 We had we we have a real haze here now from the fires and last night our son was the most brilliant color of orange red and I know that's from the fire from the haze right so I hope you are is that a sunrise or was that the fire last night. This is a photo taken from our office long ago. Okay. This is a sunset, but yeah, I know it's it's starting to clear up a little bit. It's good. We're actually having the smoke from those fires in Oregon, Washington. They're actually it's an interesting phenomenon which gives us sunsets, but it's also it's it's a sunny day. There's a smoke haze in the air. And the jet stream just happens to be carrying it all the way around across the country. So, but that's not why you're here. We really appreciate both of you, both you and Terry Lynn being here. And it's a a very difficult subject and one as a long term time board member of the CSG Justice Center. I don't remember us talking much about about some of these issues I know we had a really good conversation at a board meeting. I think it was last year or a year before last with police chiefs from Wichita, Kansas, Texas, and other areas, talking about racial divides, but here we are with S 119. We also have on on board, our commissioner of public safety Mike Shirley, who may have questions or may want to make comments so he's kind of an invited guest here we're appreciative that he's joining us. Terry, your call you Terry, but I'm going to admit and age myself that I played football with your father. So, University of Vermont. So that puts us in different generations, but I appreciate you joining us as well. Thank you, and Marshall mind introducing yourselves and whatever you have to inform us of regarding the situation, both, and you're providing us with a national overview, but also a little bit about Seattle and their policies which is somewhat how the house based their changes to S 119. Thanks. Thanks, Senator. I'll let Terry introduce himself, but he's the expert between us on these issues and can speak to what other states have done and, and also just the importance of training and the quality of training in terms of actually making changes beyond their changes but you're right, states have, and the justice center we have typically haven't looked at these issues as matters of state policy. But obviously, the events have caused states around the country to take up these issues, a new and engage in them in ways that they haven't before. And so we see lots of states taking action already bills being on the governor's desk in the country on a range of topics, but certainly including the ones that send bill to 19 and then 119 that you're now discussing take on. And in our inner, we've watched the progression of the bill we've I think we've looked at the latest version that Peggy send over in terms of where the language currently stands so where we've been tracking those. There are changes on the house side and can speak to some of the issues they raise and and how there's a line with what we see in other states being being taken on and and then Terry can speak specifically to also how that actually does or doesn't change change practice and culture in law enforcement on the ground so I'll turn it over to you Terry to take the lead in terms of providing some of our thoughts. Thank you senators, Senator Sears commissioner to the football with my dad. That's, and that began my love affair with Vermont so growing up in Massachusetts with a dad that went to UVM. Everything was all about, you know, Vermont the catamounts and spending my summers up Lake Champlain trying to spot champ, which I believe I saw on a couple occasions. I did. So I'm Terry Lynn I'm the deputy division director. Terry, maybe I should introduce the committee. They could introduce themselves since Senator white just woke up so I'll start with her and then let's let you know where we come from. I didn't, I didn't mean to interrupt there but that was fine. So, as did my whole family. So, I'm Jeanette white from Wyndham County which is down on the Massachusetts border. Alice. Alice nitka from Ludlow and Windsor Windsor County, middle of the state in the south. No. I'm Phil Baruth. I represent Chittenden County and teach at UVM so good to see you're an alum. I'm Joe Benning. I'm Joe Benning I come from the Northeast Kingdom which is actually the real Vermont Terry. Just so you know, I've never seen champ. I'm Dick Sears and I'm from Bennington County which is in the southern most corner of the state across from Wyndham County we're on the western side and close to Williamtown Mass and all the New York. So go ahead Terry we interrupted you. No, everyone. Yep. Okay, thank you Senator. And I think, you know, as I started to say I'm the deputy division director of law enforcement here at the CSG Justice Center, which is part of the behavioral health division. You know, I'm in a really unique position at the CSG Justice Center with our portfolio that oversees all of our law enforcement work with agencies across the United States. In addition, I'll just give you a little bit of an overview. In addition to the work that we do in providing assistance guidance and expertise to police departments that are trying to figure out partnerships in ways to respond to people that are experiencing a variety of mental health or you know behavioral health issues. We also oversee 10 law enforcement mental health learning sites that are located and embedded at various police departments across the United States. We have the Houston PD, Salt Lake City Police Department, Houston, Madison County, Tennessee, the Sheriff's Office there, Madison, Wisconsin, Arlington, Massachusetts, and we have a University of Florida. And these current 10 learning sites really kind of represent many of the different types of law enforcement agencies that you will encounter in terms of size demographics and some of the unique areas that they deal with. So we're able to work with them that the police officers that have created co responder units in partnership with their, you know, their mental, I mean their behavioral health system within their community or communities. We have different models of responding from mobile crisis teams, co responder homeless outreach teams, community response teams, I mean, they really provide us access to hearing what are the real issues that they are seeing out there. So I'm fortunate to be able to work with just a wonderful group of men and women that are police officers in clinicians that are, you know, trying trying on a daily basis to police with compassion and really move the needle forward, and how they respond to people that are in need of services. So that's just a little bit about, you know, sort of what I oversee here I do come here with a career and law enforcement I was, as I mentioned, Massachusetts I was a police officer. I was also a police officer in the state of New Hampshire, and also patrolled up in little tin, and up near the Northeast kingdom up there so very familiar there as well. And also, you know, working organized crime narcotics, and then working, you know, New Hampshire role patrol where I could go miles without seeing anything with the exception of very large moose. I've been fortunate to be able to work in a variety of different law enforcement capacities. And for the last 20 years I've spent it in academia. I've been at the John Jay College of criminal justice where I oversee NYPD's hostage organization team training. There's what training for psychological response. And I've also been the dean at various community colleges overseeing criminal justice program so I really do. I bring a lot of different perspectives to my work and my role as the deputy division director here at CSG so I just wanted to throw that out there for folks. I'm also a licensed clinician so I can bring that piece in as well. We, Marshall and I have been, you know, we've been going through the literature we've been looking at what states are doing, you know, in response to these, these issues. I will personally say that reading the current version of the Senate bill. In my opinion, it really does speak to you some of the best practices or things that we're actually seeing on a national level. So, Senator Sears, I know you had mentioned Seattle. I guess I'll just start with Seattle. I mean, I think Seattle was in a very sort of unique, obviously major spotlight, when some of those policies, you know, were enacted and put into place out there in Seattle. And unfortunately, they actually are a little bit different than what the state of Washington requires in terms of use of force. So, on one hand you have Seattle saying we're going to outright prohibit and ban, yet within the state it says choke holds and others may be used under certain conditions. If that works for Seattle, and I suppose time will tell, we will see but on a state level, what we are seeing is that there are states that are outright banning any type of choke holds, strangle holds, sleeper holds. I mean, sometimes the nuances is how it's phrased, you know, within the police training within the police culture. But generally speaking, some states have just taken a stance that it's going to be prohibited. Connecticut is one. Massachusetts is another one that has put this on the table. It still hasn't made it to the governor's desk as of yet, but to, you know, outright ban under all circumstances the use of any type of lateral vascular restraint on the neck. Other states have attached criminal penalties to it. For example, Delaware. New York State has actually enacted a law the Eric Garner anti choking act of 2015, which has created a new crime of an aggravated felony for any police officer who utilizes a prohibited choke hold, which results in the injury and or death of the individual. And then you have, you know, other states, for example, that are like Oregon, who are putting in language that says we're going to prohibit it, restrict it. However, as a last resort, if it is necessary for that officer to utilize that particular technique or tactic to save his or her life or the life of somebody else, then it can be used. So you've got states that are taking a lot of different responses to this particular issue. The fourth thing that I'll add in for this talking about sort of what states are doing the choke holds is that some states, Utah comes to mind, are actually writing into the law. What's the criminal justice training council, what the director of the criminal justice training council will be responsible for. The case is making sure that they reiterate, there will be no teaching of any type of prohibited hold, you know, behind closed doors, or, you know, it's, it puts the responsibility back on to that respective criminal justice training council, and, you know, that executive director who has seized that training. And