 And I think we can begin. So just a quick note to participants. Thank you again for joining us. We will have a question and answers at the end of the presentation. And we just ask that you use the Q and A function to submit your questions and writing and we will get to those after the panel presentation. So TJ, I'll kick it over to you. Thanks, Lauren. Well, good evening everybody and welcome to the inaugural class of the People's Law School we're so excited to hold this class to bring this project to Vermonters. The People's Law School is a partnership with the Association of Africans Living in Vermont, the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance, the Vermont Institute for Community and International Involvement known as VIKI, the Caroline Fund and with support from the ACLU of Vermont and the Vermont Attorney General's Office. I'm TJ Donovan, I'm the Vermont Attorney General and joining me tonight to talk about one of my favorite topics, the Fourth Amendment and what it means for you if and when you're ever stopped by the police. With us tonight, J.D. As, he is a senior staff attorney at ACLU of Vermont. J has been with the ACLU since 2015. Previously, he was a staff attorney with a disability law project and was also the 2012 to 2014 poverty law fellow both at Vermont Legal Aid. In addition to his work at ACLU, J is a health law and policy faculty member for the leadership program. We related to supporting children with disabilities at the University of Vermont's Larner College of Medicine. He's a 2012 graduate of Boston College Law School. J, thanks for being with us tonight. Also, a great attorney, a great defense attorney, Jessica Burke, the owner of Attorney at Burke Law. Jess Burke grew up in Fairleigh, Vermont after attending law school. She was a public defender in Chesapeake, Virginia. She returned to Vermont in 2011 and founded the criminal defense firm, Burke Law. As I said, she's one of the preeminent attorneys in our state. We are so pleased to have her with us tonight. Jess, thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me, looking forward to a good discussion. Finally, Emmett Hellrich is with us. He is a retired Burlington police lieutenant. Emmett began his law enforcement career with the Burlington Police Department in 1981, retiring as a lieutenant in 2012. He served in the patrol division, the detective division as head of narcotics unit, and was the chief of detectives for six years before returning to the patrol division. He is a graduate of the 171st FBI National Academy and the DEA's 32nd narcotics commander at Catt Academy. After retiring, Emmett was hired as coordinator for the newly formed Rapid Intervention Community Court in Chinden County from 2012 until 2018. Emmett, thank you for joining us tonight. This is great, thank you, TJ. All right, so we are talking about the Fourth Amendment. JDS, when I say the Fourth Amendment, what does that mean to you? What is your first thought? Am I right against unlawful search and seizure? Okay, Jess Burke, Fourth Amendment, what's it mean to you? Fourth Amendment means individual liberties that you have in your home, in your vehicle that protect you from intrusion from the police. Okay, and Emmett, Fourth Amendment, from your career as a law enforcement officer, what does it mean to you? It means that I, representing the government, not allowed to just go in and do whatever I want with your person or your things. I have to get approval before I am allowed to set foot in your place, allowed to seize you. I am responsible for making sure on the far end that your rights are protected at all times. Excellent, excellent answer. Let's look at the actual language of the Fourth Amendment. Lauren, could you share screen one? So this is what the Fourth Amendment said, and Emmett hit it out of the park. The Fourth Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their person's houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and shall not be violated and no warrant shall be issued but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the person and things to be seized. In the case, Riley v. California, they said the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. What is reasonable? And that word reasonableness, you hear constantly throughout the law and we're gonna talk about that tonight. But before I get to the issue of reasonableness, Jess Burke, the one word that I always, always think about when we talk about the Fourth Amendment is this word, particularity. What does that mean when we talk about a search warrant? Tell me about a search warrant and tell me about that word. Yeah, so what we're thinking about when we're thinking about police applying for a warrant is that they have a reasonable idea that a crime has been committed and that they have a location and a general idea of what evidence they might find of a crime at that particular location. So when they're describing in a warrant to a judge to get the permission to search your home person, well, person might be subject to arrest but your home, your vehicle, something of that nature, they need to outline in that search warrant exactly what they think that they might find that is evidence of a crime. So Emmett, in your career as police, you just heard attorney Burke talk about what the police can do and that word particularity on that search warrant, can you go in and search somebody's entire house, ransack the house looking for evidence or when you get a warrant for a search and we're gonna get into how you get a warrant and the warrant's issued by a judge and the standard for getting a search warrant is basically it's probable cause that a crime has been committed and it's probable that evidence of said crime will be found therein. Can you search the entire house? Well, it depends on what you're looking for. If somebody stole a refrigerator and I think it's in somebody's house, I can't go looking in small spaces for a refrigerator. But if I'm looking for something like a couple of bundles of dope or a gun, I can look any place if I've gotten the warrant approved. I can look any place for somebody who could stash a gun and could stab a small amount of dope. So that could be basically any place in the house. Like I said, if I'm searching for refrigerator, I can't look in a trust of George. I can't look in a medicine cabinet, those sorts of things. All right, because I asked that question, Lauren, next slide, because the history of the Fourth Amendment is really the history of the founding of our country. And it goes back to the Revolutionary War. And this, again, is from Riley v. California and anybody has trouble sleeping at night, you wanna read a great case law on the Fourth Amendment, read Riley v. California. But JDS, this is right out of the case where it says, this is the United States Supreme Court saying, our cases have recognized the Fourth Amendment was the founding generation's response to the reviled general warrants and rites of assistance of the colonial era, which allowed the British army to rummage through homes in unrestrained search for evidence of criminal activity. Opposition to such searches was, in fact, one of the driving forces behind the revolution itself. In 7061, the Patriot James Otis delivered a speech in Boston denouncing the use of rites of assistance. A young John Adams was there, and he would later write that quote, every man of a crowded audience appeared to be ready to take arms against the rites of assistance. Just giving her thoughts that here we are, 230 years later, talking about the Fourth Amendment and how it impacts remoders to the founding of our country and what was going on back then of ransacking houses, looking for evidence of crimes to how this has evolved today. Just sure, I think this is a remarkable quote. Absolutely, I mean, I think the history of our constitution is always interesting. And when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, what you're thinking about is the right of the people to be a check on their government. So, and that the rights are of the people, they are innate, they are within us. We don't get them from the government. We have them, what is commonly referred to as inalienable rights. And so, the government must obey those rights. And when it doesn't, there are consequences on the government for that. In the context of the revolution and it was so important because the British army and the crown was really trying to, was trying to tell the colonists, you don't have rights, you don't have freedom. We run the show here. And of course, people here wanted to think differently about that when it came to the crown and who ran the show. And they gave, and then when the bill of rights was written in the late 1780s, it became very clear that we wanna, a lot of it is geared at, we wanna make sure that that kind of thing isn't possible in the future. Coming to now, obviously the courts have interpreted it. It has, there are many different exceptions and requirements on the criminal defendants on government agencies and law enforcement. It gets us