 The earth's epitome need to seal you from up, but I don't know if you want to take the testimony or just go right to questions Sure, thank you Yeah, I think we put out, you know our position fairly clearly last week. I'm not gonna retread That ground. I know the committee is interested in knowing areas in which various stakeholders have agreement and what are the remaining areas of disagreement and I think I can speak for the attorney general's office, but obviously I welcome correction When I say that we we broadly agree that the Department of Justice threatened threatening to withhold these these funds Preferee to comply with certain new conditions is unlawful that 8 USC 1373 which will report strike prohibit states from putting restrictions on information sharing about Information status with ice. I think we agree that that's unconstitutional And I think we agree that we're not law enforcement works better and Vermont is Safer for all when law enforcement is not entangled with federal immigration enforcement There was sort of broad stroke More, you know values big picture statements. I think we do agree on where we disagree is What that means in practice and what we cannot do as a state Our position is ice is a stated last time is that we shouldn't be held by these these unlawful threats up under 1373 or these other conditions other municipalities and states have taken taken strong stands and They've been proven successful in court after court after court But we would request of the Of the committee to the extent any changes to active before or new legislation is proposed is that we would Ask that the section that refers specifically to 1373 and says that any language and local agencies policy that conflicts with 1373 Is is abolished we would request that that language be removed all together We think the state does better when it has a coherent and consistent policy that 1373 is unconstitutional and we are not bound in any way by I Think putting you know the language actually in the in the act as it currently exists is yet more interesting because it says to the extent to that local policy conflicts with any lawful requirement 1373 and Our position is there are no lawful requirements so the language is superfluous But it's also dangerous because it might lead us to a statute that we believe is wholly unconstitutional And it suggests that we're acquiescing in the dictates of an unconstitutional law We also would like to make clear as I said last time that The model policy sets a floor of protections and that municipalities are free to add additional protections on that foundation And it may be time to adopt some of the essential protections of the model policy into statute rather than in the policy You know we have this by annual review process and then there's the process of You know fighting that out and you know it requires consultation between the council and Stakeholders, but it doesn't require listening to those stakeholders. And as we said last time they listen, but they don't There's no requirement that we come to some sort of agreement and as we said last time we vigorously opposed Other stakeholders vigorously opposed the changes But ultimately they were adopted over our We believe it's time for some of them are fundamental protections to go into statute where they will be where any changes will be the result of Every party bringing their best arguments to the table and having a legislature decide what's best for them So Thank you for your testimony. I'm wondering if in your suggestions about Either thing either putting it in statute or Putting sort of tougher language by amending This bill What is what are the two So if it's you're not in compliance What happens and is there like is it worth Having something happened, so it's not yeah, we're not following the law and that's that yes in a word Dictates of this variety must have some sort of enforcement mechanism whether you know We could talk about any number of things whether it's Ability to bring a private right of action for violation of the policy or You know the enforcement mechanism to date has has been lacking And I think this is part of you know where there was some frustrated Frustration about the amount of time it took for the Vermont State Police policy to be updated And and I think we see there real problems with not having an enforcement Whether it's putting Specific timelines in here that if you don't adopt the policy, but it's date. This is your policy I know there's some disagreement amongst our Offices as to whether there's a triggering deadline by which the model policy becomes the state policy So that could be being walked here as well. And is there anything like? You will be put in receivership Or something that might be like when we don't want that you know, it's something that would Yeah, I make people pause a little bit more about you know, here's what we don't tolerate It's something that's regularly used as an enforcement mechanism by the federal government entering into consent decrees with with law enforcement agencies or other public entities that have a pattern of failing to abide by constitutional rights or laws or policies and that's certainly something that You know, although the current administration has drawn back on a lot of those prior administrations have made substantial progress in various police departments Through the mechanism of consent decree that's overseen by a judge So thanks for your testimony again I guess, you know, I'm in support of Strength, you know through statute And my understanding from listening to the testimony Last week is that if there was a state statute that let's say a Fellow member group, you know, such as Working towards getting some of our bad actors to act more appropriately And I'll leave it at that Because I think for the majority At least what I hear is is that most people feel really strongly about supporting the rights of our residents in the state But we have some bad actors and I think that if It was in statute That we supported the premise then People would have a way of responding to those bad actors and like correct Yes, so there's