RELATING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.
SB2798 makes the Agricultural Enforcement Pilot Program permanent and statewide, renaming it the Agricultural Enforcement Program. The bill removes the pilot-program framing and the prior geographic limitation to Oahu and Hawaii Island, allowing the Department of Law Enforcement to implement the program at the discretion of the deputy director of law enforcement anywhere in the state. It also preserves the program’s core mission: targeting theft and related offenses involving agricultural products or commodities, with an assistant chief and supporting personnel, investigators, and state law enforcement officers assigned to those duties.
The bill continues to authorize officers in the program to investigate agricultural theft, gather evidence, conduct field observations, and coordinate with federal, state, and county enforcement authorities. It also allows the deputy director to assign additional duties and responsibilities. In effect, the bill amends existing Hawaii Revised Statutes section 353C-16 and also revises Act 235, Session Laws of Hawaii 2025, to remove the scheduled repeal of the pilot program, thereby making the program ongoing rather than temporary.
The bill’s impact on state law is to convert a temporary, geographically limited enforcement initiative into a permanent statewide law enforcement program focused on agricultural crime. This would affect the Department of Law Enforcement, its leadership, and any officers or investigators assigned to the program, including voluntary unpaid state law enforcement officers. It also reinforces the state’s statutory framework for addressing theft of agricultural goods by tying the program to existing theft-related offenses in the criminal code.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress appears strongly favorable. The measure passed the Senate Public Safety, Intergovernmental and Military Affairs Committee with amendments and later passed Senate Ways and Means unanimously and without amendment. The lack of recorded opposition in the available votes suggests broad support for strengthening agricultural theft enforcement and expanding the program statewide.
The main point of contention, based on the bill text rather than recorded debate, is the scope and permanence of the program. The bill expands a pilot into a permanent statewide enforcement structure, which could raise questions about resource allocation, enforcement priorities, and the use of voluntary unpaid officers. Another technical point is the unusual effective date of July 1, 3000, which is commonly used in Hawaii legislation to delay operative effect until a future date while preserving the act’s enactment status; this may be relevant to implementation timing but does not appear to have generated recorded opposition in the available materials.
SB2798 amends Hawaii Revised Statutes section 353C-16 to remove the word "pilot," eliminate the prior island-specific limitation, and authorize a permanent statewide Agricultural Enforcement Program within the Department of Law Enforcement. It also amends Act 235, SLH 2025, to delete the repeal date that would have ended part of the pilot program, thereby making the program ongoing. The bill affects the department, its deputy director, the assistant chief administrator, state law enforcement officers, investigators, and enforcement partners involved in agricultural theft investigations.
The available voting history indicates strong support for the bill. It passed the Senate Public Safety, Intergovernmental and Military Affairs Committee 3-0 with amendments and later passed Senate Ways and Means 13-0 unamended. No committee transcript objections were provided, and the unanimous votes suggest the bill was viewed positively as a public safety and agricultural protection measure.
No explicit opposition appears in the provided transcripts or votes, but the bill’s policy choices could be debated. The most notable issues are whether a permanent statewide program is warranted versus a pilot, how broadly agricultural enforcement should be deployed, and whether the program’s staffing model—including voluntary unpaid officers—raises operational or labor concerns. The bill also shifts enforcement resources toward agricultural theft, which could prompt questions about priorities and funding, though no recorded committee dissent is shown.