into the realm of technology and what is someone's personal information. There's a right to privacy now under the Fourth Amendment. So it's gotten very broad beyond what the founders could have envisioned, but how could they have envisioned cell phones, the internet, computers, things like that. So, I mean, it's unendingly interesting for sure. Absolutely. So class, lesson one, the Fourth Amendment is a limit on government, on what it can do in terms of searching or seizing people's property or themselves. It is a limit on government and as Emmett said, most of the time when we're talking about the government in the context of the Fourth Amendment, we're talking about the police because they are agents of the government. The Fourth Amendment is a limit on what they can do, and not saying to folks, you have these rights necessarily, but limiting what the government can do. Okay, next slide, the Vermont, that's the United States Constitution. We have a Vermont Constitution that basically gives the same, if not greater, rights. That is Article 11 under the Vermont Constitution. And that, as we can see on the screen, says that the people have a right to hold themselves with their houses and their possessions, free from search and seizure, and therefore, I'm sorry, the photos are blocking some of the words here. And therefore, without oath or affirmation, first made of forwarding sufficient findings for them whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places or to seize persons or persons, his or her property, not particularly, I can't see that word or contrary to that right, and not to be granted. Here's the bottom line. The Vermont Constitution, Article 11, trivia question, does it provide more protection than the United States Constitution or less? Who wants to take that? Jess Burke? Sure. Obviously, the federal constitution is sort of the bare minimum of what we are protected by as citizens. So certainly, the Vermont Constitution has been interpreted to afford citizens of Vermont, and those that find themselves herein, to have a greater protection under the Vermont Constitution than under the federal constitution. That said, that's kind of an evolving case law that I think that we kind of go back and forth with the federal courts. I think recently Gorsuch actually kind of smacked down our Supreme Court on support amendment issues. So I think that in theory, we love to think that Article 11 provides us greater protections, and I think that's the ideal. In fact, is it applied that way? That's maybe a different debate. Okay. And when you were with BPD, were you trained on Article 11 protections as well as Fourth Amendment protections? Absolutely. Okay. J. Diaz, Article 11 provide more protection for Vermonters than the Fourth Amendment? In many respects, yes. I think there's always cases being all different and always having different facts. You know, can always come out different ways. But, you know, there has been a decent string of cases. I think, I mean, just knows better than I to be honest, but I think have, you know, since the 80s, at least when it comes to things like the automobile exception under the federal constitution, we'll get into that later and now versus what we require. Vermont requires a warrant in most circumstances. For searching a vehicle and for searching any containers in the vehicle. So, you know, I think thing, something like that is, it's a very important protection for the people, for people within Vermont. That is definitely not afforded. When it comes to the federal government. Okay. Law enforcement. Lauren, next slide, please. So we talk about. The power of the government and that power to search. And understanding what a, why a search warrant. The general rule is, hey, you want to conduct a search. Police officer, you need a warrant. And that word's got to be signed by a neutral magistrate, a judge, and you have to apply for it. You have to put in an affidavit. Law enforcement. Lauren, next slide, please. So we talk about the power of the government and that power to put in an affidavit. A probable cause that you think that the crimes occurred and that evidence is going to, of that crime will be found in the place to be searched. And it's got to be particular. And I love this quote from 1926. Again, in Riley v California, from Leonard Ham, a famous jurist. Who said that it's, and I'm sorry. I'm having trouble reading this because it's one, it's totally different thing to search a man's pocket. And hold against him what it may contain from ransacking his house for everything that may incriminate him. And you think about the scope of searches. And we're going to talk about this later, starting as I said to end it earlier. What are you looking for? Can you look the entire house, the attic, the closet, the cellar, the garage, or does it have to be specific? And from that house, what does it mean now that we're in a digital world with cell phones? Can you grab somebody's phone and think about how much information, whether it's financial information, personal information, medical information, photos, calendar, location information is on your phone. Can they limit the scope of the search? Because remember the fourth amendment in article 11 is a limit on what government can do. Now here's the thing. How does this play out every single day in every county, in every courthouse in the state of Vermont? How is the fourth amendment relevant to you? What do you need to know? I came up with a fact pattern. I think it's okay. I think we see a lot of these stops in Vermont and how this plays out. Laura, next slide, please. This is, in my opinion, oftentimes how the Constitution impacts Vermonters on an everyday basis. A motor vehicle stop. When people are stopped by the police. I'm going to read it and I'm going to go through it. Joe Smith is driving home on Vermont Way. A road near the Canadian border when he is stopped by the police. Joe remembers he had a broken tail light that is scheduled to be repaired tomorrow. An officer approaches Joe's car and sees a partially open backpack on the passenger side seat. The officer observes jewelry that he thinks is part of a jewelry heist the week before. The officer asks Joe for his license, registration, and where he is from. Joe produces a Canadian passport with an expired visa. His registration says he's from Canada. The officer then asks Joe what's in the backpack, and Joe replies, nothing. The officer orders Joe to exit his vehicle. The officer proceeds to enter the car, grab the backpack and search it. The officer finds a cell phone that is locked and some jewelry that the officer thinks he recognizes a stone from the local jewelry store last week. The officer asks to search Joe's phone and asks if he will find photos of Joe and the alleged stolen jewelry on the phone. Joe does not answer the question, nor does he grant permission to search the phone. The officer arrests Joe for possession of stolen property and calls Customs and Border Patrol as Joe is a Canadian citizen. The officer impounds Joe's car and seizes the jewelry, the phone and backpack, and transports Joe to the police station. First question, Emmett Hellrich. Is there any reasonable fact pattern? Does this happen in our state? Sure, but let me set it up a little bit. I mean, every day before the police officer goes out on the road, he or she gets a briefing as to what happened recently in the neighborhood or in the community. Is there a domestic? Are you looking for somebody in particular? Has there been a jewelry heist? And then somebody stole a store broken into. And when that happens, the jewelry store will, or the officers who investigate, will put out pictures of the jewelry. All right. The other thing you got is you got the Canadian border. We all know that there's lots of drugs being, so we read all the time, there's drugs being smuggled all the time. So as you're out on the patrol and you see, you come across a car and the tail light is out. So you have a just cause, you have reasons. Okay, give me the significance, give me the significance of the tail light out. It gives me cause, legitimate cause to stop the car, but you got some random stuff like, oh, you didn't put your turn signal on when you made a right enter. This is something that's obvious. You can prove that it's out. You can even take a picture of the show. Oh, look, there's a dead tail light. That's why I stopped. Okay. Jess Burke, tail light, good enough to make a motor vehicle stop for the police to stop a motorist, a broken tail light, tail lights out. Yeah, unfortunately, yes. It happens all the time. I think it's 12, 83 is the statute. I can't recall. But it's essentially a defective equipment statute. So to have the right to stop a motor vehicle, the police can have one of two things, which is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or a motor vehicle violation. Again, we want to highlight that in this particular case, that is a statutory motor vehicle violation. Okay, but do we have a crime yet? No, no, you just have a valid reason for the stop. And so if you