existing in statute pursuant to legislation from last year or the year before law enforcement officer certification Failing to apply by the federal policing policy can be a ground for using your certification I believe it's only on a second offense or something like that. So that could be made made stronger there So so so for example, you know, I I turn somebody into ice That's my first offense No, no, I know I'm doing that with a little So that doesn't seem appropriate I mean, you don't get it first or second chance, you know, you're supposed to do the job That's your job Right and and whether or not the first incident results in discerptification There are lots of steps short of discerptification that can be made additional training requirements, you know, going through your process whatever the case may be But the other issue is you sense the lack of The other issue is under the current Someone over to us is not You know, it says that we can't restrict you sharing information With with ice. That's the 1373 Prohibition that we've written into into our I have a question for you. So in the last hearing that we had you Well, it seems like a lot of this highlights and focuses on 1373 in the last hearing He made mention of other states that are responding more strongly To standing against 1373 I think Nevada is one of them that you mentioned and I was wondering if you could go into any sort of detail about What sort of ramifications that had for that state and how they went about it and what they actually did or any state? To the best I've been able to determine The DOJ hasn't gone after Nevada. They've sent out letters to Dozens and dozens of jurisdictions saying you're out of compliance with 1573 and we're withholding your funding and I haven't been able to find that Nevada was one of them So I'm not sure why that is, but I think also We've spent a lot of time talking about 1373 But I think it's worth really focusing on the fact that no one was talking about 1373 to three four years ago. It wasn't being enforced It wasn't it wasn't an issue long before the Trump administration tried to convert 1373 into a weapon in its war on immigrants Law enforcement still vigorously resisted any restrictions on their ability to turn over information to ice So I think 1373 is a convenient for the man right now But really the question is you know Why have we for so long? resisted stopping our state and local officials from being part of the deportation machine 1373 is today's reason to drawer because of the way the Trump administration is using it But it's been up struck down time after time after time. I'm confident it will continue to do so but the underlying issues that were there even before 1373 was being used in this way Thank you So Kind of related to that. Can you give us some examples of just the ways that there came 73? It's been upheld as unconstitutional There are many the the opinions on this matter are very very long and they Sort of tick off. It's unconstitutional for this reason. It's unlawful for that reason the sort of on its face 1373 Tells states what policies they can and cannot act and act and the 10th amendment forbids exactly that So that's the constitutional question, but here in the context of these specific federal funds The attorney general and the DOJ have no authority to attach Conditions that Congress didn't see fit to attach those funding streams and so they also under what's called the Administrative Procedures Act the actions of The administration have been deemed arbitrary and capricious because there was an ultra virus is outside of the authority of The Attorney General to attach conditions because it's not just the 1373 condition There's an access to people in custody condition and there's a notice 48 hour notice Of release from custody condition and all three of those have been across the board Wiped out in all of these cases Isn't there a second member case that has upheld The second circuit There is a 1999 case in which the second second circuit upheld 1373 and it did so on the basis of a court of distinction between laws that require states to pass certain legislation or take certain affirmative acts and laws that prohibit taking certain acts or enacting certain legislation And the court held that 1373 is just a prohibition you can't pass a law that restricts this information sharing that distinction no longer is valid Based on recent Supreme Court precedent, which obviously is higher than the second circuit And in fact in the Southern District of New York in ruling against 1373 in these other conditions held that And and other courts around the country that have looked at it held that this subsequent Supreme Court president Eviscerates the rationale for that second circuit case such that it's no longer binding on the law There's It's still in the district there's there were sort of questions about 2017 allocations and then forward looking 2018 allocations, so it's still being fought out in the district It will eventually be a field I would I would imagine so the district court essentially said that Right and other and other courts looking at this and citizen, but how There was a challenge The seven district of New York, of course is in the second circuit as well So it's the second circuit opinion would have been binding on it if it was still good law, but this Lower courts are permitted to look at intervening Supreme Court precedent that undermines What would otherwise be binding? This this can no longer stand in light of the Supreme Court's success Problem is that Legislators We have to have a strong enough book that says that isn't the law anymore And I don't know if that's what I'm hearing you say is that we have a strong enough Yes, certainly the district court of Vermont will be bound by the United States Supreme Court precedent that That says this sort of Prohibition type regulation is just as unconstitutional as the require affirmative requirements And you know that and that's the position within the third circuit the city of Philadelphia Has prevailed in They have a policy that puts it says you can't disclose immigration status Subject to three