 Good morning and welcome to Vermont has to destroy a committee and we are continuing our work on S 119 and actually relating to statewide use of force. Standard for law enforcement and going to welcome attorney bring hair to do a walkthrough on our latest draft which is on our committee page. Let me make sure I get the draft number. So 2.4. Is that correct. That's correct. Okay, great. All right, thank you. Okay, so good morning committee for the record brand here from legislative council. Walking through draft number 2.4 of S 219. Pop through it pretty quickly since I know there are some witnesses with time constraints, but obviously I'll, I'll pause for any questions. So all of the changes that are that have been made to this version from the previous version that you looked at which was 1.1 are highlighted in yellow so I'm going to jump through based on the yellow highlight. So the first change is on page one lines 11 through 13. We've added another definition to the list of definitions to define the word force. So that just means the physical coercion that's employed by law enforcement to compel a person's compliance with the law enforcement officers instructions. The next change is lower down on page one. We've changed the word harm to threat so an imminent threat isn't merely a fear of future harm. It was originally an imminent harm and that was the way the definition was written in the California statute, but somebody pointed it out I think it was representative along pointed out that it was didn't make a lot of sense in that context since what you're what were this word, what this term is defining as imminent threat, not imminent harm. So we made that change. I'm going to scroll down to page two now. And I'm going to describe the changes to the totality of the circumstances definition. So this has been reworded. And also the factors listed underneath have changed pretty significantly. So now this reads that the totality of the circumstances means the conduct and decisions of law enforcement leading up to the use of force and all facts that are known or should have been known to law enforcement at the time. The facts may include, and then the factors here that have changed our subdivision be here. The conduct of the subject that's being being confronted as reasonably perceived to the officer at the time, including whether the subject is physically or mentally impaired in a manner that interferes with the person's ability to understand or comply with law enforcement's commands. So that the that was formerly two factors that has sort of been condensed and reworded into one. I'm going to scroll down to page three now. And this is another factor in subdivision e at the top of page three. And if you remember, this is the factor that had to do with some personal characteristics of the law enforcement officer and the subject and the change here is to remove the skill level and training of the officer. And then subdivision f, if you recall, that was originally the subject. I'm sorry. I see Tom has his hand up. Thank you. Going back to page to total totality of the circumstances. I guess, and I think we discussed things like this before but what does it mean that that should have known to the law enforcement officer. So that is, that's going to be a standard that the court will interpret what facts the law enforcement officer should have known. So, eventually you're broadening that broadening that definition a little bit to include those facts that law enforcement did know or facts that law enforcement should have known. And that will be, and that will be up to the fact finder to determine what facts law enforcement should have known. Not being a lawyer. So, so could that change as time goes on depending on case law. What that standard means. Yeah, I think it's a it's a pretty factually specific inquiry what what facts the law enforcement officer should have known. So I think it will be dependent on each individual situation, and it could change over time. Yes. Wow. Okay. Thank you. Can I ask a follow up question. Oh, my hand wasn't working but now it is. Go ahead. So that should have known standard would that bring in the reasonable law enforcement officer from the perspective of a reasonable law enforcement officer. Yes, so that's typically the way those inquiries are made is what facts should have been known to a reasonable person or in this situation a reasonable law enforcement officer. Okay. So I'll go back to page three subdivision F that subdivision was formally that sort of broad category of any environmental factors or exigent circumstances. And that has been removed. And instead, we've got another a new a different factor here, which is whether the subject has access to a weapon and the proximity of that weapon. So that is new language there that falls under the totality of the circumstances. I'll move down to, sorry, excuse me, Thomas stand up. Oh, I didn't realize I hit it I was thinking about it, but I guess I did hit it. That's fine. I will ask a question before we move on. And I probably should have asked us before when we've gone through this previously but he factors such as the age size relative strength of the officer and the subject. I have no idea why that would even matter. And if somebody could explain it to me I guess it in a situation where you're more or less thinking on your feet I, I, I just don't understand why. Why. And I don't expect you bring to have an answer to that I mean that's I know that's not your job to answer that question but if somebody could explain to me why he is even relevant. So, not RC your hand up but did you want to respond to Tom. I can. Sure. Yeah. Yeah, I can respond to Tom is that all right. So it's really goes back to if there's a huge size difference between the officer and who they're confronting so, you know, for example, you have me. I'm not a different person at all and I'm, you know, not a particularly person but I'm facing off with somebody who's six foot live and as a background in Brazilian jiu-jitsu, then it's going to be a different standard. But, you know, the circumstances are going to be different for me in terms of what level of force having to confront this person. If that cleared it up a little bit for you. A little bit but no matter what wouldn't the level of force use would be to on some level subdue the other person. It, it would be. Yeah. Yeah, so I mean to me, I'm just saying that there's, there's a difference. No, I understand what you're saying as far as that size difference goes I mean, you're definitely going to have to react differently to, to somebody who's who's who's 65 to 50 than you are, say even somebody that's smaller than you are. But it's still, it's still the maximum level that you need to react. But anyway, yeah, I'm going to, and actually, before we get back to rent, I want to check in with Robapel. Good morning. I know you need to leave. What time do you be with us? I think, I think Lori and Demis have coordinated with me so it can be in testifying to house health care when I'm done here. So I'm not terribly pressured for time and I won't be very long I don't think. So if you'll be helpful for me to hear the rest of Bryn's presentation and might make my, my comments even shorter. Okay, well, we do have another witness that can only be with us about 1115 so I just want to make sure we. Yeah, I, like I said, I don't think I'll be very long at all. Okay. Okay, go ahead Bryn. Thank you. Okay. Oh, you're going to sound okay great. Okay, so I'm still on page three subdivision be I'm now under use of force. So you'll see that the words of law enforcement were added to that subdivision one under the use of force subsection. And that's just to make it clear that we're talking about its law enforcement authority that we're talking about to use physical force. So the next change is on page four. And if everyone can scroll down to page four subdivision for this is the. This is the subsection that talks about what is objectively reasonable, whether the decision to use force is objectively reasonable. So we've added added a sentence here to subdivision for that provides that the failure of law enforcement to use a feasible and reasonable alternatives to force should be a consideration for whether or not, or for whether its use was objectively reasonable. So it adds a sentence clarifying that objectively reasonable determination. And now I'm scrolling down to subdivision six on the same page. So this is that this subdivision six describes when force is proportional. And if you recall the last sentence provided that the more immediate the threat, and the more likely the threat would result in death or serious bodily injury, the greater the level of force that may be proportional. So I just removed that those words, objectively reasonable and necessary to counter it. But to make it clear that this is really a description of what proportional force means and not what objectively reasonable or necessary mean in this context. For once it's not my dog barking. Okay, so I'm going to scroll down to page five. This is some new language you'll find on page five subdivision be. And this refers back to that sentence that we just looked at with respect to what is objectively reasonable. And this provides that when it's feasible law enforcement shall determine whether a subject's conduct is the result of a medical condition, mental impairment, developmental disability physical limitation language barrier, alcohol impairment, or other factor beyond the subject's control. And if, and it provides specifically that if officer determines that that subject's conduct is in whole or in part, the results of a factor that was listed in the subdivision that the officer has to take that information into account in determining the amount of force that's appropriate to use on the subject, if any. So this language, sort of replaces those specific factors in the totality of the circumstances definition that was found in draft 1.1, and provides some more specific directives to law enforcement in their interactions with individuals who may be experiencing either a medical condition or a mental impairment that may diminish their ability to respond to an officer and officers instructions. Okay, I'm not seeing any questions here so I'm going to keep going to subdivision eight. And this language even though it's highlighted in yellow is not new. This was formerly found in subdivision C. This is the language that provides that law enforcement. It's a right to self defense by the use of proportional force if it's in compliance with subdivision B2. And instead it's just, it's been moved from the use of deadly force subsection C to be so it applies throughout the use of force or the use of deadly force. And so I'm going to move on now to the next change which can be found on page seven. So move on to page seven. This is the prohibited restraint language. And we have this draft reverts to the Senate version of prohibited restraint. So it provides that law enforcement shall not use a prohibited restraint on a person for any reason. So this is different from draft 1.1 which provided that law enforcement may use a prohibited restraint under certain circumstances. So a little lower down on page seven you'll see that they're that the standard here cross references the justifiable homicide statute, which in draft 1.1 was that portion that was with respect to law enforcement was repealed in this draft draft 2.4 that the agency of the justifiable homicide statute is not repealed and instead it's amended. So we'll get to that in section 2. I'm sorry I see comes handed. Yeah, me again. So, page seven six a law enforcement officer shall not use a prohibited restraint on a person for any reason. So how does that affect on page five number eight where it says self defense by the use of proportional force. You still so with self