imagine that every police interaction begins, every police seizure, let me rephrase that, where lights go on, that is a seizure of a limited level of intrusion. So just because your tail light is out, does not automatically give the police the permission to order you out of your car or any number of other things. But they do get to stop you to say, hey, this is a motor vehicle infraction. And on the books, that is a legitimate reason for the stop. We could get into pretextual stops all day, but I will avoid that for now. But yes. Okay. I want to avoid it, Jess. I think it's just something to note here. Yes, police do have the authority at that point to stop you, but it's just worth noting that recent studies at a VVM and Cornell have shown that of the motor vehicle stops in Vermont that are the result of equipment violations, and black drivers are more likely to experience a stop for that reason than white drivers. And so it's just worth noting here. There's nothing obviously about race in this back pattern, but it's something that we should recognize. Absolutely. And I think the numbers have been clear on the race data collection that the disparities in the stop based on race are profound, as are the search that follow that, if I'm right, Jay. We're going to get into this at the end in terms of some of the action steps. Okay. So let me let's let's put the lesson out there. We have a motor vehicle stop right now. We don't have a crime, but we have a valid stop. I think we all agree with that. Okay. And then officer walking up to car sees backpack. Anything unusual about that and then asking about the backpack? Well, let's assume the presumption is that he's just doing it for the traffic stop because he has no, there's no way of knowing that there's jewelry in the backpack. There's no way of knowing that this person has done anything illegal. So you're going to walk up to the backpack. You're going to walk up to the car. Hey, how you doing? Your tail lights out? Can I see your license and registration? Dude's going to say, Oh yeah, but I got an appointment tomorrow to get this thing fixed. I said, well, that's great license registration, please. And while you're doing that, you're looking at, and you see this backpack and because you're an observant officer and at the roll call or whatever it is, the information you got prior to going out, you see that there was a drug heist. And you remember the pictures that you saw of the jewelry. And this sort of, I mean, you're not a jewelry or you're not, but this sort of looks like stuff that could be part of that. So in that case, you're going to say. You mind if I have the bag where you step out of the car and take it. And one of the reasons you do that is because if you are suspicious that this guy now has committed a crime because you're, you're. Things have been heightened. There's a thing that's called like the lungible area, what you can do. So the parts of the car where the, the operator can reach without, without, you know, having to stretch out or go into a lot of cases. There could be, I mean, you could extrapolate that there could be a gun inside. But I think that this guy may be stole the jewelry. If you think that maybe this is the jewelry. There is maybe some slight likelihood that there is a weapon of some type in the backpack. So you want to make, you want to take that just to assure yourself that it's not. Is that always the case that you can generally tell by the demeanor of the person. If, if there being sketchy. And whether you think they may, you know, try to grab this bag. I would say that predominantly. You just want to take the bag because you don't want it to be destroyed. You don't want anything else to happen to it. You want to take it, have a look and then see if there's reason to delve further into this investigation. Okay. Jess. What, how are you advising your clients at this particular moment? All we have right now is a motor vehicle stop with a defective tail light. We get a traffic ticket essentially. We don't have a crime. And it is saying, wait a minute. I just got briefed on this jewelry heist and that jewelry that I can see in plain view. Sure looks like the stolen jewelry. Are we at what's called reasonable suspicion, which we're going to get into reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that basically says that specific and articulate facts indicate that criminal activity is a foot. What, how are you advising your clients on that interaction with the police officer at that particular moment? Which is a scary and tense situation. For many. Tell, how do you advise your clients? So at that point. It is. Absolutely debatable whether or not the officer actually has reasonable suspicion or not. We don't know how close this actually looked like to the police officer. We don't know how close this actually looked like to the police officer. We don't know how close this actually looked like to the police officer. We don't know the jewelry that was allegedly stolen. We don't know whether it was dark out or light out or whether the officer shined his flashlight in there and got a better look. We don't know any of those things. So we have to preserve that argument for a leader. So something that we would file in court. And I think that what we would say, the officer did not, in that moment, have the requisite. Reasonable suspicion to expand the scope of the stop. From the mere. Motor vehicle violation. To a more broad. Inquiry and a longer length of detention. Because part of what they're allowed to, what police are allowed to stop you for our, what police are allowed to stop you for your actions. So the temporal nature of it also matters how long you're going to be detained. In that moment, however, it's incredibly important for individuals to recognize and to realize. They are in legal peril. At that very moment and having an argument with an officer roadside. Perhaps at night, perhaps in a rural area. In that moment, they're, they're not going to win the day. There's really nothing that you can assert. That will say, you know what. Officer. I don't think you have reasonable suspicion to, to make that inquiry. It's not going to go well. It doesn't go well. However, what you can do to protect yourself is ask the officer if he has a body worn camera on. He has a cruiser camera. If he has audio recording, you can make your own recording on your cell phone at that point. And you certainly can be assertive about what the limits that you're willing to voluntarily go to are. So you can say. I don't want to answer those questions officer, or I would like to leave. Am I free to leave? And they may or may not answer you, but they may or may not answer you. They certainly will delineate for your attorney, your intentions and show that this was not a consensual encounter at that point, which can be very helpful to your defense. Okay. Jay. We're at this critical juncture. We're roadside. We're a rural, a rural road in Vermont. As Jess and Emmett have just talked about. We're, we're in this weird space of. We're in this weird space of. Here's your traffic ticket. Or is it going to evolve into. A criminal case. By virtue of what we would call reasonable suspicion and investigation. Detention. As Jess said, a brief. No need to detain to issue. What's called an exit order to order somebody out of the car. Can't do that. I'm just a motor vehicle violation folks. I'm just a banned person. I'm just a fake. A fake. That stuff plays out, starts it starts as a motor vehicle stop. Now we're in the criminal realm. He thinks he sees stolen jewelry. Jay talk about two things here. Reasonable suspicion. And that I want you to touch on the issue of. License registration and he hands over the passport with asking where he's from. A police officer must have reasonable and articulable facts to base a suspicion that there is crime afoot. Like you said, the key is it can't be a hunch. And so an officer needs to have more than a hunch if he's going to, he or she is going to order someone out of their vehicle. The other reason you can order someone out of a vehicle is if you believe that they present a danger to you. And so it's interesting what Emmett said that if there were more information about it, if there was like a jewelry heist with guns and then he left in a car and the gun was never recovered, something like that, maybe, maybe, maybe, then the officer has a little bit more to go on to order someone out of the car. Regardless, the first question is going to be, I think Emmett would agree with this, everyone would agree with this, is going to be would you mind stepping out of the car and it's at that point, that's a request for consent. That's a request to do something voluntary, it's not an order. And so if the person doesn't want to get out of the car at that point, they can say no, or they can ask, is that an order? And if it's an order, must get out of the car. And as Jess was saying, you cannot argue with a police officer over their order, you must comply, otherwise it's not going to go well. When we think about the license