exceptions when required by law and I need to pause on that for just a second because 1373 never requires any information be shared But it's just a prohibition on limiting the voluntary sharing information. So that one that exception is not complicated here When the individual him or herself requests in writing that the information be provided and then there's an exception for certain criminal activity and and that policy was brought up In this 1373 litigation and the court held. Yep, you're fine with that 1373 is unconstitutional and can't require you to change this policy The policy at issue in the New York litigation likewise place significant restrictions on when immigration status and other information could be shared and The city of New York knowing what 1373 was Adopted and maintained this policy just as Philadelphia did just as all these other jurisdictions So If Take taking a representative of loans point to the next Level if we were to look at strengthening Our rules from our existing Language Yes, in their research Ledge Council's research on our behalf Were to agree with you know your supposition It would seem to make sense that we would have the point to stand up If we Person Yeah, you likely can't remember it because I didn't have a very clear answer You know if if information is designated confidential by law An employee who gets that information through the course of his or her employment can't take off the employment hat And then just disclose it right so that so for example at the DMV They have security numbers from most of the people who come in But if a person gains access to that security number at work, they can't then leave and sell those security numbers to identity right and so The state or locality as employer has a property interest in the confidential information that comes into their into their possession and Just by sort of walking out the door that property interest doesn't disappear That we know what the policy is But yet things happen I'm wondering if If there have been allegations that things are happening through some channel other than what policy says I haven't heard of this off-duty on-duty distinction being relevant because It's happening on duty I Will lay back with my good justice, thanks for having me back And I'll also try to be real brief in my testimony in part because we we agree with What Leah said and in part we definitely want to leave time for questioning answers, but last week you heard testimony from Michael Justice members about the impact of the Current lack of compliance and insufficiencies and the fair and partial policing policy And I just want to underscore that that these are our widespread. These aren't just one-off cases in fact, we we just learned this week from a public records request that the Addison County Sheriff's Department in an incident last summer, excuse me two summers ago had At the Addison County Farmers Field Days They had rounded up a group of five farm workers because they had received a complaint of Criminal activity by a Mexican male and they photocopied all of their Identifications and forward them emailed them to ICE We had known of the incident at the time, but didn't know that their documentation had been forwarded to ICE We just learned that And those sorts of things I would say are our widespread and incredibly damaging In terms of people's faith and trust and law enforcement and the real Impacts of people being detained and deported and separated from their families and their means of making a living So I know that at least some of you may have been forwarded 2015 study that was done UVM about Migrants in Vermont their opinions on police and needless to say we we don't think that that study Sufficiently represents the the actual widespread and deep-seated fear that does exist One it was done in 2015 prior to the current presidential administration and associated policies And we have a number of issues of methodology and I'm happy to talk more about those later But based on my conversations with many of you. I think there's a general understanding that the current state of affairs Is not what needs to be and that we need to be doing better. So I'll transition on to that Regarding the insufficiencies in the current policy 1373 of course is a large issue But I think if you listen carefully to the testimony last week, you would have heard that The current policy that was passed in December of 2017 represented what law enforcement felt to be The compromise that they could make on 1373 and also what they refer to broadly as public safety concerns So there are a number of loopholes in the model FIP That have nothing to do with 1373, but that nevertheless are really damaging because they provide Carbats in the policy that allow discrimination and collaboration to continue however on the subject of 1373 second everything that Leah said and the ACLU as represented But in addition, we would say that this body has already Taken similar steps in the passage of S. 79 in 2017 S 79 which was passed overwhelmingly by both chambers Restricts sharing of information between State agencies and immigration enforcement And I'll just read the section it says a public agency shall not knowingly disclose personally identifying Information to any federal agency or official for the purpose of registration of an individual Based on his or her personally identifying information Elsewhere in the statute personally identifying information is defined to include immigration status So this law says When it's about establishing a registry and talking about a Muslim registry was the threat at the time Public agencies shall not share immigration status very clear in a 79 And so the state has already taken This this action saying that when it's for this specific purpose We can draw a clear firewall and prevent the sharing of Immigration status with federal agencies So we see this not as a legal question, but as a political one If this determination has been made when it's for the purpose of the establishment of a registry which of course we Support that restriction and would vigorously oppose the state collaborating in the