that actually is an approach that is starting to gain momentum as well across states, realizing that, I mean, Vermont, you're, in my opinion, you're in a great position because you've got a centralized police academy. You got everything that can sort of be controlled similar to New Hampshire, right, everybody who's alarms was an officer goes to one Academy gets trained gets the same training, and then goes out to his or her respective agencies. And that's just Massachusetts you've got a state police academy with its own rules, a transit Academy with its own rules, you get your different regional municipal police training councils, cities, you know, Boston has its own police academy. And even though there's a general direction for curriculum. They often the directors often have incredible leeway as to what they're going to add into their training. And as we found when we evaluated the NYPD's tactical training in 2016. Eric Garner incident, we went back and spoke to the training instructors who said yeah we're you know this has been banned in New York City since 1993. However, unofficially, we want to make sure sometimes that our offices are aware of these other types of Should they're, you know, should they need to utilize that so not officially sanctioned and no one would ever admit to it publicly. But, you know, we heard this from offices afterwards who were saying, Well, we learn this in the police academy and I learned it from my, my training instructors. So, I'll just pause there Senator I don't know if senators have a question, but just, I don't know. I guess my, I have a comment and Bryn, if you would bring hairs are led councils drafting s 119. I think actually you make a good point about banning the teaching. The bill right now is it currently stands and I, they keep redrafting it so it's hard to know but it doesn't ban the teaching of the whole, but it's the last iteration, allowed it under circumstances and maybe we should be. If you're going to allow it, which is a bone of contention in this committee. Maybe it should be a last resort type, making it clear that it's a last resort but that's up to this committee and decide how it wants to view that, but I'm really interested in the states that are banning the training so that you don't get that wink and a nod. Oh, absolutely, absolutely. You know, again, I just what I've been reviewing going through all the different states and everyone. And of course it's in various forms right now whether it's in committee or it's being proposed, or we made it to the governor's office in the Connecticut bill. It's a show cold while they banned it outright. They only applied the banning outright to the Connecticut State Police, which leaves the door open for the municipal police to be able to utilize issues. In my opinion it's going to it's going to create confusion and it's going to create problems to the training piece. I've been through the New Hampshire Police Academy I've been through the Massachusetts Police Academy, I will say that the trainings while similar, we're all were also very different, I was taught the use of strangleholds in Massachusetts back in the 80s. However, in the 90s in New Hampshire, it was never discussed it was never mentioned. In fact, tackle instructions was you will only use the types of techniques and holds that we that we teach you here. Those young offices going out on the street in New Hampshire, get that message early on when they come into police training. Another piece that Marshall and I have sort of looked at and talked about is the attitude the culture and police training. For years for decades police training has always been paramilitary and based on Marine Corps type training, which you know some will argue can create a warrior mentality, which I will argue can then lead to an us versus them mentality, rather than what we I think we hope or I hope to see is more of a protector or guardian when they are out there on patrol. Now, people will argue that it's about camaraderie it's about team building and I hear that there are other ways to do that. Washington DC's Metropolitan Police Department has changed their training a few years ago their model in the last five years, where they take more of an FBI approach to the training. There's no shouting there's no yelling, you know it's classroom it's professional. You know you're there to learn and nobody is sort of in your face screaming at you and trying to sort of overload your senses making you drop out. You know we know that when officers come into the police Academy, the majority of them. They're joining because they want to help they grew up in their communities they grew up in that state. They want to really go out there and make a difference and be able to help people. And so they come into an Academy, you know with this hopeful optimism to go out there and unfortunately and this is not just unique to Vermont or mass or any. It's common across the United States. It's the, in many cases, the kind of the toxic mentality of policing that then creates and leads to cynicism among officers frustration with the whole criminal justice system, feeling stressed, burned out long hours, etc. And we see that I have seen that over the course of my 20 plus years, you know in the business. And, you know, that's, that's a problem. One of the positive things Vermont just did in this year's budget is add seven commissioner correct me if I'm wrong, seven positions for having social workers or mental health folks embedded in our state police barracks so that each barracks will eventually have one. And I think that's one of the most positive things that we can do in helping to both police to deescalate situations with the people who are going through a mental health crisis or having significant problems. And so I was glad to hear you mentioning the work that you're doing with those other cities and perhaps you would be available to chat with our commissioner at some point if he has some questions right now. Absolutely. I'm open to any questions commissioner that you might have regarding that or any other aspect of what you feel free to jump in if you'd like to ask a question. Thank you, Senator I think I'll defer to the committee for now to ensure that you get through your, the key elements and perhaps chime in a little later. Okay. Other questions about what we've gone over so far from either Marshall or Terry. Thank you for being helpful. I'm interested in 119. There appears to be. Maybe to use the chokehold. And unless that's changed in the latest variation. It seems pretty open ended. Again, I'm just, I'm, I'm giving both my personal but also what I've seen, I think when you, and I'm putting out there for consideration for the committee, you know, again, I think when you leave things open ended. And they have their tool belt of things that are available to them, you know, including their physical presence and including their, their verbal commands, you know, their ability to empathetically connect with an individual. When you sometimes leave something that's a possible use. It may get used because they walk out of there going, well, I may hope to never use that. But if it's there and I need to, then I will. I will utilize that. Yes. Sorry, Senator White. Senator White. I don't know if you're muted. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I was just. No, go right ahead when you're done. Go ahead, go ahead. So, I got a note from a local police chief down here yesterday and, and we've been talking about the use if because in the bill, it says that there is there is the provision in there that if there's an incident that where the person was concerned for their life and then there was death or bodily injury that they could use that as a defense at his point was I'm sorry that wasn't very clear but his point was that we had an incident down here with a sheriff who is not a huge man and he did a roadside stop. The guy got out of the car and tackled him and had him down on the ground and that he could not he couldn't reach any of his tools and he he was on the ground and the only way he could get him off was to to choke him. It was the only way. So, if, if this is a prohibited maneuver. Could he then he didn't have to justify. I mean, it isn't going to go to court because the other guy wasn't hurt or anything but could he sue him for use of a prohibited maneuver there wasn't any. I didn't result in death or bodily injury. I suppose Senator that's going to be open to and you know I mean qualified immunity is something that is being challenged right now. Right at the federal level but also Massachusetts is just remove or version remove qualified immunity for police officer. So it would open up the door, you know for potential civil suit. Senator white we will hit, we will all hear that from police officers that said, I'm on the ground and I'm struggling and this person's on top of me. I had no other recourse. You know, and sometimes I will say I don't know how to answer that question, because when we look at that that real life or death, and what someone needs to do. I don't know what I would do in that situation, I would probably fight to survive. We, we talk about the reasonableness of an incident and what a reasonable officer would do. Well, if it serves five foot two compared to, you know, 100 pounds, compared to someone was six foot three, you know, 275 pounds and was a former, you know, green beret. So different skill sets are available to them and under what would be reasonable in terms of a potential threat or assault. I'll come back to. It comes back also to de escalation training and tactics, and that's a sort of bucket that Marshall and I have been looking at is everyone's talking about while you're going to need to use some other type of de escalation technique. When you look at states currently right now, only 21 states actually have a requirement in the police academy for de escalation type training. Well, none of those, all of those 21 states do not have an established minimum mandatory. It can be always to tie as 40. And then you have to look at what is being taught in that de escalation training is it primarily tactical. Are you having a good classroom. Are you actually able to have some type of practical exercise. So what we did down in New York, the police academy is we not only gave them 40 hours of de escalation, both verbally, both in their physical presence, but then we use real screen SGA actors and actresses to actually come in. And we had them push the police officers buttons, we mean, we would sometimes have ravine when they would really give an officer a hard time, because we were challenging the offices mentality that I always that the officer always has to win. And that the officer never gets to back down. Well, that's part of that warrior mentality that I go