registration, when you're on the road, you do have, you're legally required to carry a license and registration for the car, you need to provide that upon request when you're stopped and it must do so. The providing of the passport here is interesting, it's obviously not the equivalent of a license, but it does provide some measure of identification, which is important. And I think that the fact that the visa is expired is while it presents interesting questions about what is the officer going to do with that now? And I think in other states and in the past in Vermont, an officer in that situation where they saw an expired visa, no evidence of lawful residents or lawful authority to be in the United States, they might call up court patrol at that point. Can they do that? Immigration. So there is a policy in Vermont called the Fair and the Partial Policing Policy and every, by Vermont law, every law enforcement agency is required to have it. And it says basically that no, immigration status, whether documented or undocumented, is not a reason to obtain someone. Being on an, having an expired visa is not a crime and it is unlawful for local police to try to enforce federal civil immigration law. So, you know, there's an important distinction in the law between someone who's in the country and overstays a visa as opposed to someone who is in the act of crossing the border illegally, that the crossing of the border illegally, you know, without going through the proper checkpoints is a crime, whereas being in the country on an expired visa is only a civil offense. And so Vermont police have no authority to, and it would be unlawful for them to try to enforce that law. Yes, and take away, so Jay, give the takeaway for the class on the Fair and the Partial Policing as to the police asking the question, where are you from? Yeah, I think, you know, where are you from is a pretty vague question, right? Like I think you can, you can ask someone where they're from, it's a question, right? Officers can ask any question they want, really, they shouldn't be inquiring about the national origin of a person. So if that was the intent behind that question, it's not permitted under the Fair and the Partial Policing. Does the passport, does the passport and the expired visa though change the context of that question? Yes, I think so. And I think it would, you know, definitely get into the territory where we're violating the policy. And I think people would challenge it as a violation of the Fair and the Partial Policing policy. Okay, so this is what's amazing about the law guys. We are two sentences into this paragraph and we have so many issues already. We have so many, this is how it plays out in the real world. Okay, let's assume for purposes of this fact pattern that there's an exit order issue, which we think, well, Jesse, you would agree with me, this will be litigated down the road. Absolutely. Whether or not it was a legitimate exit order. Absolutely. Hell, Rick, the exit order has been given, just missed out of the car. What do you do with the backpack? Can you grab it and search it as the officer does in the fact pattern? I would do it, or the officer should do it basically for safety initially. And then you want to make sure that you have eyes on the property. You can seize the property. If you look at it again, you open the backpack, it's open, you look at it. This says that he grabbed out the cell phone, buying it to Andy. I would say, I mean, he's not going to be able to look in the cell phone until somebody from the judiciary approves it. But you can take a closer look at the jury and compare it to the pictures that you've seen or what you can confirm that, yes, this is the stuff. What's the next part? What are you looking for? The question is, can the officer physically into the car grab the backpack and search through the backpack? I think according to the lungeable area concept, he could go in there, look at it, just make a determination, yes, I think this is it. And then should just put it aside, say, now I think I've bolstered my case, I'm going to seize it, I'm going to apply for a warrant later on down the road, which sort of the scenario identifies that it already seizes it all and schleps it and Joe back to the station. Okay, I think Jess is going to have a different opinion on this. Jess, can the officer, we now have an exeroder. He's ordered Joe Smith out of the car. This is roadside, rural road in Vermont. Can the officer now physically into the car, reach over, grab backpack and search through it? No, I don't believe so. Why? Well, I think that there's an issue of your expectation of privacy in the vehicle. So even though you don't have as high of an expectation of privacy in your vehicle as you do as your home and the case law around that's actually really interesting how it develops because it's cars are movable, homes are not. So there's this need to sort of immobilize a vehicle to search it. And I think that that probably would be the more appropriate method for an officer to take, but certainly the easiest route for the officer to take and the cleanest would be to simply ask for the driver's permission to search the vehicle. And this is where it gets kind of sticky for clients because they don't have to tell you the law surrounding it. They can just say, I'd like to search your vehicle. Do you mind? He doesn't even have to say why necessarily to you. So you can say, not knowing that your backpack's open or whatever you might say, thinking, oh, I just wanna get out of this as quickly as possible. Yeah, yeah, go ahead and search it. But what you're giving them the right to do is a pretty intensive search of your vehicle. Whereas if you said no in that moment, then that may require, or at least could be litigated down the road that it was required for the officer to either immobilize your vehicle and get a warrant to search the vehicle, or that some determination had to be made by the officer roadside, whether or not he felt that he could, as Emmett suggested, simply search it without your permission. But what we wanna do is preserve all of these potential scenarios for litigation in court. So what we wanna do is say, assert your right. So say, the officer says, can I search your vehicle? Say, no, I do not give you permission, but keep your voice calm, keep it even. You don't have to be rude. That's not gonna help anything. Officers do get alarmed when they're alone, which is fair. We don't know everything that's going on between these two individuals. So keeping things calm and measured, but firm is probably your best bet in this kind of setting. Jess, let me ask this question. We got it in the chat. Are you advising clients to film this encounter on their cell phone? Yes. You are. And do people feel comfortable doing that? I mean, because this is an incredibly tense situation. There's a real power dynamic here. And how you just gave great advice about be firm, but stay calm, don't escalate. The argument is not gonna be one roadside. I think we all agree with that. Whether who's right or wrong in this situation, that's why we have the court to resolve these disputes. But can you talk a little bit more about how you're advising your clients, I guess, in terms of filming these encounters? Sure. You may get an officer, one former officer comes to mind, who really wasn't very welcoming about being recorded. And you can certainly state to the officer, I am recording you. Or if that feels very uncomfortable, you can also just record on an audio level. You don't have to be holding up your phone if you feel like this is too confrontational in that moment. I do think that there are some questions about how this might actually play out. But I think that you're on good legal grounds to certainly record the police. But we don't, I think we all agree, what we don't want is a confrontation. I think another question is, well, how do you react? And you have this power dynamic. It's an armed police officer here in this factual scenario, we're on a railroad. We can add in the issue or the dynamic of race, which I think is a real issue here. And I think the message just that you sent is to be firm, but to not escalate because these disputes are gonna be resolved in the court. What we don't want is a confrontation at roadside. Correct, but you definitely can record even just the audio can be incredibly helpful. I mean, most police in Vermont these days should be, whether or not they are, it's a different question, should be employing the use of either cruiser cameras that have audio, so that the view would be from the dash cam essentially, or a body worn camera, which has audio and video from the position of essentially their upper chest or both. So there are departments that aren't employing them, there are departments where these are getting lost or right and over, I'm dealing with a lot of those right now and that's a separate issue probably for the legislature, but I think that your best bet is to make some sort of recording of your own if you can. Yeah. Interesting. Jay, talk a little