 Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Tuesday, May 11th, and we are continuing our consideration of S7, a bill relating to ceiling and expungement. And we'll be looking at draft 2.3, which is on our committee page under Attorney Brinhair's name. And so you can find that there. When we last met on this bill, the administration raised concerns about the last draft, as well as the state's attorney raised concerns regarding unknown, unknown crimes and potential unintended consequences to victims. So what you see in draft 2.3 is a hopefully a bill that balances the important goals of ceiling and expungement and public safety. So in working on this draft, one of the things that I did was I asked crime research group to send me a list of the non listed misdemeanors because those are ones that specifically the state's attorney raised heard about. And so, and they're posted the list is posted and I scanned all 846 of them. And I pulled out ones that I identified as misdemeanors that could be related to or a result of domestic violence. And so when Brinh does walk through, you'll see that, that those are in here and are ineligible for ceiling and expungement. And I've been working with the Attorney General's office to make these changes. And we will see what you what you think. And again, I know that some of our witnesses are just joining in after I said this earlier, I do understand that you have not may not have had a chance to review the bill. But if you are not ready, attorney hairs walk through and then also hearing from the Attorney General's office will be helpful. But if you are not prepared to testify, please let me know. So with that, welcome, Bryn. Thank you. Thank you and good afternoon committee for the record Bryn here from legislative council here to talk about draft 2.3 of seven. I'm going to just go ahead and walk through it without sharing my screen that's typically how you like to do it. You know, you should have it on your committee webpage. And as always, the new draft has all of the changes from the from from the prior version that you looked at in yellow highlight, and you'll also see some underlined and struck through language and that just is to signify what was in the draft that is not in this version. So, I'm going to jump right into the walkthrough so you've got time to potentially hear from witnesses. So there are no changes to section one. So the committee will remember this is the listed crimes definition that has some technical revisions to account for some change cross references and some updated terminology so there are no changes there. Also no changes to section two which is the surcharge section that implements that provision from last year that allows surcharges to be waived by judges for ceiling or expungement proceedings if the petitioner demonstrates an inability to pay. So the first change you'll see is in section three, which starts at the bottom of page four, but you'll have to scroll down to page five to see the new language and this is the definition of qualifying crime. So, as everybody remembers qualifying crimes are those crimes that are eligible under the ceiling or expungement chapter for ceiling or expungement if certain criteria are met. So the changes here, if you remember the draft as it came over from the Senate, provided that all misdemeanor crimes were eligible for expungement, except listed misdemeanors. So, this changes the definition of qualifying crimes or crimes that are eligible for ceiling or expungement. And the effect here is to reduce the number of misdemeanors that are eligible for expungement or ceiling reduce it from the Senate version and also from actually from existing law what is eligible under existing law. Instead, it provides that qualifying misdemeanors are all misdemeanors that are not listed crimes that are not sexual exploitation of children crimes that are not a violation of an order of protection or a violation of an abuse prevention order that are not offenses involving abuse, neglect or exploitation of vulnerable adults. Misdemeanors that are not voyeurism crimes, not cruelty to animals, not aggravated disorderly conducts, not neglect of duty by a public officer, not failure to comply with sex offender registry requirements. These are the obscenity offenses that are related to minors. So that would include for dissemination of indecent material to a minor in the presence of a minor or outside the presence of a minor exhibition of motion pictures or displaying obscene materials to minors those are all excluded. The last two that are excluded are hate motivated crime enhancements or burning of a cross or religious symbol. So what I just listed to you is a long list of what is excluded. So as the chair mentioned earlier she reviewed the list of misdemeanors that are not listed crimes and that's a list of over 800 individual crimes. So what what this draft does is it provides that all misdemeanors except for those that I just listed would be eligible. And as I mentioned at the outset, this actually narrows the scope of misdemeanors that are eligible for expungement or ceiling from the prior draft and it also narrows it changes it and narrows it somewhat from what is eligible under existing law. So I'm going to keep going unless there are sections questions about that I'm going to keep keep moving through the the qualifying crimes definition to the felonies next. Barbara has a question go ahead. And can you just say which ones are changed from existing law that this bill would make more. If you look at the definition of qualifying crime at the bottom of each five. Yeah, what is currently eligible is misdemeanor offenses that are not listed crimes. They are not offenses involving sexual exploitation of children cannot be offenses involving a violation of an order of protection. And then, if you scroll down to page six, you'll see that struck through language prostitution is not eligible and predicate offenses are currently not eligible. So those are now so predicate misdemeanors are now eligible under the bill. Prostitution is now eligible, but those prior ones that are that are listed and underline and yellow highlight would not be eligible. And they currently are. Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay, so I'm going to keep moving down to page seven. So, starting with what is that struck through subsection D online to this is the beginning of the list of felony crimes that are eligible are considered qualifying crimes for purposes of stealing our expungement. So, starting on page two or line to that is those certain burglary offenses. Those are currently eligible scrolling down to page eight subdivision see offenses relating to the possession of regulated drugs. These are also currently eligible it's underlined because we've collapsed it into one subdivision here. But you can see the struck through provisions above it are all the existing law that provides that offenses relating to possession of regulated drugs are eligible. Subdivision D are offenses relating to the sale dispensation or transport of regulated drugs. So this is, these are are now eligible under this draft, not currently eligible. But you'll see that that yellow highlight struck through provision 4234 AB. That is the sale or trans or transport or dispensation of methamphetamines. So by striking that through that means that you would be removing sale dispensation or transport of methamphetamines from the list of qualifying felony offenses. Thank you. I'm pretty sure I know the answer to it brand but indeed selling dispensing and transporting. That's totally different than trafficking right right does not include trafficking that's a separate subdivision under those sections of law. And then I don't see any more questions so I'll keep going. Subdivision E is those qualifying felony property offenses that are listed and then the definition that appears, I think, a little bit further down. So that that is the list, but there is a change to what is considered a felony property offense. And you'll see on page nine there have been two felony property offenses that have been struck through. So these would no longer be eligible for ceiling or expungement. And that is an offense related to larceny from the person and you heard testimony from witnesses about that particular crime last week. So offenses really into holding property in an official capacity or property belonging to the state or a municipality. So that is also removed from the list so therefore no longer eligible for ceiling or expungement. So the, the, that concludes the part of the bill that talks about what offenses are eligible, just as a, as a baseline starting point what is eligible for ceiling or expungement. Any questions about that before I move on. So Bob and then Tom. Thank you, Brent could you give me an example of section 2537 holding a property and official capacity belong to the state or miss municipality. So, I bet that a witness will be able to give a better example of what that is, but I can pull up the statute for you. Give me a moment. While she's doing that I had the same question so it took my hand down. This is under the larceny and embezzlement chapter. This would be a state county town or municipal officer, or another person who holds an official capacity, who receives collects controls or holds money, obligation securities or other property. Embezzles or fraudulently converts that to their own use. So it's essentially an embezzlement crime committed by a person who is a state county town or municipal officer operating an official capacity. I think you're good to go. Okay, great. Okay, so I'm going to move on to section four now and this is the section that details the requirements for the different categories of qualifying offenses and how they are eligible for ceiling or expungement. So the first change that you see here is on page 12. This is the subdivision five this is the language that you looked at in the last draft that provides that person who's under the supervision of the department is not eligible to have their a record of an offense sealed or expunged under the chapter. And the change here provides that just creates a little exception to that rule so except for those records of offenses where the underlying conduct is no longer prohibited by law or no longer designated as a criminal offense. A person shall not be able to have their record sealed or expunged if they're under the supervision of the department, but that language there means that that should that requirement shall not apply. If the if the petition is for an offense that is no longer considered criminal. I believe that it was representative Colburn that pointed pointed that out in the hearing that you had about the bill last week. And then the next change is on the top of page 14. You'll see some language there in yellow highlight I'll just explain what this section is first this is subsection be. So I'm just going to remind the committee that for this category of offense. These are eligible for expungement five years after the person completed their sentence for the crime, or five years after completing the sentence for a subsequent offense, whichever one is later. But if the state stipulates to a petition to seal or expunge, the court can grant that petition without a hearing on or after the date that the offense is eligible for ceiling or expungement according to the statute. And then the new language here provides that if the person didn't commit a subsequent offense, then the respondent can stipulate to a petition filed prior to the date that the offense is eligible under the statute. The court is may grant that petition without a hearing, if it makes a finding that the person has successfully completed any required rehabilitation to the satisfaction of the court. And so this change is made in another couple of places in this section. And this was really intended to address the concerns that you heard from the administration. Last week, some of those concerns. Don't say any questions, so I'm going to move on to subsection see, and this is the next category of crimes which are qualifying predicate misdemeanors. And as a reminder, these types of crimes are eligible for ceiling, rather than expungement, five years after the sentence completion date, or five years after the sentence completion date for a subsequent offense, whichever one is later. And then those sealed records are expungement eligible five years after ceiling, if the person doesn't commit a subsequent offense. And so the change here you'll find on page 16, this is going to look very similar. So same language here. The respondent the state can stipulate to a petition that's filed on or after the date that the offense is eligible for ceiling or expungement and the court may grant that petition without a hearing. And then if the person does not commit a subsequent offense, then the respondent can stipulate to that petition that's filed prior to the date that the offense is eligible. So I'm going to note that I can remove the word for expungement or because they are not eligible for expungement. If they've committed a subsequent offense. So I'll just make a note of that. And again the court can grant that petition that early petition on if it makes a finding that the person has successfully completed any required rehabilitation to the satisfaction of the court. And so I'm just going to keep trucking along here. So, if you scroll down to page 18. Subsection I, these are the qualifying property offenses and offenses related to the sale dispensation or transport