|
i
<br /> I
<br /> i 632 BILL OF RIGHTS
<br /> i
<br /> DELEGATE STERLING: Some polls, although they're not given very much publicity--
<br /> I'mspeaking against the amendment--very few, but they're very enlightening; [hey show
<br /> ' that most of the people in our country are very good people--regardless of the headlines--
<br /> very good people. And on many occasions we react to law enforcement and to the criminal
<br /> and criminal activity. But I think that we have to give just as much thought to protecting
<br /> the rights of all of these good people, the quiet people who do not organize, who do not
<br /> wish to become involved, participate in meetings and so on. This right to privacy as
<br /> f it's stated in the committee report takes into consideration the privacy of all these good
<br /> ~ people, the little people who do not choose to demonstrate or participate. I believe we
<br /> should honor this right to their privacy.
<br /> CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Delegate Sterling. The Chair recognizes Delegate Chung.
<br /> I
<br /> jj DELEGATE CHUNG: I speak in behalf of the amendment by the delegate from Maui.
<br /> As he mentioned, [his concern is already addressed in Article I, Section 5, which protects
<br /> people's rights in their property and home, i also Peel that if we reemphasize this with
<br />
<br /> 1~;~ another section on the right to privacy, while it's well and good and well intended, I
<br /> {~i feel that the greatest benefit in the long run in Hawaii shall be Prom the criminal element.
<br /> n
<br />
<br /> Ui
<br /> In 1950 there were 5,987 reported index crimes. These are the serious felonies;
<br /> index crime simply means criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault,
<br /> t"~ burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft. In our first constitutional convention, the
<br /> V+I scorecard was 5,467 such offenses. In 1968, according to the police report, it was 31,044.
<br /> Las[ year, 1977. it jumped to 58, 549. This year from January to June--the past 6 months--
<br /> j~! [here were 28,565 high-fear crimes committed or reported [at this time] in Hawaii; and
<br /> I' out of these 28,565, only 7,229 cases were so-called cleared, with an average of about
<br /> 4,000 high-fear crimes committed each month and about 1,000 clearances.
<br /> LI.
<br /> „,I 1 honestly feel from my experience that this right to privacy is a protective device
<br /> for these so-called professional criminals, who have become so sophisticated in their
<br /> ' techniques and their planning. Unless we are very careful in these kinds of decisions,
<br /> ~;i' we may be inadvertently contributing toward the easiness of the commission of crime,
<br /> particularly in Hawaii. Hawaii, being a seaport state, with the visitor industry as the
<br /> No. 1 industry, is a natural attraction for criminality--organized crime, white-collar
<br /> crime. And this type of right [o privacy, as good as it is for all of us, somehow will
<br /> have an insidious effect on a very serious concern in Hawaii today--the rising tide of
<br /> crime. Therefore, I strongly support the feeling of our fellow delegate from Maui.
<br /> i
<br /> CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Delegate Chung. The Chair recognizes Delegate Waihee.
<br /> DELEGATE WAIHEE: Mr. Chairman, I have to speak in opposition to the amendment.
<br /> If [he fears expressed by those who talked about crime were correct, then I too would
<br /> be fearful of this amendment. But I cannot see how these fears are in any sense justified.
<br /> First of all, the fighting of crime is a compelling state interest. Being a compelling state
<br /> interest, the laws now relating to crime, including [he test of probable cause for getting
<br /> a search warrant, would still be applied.
<br /> Now as an example of this, I might point out that the Alaska constitution has an
<br /> almost identical provision to this and the courts there have held that probable cause is
<br /> a standard to use for search warrants, that the usual crime-fighting mechanisms apply.
<br /> Indeed, the right to privacy was tested in the Alaska courts relating to marijuana, and
<br /> the courts there found that perhaps someone could smoke marijuana in their house and
<br /> that it would be a private act. But in the same decision the courts held against the com-
<br /> pelling state interest of the state in the manufacturing of cocaine or to have heroin or
<br /> any other dangerous drug or do anything like that in [he privacy of your home.
<br /> Now I think that, rather than running off on what--we have to look at what this
<br /> right to privacy is meant to protect. I am not as philosophical as the delegate who first
<br /> spoke in favor of it, so maybe I can bring it down to where 1 would understand it. Mr.
<br /> Chairman, we are entering an age of computerization: our names are found on all kinds
<br /> of financial material and all kinds of governmental records; we find ourselves on mailing
<br /> ~ lists that we don't know how in the world we ever got on. And we find ourselves being
<br /> the objectives of intrusions by many forces in society. I think that what people need
<br /> to have in this urbanized time is some kind of protection against this; we need some way
<br /> 7,,
<br /> 11
<br /> ~I
<br /> 11'
<br /> al
<br />
<br />
|