bit about the dynamic roadside, the power dynamic from individual to police. Number one, number two, touch on the distinction between federal law, Vermont law, constitution as to that automobile exception, the bag, the container in the car. I mean, Jess really said, really covered it in terms of the interaction, it's all about being cool, calm and collected. It's really taking it easy, trying to calm yourself as much as possible. If you're calm, the officer will, and all likelihood also become, you know, you couldn't even go further and just whatever an officer asks you, you have a fifth member right to against self-impermination. You don't have to ever speak to police. You can be calm and firm as Jess said, say, I do not wanna speak with you, I do not consent to a search, I would like to speak to my attorney and leave it at that. You know, whatever you do in a situation will, you know, a police officer will notice and will, you know, and can be used against too. I think it's just important to become, but I also wanna recognize the reality that for people who are scared in that situation, who are just nervous around police generally, I mean, when anyone gets stopped by the police, it can be, it's just, you get nervous. Even if you did, even if there's nothing, you did nothing, you just feel nervous. And I think that's because of that power and balance. And so- Absolutely, absolutely. The key that you, you know, that we understand that, and that every person's gotta make their own choice about what they, you know, what they're willing to do, how far they're willing to go to stand up for their rights, it's not easy to do. It is a hard thing. And it can result in, you know, regardless of you standing up for your rights in the moment, it can still result in, you know, you being put in the back of a squad car or something like that. So I think it's- I wanna be, before I go to that, I wanna be an exception. I want you to touch base, touch on the race data collection, not only are African-Americans more likely to be stopped. I wanna be clear about this point. They're more likely to be searched however contraband, as we would call it, illegal paternal drugs, whatever. They're less likely to have contraband than white people who are stopped. Do I have that right? Play it and put that in this context if you can. Yeah, I think, you know, I think people of color, black people in particular, you know, they know the history, they know the world we're living in, we all do. And I think it's, you know, and for people, for black people in that position, you know, there is a different relationship that they have to law enforcement, just because of the history and the way things currently are. And I think that the data bears out that they are overpoliced, mostly disproportionately. And so it's important that we recognize that. It's important that, you know, it's also important that people stand up for their rights and not consent to searches and not feel like they have to consent to a search. But it's real that, you know, people are going to feel like they got a consent because they don't, you know, people, it's a strange dynamic, right? You feel like if you stand up for your rights, you look guilty. And that's not a fair assumption, but it is part of the reality we live with and people just have to be willing. You know, our client Greg Zullo, he stood up for his rights. He refused to allow officer to search his vehicle when there was the smell, you know, alleged smell of burnt marijuana. And, you know, and so the officer said, well, you know what, fine, you're not gonna let me search it here. I'm gonna seize the car and I'm gonna leave you here on the side of the road. And he did and Greg, you know, had a hitchhike home and eight hours later, he got his car back, but after paying $150 toffee. So, you know, that's the reality. Our rights definitely aren't free, but if you don't use them, you lose them. And so it's important to stand up for them when you can. All right, I wanna come back to you because I wanna go to Emma on this. Emma, touch on that dynamic of that moment where you're saying to the individual, let me search the bag. And if you don't let me search the bag, this is what's gonna happen. I'm gonna impound the car and I'm gonna go apply for a warrant. Is that a fair choice? Is that how it plays out roadside? Is it a fair choice? I'm not sure how to answer it. Probably not a fair question. But what I would, no, what I would tell you is that it's often used. And you could describe it as a ploy or is it a way of sort of taking control of the person's senses to say, you can either let me look in this or the only other alternative is I seize your car. I can't give you a ride home. So you're gonna have to find your own way home. And oftentimes you will hear someone say that, and as Jay pointed out, it's gonna cost you, I'm not gonna pay for the tow. You're gonna end up paying for the tow and the overnight storage fee. So it's gonna be a couple hundred bucks for you or you can let me do this roadside. Boom, we get you in, we get you out. If everything is cool, you're on your way. If, I mean, you could even say that if I have a sense that this is stolen property, I can write you a citation to appear in court later. I don't know if this situation where the person is Canadian and from Canada, where you could be assured that they come back. But citations are issued. If you could be reasonably sure, reasonably certain that someone will appear in court at a later date. Yeah, I'm just thinking out loud. I'm struck by what you just said, Jess, what you said and Jay, your story about your client, Greg Zulo, and really not having that choice and that power dynamic on that rural road or rural state in the middle of the night, saying either let me search or I'm gonna take your car and then pound your car. And when we say in pound your car, the police are coming to tow on your car and it's going to the police parking lot and the evidence is going to be searched if a warrant's got. I think that needs to change and we should work on policy. I think in the state on this, Jay, I'm hearing this and just thinking about the lack of choice that a person has to make that decision. As you just said, it takes an incredible amount of courage at that moment in time to say, no, you'll get a warrant and I may be here hitchhiking. Give me your thoughts on that policy change, Jay. Yeah, it really does and it certainly could be valuable. I think it would be important if nothing else, making sure that people don't get reimbursed for the toffee if nothing ends up being found or something of that nature. I think it shouldn't have to feel like their rights are going to cost them more than giving up the right itself. And so I think that that's a really important point to recognize. I do want to give officer some credit because I think for most situations, neither of the individuals here, neither the driver nor the officer want to have to do the seizure because for the person in the car, the driver, it's going to cause a lot of hassle for the police officer. It's going to cause a lot of hassle because they got to do the warrant and the paperwork and if things don't go well and they might get a complaint on it, you know, all that kind of stuff. So it's an interesting dynamic in that way as well. All right. Even though you asked the question, it's possible this could be done and it has been done. It's clearly not something I'm going to prove of or have never done or enjoyed doing. It's like, it's really the hard call. You know, in my mind, it's legal, but it puts someone in an awfully awkward position. I mean, the kind thing to do would be to call a cab or to let them use your phone or they can call somebody come and pick them up. That would be the appropriate thing to do. But the ultimate goal, I mean, for the cop is to get the stuff back to the rightful owner and to stop somebody who was perhaps committed to crime. We're still saying this is stolen jewelry. Jess Burke, you're saying there's no way somebody can give permission under those circumstances. This isn't voluntary. Well, I'm not saying that it cannot be voluntary. I mean, I think the law is clear, unfortunately, that it can be voluntary. It just, an officer could think that you had any number of things in your car and asked to search it. And if you say yes, you say yes. And I think that Jay pointed to a really important thing, which is freedom isn't free. And just because you stand up for your rights in the moment, let's not miscommunicate that that's gonna be easy for you. And it isn't, and that is an important thing to note. It may end up with you getting arrested, your car impounded, even though you didn't do anything wrong. And that's our reality that we live in. And there is very little recourse for individuals outside of like 1983 suits to check the police when they in fact are stopped and haven't very expanded stop, that then determines that they did nothing wrong. It's just have a nice day and go home. And we don't get to mitigate those issues in court very often. So even