defense by use of proportional proportional force you still can't use one of those prohibited restraints. Okay, so you'll see the next subdivision I'm going to talk about is this language that makes it clear, sort of sets forth and no uncertain terms that law enforcement doesn't lose their right to self defense, or justifiable homicide defense, if they use force or deadly force in a manner that's in compliance with these standards. That is subdivision eight. So that that language there is intended to make it clear that because actually not just the prohibited restraint but the whole this some the whole this whole standard related to law enforcement use of force doesn't interfere with or diminish law enforcement's ability to raise a common law self defense or a justifiable homicide defense. Okay, so potentially they could use one of the prohibited restraints. If it was if their use of force depending on circumstances right in compliance with the standards that are set forth in this new section of law. Okay. Thank you. So I'm going to move on to section two then. So this, if you recall draft 1.1 section to was the prohibited restraint crime that was passed in S2 19. And that has been removed in this version because what this draft does is it leaves that prohibited restraint crime as it existed in 219 as it stands. Instead section to amends the justifiable homicide statute. I'm having a lot of background noise here so I'm going to move and be back with you in about 10 seconds. I think that'll be for everybody so you don't have to listen to that. It's that time of year chainsaws are running. Sorry everybody. That's a little bit better. Great. Okay. So I'll carry on with section two which is 13 BSA 2305 the justifiable homicide statute. And as I mentioned the earlier version repealed subdivision C of the statute, and this version instead takes that whole statute and sort of pretty significantly amend subsection C but also make some updates to the language in subdivision one. So it provides that a person who kills or wounds another is guilt list in the just and necessary defense of the person's own life or the life of the person's spouse parent child brother sister guardian award. So it removes those words master mistress and servants from subdivision one. Subdivision to just re reposition those words forceful or violent to make it clear that they are those words apply to all of these different crimes that are listed in this subdivision. So in the forceful or violent suppression of a person attempting to commit murder sexual assault aggravated sexual assault burglary or robbery. Those words that makes it clear that it doesn't just apply to the last crime in that list. And then the top of page eight is subdivision three. So this is the section that applies to law enforcement. This language has been been pretty significantly amended to provide that in the case of a law enforcement officer using force or deadly force in compliance with 20 vs a 2368 which is the standard created by this bill. So it essentially provides this justifiable homicide does apply to law enforcement as long as law enforcement's use of force is in compliance with the standards that you've created. And then lastly is the effective date that should be section three not section four. And so those repeals that were in section two and the previous draft are no longer there because rather than doing the repeal, you're just amending the justifiable homicide statute. Great. Thank you, Brandon just looking to see him. Not seeing any, not seeing any hands. I should Tom. Yeah. Okay, great. Oh, let's see where am I here in the in the forceful or violent suppression of a person attempting to commit murder sexual assault aggravated sexual assault burglary or robbery. What if she shall be guiltless. What if somebody was attacking another and their, their whole reason for doing it is they are just trying to maim the person disfigure their face and and what if the only way to stop them is forceful or violent suppression. I just think it's dangerous. I think it's dangerous just to, to limit the, the suppression to these very few crimes. What page you want. Sorry. Page seven right at the bottom of the page number section two. Yeah, okay. Page seven right at the bottom number two. I mean, there's going to be, and that's the only one I can think of it. I got to believe there would be other situations where somebody's being attacked that a forceful or violent suppression may be warranted. So just to make sure this is existing law. So that we have moved those words around but it doesn't change the meaning of the statute. That is what is currently provided for in the justifiable homicide statute. So it's a question, you know, for the committee whether or not they'd like to expand that. Right, right. Yeah, it just seems awful narrow to me. When there could be, I don't know how many other situations that's the only one I could think of. Maybe it would go back to maiming that we discussed a few years ago. I don't know. Also, to be clear, there is also just the general self defense defense that exists at common law so this there is beyond the justifiable homicide statute there's also self defense. Okay, thank you more broadly. Yeah. Okay. Great. So I see two more hands and then I'm going to move to Zariah. Hi tower. Hi tower. Next because she needs to leave 1115 to be mindful of making sure that we that we get to her so Selena and then can. And that I think my, my, I'll just, I'll say my question and, but it may be more for more than committee discussion so if Bryn has anything to weigh in now great and if not we could just save that for committee discussion when we get to that. I'm just wondering about the decision to totally eliminate the new crime up for using the prohibited restraint. And if there is a reason to, I mean is there a logistical or legal reason to do that or was it more just a choice to do that. Somehow it odds with the justifiable homicide defense in any way. Could you, could you repeat the first part I didn't hear it to, to room, did you say to remove it. My understanding is from the Senate version we removed, they created a new crime for use of a prohibited restraint and this version removes. Okay, so that was my understanding that. It may not have been clear that it was a little tricky because it appeared in version 1.1 of the bill as if it were all new language, but remember that that new crime pass and s2 19 so that because it has been removed from this version doesn't mean we're. Okay, so it still exists we're not we're okay. Correct. Thank you. I really appreciate that clarity. That's it. Okay, can. I appreciate that I have a lot of thought going into why we're why it's so limited on what he was talking about on the bottom of page seven. And then that's it for now I just want that out there I'll be talking a lot more later. Thanks. Okay, great. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay, great bring anything else before we move for witnesses. For me. Thank you. Okay, great. All right, well thank you very much. Okay, welcome. It's a riot. Good to see you I'm sorry that we're only leaving you a little more than 15 minutes but you're welcome back if we don't get through your testimony, go ahead thank you. No worries I am not usually one to speak for very long so that will be more time than I need. Thank you so much for having me my name's right I tower I'm the board one city counselor in Burlington, Vermont, and appreciate you all having me. I'm going to take a step back I won't go as much into some of the language I think you all have much more legal counsel that will be much more useful and digging through some of that I'm going to just take a step back. The community is aware I'm going to start with this just being deeply necessary, both just in terms of law officers in the United States killing far more people than their counterparts and other wealthy democracies within those numbers as seeing over and over again, great racial disparities, and those being directly related to a policy reliance on fear as a reason for violence, and that persistent fact that historically American society, and our police departments as well tend to fear black and brown men. As you know, currently many of the policies that govern police behavior use vague and unrestrictive language, lacking in harm minimization and life preserving strategies, enabling and even encouraging brutality. As you I'm sure also know, given that you're considering this as one of police department has more restrictive policies on use the force it's safer for both civilians and the officers who are seeking to protect the community. And so, for me this is incredibly important because I'm sure as you all know right now we have dozens of people camping in the heart of Burlington, and marching through our streets demanding among other things that three of our officers be fired. And I think all three of those cases to in particular shows that there's a wide golf between what our system currently allows, and even trains are encourages, and what our community finds acceptable. And I definitely personally feel a strong need to do something to reduce that golf but as a municipal elected official, I do feel like I have a limited resources so I am looking to you all to make those changes. And I think there's definitely a difference between a department policy and a statue in terms of likelihood to change behavior and to be implemented, and therefore, I feel like my resources are to potentially change department. I think that that is has been shown to be as effective as both in terms of reducing the actual reducing violent behavior and then because of that then making both civilians and officers safer. The other thing is, as if this comes from the legislature, it would do a lot to not amplify tensions between local law enforcement and local government which right now in Burlington are extremely high. And so having this come from the state would be very useful because I mean just yesterday we had an emergency council meeting, and even having general discussions around. Oh, what are what does severance look like is just so fraught because it's very clear on a very individual level, who we're talking about and it, it creates a lot of tension and a lot of negative feedback loops that play out in very real ways I think on actual streets. And then I think the third advantage is, it's great to have consistency in terms of what constituents can expect as we all know there's people who live in Burlington, but work in other places and vice versa or we just come into Burlington to visit. And to the extent that we can align, you know, the Burlington Police Department, the UVM police, the Chinning County Sheriff's Department, the Vermont State Police, to make sure that all of those are following the same standard, the more I think we can get some of those benefits in terms of what how somebody who's being apprehended by an officer may react based on what expectation they have. So that's kind of my general thoughts on how, why I think that this is so incredibly important to municipalities. A few things, the two comments that I did have on the language is, I think on page seven lines 16 through 17 you all did a great job of changing some of that language I would also change brother and sister to sibling. So on page three, I'm sorry I did that in reverse order of the pages that the actual page order is would love to have you all engage in a discussion and have a strong opinion on this on what it means to be evaluated carefully and thoroughly both for kind of more for all of the various police departments that we may have or sheriff's departments and so on all of the law enforcement bodies that we have in our state and what that actually means and if there is a definition elsewhere if there is it maybe would be useful to define that here. Thank you all so