back to. Why not retreat. Why not find a place to pull back to call firm assistance or to try to use some of those tactics but you have to train, and they have to be trained in the academy and they have to practice those skill sets. They're perishable. Another point and then I'll pause, Senator is some states right now are actually looking at re certifying their police offices every two or three years. So that when you go through the Academy like when I went through the academies, your life, it, it's as good as I was a cop didn't expire. And now they're saying, you know, we're going to have some oversight. The criminal justice training commission is going to issue your your initial certificate, and then you're going to have to do trainings x, y and z. Every two or three years to get your police certification credential reist, you know, established to go on again. And I think that that's a positive step that agencies are taking to ensure that their officers. And I'm not sort of having those skills, you know, tarnished over the years or be, you know, perishable. Thank you. I do have a different, not different subject but different question and maybe you and Marshall can help me with one of the things in the house version of s1 19 is a definition of the totality of the circumstances and it goes into all these different things. And as I read it, I'm thinking I'm an officer. I used to work in a group home for troubled youth. And if I had to go through that list, every time I want to make a decision of how to deal with a kid. I'd be hamstrung for 10 minutes before I could figure out what to do. I wonder if you, if other states are using that type of description where is the person language barrier is the person. Mental health crisis is the person this this and this I'm curious to how, when you write that into the law how that would impact the officer trying to make a split second decision when he or she's being fired on for example, in a domestic. Sure. Yeah, and again, I think what is an I do see is common across all police training you know is the emphasis that an officer's discretion that an officer that probably the best piece of equipment any police officer has is their discretion when you know they encounter a situation. I'll go to New York State as an example. I was tasked with sort of restructuring the training for the municipal police training council in New York State, which oversees all of the police training outside of New York City, New York City, because of the way it's charted. And it serves the population over a million. They have incredible leeway in what New York City Police Department does with their curriculum. However, the rest of New York State had an antiquated kind of training that they would do for situations that you know had to look at the totality of the circumstances, we had to go in and say well we'll make the changes in New York State. But we actually need to change the way that you hire your instructors, we need to increase the hours of the hours for training were mandated at 14. And we just said best practices shows you just can't really do what you're trying to accomplish with de escalation tactics and training and skills in 14 hours. So we, we, we had a hard fight but we were able to get it increased to 20. I mean, any police academy director is going to tell you that you know they're, they're trying to work with the hours that they have, you know, to get an officer on boarded through all the required training, and then through all the administrative stuff to graduation to get them back to his or her respective agency. But we, we, we attempted to and we did change the way that the instruction was done in the academy to try to build in those scenario based and role model stuff so that the offices, you know, could go up against a similar situation and then see what other offices are doing under that particular situation. And then we come back and we talk about this. What were you seeing what were you thinking what why did you react this way. And we built in more of a kind of a critical thinking analysis piece into the recruit training curriculum that was mandated in January of 2018 and is currently the way that all New York State police training is done with de escalation response training. And from what I'm hearing from the Academy directors and the chiefs in New York State, it is having a positive impact and has reduced officer use of force, and also offices being assaulted by individuals that they're encountering to know are other states gone so far as to describe the totality of the circumstances either of you aware of that in such detail. I will say New Hampshire just has New Hampshire is one that comes to mind their current executive director of the New Hampshire police standards and training has come out with a very clear statement around that that that's just one that comes to mind center. Thank you. I'm not sure how Washington, either of you watching the law enforcement, I'm sure Marshall you spent some time with some of the folks in the Seattle police department. How do they react to the policies versus the law in Washington. I'm assuming that if I meant to come there is a different set of rules. Terry speak to this because I think it gets this question about, you know, how standardized your training is across the state. And obviously it's different in Vermont where you have one one standardized counsel so the law in Washington state is doesn't ban a chokehold for example. The policies in Seattle do other things and policies in Seattle ago much further than Washington state and I'm just curious as to how that impacts Seattle. Police officers. And I have spoken out in Seattle with with some officers that I've worked with over the years. So I will say from a rank and file perspective they're leaving they're retiring. They're going to other jurisdictions. They feel frustrated they feel that they are not being supported. Obviously, chief best has stepped down as their chief. The deputy chief, the acting chief right now Adrian Diaz, you know is, you know, again trying to sort of move things forward, but Seattle police officers are feeling frustrated. But as I mentioned earlier when we started talking that it's that dissonance that exists so you've got Seattle that says no no no no no, but you go over one other community. Their policies are completely different. So it creates some confusion some and some frustration among police officers as to what they can do. And if they do use something that is allowed under for example Washington state law, will they then be held a criminal liable or negligent for the use of that particular hold when the state says that it's okay for certain conditions. I'm just Seattle is Seattle officers are frustrated. They're they are retiring and leaving. And Seattle is actually now trying to do a big recruitment push. Interesting. Other questions for Marshall or Terry. So, Beth Novotny is also with us she represents the Vermont chiefs of police association. If she has any comments questions. Welcome them now, and Commissioner Shirley same. So, I just have one. About, you know, the finances of getting all of this training done increased hours if it's needed, and just, you know, for, for many learning something totally different. And how, how about that. Senator you kind of cut out a little bit but I heard you talk about the finance and then the increase hours. So how to do that. Yes. And I'll use Vermont as, as a, again, a great example. I think, you know, the way that your sheriffs are structured, you know, as full patrol functions law enforcement. You've got your major cities as well with their space. So you don't have to send everyone to one central police, you know, to the academy to get the training, you could develop your curriculum with, you know, your Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council, you could then with the chiefs with the sheriffs, do the training at, you know, Burlington and Waterbury County sheriffs that often have, you know, larger training facilities available, where you could bring folks in stagger shifts stagger the training, get creative. You always have the option Vermont that state police do coverage. And if you've got a smaller jurisdiction that needs to send its offices to training, you know, your county sheriffs can go in and patrol your stickers can come in and do that coverage. And I think that's just, you know, a cooperative agreement that you make. I back to the training piece I think what if Vermont moves in that direction, whatever training does does then get sanctioned by the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council and agreed upon by the chiefs and the chiefs in Vermont, that then you bring in those officers that are going to get trained in that new model. Right, because this is what we did in New York. The crisis response and mental health training was done sort of the folks that were teaching and had been teaching for 3040 years. It didn't mean that they necessarily had 40 years of experience in communicating positively with an individual. I said, look, if we're going to make these changes in New York State, we want to have a whole new process of certifying an instructor to ensure the quality and the integrity of the training curriculum. And so that's something that I would say if Vermont moves in that direction, it would be beneficial to then say, here's our selection process for the instructors, they're all going to go through an instructor training gets certified, so that when they go out to, you know, the different jurisdictions to provide this training, there is consistency and fidelity to whatever training model gets developed. Thank you, Senator. It's Mike Sherling I would just add for the, so the witnesses have some background. I think I heard something on the order 20 hours of training in this arena for one program. The Vermont's current program has over 60 hours of training not including patrol procedures and firearms which also have robust components of use of force and deescalation so it's it sounds like it's an exponential difference in the amount of time we devote to this. Our instructors are not full time. Academy staff and most instances they're actually operational folks are coming in from police department so they are selected because they're the best at what they do and they are embedded for their careers in the field and coming back to teach so I think on those two topics were pretty far ahead of many places in the United States based on our existing models. Thank you. I called you chief. I called you chief. I'm used to that. We first met you were the chief of the Berlin PD. Was actually a detective senator but but I'll take. Yeah, you were. That's right to your detective. Probably called your chief then. Senator may I weigh in on this as well. They weigh in or ask a