so any contention appears to be limited or unresolved in the materials provided.