much. Thank you so much. That was helpful. I really, really appreciate your, your point of view and testimony. Thank you. Helpful hearing from somebody from a city council. Any questions. Barbara looks like you're. Right. Barbara, do you have a question. I do. Yes. So, Raya, thank you so much for coming. I know you had a really late night and your insights were super helpful and your suggestions. I'm wondering if this were in place. Do you think it would have made a difference in the situation. We're facing right now. Or do you think there's something else that will need further action. Well, there are definitely are things that will need further action in upcoming the next legislative session, but I'm just wondering if anything jumps out at you. Yes, this is going to be very much my personal opinion. But I do think that specifically, I think definitely two of the instances if we had had a different policy would have the three that the city is having such a strong dialogue dialogue about right now would not have. I don't think they would have happened if this would have been both in place and enforced and so. Yes, I definitely think that the majority of the cases that we see like this would where the community has such different feelings than the law enforcement would be mitigated. And it's really interesting because one of our witnesses the other day said that Burlington has a really great policy on the books, but it's not being followed. And so I don't know if you agree with that statement but it does seem like, as you said, a policy. There are fewer teeth in enforcing breaking a policy, or we're a law, obviously, there are sharper teeth. Yeah, I definitely agree with that statement I think what we see in Burlington to is we have. Well one we have a pretty progressive law enforcement body in its own and I want to give credit to that, which is why we kind of have progressive policies along with having progressive community progressive government but yes I definitely think that that doesn't always play out and there are many policies conflict with all other kinds of things like union contracts and things like that in the ways that a state statute can overrule much more easily. Right, and I think you raised a really important point for not only Burlington but other small towns that are even smaller, that it becomes more sort of personally contentious on a local level. And people in Bristol should have the same rights as the people in Burlington, etc. So, thank you for, thank you. Right. Thank you, making sure I'm not missing anybody else. Okay. So, great. Thank you. Thank you appreciate you coming. Great. Okay. Thank you. Robert pal. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to comment on your good work here. For those of you who don't know me I am an attorney in private practice now in Chittenden County I worked for the state for 30 plus years and a variety of roles mostly in criminal defense and civil rights enforcement. So with that, I'll say enough, that's all I need to say about me. Yeah. Yeah, you're breaking up. I understand you and I wonder if you could maybe shut your video off and that usually helps. Well, thank you. I don't want to be broken. No, if I can do that. Of course now we're hearing I'm hearing you fine but Well, let me try to get the closer. Is that am I am I more audible now. I don't I don't know if I had anything to do with that but it was just like an electronic breakup but but you seem to be fine now for whatever reasons. All right, I'll keep my voice up let me know if I fade again. Okay, thank you. Yeah, thank you. Section one. I'm glad to see this definition of force added however, I wonder why it's not conforming with the definition of physical force that was just enacted an S2 19 is. It's a definition that exists. It's two sections away in title 20. I think you should be consistent in that language I can. Send it to Brenner whoever it's easy enough to find is now 2366 small e five. Just to conform the two definition. Page to section and I commented yesterday on this to your chair and some others lines 14 to 17. The conduct I'm looking at 14 to 17 the conduct of the subject being confronted as reasonably perceived by the office at the time to include whether the subject is physically or mentally impaired. In a manner that interferes with the subject's ability to understand or comply with law enforcement commands. I do note later in the bill you make a reference to developmental disability but I think you also need to say it here because developmental disabilities are not necessarily either physically or mentally impaired. They're just who they are. So, I think, I think some reference to. It's not an impairment it's more of a condition so I don't know if I'm making myself clear but I do think it's important to include the concept of developmental disability because we have had instances in the past, where a person who does not have the ability to respond to it's, you know, intellectual disability or communication issues is unable or unwilling to unable basically to respond to a command by a law enforcement officer and ends up getting taste. We don't want that. Excuse me Barbara I see your hand is up. Thank you so Robert you raised a really good point and that made me wonder about other situations where it is not an impairment or disability, like not an English language speaker or hearing impaired. There's language later in the bill that covers some of that. It's on page five talks about developmental disability physical limitation language barrier drug or alcohol impairment or other factor beyond the subject control. So, I mean the concept in part of the bill but I think it's very important to insert those broader concepts into this provision in the definition section. Thank you. Okay. Moving on now on page three use of force subsection to this came up yesterday I was looking at the pursuit policy from the South Burlington police department vehicle pursuit and the, and I think this is pretty common in law enforcement agencies these days that the use of force and the degree of pursuit is dependent on the seriousness of the offense alleged or observed. We have no differentiation here. There was no law enforcement I'm reading 12 through 15. An officer shown to use the force objectively reasonable necessary and proportional to affect an arrest prevent escape were to overcome the resistance of a person the officer is reasonable cause to believe has committed any crime. It's my substitution for a crime while protecting life and safety of all persons so without any further explanation, an officer could use extreme force to arrest somebody for disorderly conduct for refusing a command to stop blocking a roadway. Again, I don't think that's the intent of the body, but without some differentiation as to either misdemeanor felony level offense or violent non violent offenses. I think you, I think it needs a little more work. I think this is overly broad, and I don't have this time any proposed language but I encourage the committee to discuss that issue. Martin, I see your head up. Yeah question about that. So don't we capture that in the totality of the circumstances where one of those circumstances is the seriousness of the crime or suspected offense and in and the totality of circumstances, certainly are go into the evaluation under subsection be to that we're speaking about right now. Would you refer me please. Page page two line 13, it's worth it to have circumstances issues and and the concept is certainly that would be needed to be a consideration for necessary proportional use of force. There's this is the crime conduct. That's the comment that's the section I just commented on. I'm not as familiar with the structure of this bill as you are obviously working with it a lot. If you want to insert totality of the circumstances to refer back just to make that link. So use only the force objectively necessary proportional, given the totalitarian totalitarian. So circumstances to affect an arrest just just to make sure that linkages there. Yeah, and I think the way that just, you know, the way that it structure we can consider this certainly is that that subsection to that we're looking at right now line 12 to 15 is kind of the overarching. And then the next paragraphs, particularly for five and six. Essentially are talking a little bit about each of those elements objectively reasonable the necessary element and proportional element and each of those paragraphs. It does connect up to the totality of the circumstances, but I take your I take your input and you'll certainly talk to legislative council to see if that also would help to clarify. Thank you. I think it's your vice chairs comment on justify what homicide and and ledge council saying that that's current language. I, it doesn't include aggravated assault which would get you to maiming etc. That may be a short shortcut. Make sure any other comments I raised have been responded to. Any questions of what I've offered to date. We'll wrap up again. Go ahead Martin. Yeah, I have a few general questions that really appreciate your input on this. The one is there there are there are certainly individuals that who say well let's just leave it to law enforcement to put it into model uniform policy but I'd like to understand your viewpoint of why we need to have this as a standard and why can't we just rely on there being a uniform model policy that we need to adopt statewide. Okay, you heard from the city council woman about her views on that issue. As many of you know I've been engaged in this work for quote some time. I had a collection is a fine example of a model policy, even with statutory enactment. The implementation is spotty at best. So, a model policy is one thing. It needs to be in order for policies to have effect. You need to train to those policies but most importantly you need to hold officers to account on those to those policies. And the policy is an internal procedure within each and every department. So, the concerns that representative Rachel sin raised and the council woman raised his high tower around uniformity certainly applied your question representative. I think the force of state law behind a stated objective is vastly in my opinion more powerful than a model policy that we've seen this repeatedly in my tenure into this work that some departments take the heart and others don't. And of course in the statutory policies. You still need teeth, and I was encouraged to see and, and, and thank you for the explanation by Legg Council that the crime of use of prohibited force is already enacted. It takes that kind of those kinds of sanctions for these principles to gain traction. And unfortunately if people step over that line prosecutors willing to file charges and convicting police officers of crime is a very challenging enterprise. However, if we're going to communicate to officers the need to comply with the policies made by this body. That's what it takes. And if you go to trial and lose. Well, at least you've made the effort to imprint on other officers that were serious about complying with the policy announced by the people's body that being the legislature. Kind of ran on and on by hope that's responsive to your question. That's, that's, that's very helpful and I have a related question and that is try we're trying. There is certainly a place for policy, and the policies where there could be lots of more detail in here than what we have in the standards but I'm trying to make sure we're putting that needle appropriately and if you have any comments about the level of detail that we have in the standards here as opposed to what should be left to policy. I don't know if that question is clear enough I'm just, I just want to make sure we got have this right that appropriate level of generality but has the sufficient key and leaves the policy where the policy