question. Sure. Yeah, actually, I just want to follow up on what the commissioner just just shared with this committee. It's also important to note that at the beginning of the year you may recall there was a bill introduced in the house was house numbered 808 I think there may have been a commission bill in the Senate as well. It was the ACLU separate I think to get Vermont to adopt the California standard. There was a companion bill and I think it was house for 64 that related to some measures at the training council and at the Academy in response to that, though it began in both the judiciary and government operations committee of both houses, and house, it eventually got moved into the government operations committee of the house and that is where the police Academy, the council, the law enforcement associations, advocates stakeholders that's where we all landed in January and February. There was a concerted effort to really lay out the system in Vermont to include the training. As part of that, to my recollection, all of the law enforcement associations actually had a couple of requests to the committee. One was to assist in expanding the embedding of social workers into police departments to continue with the team to mental health crisis response program that is pretty successful here in Vermont. And the third was to expand training at the Academy for use of force by I can't remember the number of hours but it was somewhat significant. And so I just wanted to share that also to share what drew bloom has shared. Both in house judiciary house government ops and I'm sure he would share with your committee. We encourage you already has. Yeah, we encourage any committee member to include Mr. Lynn, Mr. Clement to actually go to the Academy and take a look at the curriculum, participate in any of the classes. And, you know, there's an open invitation so I just wanted to share that. S124 is the government ops bill that you're referring to, and that Senator white obviously is chair of government ops says involvement in that the house is now dealing with that. The team started out quite frankly, as we passed it I think was more based on the California use of force model. It is now expanded to Seattle, I guess. And that that's what we're trying to respond to here today. Beth is figuring out. I agree with where we're in this unusual situation where our third session of the year ends next Friday, hopefully, and the house has been working on a bill for two months that we passed back in June. So we're trying to figure out and I'm so appreciative of Marshall and Terry to take the time with us this morning to talk about a little bit what's going on the national scene. And I'm not disparaging our training council or the efforts of our chiefs or our state police or any other law enforcement in Vermont. I'm merely trying to hear from folks from out of state who are looking at this in various states around the nation I was not aware that no Hampshire, for example, passed a law I was not aware that Connecticut massive are in the hopper that they may not have gotten to the governor yet but so I think this is helpful to me anyway. Yeah, Terry. I know I just got a couple points and I know you've mentioned it earlier and I just heard from. I will say, I mean the idea of social workers embedded with police departments and I understand social workers being embedded in the troop barracks. And again, I think that's just what a positive step in the right direction, you know, recognizing that officers do get stressed, you know, and burned out and they're seeing things on a daily basis that many people don't see and to know that we want to, you know, keep them working in their job. I think is a great thing. The mental health response that is the national discussion right now. How do police agencies and being well partners respond to to incidents are there other alternatives to sending a police unit. You know, in many cases, Senator, that is the only option that's available. I mean, we know right now that about 52% of police departments in the United States have fewer than 10 officers. And on top of that, about another 22% have less than 25 officers. You're talking. There's a large. A lot of people I think just think police departments are LA, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Seattle. The reality is that they're small police departments and they make the only resource may be that 3am 911 call to a police unit. So, to the third point of expanding training. I just think that we're seeing that happen police training commissions and councils are trying to increase their training hours to go beyond whatever they were, you know, legislated or required or mandated. I just think that that is a wonderful thing to do to then put in as much training as possible so that we do prepare those offices for all the different scenarios that that he or she are going to economy when they when they hit the street so I just want to do that. And the final point that I'll make Senator is I've also read many of the major cities that have adopted very similar policies to Seattle, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, even Minneapolis. My concern sometimes looking at policies that were adopted by a particular city is that often it's a large urban agency, and it while it may work for them. It may not work for if you're looking at sort of legislating something for the entire state. So, you know, Houston, you know they said banned outright prohibited fantastic. Other Texas police chiefs are saying no, not so fast we, we want to be able to have this as a as a as an option for a life or death circumstance for police officer that may find him or herself out on a highway some morning at 4am. And that is their only last resort. Thank you. One of the things that's always amazed me and I got to know several police officers who work, particularly with child sex abuse cases. And you just mentioned something and not when you talked about mental health folks better than barracks and police departments. I wondered how they don't burn out in six months of dealing day in day out with child sex offenders and that type of case. We have state police investigating. The child advocacy centers where the state police local police and prosecutors and so forth, work together with child abuse and child sexual abuse victims. I just can't imagine on a daily basis dealing with that group and not having some, you know, carry over into the into their private life and how they put how they deal with it. So, is that also happening in our policing where we provide help for these folks who are working, you know, with such horrible situations day in day out. You know, I, the boy, I would love to talk about that question, Senator, you know, no, I mean, sure, there are agencies that are trying to respond as they will. But the culture of policing, if you admit that you have a problem if you need help if you need it, you're immediately we're going to take your firearm away and we're going to sit you on a desk, we call it rubber gun squad. Or because it's admitting weakness and I'll argue you just you're exposing your humanity you're you're seeing things that have had an impact on you. And why shouldn't we as you know provide counseling or services to an individual that still respects their, you know, the fact that they were able to become police officers state troopers, sheriffs, get them some help get them the assistance that they need so that we can, you know, keep them on the job doing the good, the good work that they do but yes and I will say this I certainly you know the commemorate commemoration 911 I work with a lot of officers who they were there they lost their, you know, their, their colleagues their friends and it's never been able to sort of publicly talk about or get help from the department without being, you know, labeled as, you know, somebody who needs to be off the job. And that's where I think, honestly, we do a disservice to, to our police officers, and this I could take offices from Indiana, Texas, Florida, Vermont, New Hampshire, and they'll probably say the same thing. If I have a problem, I'm probably not going to tell my chief, or you know, my sheriff that I have some issues. I'm going to keep it quiet and Senator. Senator White. So I can't help but put in a plug here for the program at the Brattleboro retreat which is a uniformed officers program. And it, it has made a huge difference in the lives of many, many people, including our, the former sheriff of our county who who actually came out and in a very vulnerable way, admitted that he had had issues and that he took part in the program at the retreat because he needed that additional support and help and. And I think that that him coming out and saying that has, I don't know if statewide it's made a difference but I know that it has made an impact on officers down here, who are more willing to admit that they need some help. Thank you. Mr. Sherling, did you have a question or comment. I do. I appreciate the focus on this. This is another area where I think Vermont stands apart from much of the rest of the nation. We've had, I want to clarify that the embedded social worker and mental health worker program we're talking about earlier in that expansion and investment is actually about first response and responding to crisis in the community. But in addition to that, for more than a decade now we have had embedded social workers, psychologists and others in police departments in Vermont we have a very robust peer support network. There's a center for first responder wellness that has grown out of an initiative we started in Burlington with an embedded mental health clinician who went to roll calls did ride alongs. And we're talking about the standard of expectation to not you're going to be on the rubber gun squad and you shouldn't engage but we want you to engage on everything that happens, even if it is, it might be perceived as trivial we do don't want that cumulative stress to create decision making and we have the same thing in the state police and that is a program that we offer out to other first responders as well when a critical incident happens in Vermont. Our peer support team and our clinicians led by Lori Gurney who's a psychologist, go and do one on one debriefings group debriefings and active engagement so you know another area where we don't need to keep coming back to this but there are many challenges around the country. But it on so many topics whether it's this or, frankly what Senator Sears was talking about earlier and the stress of specialized investigations that's actually how we met was in drafting child pornography statutes when I was assigned to the sex crimes unit for a number of years. We have a model for how those investigations are done. That has been adopted now nationally