if the officer is well-intentioned, I don't think that absolves the issue. And I think that we do have a personal responsibility to stand up and say, these are my rights. And even if I have done nothing wrong, I'm gonna say you can't do it because that matters. Yeah, and I just wanna add that. I think your point is a good one. And just maybe think of this like, this is a systemic problem and any systemic solution. Yeah, no, I'm listening to this, Jay. I'm thinking about that. And the sad reality too, when we talk about the criminalization of poverty, of race, how this plays out is that arrest, well, that's a record. We're not even talking about conviction yet. We're just talking about an arrest record. Going back to that roadside stop, do you have that choice? What does that rest record mean? Impacts on jobs, impacts on housing, on education. And the marginalization of people, mostly people of color in the poor, in the name of public safety that simply hasn't worked. And this is how this stuff plays out. And it starts on what is that routine traffic stop with a tail light. We're not even through this fact pattern. And this is, but this is how this plays out. And I hope it's resonating with people because these are the issues that all, and we're somewhat playing rules here. I got Emmett as the police officer, of course, Jess is a defense attorney and Jay as civil liberties. But this is how this plays out. I think this is a fair discussion of what happens roadside and the policy impacts of those decisions. Jay, back to you. We get the bag. We get the backpack in the car. Emmett says, I'm taking it because I know that's stolen, Julie. I think I get a reasonable suspicion. That's that stolen, Julie, that I was briefed on at the PD before I went out. Jess is saying, not so fast. You don't have reasonable suspicion here. Talk about, so the general rule, we need a warrant. And then you have exceptions to the warrant requirement. Is there a difference in federal law and Vermont law on this issue? Yes. When you're talking about Vermont officers as we are here, I think, you're gonna go by the Vermont Constitution when it gets to court. And so the Vermont Constitution and as interpreted by our Supreme Court means that cars roadside cannot be searched without a warrant. They can be seized upon probable cause. And so you don't need a warrant for that, but you're gonna need a warrant to search that car. Even, and so an officer, if he has probable cause to believe that there's evidence of a crime in the car. Told me I couldn't. So now I'm seizing it and your honor, I present this to you on, I mean, the scenario T.J. put out is that, you know, the guy may have pictures of the, but I would say in this affidavit that I present to the judge. Go into the car or seize the bag though. I mean, that's the, I think the key point. The lunging, huh? Cause weren't you saying that it was cause of the lunging that they can have like in the backpack or some BS? Well, I think that they call it the lungeable area, right? So you can go in there and you're gonna say, I see the jewelry. There could be a weapon thrown away. This could be somehow disposed of. I'm gonna take the jewelry, I'm gonna seize the bag and I'm gonna ask for a judge to look at the rest of the stuff in the bag and find out if. No, are saying, you know, Attorney Burke, this is, can you represent me? This is, this is what happened. Tell me, talk about the timeframe and then talk about what you're gonna advise him and that motion to suppress that you're gonna file. Well, I'm gonna put a plug in here cause I'm available 24 seven and I call my clients back at night and I have talked to many an officer roadside. Oh, is that right? So tell us about that. Tell us about that. Yeah, I mean, I asked officers to articulate the reasonable suspicion that they think that they have so that we have a recording of it. Often they won't speak to me and they say that, you know, you can deal with this later and sometimes my clients will leave the phone on so I can hear what's happening. Wow. Yeah, it's fun. I love it. Yes, wow. So yeah, I mean, sometimes that is happening in real time. If I have a pre-existing relationship with a client who knows to call me or somebody who literally finds my number online as they're sitting in the car, that happens. People are like 24 seven defense attorney, you need help. And you're like, yeah, cool. So you call back and you're like, hey officer, what you doing? And they'll either talk to you or they won't. And if they don't have them leave it on and oftentimes it will end the encounter because if a police officer recognizes that, that, you know, that they're going to have to articulate what basis they have to continue the seizure. Sometimes that will cause them to stop the seizure. Now, if what I'm saying is that they feel really strongly that this crime is being committed, then that's not true. Then usually they'll say, do you wanna come pick up your client on the side of the road? And I say, no, no, no, that's not part of what I do. But that is the moment where, meet the scenario that Emmett's lead out where he gets the judge first, writes a good affidavit and gets a warrant for a warrant. And Jess, I just wanna make one point clear. When Emmett, the officer or a police officer is applying for a search warrant, that's just between a police officer and a judge. You're not involved, correct? You're not occurring. So the only time that I get to challenge the search warrant is after the fruit of the poisonous tree is discovered, is the sort of to turn a phrase, what it's called. So I would say, hey, Emmett had no reasonable, sorry, Emmett, I keep saying it to you, it's not you, but the officer had no reasonable suspicion to he had no probable cause to impound or immobilize the vehicle. And three, the next step is the actual search so you can challenge the warrant. But none of that is gonna occur until after an individual has been arraigned, the discovery process is begun and we get to file a motion. So we're talking months or years before you get to actually challenge this in court. Wow, wow, Betty, can you say that one more time? So we're roadside, this all happens in a matter, Emmett, an hour, how long, how long roadside on this? An hour is not unreasonable. So we get a one hour interaction, Emmett, search warrant going to a judge at night, another three to four hours. Oh yeah, you've got to fight a state's attorney, you have to call them, then they have to get in touch with the judge and then the judge, you know, and you got to write something up or the judge will listen to you over the phone and then generally they don't do that. So you legitimately, because if you've seized the car, then it's at your disposal. You've got it in your lot, you've got it safe, you've got everything, you've got all what you perceive to be evidence, stored away, so you can take your time sort of writing this thing. And it's two o'clock in the morning, you're not calling a judge over a bag of jewelry at two o'clock in the morning, you're gonna wait till eight o'clock in the morning when court opens up. So then we're talking, you know, it'd be the end of the day before people come in and search the car and then if you find anything that's untoward or find stuff that's legit, then you got to write up that paperwork, present that and then you have to decide whether or not you're gonna cite the guy or whether, I mean, in this scenario it would appear that you would probably cite the person, like I said, but if it's Canadian, I'm not sure how I would handle that one. But you're talking, at worst case scenario, 24 hours. Oh yeah, without it easily. Okay, and Jess, if I got, if I heard you correctly, again, let's go to the power dynamic here. Your client Joe Smith is not, he may talk to you that night because you're available 24-7, but you're not getting into court and filing this motion to suppress three months? Minimum pre-pandemic, sure. Pandemic years, I mean, years. Okay, so I want to follow up on this point. Jay, we have not ruled yet whether or not it's a good search in the bag. The officer grabs the phone. He asks Joe whether or not there would be essentially incriminating photos on the phone and Joe doesn't answer. The officer gonna be able to get a warrant for that phone? What happens to the phone? This is his personal property. So well, good on Joe for not answering. I think it's good to say nothing in that instance. I don't think there's gonna be, I don't think the officer's got probable cause that the phone contains evidence of a crime. You're gonna need that to get a warrant. And so he's unlikely to get a warrant in this situation without additional information. What's important to know about your phones is that they, as Attorney General mentioned earlier, they carry a lot of information. And some of it, you don't even know that it's on there, but law enforcement sure does and other people sure do. So firstly, you gotta say no or not permit a search of your phone. Even if an officer or even if the court approves a warrant, they cannot make you