establishment of a registry Why not extend the same protections to people? when it's to prevent law enforcement from being complicit in a policy of mass deportation The negative effects of which we're all very familiar So again, we see this as a political decision not a legal one This action has been taken by the state in the past. It's just about Where we draw the line and we think there's very compelling reasons for Vermont to say that law enforcement Should not be terming people over ties or border patrol, but that undermines their public safety mission So I think I don't know how much micro-injustice has contact with other chapters of micro-injustice around the country and Where things are going well What Yeah So there are a number of Jurisdictions around the country that have policy that exceeds Vermont's current state model policy I would note when I say that that I believe that the city of Wanooski has the strongest policy anywhere in the country because they've taken What's afforded to them under Act 54 which is to implement at a minimum each component of the model policy and so they've treated that model policy as The floor but not the ceiling and they strengthen it considerably and we think Wanooski Police Department's policy is the gold standard But around the country there are certainly other policies that exceed The state model policy so Lulia spoke about a couple I would note San Francisco's policy as well And this is a policy that is the subject of litigation in the northern district of California In their policy This is quoting from the From the federal district court's decision they say that San Francisco's policy Expressly prohibits any city or county funds or resources from being used to assist federal immigration officers So this is the the sort of language that we think Creates a real firewall a clear distinction without any carve-outs that are in loopholes just saying it's not your job Don't spend your time and resources on this And in reviewing the policy and this federal judge said in agreement with every court that has looked at these issues I find that section 1373 is unconstitutional They upheld the policy policy that's working And and I see no reason why the month can't be the same helpful to this discussion and looking at the Conversion of the fair and impartial police and policy that's um Posted online and publicly available, but I'm wondering you know There were very specific Proposals of a language. I know there was a just part of what we're talking about is it dispute in the crafting of this policy So I think it would be helpful for me at least I mean for other committee members if there if there was very Specific proposed language that was not adopted if we could kind of see that language and Be able to kind of Yeah, thank you for the question representative and There are Four major points of disagreement that we have with the current model policy And on each of those we believe that that when you ski police department's policy Corrects those failings and implements stronger language. So we would submit when you ski police department's policy as the corrective There are also policies from other jurisdictions and Leah shared a number of those in Nevada and elsewhere That we could look to as well But also recognize that here in Vermont over the past year There's been a police department implementing without any pitches without any problems to public safety The a version of the policy that we would like to see adopted statewide so I Only have a few copies, but but it's online as well Briefly some of the areas where when you ski improves upon the state model policy is It prohibits information sharing without the nebulous carve-outs that are included in the current state model policy it restricts officers from using Illegal entry as a pretext for investigating immigration status In other words under the state model policy an officer could Discriminate and approach it an immigrant and ask about their status and then say I wasn't investigating immigration status I was trying to ascertain whether they had recently crossed the border When you skis clamps down on that by saying that officers shouldn't be investigating that issue Another difference between the state model policy and when you skis is that the state model policy allows ice access to people in Detention And this is what happened in the case we believe of all my Lopez where I Showed up to the state police barracks and were granted access to to this person in state police custody When you ski's policy doesn't allow for that. I won't go through all of them, but those are the sort of things so as Leah said We think it's time for some language to be put into statute To make it crystal clear that this is the law in Vermont that policies have to uphold these standards and the most important one is ensuring that Immigrants confidentiality is protected by restricting information sharing between local Municipal state agencies and federal immigration authorities well for the for the committee I was wondering if you could touch on the The importance and the contributions that Migrant communities bring to Vermont Sure How much time do I got? Yeah, and I won't dwell on it too much because I think Those of you who I've talked with really understand this at a core level and in large part and I can say you know Frankly, thanks for the work of migrant justice over the last decade. Our state has evolved significantly in its understanding of The central role that immigrant communities play in the cultural social political and economic life Vermont but as to the the community that that my organization is Formed by of specifically immigrant farm workers concentrated in the dairy sector I don't think it's an overstatement to say that Vermont's dairy industry would would not exist in its current form were not for immigrant workers if you go to any Milking parlor in the state if they're hiring workers those workers are going to be for Mexico or Central America milking cows And that's been the case for a number of years And so this is in addition to being an issue of people protection of human rights a few process