so you know not to spend too much time patting ourselves on the back but Vermonters do enjoy a completely different operating environment than exists in many other places and scattered across the 18,000 police departments in the country. Senator May also jump in on this brief. Sure. I just, I appreciate Mr. Lynn's conversation on in this time in this area and if you recall, the Senate was poised to pass out Senate 243, which is a bill that I worked on. Not necessarily not representing Vermont police association, but with with Jim Baker and his personal capacity that I feel was was an effort to create a statewide commission on wellness first first responders with the goal of coming up with best practices and figuring out where we had strengths in the system where we had gaps and how we could fill those gaps to create a more robust system statewide so that no officer in any world part of Vermont lacked access to that kind of care. One thing that came out of that discussion and I know you're aware of the Senator Sears because Jim Baker has made this point over and over again and both House House, excuse me Senate health and welfare and and I believe in government office as well that when you have officers who are experiencing trauma that plays out in the workplace. We may not necessarily recognize that misconduct as related to PTSD or trauma, but we, we believe that it often is and so we're trying to come at this from a holistic perspective that you're asking an officer to act in a split second to stress, particularly stress that places that officer or somebody else in danger of death or serious bodily injury, the trauma can can play a role in decision making so we very much want to work on that. I just urge you all to take a look at your calendar, it was really on the on the verge of getting passed out to the house and then we went into a state of emergency under COVID-19. So, I get that we have that bill. I think it passed the bill. I think it's in the house. Okay, great came out of Senate appropriations, as I remember was the final place. I did it been on your calendar. Quite. Most of code. So, well, I'll take a look to see if it moved. I thought we passed if we haven't I, that's, that's my bad. I try to follow bills that I introduce. What's the number again. What's the number again. Senate, I think it's Senate 243 and we'll make sure that we get that moving on the health side as well because I think it's, it's these are all connected. But as the commissioner has pointed out, and I think we can do this all day with you. One of the things that I appreciate about the Vermont police association and about Vermont law enforcement at 50,000 feet is that there is a continual search for how we can do it better. So, without prompting of the legislature and without pressure of any legislation they were on the move to expand the program for embedded social workers and they created team two on their own initiative so there are a lot of things they are doing, because they want to continually improve their service and it isn't perfect. It will never be perfect but the motivation I think should have some value to this committee. I understand that we, we appreciate all that. But right now. Are there any other questions of, and we can talk about this one when this is finished. Joe. Senator Benning. Yeah, I just like to circle back to 119. As we're speaking I'm getting emails from a member of the House Judiciary Committee wondering which direction he should go on this particular bill. I haven't seen what they've done with it but I want to make a couple of things really clear. Marshall, if I learned anything from you today. It's that Vermont has a unique opportunity to have every single police agency on the same page, and they should all be subject to having a consistent policy throughout the state and not go community to community so I thank you for being here this morning. Terry, I want to come back to you for a moment. The, the whole discussion we are having has been generated. Not really by Vermont issues necessarily although there are some but primarily the national conversation over whether a choke hold should have been used in a situation in which, in my eyes the totality of circumstances did not call for. The choke hold itself is an element of deadly force. So is a billy club a brick, a gun, it doesn't matter. The question really is, are you authorized under what community would normally say is acceptable to use deadly force in a given situation. If you have a responsibility first to try to de escalate if at all possible, or if that is not possible, and you are authorized to use deadly force and what the community would see as an understandable rationale. It doesn't matter to me what the element of deadly force is that you are using. And I'm trying to wrap my head around the train has a train going by. That's me. I, we've got the Canadian national on its way up the Pacific River Valley, which Terry knows all about. But the, the, the crux for me, I guess, is trying to strike a clear understanding for an officer who is in training that their first objective is to de escalate if at all possible. If not, be real sure that the circumstances in front of you call for the use of deadly force before you use it. I'm a criminal defense attorney by trade and normally I'm not somebody who is out there protecting the police I'm usually cross examining them. But I've been imagining myself sitting next to a police officer who's now been charged with a crime as a result of violating this particular provision should there be criminal elements to it. And I keep coming back to it doesn't matter what form of deadly force you use. So long as the totality of circumstances say you are justified in doing so. And I don't want to have us hung up on the question of what force should be banned or not because that makes no sense to me. If the only thing I've got available as a brick lying next to me, and I have the authorization to use deadly force. I'm going to use it. And I think that the jury would find me justified in doing so so long as I have complied with all of the other stepping stones going towards the decision of whether authorized use of deadly forces there. So, help me out here. I'm trusting you've seen 119. Yes. The House version at what we last saw was a specific statement that deadly force could only be used. If all of those stepping stones were complied with on the way. I am in favor of that logic. It doesn't matter to me. In fact, I see it as completely irrelevant whether a given deadly force is used. The question for me is whether or not deadly force was authorized. Am I going off on a silly tangent or am I missing something completely. No, Senator and you know my honest response there is both having been in situations as a police officer, where I will use whatever I had available to me to stop the attacker to stop the assault on me, and knowing that there were certain things that were available to me to use. Am I safe in assuming you would not have chosen to use deadly force in trying to effectuate an arrest of someone who was selling untaxed cigarettes. You are correct. I would have or passing a counterfeit $20 bill. Correct. Absolutely. I don't want to be an armchair quarterback and I think certainly Commissioner Schirling understands that as well. I'm never going to sort of, I can look at what happened. Would I make those decisions? Probably not. I would have made different ones. I think the point of an officer, if you do look at Minneapolis and the number of offices were there including a recruit or a recent graduate, the, you know, the policing model, you know, with your supervisor is not going to be inviting for a high sir, you're not supposed to be doing that. I mean, you're going to, you shut your mouth, you're new on the street, you'll do as I say. Well, we saw on the video, would any of us have used that force, even though it was available under current Minneapolis law at the time or policy at the time, probably not. Would have been a warrior, the warrior mentality is problematic from a systemic point of view. Sure. And I see these two issues as being conflated. And to me that's dangerous. I think there's, there's got to be a way to separate out the training that is necessary to disabuse an officer of that warrant that warrior mentality. Not quite sure we are ready for prime time on dealing with that issue just yet, but we see it as a direction we definitely need to go in. Senator one just just a quick sort of follow up but what we are seeing across states to your point is that states are saying we're going to prohibit it we're going to ban it. However, there are a certain set of categories that you have to check off. If you've checked them off and you get, you know, you're down to that but then you may use that to save the life of yourself or another. I can't imagine though an officer who is in a position of literally life and death, either for themselves or for another person, going through the mental exercise of checking off boxes. There's got to be an easy way to say the community understands that in this circumstance, you are authorized to do whatever is necessary doesn't matter to me what the tool is you get to that point with. But you have to have a clear line of demarcation between whether or not you have a responsibility to deescalate, or it's impossible for you to do so. That's fairly easy to train. Yeah, yep. Yes. So, I'm sorry. I do appreciate the line of questioning Joe has but a couple of things strike me one. One is that Joe, it seems like you're working around to the idea that police should be able to do anything deadly. If there's a knife on the ground if, if they have a rock nearby you're, you're in a space where you're where you've moved to the idea that deadly force. If you're justified would include anything what what we are originally set out to deal with here. And I appreciated Terry said something earlier on about an officer issues a command and then they're defending the command, and they won't back down. And I think that's a significant problem, but it's magnified incredibly by race. You have systemic bias, you have people who feel they've issued a command. They don't bring to consciousness the fact that there's a racial element here, but they've issued a command to a black man, he doesn't respond to the command. You get them choking out and killing black men at a much greater rate than white men, because there's not that same sense of, you know, racial tension involved. So, you know, to go back to what we're doing. So we're banning the chokehold, or we already banned the chokehold in 219. And the reason for that was that it was being used disproportionately against people of color, and disproportionately compared to the offense that that was underway because they were defending the command white