of regulated drugs. So this I'm just going to remind the committee this is these are eligible. These are ceiling eligible eight years after the date on which the person completed the sentence for the offense, or eight years from the date the person completed a sentence for a subsequent offense whichever one is later. And those sealed offenses are expungement eligible eight years after the date that the ceiling order is issued, as long as the person does not commit a subsequent offense. And then, if you look on page 19 subdivision three that this is the language that provides that the state can stipulate to a petition that's filed on or after the day that the offense is eligible. The court can grant that petition without a hearing I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that these offenses are not eligible for an early petition to seal or expunge. Good. Thank you. So brand. Just need some clarification. So, we'll use the eight year. So, I paid, I paid my dues. The eight year has started. I have a violation of some kind. I pay, you know, I pay the penalties on that. So, when that, when that is satisfied does the eight with the eight years start over at that point for an expungement on a prior crime. The eight years start once you've satisfied the judgment. So once you've completed any payment, or, or, or completed or completed your, your term if you're incarcerated. Yeah, once you've satisfied the judgment that's when the eight years begins. If you satisfy the judgment for that offense for which you're ceiling, you're seeking a ceiling or expungement order. And then you committed an additional crime during that eight year period, then you have to wait from the time that you complete your sentence for the subsequent crime, eight years from the date you complete that sentence before you can petition the court to seal or expunge the record of the first crime. If I went four years, then that the new crime, it's still, it'll be eight years when that is satisfied. Right. So, ultimately, you have to have eight years clean as one is one way to put it eight years where you're not serving a sentence. Right. Yeah, I just wanted to get the timeline straight on it. Thank you. Sure. Okay. I'm going to keep moving now. So there is one change to section five, which is the effective ceiling section. And this, I think that you heard some testimony from the court last week about how they would contact a person. And if you remember this is the section that provides that the court has to provide reasonable notice to a person who's had their record seals that they may be eligible, that sealed record may be eligible for that. And you heard some testimony that the way it was drafted in the Senate version was not how the court wouldn't would do that notification so we've just made a small change here to define reasonable effort as attempting to notify the person by electronic means, rather than a phone call or first class mail at the person's last known address. And then there are no changes to section six. Skip over that section. Section seven. This is the expungement of judicial bureau records and there is a change here. And you'll see that on page 24. So page 24 subdivision to this is the language that provides that once a conviction or adjudication has been expunged it can't appear in any existing database. So we've just added some language here that provides except for as provided in subsection C. And if you scroll down to subsection C, this creates an exception for research entities. So the language here provides that any research entity that maintains these conviction or adjudication records for purposes of collecting analyzing and disseminating criminal justice data will not be required to expunge those records. And then you've also have there's an additional sense that provides that research entities have to abide by the policies that are established by the court administrator. And she'll not disclose any identifying information from the records they maintain. And this was in response to I believe some written testimony that appears on your committee with page from the crime research group that they do have access to these records and would like to not be required to expunge these records because that would interfere with the with the research that they do in response to legislative requests. Can I saw your hand go up and down I just want to make sure that you don't have a question. I can't see my hand but thank you. Why is it the phone call attempted phone call or something in there I think we're going to get beat up if there's if that's not in there last, last known phone number or something like that shouldn't that be in there. So, you heard some testimony from judge Pearson last week that that the course staff really would not be would not be the appropriate people to give a phone call to notify a person and how they typically notify people as by electronic means, or by, by mail. They typically conduct their notifications of people. And I, and I'm not sure if judge person is available now to jump in but that is my recollection of his testimony. So that that is up to the court to to notify the that the directive is to the court to issue that notification. Yes. Okay, thank you. Sure. You want me to wait in chair. Sure. Thank you. I just to clarify the whole provision about notifying someone who's just had a sealed record that there is a possibility of expungement is something new to the law anyway. And what I had indicated before was that it's, it's unrealistic to have court personnel. If someone by telephone for a number of reasons one we probably don't have a recent telephone number, but even more importantly, there would really be no record of a phone call. And what's important if notice means anything, you need to be able to document it. And it would put the, the staff person in the middle of a process where they could become a witness, and if it's going to be effective at all I think it'll be effective at the time the person receives an order that their record has been sealed and to let them know at the same time that there is a possibility of expungement. If they meet criteria and that would seemingly go out with at the same time as the order or even part of the order of ceiling, and that would be the most effective means of notifying someone. Thank you. Thank you. Can I see your hand up. Thank you. It is. I'm having a little bit of trouble here today. I don't mean to it. I don't mean to. So, so you don't have a question or you're all set. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So thank you to judge Pearson for clarifying that for me. I'm going to move on to section eight. And this is the section that directs the joint legislative justice oversight committee to do an expungement and ceiling study during the legislative interim. And the language has been changed here. So the directive, rather than have the directive be to develop a comprehensive policy that provides some type of avenue for expungement or ceiling for all criminal offenses except for the big 12. So instead, you're directing the committee to consider all qualifying misdemeanors, and whether to exclude any of those qualifying misdemeanors from ceiling or expungement eligibility. In particular, misdemeanors associated with and resulting from domestic and sexual violence. And I believe, and one thing I didn't do in this draft I'm noticing is point out simple assault I believe that was to include specifically simple assault to evaluate simple assault for whether or not that should be eligible for ceiling or expungement. I can make that note. So also that language struck through language and subdivision one. So you're no longer directing the committee to develop a policy to make all criminal history records eligible for expungement or ceiling except for big 12s. Instead, you're directing them to review those eligible misdemeanors to determine if any of them should no longer be eligible for ceiling or expungement. Also to determine what individuals or entities should have access to sealed records, and whether you should continue to go along the two track process of ceiling and expungement or if you should limit eligibility to just one or the other. And then lastly, how to implement an automated process or a petition list process that would provide for notice to the prosecuting office and an opportunity for the prosecutor to oppose that ceiling or expungement. Thank you, Bryn. Yes. So I'm reading the beginning of section eight here. Excuse me. And I noticed that some of the language that struck through is develop a comprehensive policy that provides an avenue for expungement or ceiling of all fences except those listed in 33 vs a 52. Before a and that's really replaced by actually thinking about which misdemeanors should not be eligible. And so I guess I'm trying to understand is this a narrowing of the scope of the study which looked like it was originally about expansion. And this seems to be the clearest direction here seems to be about, you know, thinking about exclusions. I know that the, the language, I mean it says shall consider how to simplify and automate the process of expungement and ceiling of criminal history records but I guess I'm, I'm reading this as like a kind of listening what had been a pretty expansive charge for the study about really looking at a bigger rubric for most defenses with looking at what might be excluded from the University of misdemeanors and I just, I'm wondering if I'm, if you think I'm reading that right or wrong. If that is a question for me I think that you're reading that right. Okay. Yeah, thank you Selena certainly that's up for discussion. Yeah. Not seeing any other hands, many members. Martin. This is a real short question something I probably should have picked up on before. Page nine one of the crimes that we list section 2575 a related to organize retail theft. That's not a crime yet that's hung up in each 87 which hasn't been passed I don't know how one would deal with that. Since it's this bill is moving before that bill apparently just want to flag that. Thank you I'll make a note of that. So is your hand up. Okay, that you're good. Okay. Tom. We discussed at another time. Early expungements that a prosecutor could ask for an early expungement is that the way that wasn't and what's the status on that now. So that was changed throughout anywhere where an early expungement was a person had the opportunity to file for an early expungement. It now provides that the person can only be eligible to petition for an early expungement if they haven't committed a subsequent offense. Also, if the court grants that early expungement first of all the state has to stipulate to the early petition and also the court has to make a finding that the person has been rehab to the satisfaction of the court. Okay, so it's the court's decision now and not the prosecutor. Correct. As if the prosecutor stipulates the court has to make that finding before it can grant the any early petition. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Before we move to the attorney general's office. I think so. Okay. I'd like to please welcome David share the attorney general's office. Good afternoon, committee. Good afternoon, madam chair. Thank you for having me this afternoon. So I'm going to limit my comments. I already testified in response to an early round of testimony. So I'm going to focus my comments today just on the pieces that are specifically responsive to administration concerns and then happy to answer questions and then after other witnesses testify if there's return. You know, other larger questions. I'm happy to talk about that as well. But of course I'll answer whatever questions come up. So starting on pages five and six really on page six, one of the specific concerns that had come up. The chair already outlined the sort of rubric under which she reviewed the eligible misdemeanors, which are a large number now in the heaven expanded significantly because of the elimination of the predicate offense, the prohibition on expanding predicate offenses. So that was a large expansion in this bill. And so now there's been a bit of a narrowing with an eye towards as the chair talked about her review and I am with an eye towards specifically issues related to domestic violence and sexual offenses. And the one other piece in there is the neglect of duty by a public officer which had been brought up I believe by the state's attorney's office and I think the administration as well but I remember the state's attorney's office mentioning that moving on down here to page eight, this elimination of the methamphetamine sales piece was again responsive to administration concerns. And we felt that, you know, it was a reasonable decision and we do think it's important to allow for people to move past these offenses. It is our view that really the vast majority of these offenses when you're in the courtrooms and watching what's actually happening with the various cases with the plea deals that actually the people where they admit to wrongful behavior criminal behavior it is the vast majority of these dealing offenses are people who are not capitalist commercial enterprises people like that these are people who are dealing to sustain themselves, maybe doing a sale here and there to sustain an addiction substance use disorder in trying to keep themselves alive. So we think it's it's important to keep most of those in but if there was, and especially since in Vermont, historically, meth dealing has certainly been present but has not been a huge aspect I would