unlock your phone if it has a passcode. So you wanna put a number or word passcode on your phone if you wanna protect information, your personal information from the government because again, under the Fifth Amendment, you have a right against self-incrimination. You don't have to provide anything that can be used in the prosecution of you. So it's important that you do that. So I think here, for the person to protect themselves, you wanna not have your phone unlocked to begin with, make sure that there's a locked password, not a fingerprint or like base recognition to open the phone because that they don't, you don't have the same protection against that. If there's a warrant, the officer or police can make you put your finger on the phone to open it up or make you put your, hold it up to your face, your face recognition. And I think it's, but this is an important protection that we have and there are ways to even protect ourselves in the Fourth Amendment and in Article 11, these rights against unreasonable search and seizure. And there's ways we can protect ourselves even beyond that. So I think, you know, I think Joe's gonna be okay here with the phone, even if he's not with the bag. One thing I would say about the phone is that, I mean, if you're a clever cop and you can say, well, people generally take pictures of the things that they've heisted so that they can offer them for sale to friends, you don't have to send over the interwebs. But, and then one thing I would try would be like, people carry their phones with them. Maybe Joey Boy took his phone with him when he did the heist. And I'd like, I can prove that Joey was at the scene of the crime at about the time the place was, the things were stolen. It's one of those. So they think the issue was for the class, let's go back to the threshold requirement for a warrant. Probably cause that a crime has occurred. Maybe we got possession of stolen property with the stolen jewelry. And that evidence of said crime will be found therein. The critical inquiry, in my opinion, was the question by the officer to Joe, am I gonna find photos to Emmett's point of you and the stolen jewelry on your phone? Joe doesn't answer the question. I don't think you have PC to get a warrant to get to a phone, to get warrant to get into the phone. Now that doesn't mean, and I wanna go to Jess Burke on this. Emmett, you've seized the phone because you've applied for the warrant, correct? Right. Phone goes where? It's our evidence locker. At the PD. Until either we get approval or if we don't get approval, then it goes back to the Joe. Jess, Jess Burke, you're representing Joe. People can't live without these things. Yeah, and they're really difficult to get back. Okay, talk about how do you get this property back? Let's assume warrant is denied for phone. Yeah, the police. But we have a pending criminal case on the possession of stolen property, but no phone. How do you get it back? What do you do? Well, police certainly aren't running down to return stolen phones or return phones that they didn't get warrants for. They're not deliverymen. So it's unlikely that you're gonna get a call that says, hey, you know, that warrant I wanted, didn't get it. Should we meet up for a coffee and I'll give you my phone? It's not gonna go down like that. Your phone's probably gonna sit in like an evidence locker and you're gonna need to do a motion for return of property. And that can be relatively easy to do if a criminal case has been brought, although it's a little confusing and complicated if no charges end up being brought because there isn't a criminal docket number to, which is how the courts track these things for people that are watching to sort of order the phone be returned. So Jay may actually know a little bit more than I do about when criminal charges are not brought. The best way to obtain the phone, but for my purposes, it's usually just a motion to the judge saying, hey, this is not part of this crime, can you return it? So it's a motion to return property and you filed that with the court. Yep. And Jess, I think I asked you before, you're willing to post a template of that motion for people to use that will post on the Legal Aid website. Sure. Important thing, folks, you're entitled, when it's not evidence, you're entitled to your property. Let's be clear about that. You're entitled to your property and it may have been seized. Police did nothing wrong here. You thought he could get the warrant, he didn't. Now the property is gonna go back, but as Jess just described, oftentimes that has to go through a judicial process with a court order, but it's a relatively simple motion to return property. Guys, we're totally out of time. We got 10 minutes left, but I love this conversation. I gotta get to this one point, we're almost through this fact pattern. I want people to know, this is how like, this simple fact pattern has so many twists and turns on this issue of the Fourth Amendment and Article 11 and frankly, so many other issues that we're barely touching on. Jay, key part here, he arrests Joe for possession of stolen property. We've seized the backpack, we've seized the phone. Because of the Canadian passport and the expired visa, he calls, this is a Vermont police officer, he calls customs and border patrol. Kenny, is that consistent with the policy in our state? Was that allowed with our policy at our state? Do we lose Jay? No, I'm new. Sorry about that. Let's say quickly, what our policy says, it's pretty simple, Vermont police can't do the following. They can't ask people about their immigration status. They can't facilitate the detention of people for immigration purposes. They can't prolong stops to enforce immigration law or to allow immigration officials to time to come and get the person. They can't, and they can't arrest or detain people for civil immigration matters. When it comes to the question, whether they can reach out to the immigration officials, they can do so for two reasons under Vermont's fair and impartial policing policy. And that is to check on their citizenship or immigration status. It's really about identification. Is this the person that I'm seeing in this passport here? Or can I confirm the identification here? Federal law prevents states from saying their officials, their government employees can't communicate about citizenship and immigration status with federal immigration officials. But everything else under the sun, according to our policy, it forbids Vermont law enforcement officers from communicating any other information about a person to federal immigration officials. This is a big change. It's really important. It's been, it's a model for other states to use. I think in this instance, it really goes to, and the big question I have is, why did the officer call Border Patrol here? What was the purpose? And what information was shared? It's not clear, but like that's the question. Those are the questions I would be asking. And because you're not supposed to facilitate the detention, right? You're not supposed to be interested in immigration status. It's just civil immigration violation. Not something that Vermont law enforcement have legal authority to work on at all. And so that's the big question. I think you're, you know, the officer's definitely not supposed to share anything, but other than immigration status or citizenship information, beyond that, things like, hey, I got someone with an expired visa here, like he's gonna be here for a few hours. Sadly, we've seen this happen, you know, with some regularity over the last, you know, five years. You know, it has gotten better since the policy was implemented, I think. And my hope is that it continues to get better and this is no longer a problem. Okay, thank you. One of the things I would offer to that was that if, because of a pre-pandemic, we were a wide open board as we come and go as we please, Canadians are always here, we're always there. It wouldn't be out of bounds. I don't think, Jay, correct me if I'm wrong, to call up board of patrols and say, when did this person last cross the border? Now, when did he come here? Was he here last week? Going the week before? Do they come often? So it's not your number. In this scenario, I don't think you're talking about immigration status as so much as how often does this person come to and fro? Jay, can you do that? Well, I'll say the policy is pre-pandemic. I don't know that it contemplated such a situation. I don't know if any of us could have contemplated such a situation. I think it's a really important, a really good question and a good point. I think under the policy though, the answer is no. The answer is, you know, and based on the expired visa, you got someone who's been here at least with their visa term in all likelihood. And there's just, I can't see a legitimate reason other than trying to get the person, other than trying to facilitate that immigration official action, you know, an immigration detention to reach out to Border Patrol. Maybe there is some legitimate reason to do so. I can't see it at this