against black. So that puts it in a very stark context. The last thing I'll say Joe as you began by saying these laws didn't start because of Vermont problems. They started because of national problems. That is wrong. We have dramatic problems in Vermont right now. Senator Sears will tell you down in Bennington. The racial issues are out of hand in Chittenden County we have officers who have used excessive force. We now have a permanent encampment in Battery Park. It's happening in Vermont. So, you know, it doesn't do any of us any good to begin by denying that this is a Vermont problem. So I don't, I don't disagree with anything you have just said. Okay. So your, your train of thought regarding police officers wrongly using force is a valid one. But that's the warrior mentality that we know has to be attacked. When an officer walks into a scene has not questioned anybody but suddenly shoves them up against a wall or knocks them down to the ground to me. That's the warrior mentality doesn't have anything to do with a particular use of deadly force. I know that there have been scenes that that's been wrongly applied, because the officer never went through the decision making process. Do I have a responsibility here to deescalate. And do I have a responsibility to avoid using my mere presence as something that can actually escalate the situation. To me that's all the warrior mentality that has to be addressed. My concern is that in focusing only on one component of deadly use of force. You are effectively removing from the officer a tool that may be the actual last resort they have. And there's a strong difference between being in a situation where my life is actually threatened. I'm deciding to use that choke hold because somebody said screw you cop, and they then decide to escalate the situation by using their body in order to bring a dictatorial power to the scene. So that that's the only place I think we have a conflict. I agree with you on virtually everything that you've just said, we disagree also on whether the house, you know it's hard to talk about the House bill because it's not yet come completely together. But, but our, our bill and the House bill, I would argue, offer a defense to defenses explicitly to officers who use a choke hold and defense of their own life, or the life of another person. So it is perfectly explicitly in what we read yesterday. So, it is false to say that it takes away that in defense of their own life. What it does is it says, it's prohibited in the standard run of things and there's a penalty for using it. That's what we passed in 219. To keep in in to situated alongside of 219. I thought that piece in the House bill that said, nothing shall be construed to take away the common law defense, or the justifiable homicide defense that speaks directly to your argument. Those people are not going to be prosecuted. I would interject here with a couple of comments and then Terry Marshall would like to comment. While we still have them on board and I don't want to hold them up much longer. First of all, h s 243 or 234, whatever it is, is in house you house health care committee best so if you could push that out that would be appreciated. It has passed the Senate this over in the house. Secondly, I tend to agree with Philip on this one and I, I find it. As I said earlier working with troubled youth for 40 years and having done a few restraints myself, not very many luckily. The choke hold has been basically banned forever. And even some hog tying, what's called the hog time. Recently, a case that our juvenile detention facility, federal judge Crawford ruled against even that form of restraint. I think there's enough there to suggest that. Yes, it might be justifiable and I think we allow that. In those cases, in our version of S1 19. Don't I, I, I, so I tend to agree with you. I wonder if you have any other comments either Terry or Marshall about any of this conversation or any other before we let you go. I don't want to take up your entire days. Marshall. I just guess as Terry said, I mean, on this question that you're discussing right now as you look across the other state policies, we can send you a list of them that would be helpful but that had riveted choke holds they most even strongest language that that I've reviewed as Terry said still include an exception for when use of deadly forces is warranted or is appropriate. You know, I think you look across those bills have states that would be helpful if you could send us how other states are dealing with use of deadly force when it's when it's appropriate or what they're putting on. I always felt in the bill that we passed both I think I can't remember now the bill number that actually the governor signed in the law. I always felt like those two bills that we passed out of this committee and out of the Senate were focused on two issues one, the circumstances that one would find themselves in, but also proportionality that whatever you do needs to be proportional I mean to actually use deadly force in a case of a $20 counterfeit bill, just not proportional and I think that's where those are two important factors, and whatever we do. The total totality of the circumstances and is whatever action is taken proportional to the danger. I looked at the case in Georgia I can't remember the man's name now it was killed by police shot police fired at him over a DUI and it was, you know he asked to just go home, or to go to his sisters, and they said no they need to arrest him. And he grabbed their taser and led and they shot him but they also when they shot him missed with a couple of shots that went into a vehicle that was standing in line at the Wendy's. Any final comments either. Marsha. No, I don't send it I just send it as Commissioner. I just very honored to have been asked to be here in sort of offer whatever assistance I could be to your committee. Certainly I think it's an extremely important topic, and I was just glad to be a small part of it. I will say Senator when I, when I opened with my kind of love of Vermont. Before I when I was starting my young career and policing way back in the 80s. I was actually on the road to become a Vermont State trooper. I could have seen myself there called and I went to Boston but I was in the process of trying to get into Vermont so there's another connection for me to the work that you're doing up in the state of Vermont. Thank you both so much. I look forward to seeing you in person someday maybe in Seattle Marshall next next year. We had our meeting annual meeting of the advisory board to the Justice Center scheduled for Seattle this year. So we were disappointed that we lost that because it's a beautiful city and a great place to visit. But it's also a gateway to what Alaska crews that I had also planned to do and and got canceled on so. Thanks for the opportunity. Thank you both very much for joining us this morning. Thank you. Thank you centers. Yep. By now. Commissioner and Beth, did you want to comment, both of you on either one first or second on s1 19 and the current draft and concerns that you may have with that. It's the machine will let me unmute myself. Thank you. First, thanks for letting us participate center and committee. I appreciate it. I have a current draft of one 19 that if you're referring to the house version, so yeah, I just, I don't. I don't know how to comment because I don't not confident I have a current version. Yeah. I can just say that the current version is 3.5 and it's been posted on both committees web pages. How does it deal with the issue of the exemption I'm going to call an exemption for the use of the choke hold. Does it still. Senator is that question. Both of us or is it to the commissioner. It was to brand actually the current version. The current version deals with that exemption for the use of choke holds in two places. You, I can direct you to it in the side by side that you reviewed yesterday or in the draft itself. If you remember, subdivision C eight in the standards for law enforcement use of force. Has that language that says that nothing about the sections shall interfere with the law enforcement's law enforcement officers right to assert the justifiable homicide defense or their right to self defense under common law. And that was done in compliance with the standards and set forth the one through four. And then there was additionally some language in the crime the prohibited restraint crime. That provided some similar language that law enforcement officer who who who used a prohibited restraint in compliance with the standards for use of force. Essentially could use a prohibited restraint under the circumstances. Here's where the problem I want to make sure that Commissioner Schirling and have time to answer but go ahead, Senator White and then Senator Benning. No, I just bring the question that I had before I don't think I put very eloquently but that that defense is only available under justifiable homicide so there has to have been a homicide occurred as a result of the prohibited act right. No, the justifiable homicide statute if you remember, even though it's called justifiable homicide. It does provide for any harm that's done to a person so it's not just if it's a homicide occurs but if a person is injured as a result of there has to be some injury so just the fact that if the, if the prohibited act is used, and there wasn't an injury or a homicide then there is no defense. Right I'm sorry I remember you were you brought that up in the context of a civil case is that right. I guess so because I guess the person could be sued then because he used that prohibited act and there was no harm done to the person. Right, right so I understand that question and, and I think that you know this is sort of what the committee is grappling with the way that you set set it forth in the standard. If that use of force complies with the rest of the standards under the under the statute. Versus whether or not a person uses prohibited restraint, and it is not in compliance with those standards. I do think that's a question. Senator Benning and Senator Bruce. I just was that just a technical. I'm just confused about something I, if they bring a civil suit. I would say there was no injury to them. Then how did they recover in a civil suit, if they have no injury. Well, but they, the person used a prohibited act. No, no, but that would be a that would be a criminal they can't sue to have the person prosecuted. They can only sue to recover their own injury. Right there would be. Well, it really upset him. Well, but it's, if they've, if they've done a criminal thing by using the hold, then they're liable for that criminal defense, but it wouldn't apply because in your example there's no injury. And the criminal defense only speaks to when there's serious bodily injury. And then in the civil case it doesn't apply because there's no injury. So they could be charged, he could be charged criminally. Because they're, because he used a prohibited act. No, it's only prohibited if it results in the crime as only if there's death or serious bodily injury. That's the way the crime is drafted that you could have maybe maybe a professional penalty. No, you had a question or comment, and then I'd like to hear from Beth and Commissioner Sterling. No, actually, I did not have any question or comment. Oh, you're just waving at the train. Would you like to comment on the current version of S 119 or the what you know about it and, and concern from the Vermont chiefs of police association or the Vermont police association I forgot which one you always confuse. Yeah, thank you, Senator. And thank you for the opportunity to go ahead. Sorry. To explain our dilemma. Tomorrow, we're having a meeting with the house and the speaker. Senator white myself with any objections we have to the House versions of 124 and 119 so I don't know what I want to be able to carry this message to the. Mr chair. Yeah. Did I'm not sure I heard you. Are you saying that you and Senator white are going to meet with the speaker about this bill. I'm there for 124. They want to have a meeting with representative Emmons representative grad representative. The speaker. Okay, I'm not speak. I'm not there because of this bill. I would be speaking on behalf of the judiciary committee. I'm going to try on the behalf of gov ups. I said, trying to understand what, what we want, what we have so go ahead, Beth. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for allowing me the opportunity. I do represent the Vermont police association, not the Vermont association of chiefs of police. They are a different association. It is true that the Vermont police association has within its membership chiefs, sheriffs and rank and file officers. So that if that is just this body at all. Yep. So there is, there's actually a great deal to comment on and I honestly don't think there is enough time to address all of the issues that that can be talked about with respect to the version of s 19. I'm currently in front of you and particularly around prohibited restraint, but let me start with prohibited restraint since that's where we left off with Mr Lynn, Mr Clement. I just, I will. The police association remains concerned that there is no clear guidance and defense available to officers who use a prohibited restraint in defense of life or serious bodily injury. And I, you know, I, I've heard Senator Baruch and with due respect to Senator Baruch. I'm in agreement with Senator Benning. I believe that attorney general assistant attorney general Julio Thompson testified in house judiciary that he could see the wisdom and embedding in the statute regarding prohibited restraint, the defense there are few important reasons to do it. First, I don't think the application of justifiable homicide is is as applicable as, as, as you perceive it. And if anything that should lead you to conclude that you've got two lawyers. I don't know how long Joe's been practicing. I've been practicing for over 30 years. I was a prosecutor. I was a defense attorney, both in state and federal court. And at a minimum what we can say here is that reasonable people disagree. And there should not be that type of disagreement when it comes to something this important, because at stake here for officers is the loss of their liberty, because it is a crime punishable by 20 years. The loss of their profession because it does result in consequences at the criminal justice training council with respect to the certification as a police officer. And the civil liability quite frankly is exists, but of the concerns we have. The first two are the primary concerns. Common law, for the same reason and I'll explain why in a moment doesn't provide that safe harbor that you think it does either. But, but, but the real important reason for embedding it right into the statute itself is that we are transparent with our community. Everybody here has recognized that we are in a unique time in history. It is a it is an awakening. It is a moment in civil rights where people are asking for change and there is this tension and this is true at any moment in our history we've had this. With this, we're a marginalized group or a group that has been oppressed has asked for equal status. And in this place. The most important thing that law enforcement needs to do is consistent with the 21st century policing model and you have it. In Senate one excuse me Senate 219 as an expressed goal, which we're pleased to see the Vermont police association, its commitment, and it regularly testifies to this is to that 21st century policing model created under President Obama's Department of Justice. With respect to prohibited restraint, we need to be transparent. The worst thing that can happen, three years from now, a year from now, is that an officer uses a prohibited restraint defensive life. And a prosecutor makes the call that there should be no criminal charge against the officer. And the community scratches its head because the statute is a clear strict liability prohibition intent does not come into play. It is it is a statute that criminalizes a technique and the outcome. It does not criminalize unlawful use of force it criminalizes a technique and outcome. And so, rightfully so there will be an argument in the community about whether that decision was made to defend law enforcement, because of some perceived conflict between a prosecutor role and and contact with a law enforcement community, etc, and it will only erode and further erode trust. And that is fatal to the 21st century policing model it is fatal to good policing best practices, and will cause us tremendous problems so I think clarity matters. So a couple of things about prohibited restraint and and these are important to keep in mind. The first is, you have embedded as part of Senate 219 a category B offense. It the for the Criminal Justice Training Council to hold officers accountable for actual use of the restraint. This is regardless of whether there is a defense. It's a strict liability category B misconduct period. There's no defense presently. And as a result of its of its of its presence in title 20 section 2401. Drew Blum will tell you he can't train a number of techniques based upon the definition of prohibited restraint which he believes goes beyond what you had in mind and that would be a choke hold. He can take off the table for him a variety of other techniques and affect his training program beyond what I think you intended and he can explain that to you. The second thing you should keep in mind is that if a law enforcement officer is participating in a training at the academy. In any way apply pressure in this way they were using some technique like that then that would be a category B violation so the concern drew blue has is these techniques that go beyond what he considers what you have in mind are also on the table and I think I'd like to hear from Drew and Jacob Humber who is the assistant attorney general of eyes at the academy they can and I've got about 20 minutes left to committee time to deal with all of this. So, you know, you can invite me to hear from anybody but the realities of the of the process are that we kind of got stuck here with whatever the house is doing and trying to figure it out. We don't have time. Sorry. So we may just recommend we not do anything. I don't know. I'm just really frustrated with the process that gone on with this bill. So I appreciate the testimony Beth but I want to hear. This is my last morning to consider the changes and then we're going to have to have a meeting once the house passes something if they do. We're going to have to figure out how to respond. So, unfortunately, I don't have time to hear from people who you know we heard from people when we first took the bill up and passed it. I'm just trying to get up to not up to date on the house version. And if you could just kind of move to some other. I just don't have time. The process is not allowing us the time to do a good job. I will say that. And it's a, it's a mess. So I think that I, given that you have very little time, I, I guess maybe I'll just hover at 50,000 feet to just to bring you the Vermont police association. You said would you pass the Senate version of S1 19. What would you say. Well, the police association would carry its concern that there is no defense to prohibited restraint. That actually creates a problem in the field and I don't think that the defenses that Senator Bruce think clearly apply clearly apply in the way that he thinks they do. It's going to create issues at the academy because it's also a category B offense without any defense and it may affect training programs. And the third piece is that at 50,000 feet, Senator, we are changing a known standard in Vermont. I recognize that all of law enforcement to include the police association see the wisdom and have seen the wisdom since January, February, and moving to a statewide model policy and use of force. We can, we have a standard hold officers accountable in this state criminally and civilly but the civil piece again less the concern the criminal piece is what we're focused on here. And. Okay, is there any other part of that bill that bothers you of S1 19 as we passed it. Well, to embed to statute to create a new statutory standard is going to create uncertainty, because we will have to wait to see how Vermont courts respond to this standard, as they interpret it in Vermont, as applied to fact patterns as they come And this is this creates uncertainty and training it creates uncertainty in policy because we can take our best guess, but no one will know in the end, how it's going to be interpreted by the court as applied to a fact pattern. And the question, I guess that the police association is asking is why are we rushing to do this. It doesn't object to a full discussion about use of force, or even the possibility of change. It wishes to do that with stakeholders in a thoughtful way that aligns with the 21st century police model with respect to the pillar of trust, and that encouragement to work with our communities that's the Mont police association opinion. Okay, so if you were to ask, I can't walk you through every line of either version, because we don't have time, but at 50,000 feet. That's, that's the thinking to change the standard, you need to talk to drew and Jacob about the impact on training up the entire state on a new standard we don't fully understand or fully understand how the courts will interpret. Thank you. Mr. Shirley. Thank you, Senator. I'll try to be brief understanding you have a limited amount of time. I guess my best description of