say huge percentage of the offenses as a by compare, you know by contrast with heroin and, in particular, and some of the other substances that this is an accommodation that was reasonable and it's still kept in the bulk of the policy decision here. Moving down to nine. This is the again reflecting administration concerns about larceny from a person and which is section 2503 and then the next highlighted cross out is section 2537, which is basically the embezzlement as it relates to a public, somebody holding position public trust like a town clerk or something like that. Again, keeping in the great majority of the offenses in that paragraph. There's really two other main pieces that were discussed, and one of them was accommodated on page four. Well, in the same way accommodated on page 14 and page 16. The administration had demonstrated a lot of discomfort with the waiver of timeline saying their argument I believe hopefully I'll state it fairly was that that undermined some of the policy policy impetus behind expansive judgments because the data is really about a time period after which after an offense during which somebody is not re offended. And, but their suggestion they wrote out some suggestions and their suggestions actually were not to eliminate the ability for a timeline waiver but simply to have a judge review that timeline waiver. And so that is that was embodied in this paragraph here timeline waiver is still available for the five year offenses. If there hasn't been a subsequent offense, and then a judge can review it but judge doesn't have to hold a hearing on it. They can make that decision. Of course they could always at their discretion and choose to hold a hearing to hear that issue if they if they wanted to. And so that kind of accommodation is on page 16. The only other piece that we'd heard clearly a discomfort with was the idea that somebody could get an offense expunged. Very shortly after a subsequent offense or finishing a sentence for subsequent but we I believe that was actually a misreading of the statute. And that was attorney here explained again just a few minutes ago. You cannot that the timeline restarts from the day that you satisfy the sentence for the subsequent offense so it is you do have to wait out that timeline from the time that you satisfy that that substance the sense on a subsequent sentence from the statute. And that was really it. In terms of, you know, like specific pieces that we've heard about. And actually thought that these were things that we could be willing to accept. I think it would have been more difficult to accept the elimination of the timeline waiver entirely but allowing it to go forward in these cases is still something that we think is a reasonable accommodation. And in fact, and I speak for myself I know there are other witnesses who have a more comprehensive viewpoint. I think that this will still allow a lot of the expungement requests we get very high percentage to go forward, since most of them are subsequent to the timeline and for the ones that aren't it still allows that there still is an avenue for that. So, that that covers the summary of changes that were directly responsive to administration concerns we certainly hope that those are reasonable responses and accommodate those concerns and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. You heard questions about the study. Just wondering if chance to think about that and reverting to to a larger, a larger look or expansive look then then what's here. This is a very good point I hadn't fully absorbed that until it was brought up so thank you to Representative Colburn for pointing that out. I think it certainly we would be supportive of having the broader look I think that makes sense I think that will give everybody a sense to have a really comprehensive look about how this should move forward and I think we'd be supportive of maintaining that I also I think that both can be done though I don't think that. That means that we can't ask important questions about how we deal with offenses associated with domestic and sexual violence, but I think that naming specifically that we're going to have a comprehensive look is something that is worth including and maintaining in this draft. Thank you. Thank you so much, Barbara. Thank you. So David this may not be a question for you but where we removed know where this proposed bill removes people from having the opportunity to get their records sealed or expunged that currently would have it. There are some problems with those particular cases that you're aware of that we would go backwards. And you're talking about the, the stuff at the beginning five pay on pages five and six. Let me go back and see what page it's on the ones that allow that brand. Right, right. Yeah, yeah. I will view these, these changes as the again some of this is a little bit anecdotal I'm going on my reviews but I have been, I have assisted at a good number of expungement clinics now so I've seen a lot of requests come through. I guess for these offenses are fairly rare and they are in the sort of grants, you know as you think of the percentages of cases that come through our system, these are on the lower end and they're more unusual offenses as compared to say, like a disorderly conduct or a simple assault or things like that which you see a huge volume of those offenses coming through. Are relatively unusual and I think the expungement requests are relatively unusual, and I think that it's not going to have a huge sort of backward step it's important to remember that in the misdemeanors as a whole, I think it's still very large it's not very large but it is an expansion because you are now allowing for prohibited. I mean sorry. Misdemeanors to be included, which is a significant step forward and will include things like careless and negligent operation which is a fairly common offense and we think again that's a very reasonable one to allow to be eligible. So I think on balance this still is a significant step forward in terms of the overall volume of eligibility that will be available after if this were to become law. And you know, with some of them I will say, a neglect of duty by a public officer. In particular that's actually one that our office has objected to requests on because I think I explained last time. That was one where we felt like it is inappropriate for the government to be assisting somebody and putting a veil over government wrongdoing. Right. I think, yeah, I think the two that sort of mean many of them it's hard to say, oh why would we want to let somebody who is not complying with the register sex offender registry, but the ones that seem sort of possibly not. I mean maybe I'm just wrong about this but the aggravated disorderly conduct may very well be