should be. Well, as some of you know I retired from the state at the end of 2012 is director of the Human Rights Commission and my, my ability to follow and my time available to follow the intricacies of your work and since limited. When I was wrapping up my career in state government there was a relatively new newly formed body called the le a B, which I see now has expanded its membership to include the racial equity coordinator. I'm not exactly clear as to the interface between the law enforcement advisory board and the legislative body and it may make sense to fashion I mean this is bigger than this bill obviously this is more philosophical question. Some some format like the judicial rules that come back for legislative comment that something that model policies that come out of the le a B have to be ratified by a committee of both bodies. To see if they conform with legislative intent. It's one thought but it's a big left in its late in the last year session so I think you got to put that in the parking lot. I guess just to just to make, make sure I asked the question right because I appreciate your input on that but do I let me just ask it this way, are we putting anything in this bill that you think would be better left in policy developed by the le a B or others. No, the le a B even with an expanded membership is overwhelmingly law enforcement dominated by my memory. And, thankfully, your 180 of you who we send them on pillar to develop policy and enact laws is a much more diverse broad based body than the le a B so if anything I would say, the more specific you can get in in your legislative enactments the better because generalities tend to lead to dispute as the intent and meaning. I'm a believer in specific language. So I commend the work they've done on this bill, particularly given the circumstances between COVID and what's happening in the country on police reform. This is not going to be the last time you visit this, this, this, this issue by a long shot. Unfortunately, I mean, we're pushing, we're pushing forward, but we're not near the end. Thank you. Absolutely. Barbara. So Robert, one of the questions that I had the other day was, and people thought it was too specific so I'm kind of curious what your take is on it. I'm concerned about when law enforcement provokes situations that then rise to the occasion where they're justified in using force. I had asked a witness about if we should define provoking and haunting and include that in the legislation. So I'm just curious about your thoughts. I didn't laugh because it's a common disciplinary reports for inmates called agitating and provoking and officers correctional officers, right reports on that all the time and frankly from my observation and experience correctional officers often engage in agitating and provoking inmates. But on occasion, more often than I care to acknowledge cops do the same thing I just reread the report from them, whatever it was called the Vermont mental health crisis response commission on the Brennan shooting. I assume everybody in the on the calls familiar with that report. The initial contact was an outrage. I don't want to healthcare about this but it's just the wrong approach to attempt to deescalate somebody in crisis. And, you know, I'm spilling it in my testimony over there but you show up in a cruiser with siren and blue lights flashing to somebody in crisis, wearing body armor and a tool belt with various devices that only exude the notion of control not connection. In the midst of the mental health crisis, you're not going to deescalate that person, they're going to skyrocket so I think we really need to rethink our approach to those situations because that's where individuals end up dead. So, I hope that was somewhat responsive to your car, your question. Thanks. Thank you. Go ahead, Rob. I have no further. I'm happy to respond to further questions now or or in the future and again I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you and see some old friends and colleagues and meet some new folks. Welcome to Montpelier. Chief Pete look forward to working with you. Thank you so much sir look forward to working with you as well. I'm going to leave your meeting then and again I appreciate it I remain available to the committee should additional questions come up out of curiosity. How long do you think you have to work on this. That's, that's a good question. We hope the House hopes to pass the budget, the end of this week and I think then things will start to wind down and our time will be more limited so so we don't have much time. No, I understood. And I, again, I, my heartfelt appreciation to each of you for your commitment and moving these issues forward. It's timely and necessary. Thank you so much. Good to see you Rob. Thanks so much. Great. I'd like to take a break and then when we come back. Chief you'll be up first and before we take our break I just do want to now while I have your attention welcome you and congratulate you on your on your leadership and and position Montpelier so say that now. Great. And so let's take a 10 minute break and then we'll get back to our testimony. Great. Thank you. Well, welcome to the chief Pete. Again, thank you so much for joining us. Good to see you. And floor is yours. Thank you. Well ma'am, first and foremost, thank you so very much. I sincerely sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be here. I would like to just have a quickly prepared statement. And I'd like to say that I remember so the legislature again good morning it's still the morning time. My name is Brian Pete, and I thank you for your consideration and the opportunity to speak with you today. Please allow me a brief minute to tell you a little bit about myself. I grew up on the south side of Chicago. I have a bachelor's degree of science degree in sociology with an emphasis on employment relations and a master's of arts degree in police psychology. I served as a commission officer in the US Air Force as an aircraft maintenance officer, and a federal law enforcement officer with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. I also served in Afghanistan and Operation Enduring Freedom. I was a cop in the 11th district on the west side of Chicago which in 2016 was labeled by the Marshall project as the most dangerous neighborhood, and as the most quote unquote violent beat by the Chicago Sun Times. I temporarily left policing as a senior associate for JP Morgan, working on compliance issues and knowing your client and anti money laundering. I served in the Chicago Inspector General's office as a chief investigator and as the chief forensic audit investigator for police accountability charged with oversight of the Chicago Police Department in preparation for the Department of Justice consent decree after the shooting of Laquan McDonald. I was the chief of police now in New Mexico and I now serve as the chief of police in Montpelier, and I'm extremely grateful to be here. I've been recognized for my work in mental health and policing and invited by the US Department of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the University of Cincinnati PRA associates and the International Associations of Chiefs of Police to serve on a recent panel that explores current practices challenges and best practice resources for successful law enforcement response to those in mental health crisis. I'm a member of the systemic diversity and inclusion group, the International Associations of Chiefs of Police and the International Association of Emergency Managers. I also serve on the Vermont League of Cities and Towns Public Safety Policy Committee. Today I'm here representing the Vermont Police Association. I also want to speak to you as someone who's followed in my parents footsteps and policing in part to work within a system so to change what's wrong within it. In our profession are symptomatic of issues of our overall governments and social institutional systems. I appreciate everything sincerely that you guys are all doing today because it acknowledges the urgency of the moment that we're facing. And while I'm still familiarizing myself with the players the policies the procedures the laws and the cultures of Vermont. I want to make a real specific note and I mean this. That in all my travels in time and law enforcement Vermont is doing a lot of things right and policing. If they weren't I'd be the first person to tell you one of the first people to tell you from the inside out. My goal is to change broken systems. I've been on that other side where those systems wouldn't work and how that impacted my family and myself. So I will tell you that the police community here is proactive and it's the most receptive and cooperative that I've seen as a culture and implementing 21st policing policy recommendations is set forth by President Obama. During the House judiciary trap judiciary trap draft of s 119 the Vermont police association has three primary concerns. First we appreciate the House improvement regarding the exception to use the neck restraints, the exception to use of neck restraints and respectfully ask that you consider our suggested edit that striking through languages limiting the exception to situations where no other intervention is available. In other words and looking at that side by side comparison that to simply state that a law enforcement officer may use prohibit prohibited neck restraints only in situations where deadly forces been authorized. There are those provisions that I've seen in there that do address what is already being taught but thank goodness are going to concrete what that understanding should be that law enforcement officers are not justified and continuing the use of prohibited restraints or any type of deadly force when there is no longer an objectively reasonable belief that the suspect continues to pose an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to any other person. Second, we would urge you to strongly consider policy implementations and not statutes, because policies are more flexible they're more adaptable. And then human dynamics and behavior the challenges that we deal with our intricately complex. So I think with policies, you're going to have, we have a better opportunity to change what we see. Third, we would invite you to speak with drew bloom, who is a use of force expert at the Vermont police training Academy, a gentleman that I've gotten to know very well, and to work with and actually be trained by. There's been a lot of places I've been through Fletsy I've been through Chicago police Academy I've been through state trainings. drew bloom I think gets it. And he is he is really vested into establishing a culture that is service based. That's not in us versus them. Drew is a nationally recognized and respected subject matter expert in this field and I would love to come back and expound upon any of the finer points. I'm very honored to be here and those that drew drew can bring to this discussion for today's purposes the VPA urges you to also consider the full cost of implementing a new standard. Changes and the commonly understood current standard will necessitate a pretty big financial investment to training all of our leos in the state. And it will have to be there will be a revamping of the Vermont police training Academy. There's going to be a lot of uncertainty about how to implement the standard and how these are going to be interpreted and drew can really tell you how this language is going to play out in the courts and how it's going to affect us in the field. I would also urge and push for community conversations for realistic and constructive dialogue with all vested stakeholders. I came to Montpelier I sought out audiences with those who can otherwise be considered as advocates that support defunding or abolishing of police. I opened the doors for those who