moment, but... All right, let me, I want to go to Jess Burke. There's a question, Jess, that I think is directed at you. I can find it, of course. Okay, we got like five minutes left. This totally went over schedule. I'm sorry, but it's been a great conversation. Okay, here's the question, Jess. I think it's directed to you. If a client calls their attorney roadside and the officer refuses to talk to the attorney and the client leaves their cell phone on so their attorney can listen to the interaction, doesn't that make the defense attorney a witness? Good question. Especially if the affidavit of the probable cause contradicts what the defendant and or his or her attorney allegedly witnessed or heard. Jess, have you become a witness? I haven't yet, but I've been on the cusp of it multiple times. And I... Can I share that one more time? I said I haven't yet, but I've been on the cusp of it multiple times. I think that it's likely that my... Way of handling these interactions will make me a witness at some point. But that's kind of one of the risks that I'm willing to take because I feel so passionately about people's rights, that if ultimately I can't represent someone because I need to be a witness to protect their rights, that's something that I'm willing to do. And I think that more often than not, there are concurrent recordings that they aren't relying on my testimony for clarity about what occurred. But the unique fact pattern that the anonymous attendee put up there, I really liked it as soon as they did. And I thought it was a super interesting question because it is something that I've talked to ethics about before about whether or not you can become a witness. And I think the answer is that yes, yes, you can make yourself a witness. Oh, but what a remarkable thing in service you're providing again, getting back to that dynamic of roadside, which is, I think somebody put in the chatroom just having the lights and the siren comes on as traumatizing to have an attorney there to advise folks. Okay, we are out of time, but I wanna end with final thoughts and I guess I would say tips. The audience hopefully tonight is a group of Romaners who wanna know more about their rights. I hope that we gave a fact pattern that was relevant and resonated with folks. We all drive our roads, we're a rural state. Most of these interactions happen because of a motor vehicle stop and they happen because of things like a broken taillight that is not a crime, that's a ticket, a civil ticket, but oftentimes it can turn as we saw tonight into a crime, into a search or into the allegation of a crime and the impacts it has on individuals in terms of their liberty, in terms of the financial ability to pay, to get their car out of towing, to pay for an attorney, to get their property back and the impact those arrest records and criminal records have, again, in the disproportionate impact it has on people of color and the poor of this state and this country. We're at an inflection point, I think when it comes to criminal justice, we are all trying to do better, we have a lot to learn, including myself and one of the things I'm gonna take away is looking at that policy about that roadside, about that conversation about does that person have a free choice at that moment to say get a warrant, but they're gonna impound my car and I'm walking home or hitchhiking on a rural road at three o'clock in the morning. Hey, I'm very interested in that. Okay, Emmett Hellrich, you were great today. Tell us final thoughts about the Fourth Amendment, what you want people to know and any tips you wanna give folks. Fertil, we are here for your, police are there for your protection, there for your safety to make sure that the government doesn't screw you over. Secondly, assume that the police are at a good place. Assume that the police are there to help you. Don't always assume that they're there to mess with you or to cause evil upon you. Most of the cops around this state are good people. They're good people, they try hard, they work hard, they're not out to jam you up. But if you are jammable, they will jam you. And that's, just wait a minute, but I would say trust them for the most part. They won't hurt you, hopefully, and they're gonna treat you fairly in 99% of the cases. Well said, Emmett. I think we have some of the finest men and women who make up Vermont law enforcement in this state. They have a difficult job, they do it well. I think we can support the men and women of law enforcement while continuing to advocate for better policies to be more inclusive, more transparent, more equitable in our criminal justice system. And thanks for being with us tonight. Jess Burke, thank you so much for being with us tonight and thank you for your real world on the scene experience and advice. Final thoughts and tips for folks. I think that, I appreciate you including me in the conversation. I think that there is an interesting conversation going on here as we were talking about policy versus the practicality of it. And I think that we brought together four unique voices. And I think that this is something that's pretty cool. So I'm happy to be a part of it and really appreciated this and the questions that everyone brought. I think then summation, what I would say is be polite but firm when dealing with the cops. If you're asked to get out of the vehicle, if you're asked for a search, if you're asked to give any type of evidence against yourself, even if it's in the form of standard field sobriety tests, even if an officer says, can I check your eyes? You absolutely can say no, I do not want to participate in that. And you can do that in a calm way that can assist you later on down the road. Thank you, Jess. Thanks for being with us tonight. JDS, final thoughts, tips to the people of the state of Vermont. All right, I just want to thank you and thank Jess and Emma as well for a great discussion. I hope it was useful for everyone. I think we need to always be aware that law enforcement officers are people, they're human. They have emotions, they have bad days. And some do bad things. The more important point is that they are a part of a system and the system is something that requires certain actions of them and teaches them in a certain way. And so what I think Jess is talking about, what we're all talking about is that we want everyone to be safe in the end. And so staying calm, cool, calm and collected, using your rights to remain silent. If you so choose being firm and assertive, but not arguing and always obeying a direct order, it's something to deal with later. If you go and if you just Google ACLU, know your rights, stop by the police, we have a whole website of resources that go through, I'm stopped by the police in public, stop by the police roadside and it's all very practical. And I think that that's what, it would just really hit home really well tonight and as well. And so I hope people take that to heart. And these rights are, use them or lose them. So that's, well, we gotta use them wisely. Thank you, Jay. I can agree with you more, we want everybody to be safe. These are incredibly tense, oftentimes dangerous situations. The ability to remain calm, to cool, collected but be firm and to assert your rights is sometimes a difficult thing to do, but they are your rights and these are limitations of what government can do. Government being represented not only by the attorney general but by police. And we are accountable to the people of this state. I wanna thank everybody for making the inaugural class of the People's Law School, I think a success. I hope we brought material to you that is useful, that is interesting, that is relevant, that hopefully causes more conversation about our justice system. As I said, I think we're at a real inflection point in Vermont and this country about how can we do better when it comes to the issues of justice, of equity, of racial discrimination that exists in our justice system. And in order to do that, we need to have these tough conversations like this today over a variety of mediums like Zoom. But we hope to do this in person, we have a full curriculum. I think for the next three months for the People's Law School, check out our website, ago.virmock.gov or you can check me out on Facebook, T.J. Donovan, and we'll get the curriculum out. So thank you so much to the great panelists, Emmett, Jess and Jay, this was great. I think I can say for all of us this conversation could have gone on for a couple more hours. I think we're all passionate about this issue. And I hope what people take away is what started as a routine stop, a broken tailing, something that we've all experienced has dramatic consequences and impact on people's livelihood and their rights in our community because how people view the justice system, whether or not it's a system that is fair, a system that is credible, a system that has integrity is based on these interactions. Let your voice be heard, tell us how we can do better. Thank you for joining us tonight. We look forward to seeing you again. Thanks so much.