somebody very drunk who. Yeah, but I don't know that that one seems kind of squishy to me in terms of who could fall in that as well as probably the violation related to obscenity like just I don't know what's included in that. But those two seem like, yeah, why, why are those. Why don't we let people repent from those two in particular. I don't know. I guess being a social worker, I have a strong belief that people can change and so with lots of them, I believe that people can, you know, come around. But in particular those I just worry about getting, you know, some people who weren't involved with anything all that serious that may be related to mental health or addiction, not get a break. I certainly understand your point I think you raise a good good important points that get to the heart of why we are considering expungements I think with aggravated disorderly conduct there is some data showing that a lot of a recent percentage of domestic cells get played down to aggravated disorderly. It is a different type of offense than regular disorderly conduct and that it is behavior that is very specifically directed at a singular person, which is a different type of behavior than the sort of general disruptive mess. So a bar fight over a pool game might be doing you know what I mean, like, is that would that be that kind of aggravated disorderly conduct, if the person feels like the other person cheated. No, well something like that would probably be end up being a simple assault, or something of that nature this is more it's more in the nature and the stocking is different crimes I don't want to use that word but it's more in the nature of directed harassment again which is also different times I'm using for word choices here, but it's like very directed challenging behavior towards a specific person which is why you see domestics get played down to because it fits a similar type of mindset and behavior. Okay, and how about with the obscenity. I think the idea there is more around its relationship to child sexual abuse materials and the overlay that those two things can have with each other at times. So not swearing or giving someone an obscene gesture or we're not talking about that. No. Okay, that's good to know. Thank you. Thank you for this are good questions. Yes, thank you. So, David, I just wanted to elaborate some more on section I versus qualifying felony properties offenses, selling dispensing or transportation regulated substances. You're saying the Attorney General's Office supports this for the expungement. We do and you're talking about yes we do. And, and again I think the notion that it's important to remember what we're talking about here which is not that these things should never be police prosecuted to be served that's not the argument is just that if somebody has in fact served out their penalty whatever that may have been maintained. You know hasn't had issues for the appropriate number of years, then we do think it's reasonable to allow that person to move on. And again the data shows that after. And David DeMora testified to this more comprehensively than I can but with especially those nonviolent offenses I believe he was saying that the data shows that around five years after that. You're looking at a likelihood to reoffend that goes down to about the level of the average person the general population so there isn't really a compelling public safety purpose to hang the record on somebody. There are very important countervailing public policy reasons not to make that personal labor under that, including their ability to earn a good income and access good jobs and expanding the state's labor force and all of those things are also things that allow that make it less likely for somebody to reoffend so we do in fact support that. Don't view those offenses as primarily being the sort of serious. I mean if you're in it there's there's this I'd say a somewhat fictional version of it's you're either you're there's the bad drug dealers and then there's the substance use disorder folks who are who get charged with drug possession. And that's just not the reality as we see it. I think a lot of people are suffering from substance use disorder do end up making trades or making small very small time sales that amount to drug sales and that's a piece of what happens but it doesn't make those people into the type of sort of big time capitalistic predatory dealers that I think is sometimes the shorthand idea of what that is and that just isn't the reality we see in the courtrooms. Because they're addicted to a drug. And they may be selling on the street and to whomever for profit before themselves this is this is all right and and creating more addiction in the process. It's not a matter of what's again it's not a matter of whether things should be police or punished although again I we do believe that for those issues treatment is the more effective thing in terms of promoting public safety and helping those people but it's not so much a matter of what should or shouldn't be a penalty we're not legalizing anything here we're just saying that it should be eligible for expungement after an appropriate number of years and there hasn't been a reprimand for the offense for that number of years that is a reasonable policy decision and it's one that we agree with. And again I think it's important. The reality that we often see in these cases is not somebody who's like a consistent alright I'm going to go out and I'm going to sell a bunch of I'm going to sell package of whatever today it's like one you know they make one sale between friends and that's the one that the CI had that the local officers had had them do this, do the trade with or do the sale with. Again, I do want to sort of try to provide a corrective to that notion that a lot of this stuff is any type of like consistent organized sales behavior that's just not a lot of what happens here that's a very tiny percentage of what you actually see in terms of what gets pulled into court on on cases dealing with substance use disorder. Thank you. Any other questions for the Attorney General's office. Thank you. Thank you, David. Thank you. So, Commissioner Sherling, are you prepared to testify today. Again, I know that you have not had much time with with the draft. But if you are able to comment we, I welcome your comments. Maybe he's not here. Okay. Dale crook, do you see. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to testify for the record. My name is Dale crook. I am the director of field services for the department of fractions. I'm just going to focus the comments on the two parts that would impact the department and not the greater area of the bell. You know, as we testify as I testified last week we had a concern about the impact of risk assessments. I think some of the carve outs that were added recently would help address some of those concerns doesn't eliminate them but they're certainly certain offenses like voyeurism does reduce that concern that the department have on impacts of risk assessments. There may be a few others. As you indicated we didn't have a lot of time with the bill. There's a lot of offenses, but I think you once were added did have some of an impact of reducing some of the concerns. There may be some others I'm trying to go through the 800 something less that may have it. But I think overall through something else I can have testimony written in tomorrow. Once we have a better chance to look at it. The only other section I'll really talk about was the addition to think it was page 12. I can understand the language that was added for a longer criminal offense. I really don't know how much of an impact that's going to be on the department. As I testified before, the department doesn't supervise its clients and its population based on offenses. So not knowing how much of an impact that would be. It's hard to understand what I can understand the logic behind the request. I don't think we have risk assessments and precedence investigations and other work material that could be an impact on on a workload impact there. I'm not really sure how many crimes that would be other than you know the ones that come to mind would be the marijuana changes to the marijuana laws in the last couple of years. I don't think it would be a huge impact, but that would be the other concern. And that I think that's what the department would testify to and I'd be happy to answer any questions are not. Thank you. Thank you very much. Committee members. Selena. Yeah, good. I'm, I'm hoping you could just reset for me your concern about marijuana expungements. It's it's not as much as a crime. So the department supervises individuals, we don't do it based on offenses. We do it based on the individual. So we could have an individual that we're supervising for a handful of different charges. But we don't supervise each individual individual charge. We supervise the individual themselves. So we'd have risk assessments. We would have pre sentence investigations or enemy sanction reports. case staffing reports that are done, taking individual as a whole. And if we expunge one of those crimes in that case, all that work material is is impacted because the way that expungements is worded is that that offense has never happened. So a risk assessment involving other crimes and the one that never happened. We would probably have to redo that risk assessment for a pre sentence investigation it may not be useful and as useful anymore. Again, I don't know how much of an impact that will be because I'm not sure how many cases are out there that are no longer crimes that we have under under supervision. So it sounds like the concern is more about just the labor of having to redo the risk assessment and less about the implications of no longer being able to factor say a marijuana possession connection into the risk assessment. It's an administrative burden is is what it would be. So any any work product that had the expunge case involved with it would no longer be valid. So that we'd have to go and redact case notes, depending on how long the individual is under supervision it could be quite a few case notes we'd have to go through and redact. So that's the concern. Again, not knowing the impact of of that with how many individuals we have may not be many, and there may not be a huge desire to request expungements well so much so it's so it's hard to know what that impact would be. But that's the concern that we would have. Thank you. Any. Anybody else. Thank you. Thank you, Dale. Judge Greerson, you're able to testify and again my apologies for sending this so late, but there is a little bit of extra work for the court to do. Yes, I thank you, Madam Chair for inviting us to testify for the record Brian Greerson chief superior judge. I have circulated the the bill of the proposed amendments within my office I haven't received back all responses so I'll tell you what my initial thoughts are and if I find there's a need to come back. I don't know what the committee know. So the first section where the crimes that are held. I don't have anything to offer on that purely a policy decision on the part of the legislature. I would skip down to the sections on page 14 and 16 with similar. They talk about this idea of an early expungement. This is if the person did not commit a subsequent offense, the respondent may stipulate to a petition file prior to the date of the offense. Is eligible entrepreneur ceiling is set forth in this subsection and the court may grant the petition without a hearing. If it finds the person successfully completed any required rehabilitation. So I'm not sure the source of this language, two things I would point out one. I don't know the last clause if it finds the person successfully completed any required rehabilitation. First of all we'd have to have a hearing in order to determine that, but more importantly if you keep in mind that the person would not be seeking an expungement or ceiling. Unless they had completed their sentence and if the particular sentence involved some counseling let's say their substance abuse mental health counseling. They would not have been discharged from presumably from DOC custody but if they're on probation. In other words, it would seem to me that if the sentence has been served that Department of Corrections and possibly the court. There's another bill, I think as the committee knows that is circulating on discharge from probation. And so presumably the court would have been involved earlier on in the process. But I don't quite frankly I don't know what it means to add in that last clause, if it finds the person successfully completed any rehabilitation. I don't think it's necessary. I don't know what we're supposed to be finding or how we're supposed to be finding it, or who has to prove to the court satisfaction. Finding is essentially a conclusion in a conclusion has to be based on facts, and the facts have to be presented, either by the state or the defense or both. But we can find that the person is completed rehabilitation, but someone has to satisfy us in producing that evidence. I don't know. Whoever added that language, what they were hoping to achieve by that. I don't think you would lose anything by just saying the court may grant the petition without a hearing period. And then if the court upon review of whatever is filed has some question. They could hold a hearing. In that respect. I guess the last thing I would point out is if I've read this correctly this is all part of amendments to this sec section 7602. And in reviewing