advocated for a can't wait and for the ACL use 10 part plan. Not many unfortunately took me up on the offer but there were some who did. And we made tremendous strides and mutual understanding with with this developed moniker that we're going to dream bigger and we're going to do better. And so my goal and the goal of the VPA is to challenge constructs to improve them and not to tear them down. We at the VPA and other state law enforcement leaders, especially including myself, want to stop talking about other community groups. We want to start talking with them. We won't hear me say bad things about anyone who has a perceived enemy of law enforcement or has different ideals or anything I want to talk to everybody because that's how I'm going to learn. So the lives of people in our community and the lives of our officers are dependent upon how we interact with one another. So I don't go get in the same room to identify these issues understand the positions of one another and challenge our last long standing assumptions about the others opinion, we will squander the opportunity to heal and move forward together. There will be unintended consequences that will bring us right back into the same situation so we all have to encourage healing as we institute change within our profession. As such, I and the VPA also support the governor's executive order because it's recommendations challenge traditional ways of us doing business, while acknowledging the law and the wisdom that works. It pushes us to collaborate. So with that, Madam, I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be here to speak with all of you all and I stand ready for any questions that any of you may have of me. Great. Thank you so much. I very much appreciate your testimony and your service as well to to our country and communities and month is very fortunate to have you and your leadership role so so thank you I do see two hands for now. Martin and not her, and then Selena. Okay, so why don't we go in that order. Thank you. Thank you very much Chief Pete and welcome again to Vermont. We're delighted that to have you down the road from us and Montpelier virtual Montpelier, although I'm sitting in South Burlington right now. So, I just a few questions and comments that you may want you to comment on one is I want to make sure that you have looked at the most recent version, because it sounded like you may have been looking at a different version with respect to the prohibited restraints, because you're looking at the side by side comparison that has changed a little bit, and you don't have to look at now but I want to make sure that, you know, take a look at what we have on the on the web today and then you can provide further comments because it, there still is very clear I think we put language in that allows self defense defense for law enforcement if they use a chokehold, although we're trying to make very clear the prohibition as much as possible but any event moving moving on I guess the question. So I understand I understand where folks are coming from, to some extent on this hey let's just leave it to policy. You know we've certainly heard some reasons why we shouldn't. I would include the fact that policies, yes they're presumably more flexible but they're not actually enforceable. There's perhaps somewhat less incentive to always follow the policies and we do have examples where policies are there and they simply are not followed. But what I'm trying to do is make sure you know, I think there's certainly like a say room for policy as well. And that's to get into the details that you know the to flesh out essentially the standards that we are putting forth in statute and I will I will note that there are 40 states in the country that do have standards in statute, although probably most of them are really not sufficient, because they are dated, just like just like ours is also dated because our only policy in there is this kind of viable homicide which is is probably even unconstitutional but any event. So, so I mean I look at, for instance just South Burlington's policy and it yeah it goes into some depth, as far as what our non lethal uses what are the different force that can be used, and I could see that fitting into the overall standards that we, we have. And I guess that question and let me just one one other point I just want to make real quickly. And that is with regards to the policy, and whether it's enforceable and the Vermont criminal justice training council manual for training use of force. What the law enforcement looks at when they're training for use of force states that generally speaking a violation of department policy can result in sanctions or punishments from your department. The laws of the policy that is violated mirrors the law, it can also result in criminal charges or lawsuits. The bottom line being that really policies are not enforceable in court you need to have laws to do that. But I'm going to get to a question I apologize I'm just going on and on about this but I want to understand what more specifically the issues are with the standards that we're putting in and I, and if the standard I think has been relatively well established for a while. That use of force needs to be objectively reasonable I think that's pretty well established in law that it has to be necessary there are numerous cases that say it has to be necessary there's some that don't really focus on that and and I think that's what we're trying to get at is this overarching that that use of force has to be those things. And the next step and use of deadly force. You have to have imminent threat to death or serious bodily injury and and I'm not understanding why those standards would be changing that you need that flexibility and policy. I think we're giving plenty of room for the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council or the LEA be or whoever to develop that policy around these more general standards that we would be putting into legislation so that was a lot but I wonder if you want to comment on some of those points that I was trying to make. Mr. again I think I understand where you're where you where you're definitely coming from the way I see it as that again with with the flexibility of policy. Policy to me would be an affirmative defense if you will I that that's how I see it. The defense is something that's it still pushes you into court I don't for most unless I for the most part of it some of the specific languages when we start talking about absolutes when we start talking about if this than that. Then then there's going to create unintended consequences or hesitations within the field. And then can speak to how how some of the specific language is going to affect to training. Overall, no one has that I'm aware of any pushback to to again de escalation to to exhausting that's what as you have mentioned that's what we've been trained to do. What a lot of agencies trained to do is you don't you don't result you don't come in at level 10, you come in at the same level commiserate to de escalate the current situation. So I just think that in terms of that the specific sticking point that of this that gives me the most concern is to just say that a prohibitive restraint, a choke hold and neck restraint anything to that is still deadly force. It's still deadly force it's an affirmative defense, but to me it's no different than saying if I'm justified at running somebody over hitting somebody with a car they're shooting at someone else then there's deadly force is still deadly force and what we have to look at doing is, it's going to create a hesitation that if I'm fighting for my life which several times I have been doing. I have to make sure I have every opp opportunity to me available to save myself to save someone else, and that if I can, if I'm using a deadly force. If I'm using some type of a hole like that, then I can stop that. If that's the only means I have, but I, but having this specific language while it does create an affirmative defense it creates the opportunity to say it's still against the law. And in what that same acknowledgement the challenge is that hey if that's already in the policy but then if that is then I also want to acknowledge that if it's still there but still recognize that I think that by striking some of that language will give the same outcome everybody recognizes that there is a need or their situations may may come up in which somebody might find themselves having to use this in making it ambiguous it's going to make it dangerous I think. So, so yeah that if I could just follow up. So, yeah that's certainly on the prohibited restraint and we are trying to work that language out but but I will let me ask this is more specific question so we do have in the standard in this draft. Essentially, a requirement of de escalation it's not called that but it's in subsection B7 a and it talks about prior to using force that a law enforcement officer shell if feasible tape proactive actions to stabilize the situation and that list some various things that are I think fairly common. As far as de escalation techniques, the question I have is why why shouldn't we put something like that into a statute into a standard to make very clear that as representatives of Vermonters that we expect all law enforcement throughout the state. To use those kind of techniques when they are feasible because it's within, you know, there's a lot of difference there when I say when feasible that gives the law enforcement. Lots of room to spell this out in policy and in training, etc. But why can't we expect. And that's really I see this bill as an expectation of the Vermonters across the state on what we're expecting of law enforcement who we have authorized to use force. I'm not understand why what's the problem with us being able to have that expectation in in statute. Mr that one specifically I didn't. My, my focus was on particularly the neck restraints but and that what I'm looking at the concept of the in the entirety is is that something else is going to happen that's going to dictate an argument or discussion over what is feasible. And that that's why I think that flexibility of having of the some of these these items ingrained in policy rather than specifically always outlined in statute. Then I think that they're there brings in that flexibility for the legislature to come back and say, this is how we're defining feasible. I think, and this is a situation I just see that the standards and legislation works along with policy and in that one particular instance. I would hope that that the leab or whoever is developing the policy looks at that issue of feasibility we are giving still law enforcement a lot of deference to work out those details. It's a general concept that deescalate when feasible. We want law enforcement to follow that, but we're leaving it to law enforcement to flesh out the details and in the training so that's what I'm trying to get at, but yes sir and I understand that but I think that I think that the danger comes in the the specificity of the wording, and that causes that ambiguity causes reluctance or hesitation and critical moments, or not fully understanding what what the legislation mean by this, how do we train we need further guidance we need further information on it and I think that what having a policy can we can coordinate those things we can work out those nuances to add those into what is meant and what what what the what's coming down. I guess I don't see that much disagreement between us on that but but any event yes I'll I'll cede to not her and others. Yeah, yeah this is really time for asking questions of the witness to make sure that we that we understand what what the witnesses are are saying. Not her. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Chief I'm glad that you're here in Vermont and thank you for testifying I appreciate it. The question is, think much less complicated than Martin's but I'm just curious if you can talk more about cost that you brought up that was one of the concerns. And I'm wondering if this if if past and implemented if this would look like some sort of you know e learning that would go out and how much money that would cost or what officers have to go back to the Academy for a couple days of training, or if this would be the length of the Academy if you could talk a bit more about cost and your concerns there. Thank you. Yes sir and first foremost thank you again. I think it would be a combination of all the above and looking. It would be a ripple effect of looking, there has to be different training on it. There could be some portions that could require e learning. They're going to definitely be requirements for people who are use of force instructors in different departments to have to probably go back to the Academy to get specific guidance on it for the Academy to develop specific guidance and how they're going to do things. Then you're looking at overtime coverage as you're looking at how am I going to be able to get people out to training how am I going to be able to bring people into the Academy. And especially in an area of with with COVID right now, they're going to be significant financial restraints and doing that anytime that that that new legislation like this is going to be enacted to make sure that we're going to be in accordance with it and meet the spirit of what it is that that there is going to be there are going to be costs associated with it. And I don't and my feeling and discussing all these with my peers is that there is not. There is no agreement to to working on on these. We just want to make sure that we do it in a smart way, and that we do it in a way that's not going to create room for ambiguity. And that's why I would highly recommend and encourage that that drew bloom who can probably speak better to the specifics of this with use of force better than I could that you give him the opportunity to speak with you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Selena. Sorry, I think I was muted apologize. I want to echo other people's thanks for your testimony and your work and my one of my questions I think really Martin posed about sort of just more details about your concerns about the difference between policy and statutory guidance. I mean, one of the things that a previous witness and I believe you are with us then said about the difference was that the ability to create more consistency across the state and I don't know if you want to speak to that question at all or but I also you referenced at one point in your testimony, some proposed language from the police association. I don't believe I've seen that I looked back through our committee page and couldn't find it posted so I'm wondering if that could just be shared more broadly with the committee. That's a request and then if they're, if you do want to talk more about the issue of just the question of the consistency that statutory guidance would provide across the state and that question of how to the real the real variance right now and how police departments are working through these issues on the local level and and the kind of strain that that does then at times create between local government police departments and residents and citizens of a municipality or jurisdiction. Yes ma'am. Again, thank you very much. I could send out some of the information and some of the conversations that we've been having that I've had with Drew bloom, specifically and some within the VPA. There are. There's just like different levels of wording that we could send send out to you. And again, this is something that drew bloom could could really expound upon regards to the consistency across the state. It's from what I've seen here that Vermont has some significant challenges, especially with all the rural areas, and the lack of resources that governments as well as agencies have and bringing training or bringing technology or any of the pillars that are discussed the six pillars discussed in 21st century policing. I think, again, from from that standpoint. The laws have always been created and laws should be created for accountability and transparency. Well, I'm sorry loss of our always been created just to make sure that we don't violate people's rights. So, I definitely understand that but what with policies again to me policies. And that specific. There is that flexibility in that specific specific expectation that these policies are going to be followed but in what what that flexibility is policies can also allow for being elaborate, you know, elaboration on what these policies are going to come in. And how do we meet those mandates that that's why I'm more or less advocating to me, the policies are it's the same thing with more flexibility the same level of expectation, and the same level of of guidance for law enforcement agencies. Thank you. Yeah. Great. Tom, and then can. Great. Thank you. Chief. Welcome to Vermont. Thank you. I'm sure shock that wasn't too bad or maybe it was. No, sir, respectfully I like the Yankee spirit it was fine to me as we don't we, we, we, we hold you accountable and I really like that it's groovy. Yeah, great, great. So, Drew bloom. What's, what's his capacity now. He is the, well he's one of the directors at the at the Academy State Academy, and he is pretty much in my mind, probably all things guru on use of force. He's been doing it for 30 years, and he's helped to help took help to define define policies procedures best practices state practices and what we adopt and how we utilize use of force. I may have been in committee at some other time I don't recall it but I certainly hope we do. I'm going to assume that we're going to reach out to him and have him come in and, you know, and tell us about about force but I wrote down a couple of questions here. If we put de escalation into statute, aren't we legislating what is already being done. And I guess how extensive is the de escalation training. You may not be as familiar with with Vermont as as you know out in Chicago or Illinois but yeah because you could just talk about that I guess. So, so pretty much what what what de escalation in the statute. Yeah, I mean if we put it in training area if we put it in statute. Aren't we just legislating what's already being done, which I would assume is already being done. I think it is all it's all what it's already being done with with the exception again of that flexibility. So, so like in a court case if a court's going to define what what that level of reasonableness is then with a statute it's, you know, it just have to meet you have to be careful and the language that you put into if it's like definitive language, then it's going to be harder to try to change that statute than it is for for policy, which is why I would again with drew recommend that he would that he could speak to some of those. Some of the issues that are in there that and some of the nuances of language. So in statute then it could be potentially what I want to say could work against the way that you people are trained to de escalate. So it again it depends on the ruling. It depends on what what a court may come into. And with regards to use of force. I have part of my certification and coming here I had to do use of force training at the academy. And it was, it was actually even better than what I learned in flexi, because I think what use of force was a sense of culture. And to me culture is what is what is going to change an institution, and is what is needed in our, in our institution to change it. And so, so this is a not only this is what you do but this is a why you do it. So that why component that that bit of adult learning. I think it's what brought it in so in Vermont, we don't expect you to do what Chicago does we don't expect you to do what everybody does we expect you to do what Vermont does because these are the expectations of Vermont tears. So, so I think that's what one of the big pieces of glue that really struck me and how things were being done. And if I'm putting words in your mouth just just stop me but you met I think you mentioned being in several physical situations in West Chicago. Yes, sir. Okay, okay, I got that right. So with this, this language that we're proposing on use of force. How could it have been detrimental in those situations and, and I guess what potential could have had and putting you in even more or not necessarily you but any officer in more danger. Again, I am so specific I just want to want to kind of make it clear that a lot of things that the spirit of what I think the legislation is trying to do, we agree with the spirit we just want to make sure that the wording is, and the flexibility is going to be there to change it, but with with regards to personal experiences. And in those situations that if, if I'm in a fight, hands on for my life because sometimes it just doesn't come and you get sucker punched you go to the ground somebody's on the ground they're pulling for you gone. Everything else that's happening in those specific situations. I'm trained if I'm taught if I'm always hearing that I can't you can't do a chokehold or anything I used to be a grappler used to wrestle in high school and a little bit in college that if I can't even that moment of hesitation of trying to gain control of somebody could and would have cost my life in several situations. I think that the biggest thing on there is just to make sure what what what what is in here, especially the emphasis on duty to intervene and the de escalation part that once the forces is applied and once it's no longer necessary you, it comes down. And I think that is the crucial part in that training and that understanding. Thank you. I guess this isn't necessarily for you but for maybe even for Martin. So, if I remember right some of this language is partially mirroring Seattle's policy question for me. Yeah, for for anybody I guess yeah but probably Yeah, it's from several places it's from lots of case law that's already out there and looking at some policies in the state in Vermont as well as Seattle as well right some of the languages from Seattle. Okay, great. Thank you. And just what I wanted to touch on with that is Seattle is and I don't know if it's Seattle or if it's Washington at this point but I'm pretty sure it's Seattle is this is all policy in Seattle, and the reason that a lot of this was put into effect in Seattle, the policies that they have to go by is from the policing. You call mandates from back in the Obama administration, and in Seattle was forced into doing a lot of this, because they were in disarray, their police department out there was, was a mess, as are some other police departments that have been mandated by the federal government to, to follow certain guidelines and to, to, to me to force the state of Vermont by putting this stuff into statute is, is forcing a situation that's not happening in Vermont. The policing in Vermont is not like Seattle was, or, you know, or like some, you know, I'm sure other departments that that need help. And, and I just don't think it's a good idea to put this into statute. You know, flexibility, you know, is a is a big, a big issue. And, you know, we heard from an attorney earlier that, you know, if this, if we go into statute I mean it's just it's going to find a kind of interesting that he was even testifying but it's just going to boost his work. It's going to give him more work, you know, and more money to make in and I just thought it was kind of strange that he was even here but I guess that's, that's my opinion or my voice is, is, I don't think most of this should be put into statute maybe some of it can but, but this, the use of force, I think, like, like the chief said, if he didn't have those options. You know, he would probably be dead. And, and again, I wasn't going to bring up my son in this, you know, being a police officer, but when the chief brought up that he used to be a grappler, you know, and my son used to be a grappler and I hope he uses whatever, whatever tools, you know, are at his disposal in those situations and I already know that he has but and I would hate to see my son, or anyone son, or anyone's chief of police be put into first just to be in those situations and but then to be in those situations and it's a good, a good metaphor, a good pun, but to be in a fight with your hands tied. Ken. Welcome, Chief. Welcome to Vermont. Welcome to Montpelier. I'm a, I'm a couple towns south of you in Northfield. I just want to say, I really appreciate your perspective and enthusiasm and open to learn which we all are. And just one coming from past 10 years on the select board here in Northfield. I just, I just would like clarity or your opinion. I think in your brief time here in Vermont, we're all going to police differently in the areas that we represent because of population or the the, the makeup of the community is much different. Like I have North University that I'm looking at right now. And, you know, Burlington is going to have different with UVM and all that stuff. I mean, am I on the right track with that thinking. Yes, sir. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Nice to meet you. You as well, sir. Great. Thank you. Anybody else make sure there aren't any other questions. I don't see any and I've asked our community assistant Lori to reach out to to drew bloom. I think it would be very helpful and I very much appreciate your recommendation. So we'll see if we can get him get him in here and and thank you again really appreciated your testimony. This is an ongoing conversation. So I look forward to to speaking with you again. Great. And respectfully thank you all for your work that you're doing for our community, our constituents. Great. Thank you. Great. Take care. Okay, so I'm committee we're going to hear from move to Lori and then after that, we're going to have to stop on 119 so we can take our quick vote on the The SR 22 bill so we can let the speaker know or and and thanks to Falco who will be who is available tomorrow. So I wasn't sure how far we'd get today. So welcome Lori and again Lori. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to give you only about 10 minutes but if that's not enough. I don't know if you are available tomorrow, but certainly want to make sure we hear everything that you have to say at some point. Sure, sure. And if you have other questions too, I can come back. Can you hear me okay. Yes, yes, thank you. Great. So not me Vermont is the state chapter of the National Alliance on mental illness of Vermont and we're comprised of people who have a mental illness, their family members and other advocates. And we really appreciate the committee's work on this particular bill to be able to repeal the statute and put some guidelines around the use of force. And our comments are going to really focus on mental health and interactions with law enforcement. This bill is a great important tsunami Vermont and our community of individuals and families living with a mental health condition. Many families and friends do not want to call law enforcement. When a mental health crisis occurs and just the presence of law enforcement can escalate a situation resulting in our loved ones being traumatized. Charged with a criminal offense or worse use of deadly force. When all that was really needed was to help keep them safe because of their possible suicide attempts or suicide ideation. We really need to seek alternative collaborative approaches to prevent and respond to crises. And we need to deep criminalize our responses to mental health crisis. However, if there is an encounter with law enforcement, we want to ensure that law enforcement does have the right training to be able to help de-escalate a situation and really de-escalation is that number one priority. We also need to invest in better recruitment and training of all officers, building those collaborative community partnerships and intensive training will help improve responses and resources for individuals and families that have a mental health crisis. And NAMI Vermont is doing a lot of this work right now and I just wanted to inform you of some of the work that we are doing. We have trainings that help build empathy and reduce stigma through our lived experience with our NAMI in our own voice presentation. And we've done this for all new recruits, police departments, sheriff departments, and state police. And what it consists of is two people in recovery share their lived experience about what it means to live with mental illness. And we can customize these presentations for people to help them better understand what works for them whenever an encounter may happen. And trainings need to include lived experience stories with family members as well and who have been involved with law enforcement interactions with their loved ones. And we have worked with the Vermont Police Academy and Team 2 to provide presentations like this. And we've gotten great feedback that they had learned from other people's lived experience and they can respond differently because of hearing from other people and what has worked for them. NAMI Vermont has NAMI signature programs and these are developed nationally and they're used nationwide. So the other programs that we have is an evidence-based program called Family to Family and really gives family members the better tools to communicate and support their loved ones' recovery. And we would really recommend training for law enforcement as well as correctional officers so that they do understand how to communicate better with people who may have a mental health condition and build that empathy and compassion. So we really feel that that's a very important step in the right direction with providing the right training. There were just a few comments that I wanted to make on the language and really appreciate the amendment. So I had to go back and look at what I first wrote because you definitely improved on it from feedback from other testimony. And we appreciate on page 2 where you change the language where it says under B, 6B. So changing it to whether the subject is physically or mentally impaired in a manner that interferes with the subject's ability to understand or comply with law enforcement commands. This is a good change. I think the other language is very archaic and stigmatizing. So we appreciate that change. And also, you know, I've heard comments about looking at policies and at the bottom of page 3, the very last sentence where there's reference to use of force and being consistent with law and with agency policies. It will be very important that you include a good representation or diversity of representation of stakeholders to help review policies and have a standardized policies that the state can follow. And to include advocacy organizations like NAMI Vermont and other organizations who do have the lived experience. Going to the next page, I had a question for the committee about page 4 at the top and where it says whether the decision by a law enforcement officer to use force was objectively reasonable, shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation. I guess I just wanted clarification as to what that means. Is this after action review evaluation to determine there was something that needs to be addressed? I'm going to ask Brenna if she's available and if she heard the question. I only heard half of the question. Could you repeat the first part? Sure. At the top of page 4, number 4, there's a statement about the use of force was objectively reasonable, shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation. What exactly does that mean? So that is an example of a portion of the bill that is really codifying what the Supreme Court has ruled in these types of use of force cases. So I can direct you to a memo that I drafted for another committee that talks about that jurisprudence if you'd like. I just wasn't sure who was doing the evaluation and then what happens after that evaluation. So that was just a little unclear. Right, so the court would be making this type of evaluation in the context of a civil lawsuit against law enforcement. So I really wanted to stress at the bottom of the page where under 7A where you discussed de-escalation and I really want that point emphasized in this bill, that that should really be the primary objective is de-escalation before any use of force would even be considered. So having emphasis more on de-escalation is very important and not so much how to do the training for de-escalation but the importance of implementing that first tactic. As I look at moving on to page 5, you added a whole new section there. And I'm wondering a little bit about the language and it would seem that law enforcement is going to need some extensive training on all of these areas to really determine whether a subject may be, or a subject's conduct may be the result of a medical condition, mental health condition, et cetera. Would maybe a change in language that they should consider these factors because they are not really subject matter experts on these areas, but they definitely should be trained to consider these factors when they are in a situation. The other comment I had is on page 6. Going down the page under B3, a law enforcement officer shall cease the use of deadly force as soon as the subject surrenders. I'm looking at this as a mental health crisis and hopefully once the person is complying that any use of force will be, they will cease any use of force there. And of course I am looking at this from that mental health perspective. So the word cease the use of deadly force, also consider any use of force. Number four, looking at how an officer is to identify themselves and warn that deadly force may be used. This can be very escalating to somebody who is in a mental health crisis that if you're warning them you're going to use force, that they're going to be in a fight, flight situation where they're going to defend themselves because they're afraid they're going to be hurt. And maybe using other tactics and communication methods before threatening deadly force. I think if the last resort, yes, they should identify that they will use force. But also too when people are in a mental health crisis, it's very hard for them to understand commands and any conversation because they are in that heightened state of dysregulation. Going to the next page on page seven, number six, you made an amendment there with a law enforcement officer shall not use a prohibited restraint on a person for any reason. This is a good change. I was going to comment on the previous language for this that the language previously almost really negated the prohibited restraint clause. And I think that this is a good change along with the other factors that you've outlined for guidelines for officers. That's our comments. Great. Okay, great. Thank you very much. I appreciate those help. Okay, Martin, I see you have a question and folks I realize it's just about 1230 so we will be running a little bit over. Go ahead, Martin. It should be a quick question. I'm just wondering how much you track instances where law enforcement has had to deal with individuals who may be suffering from a mental crisis or may have mental health issues. So people who may contact us and disclose to us that a situation had happened or it's a little bit different. Do you do you have a know the number of deaths that have occurred in policing encounters where the victim was suffering from a mental health condition, mental illness condition. You know, I in the mental health crisis commission report, you know, there was some information there about that. As far as NAMI Vermont goes, we've had members who have had situations where they were either tasered, they were shot. They did not want to come to this committee and give testimony more in fear of still living in that community with their loved one. But I think it's very difficult when somebody is in a mental health crisis. And, you know, the only reason why family members may call police is because of safety and they respond. You know, we recommend people to call the crisis line. We recommend people use the text line, the Vermont support line. They even call NAMI Vermont support group facilitators. You know, we help to provide support to other family members to help figure out different ways of approaching things instead of calling the police. And, you know, if families are able to help de-escalate the situation at home, you know, we're able to give them the education and training through NAMI Vermont, the family to family course, to help with that. So they are helping their family member in this recovery process. And it really is about communication and being able to connect with people to be able to help de-escalate a situation. Mostly any law enforcement interaction is going to escalate unless an officer has proper training to handle it in a way that builds rapport and de-escalates the situation. You know, there is a documentary called Ernie and Joe Crisis Cops. And we would like to show that to the legislators and other interested community members that, you know, I think you could learn a lot from the documentary and we'd be happy to help set that up. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Tom. Thank you. Thank you, Laurie. And my question isn't really around the testimony you just made, but I do know that a few years ago that we had, we did do some legislation around the way that policing was done with people in, you know, in special situations like you've been talking about. And I don't recall exactly what the laws were that we passed or exactly what we did. And I'm hoping that you do. And maybe you could talk just a little bit about how that has helped change things. Um, so I guess I want to refer to which, you know, which legislation you were referring to. I don't remember details on it. I just remember that we had done some work. Suicide prevention. Pardon me. Was it with the gun legislation and the suicide prevention? I know that there was one legislation that we had supported waiting period for. I think it was probably around the side prevention. And it seems like it was something that had to do with interaction with with police departments. I'm trying to recall. I'm not sure if I do remember. Right. That's fine. That's fine. Yeah. I didn't mean to get you off track. What we're talking about, but thank you. You know, one of the point that I do want to make with this 988 federal legislation that they they have passed. I think this is a great step in the right direction with, you know, it's not only a suicide prevention lifeline number, but this could also be that mental health crisis number the go to number that if you need to call mobile crisis or need other resources that will be able to help people as opposed to calling 911 and getting law enforcement involved. So, you know, it's really looking at decriminalizing mental health crisis, figuring out different approaches to respond. Thank you. Selena. Last question is yours. Thank you. And thank you for your testimony and your work. And I wondered if you wanted to weigh in at all on this question of, you know, whether to sort of let law enforcement be governed by policy that's not codified in statute here, which seems to me actually is kind of our current practice to some degree, or whether you think having these finer points embodied in statute is is going to be useful for the people that you work with. The way your bill is written. I really like the improvements that you've added to it. You know, I believe there's a gap with including the voices of people with lived experience or the community. In governance oversight with this and, you know, some of our testimony to with the other bills with the Vermont criminal justice council was really looking at that balance, you know, instead of having police provide their own oversight. I think if we are passing policy we need the voices of the people that are most affected at the table as part of the decision making process. With everybody at the table, I think you're going to get more buy in from the community, and people are going to be more accepting because they're part of the process as opposed to not being part of it. I agree with you really wholeheartedly and thank you for making that point which I think we've heard a number of times and I'm hoping as legislators that at least in our role where we are becoming more responsive and and better at building inclusive processes as we develop policy. I think my question is from an earlier witness chief P we heard that it would be better. I think I mean I don't want to put words into that witnesses mouth but what I heard was that it would be better to give law enforcement more a little more flexibility and discretion and that the way to do that would be to create policy but not but not binding statutory guidance or standards. And I would love to hear your thoughts on that. Personally, you know, I'm all about having systems and processes in place and having that structure gives guidelines for people to know what you can and you cannot do. And that way there you always go back to the statute to hold accountability. And I think that's what the community is wanting. We want accountability. And whether it is putting it in statute or working with the community very closely to ensure their input is considered and part of the process. That's what we need to do. It needs to be inclusive. And if we have to put up those parameters and put it in statute, then that's what we need to do. You know, and hold accountability for people's actions and performance. Thank you. That's really helpful. Great, great. Well, thank you, Laurie. Thank you so much. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Okay, so, so folks, thank you for staying late. I just want to get a vote on h 578 which is our, it's what I sent around yesterday. It's the Senate has sent it back. That's the SR 22 bill Senate. Very few changes pretty much they, they changed the dates as we're doing in many of our bills given where we are. I just took out some language that had been passed in the miscellaneous motor vehicles bill so I'm hoping that folks had a chance to take a look at what I, what I sent, I've heard from some of you. But I would like to recommend that we concur but I just want to let folks, if you could let me know what you're, what you're thinking. Or we could do a show of show of hands. I've heard from Kelly Ken will leave Martin myself so just jump right in. Yeah, I'm good with it. Okay. As well. Yeah, okay. As well. Okay, great. Patrick and coach. I think coach might be in the end. I think coach might be talking to somebody else. Okay, great. And so, so that's helpful and will you were the reporter so the speaker would look to you to, to say that we recommend concurrence and what the what the minor changes are you are you good with that. Yeah, some fun with that. Okay, great. All right. So on the floor before the full house. Excuse me. Yes. Yeah, when do we think it would come before the full house. Oh, so I don't she might want to, she might want to do that today. Because we did it's back in a actually I'm assuming that we actually have it in our committee but she might want to do that today just to get it. You know, let the Senate know I'm not sure I'll let her know but it's just a quick, you know, we concur basically, because they're really, really weren't any changes. Okay. So, coach, are you good with the changes to the SR 22 bill that I did. Didn't get your vote. Yes, yes. Thank you. Sorry, sorry, sorry about that. No worries. Tom. Yeah, by concurring. And no changes this. It's not debatable on the floor right. It's not debatable. It's not amendable. It is debatable. Yeah. So, so our is debatable. Okay. Yeah, our choices here. Yeah, our choices here would would be concur, or concur with with amendment. Right. And so what I'm recommending and what I'm hearing from everybody is concur as is it's right. It's good I'm not hearing anybody say well you know we don't really like these dates. You know, the invasion doesn't need as much time you know that would be the type of thing. Yeah, and I think it is amendable right I was wrong about that I would just like had a brain freeze where I was thinking this was coming out of a conference or something which of course it's not so it probably isn't. That would be the difference. So is that clear so so again, our choices because. Yeah, because this is the first time it's coming back from from the Senate. I think I was thinking of coming out of conference committee. Right. Yeah, no, this is this is the first time it's coming back. So, trying to lure me into a false sense of complacency. So, so to be clear, this is amendable or it isn't. No, it is we could, we could do a further instance of amendment if there was something that. You know that we didn't agree with what they did sure. Okay, so I mean, it's normal every day. Normal every day bill that goes to the floor, correct. Yep. Yeah, I think so. It's treated that way. Thank you. Okay, so our folks so good with what we did was concurring. Yeah. Okay. Isn't it nice over one big happy family. Oh yeah, I know you just want to hug. Oh, I missed you. Hugging is out until at least 2021. Right. Okay. And then. And then we can talk about it more tomorrow or, or be in touch. But again, the, I think. Erica Michelle did an excellent job on the section by sections. And then we can talk about it. And then we can talk about it more tomorrow. And then we can talk about it more tomorrow. For us to 34. And I've gone through it in terms of. What sections. Kelly will do. And the sections, Tom and, and Martin, so I can. I'll type that up and send that to everybody, but Kelly, thank you so much for. For taking the lead. And as I said to Kelly, I said, I think I'm getting sentimental about our. Are coming to an end in terms of this judiciary committee. So Kelly, I really do appreciate you. You stepping up and. And taking the lead here and I, you know, in this particular bill, when you look through it, we really have not changed much at all. Right. It's what 33 sections. And I think we have. What, you know, two, two additions. One is a technical one. And so really have not done much at all. But I, I, I think it's better to go through section by section or at least have that whole thing in front of the body instead of doing instances of the, of amendments, because it just, it gets trickier to, you know, have people go to the original bill and try to figure it all out. So, so I think it looks more complicated than it really is, but the hope was just to. Give people all the information and, and then ask us questions hopefully before we get to the floor. So everybody will be able to find it this time. I hope so. So it should be on the. Should be on today's calendar. I haven't looked at today's calendar, but it should be on the notice calendar in entirety. And yes, Kelly, we will all stay in a close touch. But like I said, today I'm going to get the, the summary out to, to all house. And so that way I'm hoping that if folks do have questions, they can ask. And I did send the, the DLS portion to, to the chair and vice chair of transportation and have been in touch with representative Murphy. So, all right. Thank you. Thank you. If there's anything else. Because we don't have much time before caucus of the whole. Nope. All right. Great. Well, thank you, everybody. And we will adjourn and go off.