the Senate version is, I agree with that that does continue to create ambiguity but relative to the House version it creates far less ambiguity. It's imperfect but I would stop short of endorsing I do think we should spend more time and we're all, you all are coming back relatively soon, assuming the elections all play out in your favor. I would note, however, a very big red flag in the current version of 119 has an effective date of October 1 of 2020 and that's essentially impossible to retrain 1200 people. It would take us longer than that just to do a legal analysis of to try to get some sense of what it means. So, I'll leave that there. Relative to the House version. If I'm looking at the correct one. I'm showing 3.5 dated two days ago, although I thought there were supposed to be edits yesterday. And only looking right now at the highlighted sections are our other concerns that I've testified to all remain. Now there are sections here that just yet they literally cannot be operationalized so on page four line 15. Section six, and this same definition or same outline repeats itself on page seven. That means, including whether a medical condition mental impairment developmental disability physical limitation language barrier drug or alcohol impairment or other factor interferes with the subject's ability to understand or comply with law enforcement commands. That is absolutely impossible to know. Because even if we know that someone suffers from an underlying mental illness for example. We do not know whether that mental illness or some other substance is contributing to their behavior. Criminalities can contributing to their behavior, or perhaps they were just struck in the head by someone and have a closed head injury and it's intercranial pressure that's calling up that's causing the altered mental status. You need to be in a medical facility to determine whether any one of these things applies. So, I'll stop there. That is just an example of the flaws in the existing house version. And happy to answer further questions but this is impossible to from our perspective to operationalize. If I hear both of you, both Beth and yourself. The two problems with our version of S1 19 are the lack of an exemption for a band. Chocold. And the effective date. The house version, I mean the effective date of October 1st is way too quick. Senator this is fast. Yeah, that's part in part that's it. As well as the idea that we would embed a statutory standard Minnesota California. They are all examples of why that is fraught with peril. California had to recently change its standard because it was operating under an unconstitutional standard that had statutorily created and neglected to tend to on a regular basis. Same with Minnesota. If Minnesota had some statute that authorized. Understand what was the statutorily stand what what's the statutory standard that that that you're talking about. In California if you read the history of their recent to the recent bill that they passed and they have a process they fill out a form. They have to fill out a form explaining why they needed to pass that bill and the recent change in the use of force standard was an amendment. It was an amendment basically to a statute that they had that existed regarding use of force. And that statute was unconstitutional. So they had to change it. And that was part of it. The other reason they had to change it is because they, they obviously had a significant problem relating to the use of force in California unique to California. And in Minnesota, if there was a statute that authorized what occurred in Mr Floyd's case, then that statute unconstitutional because there is no argument under the current Graham standard that can even remotely justify the use of force in that case it is. I think such a no brainer that that was an unconstitutional application of use of force. So if there was any statute that said otherwise, it's unconstitutional. And you help me. The effective date of S 119 as we passed it is October 1 correct. Correct. And we could change that. We could suggest that they change that. The problem, the problem that Beth and commissioner Sherling, Beth Novotny and commissioner Sherling have mentioned is with, am I understanding it for correctly, but correctly, Bryn, the problem is the lack of an exemption to for the use of the choco. Are you asking me to confirm that version of S one night. Is that what the standard you're talking about. I'm talking about both the prohibited restraint or the lack of it in the Senate version. The presence of it in the house version needs to be fixed a little bit, but also I'm talking about the actual effort to create a Vermont statutory standard with respect to deadly force in the Senate version. That is new and will require. Will require training will require a legal analysis and will create uncertainty because we will not know how the Vermont courts will interpret this as applied to fact patterns in years to come and I'll just leave you with this uncertainty. The standard or its meaning creates doubt and doubt creates hesitancy and hesitancy places, officers and others in danger or jeopardy. So that is where I will leave it. Thank you. All right. Committee Joe. Beth I'll leave it with you 37 years. I don't know how many years you got, but that's me. Shoot me if I'm still here in three years. What was the year. No, we don't want to shot Joe. It's against the law. Senator that'll depend on the standard that you passed. Senator white. I have to say that at this point, I am very reluctant to pass either of these are version or the house version. Even though we don't know what it really is. I think that there is more. I think this conversation has to be continued in a better forum. And I, there are many people on many sides of this issue that have asked us not to, not to pass it at this point so I'm, I'm, I'm going to have to vote against it no matter what it really is. That. Did you want to comment. Quite frankly when I read the house version. Two days ago or whenever that was, I thought, this is not something that I can see anybody really applying in a reasonable way, some of the stuff in there. And so I think it definitely needs more work in terms of testimony and figuring out some of the things that are planned in the house version or would be, you know, I just think it's not ready. I thought our version was, was good and could have worked. I don't think it is. But the version that we're going to get is. Well, who knows what we're going to get but what's already there that's been put together. Not comfortable. I will repeat what I said yesterday. I, I don't want to be jammed at the end of the process by the house and feel that we have to operate with too little time. However, the second version of what representatives alone came out with. I felt like I could with some work that we could do in, in a few days time, I could vote for. So I'm still willing to wait until house produces their version. I can see. I wouldn't say it's a, it's a huge path but I can still see a path to my voting for a version of this bill. Senator Benning. No, the older I get, the more I realize how little time is left in life and trying to figure out exactly how much time is available for this discussion to actually work right before we adjourn. And I keep coming down to the same conclusion I expressed a couple days ago. We don't have time to properly flesh out the nuances of this bill right now. And at some point we have to realistically wake up to that fact and that's the position that I'm in so right now I'm going to join Jeanette and say, I'm not comfortable voting for either. In the circumstances that we now find ourselves in. I really believe this conversation needs to continue. It's been a great one. But I don't think we have gotten to a point yet where either bill is ripe for prime time. I'm, I'm still of the opinion that that's 119 as we passed it would be with a change in the effective date would be something that was and that I would stand behind. The, what we heard today is that many states are moving forward. I don't know how many are trying to meet remotely. And I'm not sure, given the comments from the commissioner and comments from Beth, whether or not if we were to pass out the house version whether or not what would, what would happen to it once it reached the governor's office. But I'm still willing to continue to look and see what happens. But I think that the, that the bill that we passed in the second session I call this the third session. The second session has merit, and I supported that. I would support it today. Tomorrow to center brief. I don't know if Jeanette was making a formal motion or not. But I would, I would suggest that. I, I hear the, the voices of the three members of the committee. And if that turns out to be their vote on a formal motion, it will be what it'll be. But it doesn't seem to me we could do any harm by waiting another day or two to see what the house actually produces. Then we would all be responding to our house, our Senate past version, which we know, and the house past version, which we would then know. And then I think we, we'd be in a stronger place to actually have a motion and a vote. I appreciate that. And this is a, this was a discussion today. But we really can't take a vote until we see what the house passes if anything. And see how we can respond to what we don't know what it'll completely what it'll actually look like. I'm assuming they're going to vote it out this week. I was not making a motion. Okay. We were, I was just getting a feeling from this Senate. If we're going to do the house version. I do think we deserve the time to have the same testimony that they had. And we don't have that time. I was clear. And hearing from Beth and Mr. Shirtle. That, that would be my, my feeling about it. You owe all sides. The time to testify on the changes that were made. And I don't just don't see that having. And this was a process where they had. Two months to hear from various. Interest groups and others. Folks. We haven't had that process. Thank you all very much. I guess we got a floor meeting at noon time. And then. I got to check my chat here. I missed a chat. I don't know. What is the plan for next week? Senator Sears will we be meeting Wednesday, Thursday? As far as you know. I don't know. Put it, put it down. I don't know. You know, it's, it's hard to tell what the. Yeah. It's, it's like stuff like this gets lost in the shuffle sometimes. Yeah. But we will try to meet. I would just. To be announced. On Thursday and Thursday and I'll check with. Senator. Ash. Okay. And bring out, send you in rates for those two. All right. And Brynn, thank you for all your work. Yes. Thank you, Brynn, for everything you've done. All of this. Good to be with you guys. And also on the budget items.