that quickly while I was listening to the witnesses. There are other instances in the course of the expungement and ceiling statute where it talks about. For instance, the expungement or ceiling can be granted. If restitution has been paid in full goes on to say in more than one place that the court finds ceiling of a criminal history serves the interest of justice so I don't think there are two different standards for a court to determine an expungement or ceiling should take place, certainly within one statute I don't think we'd want it even in two statute so I would suggest if the courts. I mean, excuse me if the legislature's primary interest is in granting someone. If you will an early expungement or ceiling. And it comes to the court as a stipulation which this does come to the court as stipulation. Then I think if you just leave it as the court may grant without a hearing then it's up to the court's discretion whether there's some issue that they see that they need perhaps maybe it's just clarification but without defining what the criteria is. So I would suggest that last clause be struck. And I'm glad to answer any questions on that. Part of it. And I am. Thank you for the change on the on page 20 the notifying the court by electronic means or first class mail. I think that will achieve the goal of notifying the person of the potential for expungement. The last piece. And under section seven the exception for research entities. I'm reading that and I'll read it again. That that relates to data that is already in the possession of the research entity. In other words they're not coming to us after the expungement has taken place. But at least that's the way I'm reading that and I want to be sure that I'm reading it correctly. Perhaps. Bren is able to respond to that. So that is that's also how I'm reading it because it refers to the expungement requirements set out in the section which are requiring any database to be expunged with with one of these records that's been expunged to to clear that record from the database. So that's also how I am reading that section and I believe that was the intent as well. Otherwise that would be a significant change in the ability to access expunged records. So that's the reading that would not have an impact. And I may have commented on this before it's not one of the highlighted sections today but the very last paragraph on page 26 under section for this is the study. So that's the report about implementing an automated process not requiring a petition that involves the court notifying the prosecution office of the opportunity to oppose. Two things I guess I would remind the committee that then wouldn't probably not be automated because we have to notify the prosecution now it's possible under a new case management system that the notice itself could be automated but it wouldn't be an automatic process. What is more concerned to me is what I don't want to happen is if we notify the prosecution for instance that this case is appropriate for expungement. We would want it to be a notice that says if you do not file or give us notice that you're opposing this. We're going to expunge it by a date certain in other words that would make ultimately the ability to expunge automatic what we don't want to happen is they're given notice that we're going to expunge. And then they do not respond. And so we're left probably scheduling a hearing. So I think that the committee still has it in mind that they could look at that language and make sure that there's some obligation. On the part of the state to respond in a timely fashion, or we will expunge or seal. And I'll make one last pitch to include as long as amendment mending this bill to include the provision to extend the timeline in the marijuana expungement bill from last year. And those are the only comments I have I will review it again. And if I feel there's other matters I need to bring to the committee's attention. I'll let the chair know what I'm available for any questions if anybody has any at this time. Thank you. Thank you so much. Giving committee members the opportunity to raise their hands and not seeing anybody yet. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. And if you need any further explanation on those sections about the early discharge I'll be glad to respond those as well. Now you're actually your testimony about the rehabilitation was was very, was very helpful. Thank you. And I do have to leave for another meeting so if you need me again, let me know. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, that leaves us with the state's attorneys. So we have both John Campbell and Evan mean and I'm not sure how Madam chair I think Evan isn't I don't believe he's here he was at another meeting we've had a split. And I apologize my video has been going on and off with my with this. I've got I'm on my Mac right now so it's not working so I apologize but don't need to see me. Anyway, there, there are a couple of things number one I think you all have made some incredible improvements is from our standpoint with looking at some of the individual misdemeanors as you did. However, I would like some more time to look at this there are certain things that have been raised. So I'm going to go back to my the AG's office and of course just now by the court that we want us, we'd want to review. And in fact if any of the recommendations that the court just made some which I absolutely agree with on the procedural issues, then we would want to review that as well. If possible, I will defer my comments. More specifically until we've had a real chance to go through this. If that's okay, Madam chair. Absolutely so we will be working on this tomorrow. I'll give you some time, both in the morning and, and the afternoon. So, our community doesn't have an O'Connor will be will be in touch with you. That sounds good and we'll reach out. Thank you madam chair I appreciate the courtesy. Thank you so much. So before we adjourn, I'm going to turn to the Attorney General's office, David share just to just to see if you, if you have any comments given, given the testimony that we that we did here today. Yeah, the only the only one that struck me was that I thought that Judge Gerson's point about the waiver proceedings was a very reasonable one in terms of how courts would deal with that language and his alternative suggestion for language that makes sense. I think we'd have no objection to a change along those lines I understand there's a lot of interest being balanced here. We would have no objection to a change along the lines that he suggested. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any questions before we, before we adjourn. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you to the witnesses and so we can now adjourn.