This is an issue about our rural working landscapes David chair the Attorney General's office. Thanks to the committee again for holding this hearing and allowing us to testify I'll cover briefly Our office's outlook on this throughout the process of creating this policy and enforcing it Address some of the points that have been made and then turn towards the forward-looking Issues about what we can do to Strengthen protections for immigrant communities As we mentioned before I really do believe that the goals of the advocates and our office are the same The so you used testimony earlier today was correct that we really there's there's very little disagreement on the legal issues There are obviously some key points of disagreement from The very beginning of this process back in 2017 when we started Negotiating I believe in late August over what the policy was going to be It's important enough that while our office does have a important sort of a special role in creating this Ultimately, this is the policy of the mock room of us training council and on that council We have consistently been a voice for making this policy as protective as it possibly can be for Immigrant communities we have come into this with the attitude that we need to prevent protect all Vermonters protect all immigrant Protect our immigrant communities And we have expended a lot of time and energy to make a policy that does that In terms of what Vermont is doing in comparison to other jurisdictions I have not had a chance to look at the Nevada situation in particular But it's our understanding doing a review of these issues that all The jurisdictions that are fighting this in court and that are taking on the Department of Justice are essentially doing The same thing that Vermont is doing. We're not behind other jurisdictions. What we're doing is saying is Interpreting federal law is narrowly as The law can be interpreted building the most protective possible Policy the most protect possible pop policy we can around that interpretation And that's essentially what the other jurisdictions are doing also if you look at say Washington State Which I did have a chance to look at they issued an executive order in 2017 Which did a similar thing trying to be as protective as possible to their immigrant communities But also noted just as Vermont has done that nothing in the policy is intended to violate 137 they named 1373 specifically With regard to a lot of litigation going on almost all the I believe all of the jurisdictions are arguing two things one that their policy actually does comply with 1373, so they're not trying to Baldly state that we're you know, this doesn't We don't have to pay attention to this of saying we do pay attention to this and It's also unconstitutional anyway That's essentially the position that Vermont finds itself in we have been judged by the Department of Justice already to Be in violation of 1573 Vermont is not receiving funding because of that determination in our argument is a we are Following the law which is it is our obligation to do and be It's unconstitutional anyway So we really feel that we are not being less protective than other states and We're in essentially the same posture towards the federal government as other states that are trying this There were a few I think older policies prior to the Trump administration taking office that have been floated around out there as Examples of what could be followed. I think the reality is those old policies that were passed When there is no real issue around this are not the ones that are People are fighting over they're fighting over ones that have been created and defended more we under the shadow of the current federal policy And I'd have to check the northern district case specifically to make sure I'm right about that again Julio Thompson the other Assistant Attorney General you heard from last week is the expert on that but I believe and I Acknowledged I could be wrong after check. I believe they had the same general argument We're in compliance and it's unconstitutional and that again We're doing the same thing. We are not doing less than the other states and jurisdictions that are fighting about this I think with regard to the Policy going forward We had a couple of suggestions one is to make it explicit in the statute that and when I say the statute I mean at 54 to make it explicit in act 54 that The that act 54 is a floor and you can be more protective a local agency can be more protective than that if they choose to be can be more protective of immigrant rights or Be more protective of immigrant communities. I know ACLU believes that is currently permissible the issue is when you look at act 54 there is no reference to Being protective of anything all it says is You shall adopt at a minimum or establish at a minimum the components that are in the model policy The term minimum has no value judgment in it It just it's a numerical statement that you could do more components than what in them then what are in the model policy? If we were to judge If our office was to say without the support of the tax of the law that We interpret minimum to be we're gonna say the minimum means You can do more components and they can they can only be more protective of The of immigrant communities if there were some future attorney general who came in and said well they determined that minimum can just be other things That add to the policy without necessarily being the same components as the policy they may then come in and say well we think that agency X who wants to adopt a policy that or adopt a component that says Our officers shall share all information about immigration citizenship citizenship status with ice That's obviously against the spirit of our policy and not what we want to have happened But there's no nothing in the text of this of Act 54 to prevent that type of Interpretation from carrying the day Because there's no value judgment in Act 54 about What the components have to be that are beyond the minimum so our interpretation has always been the component new Components cannot conflict with whatever is in the policy I should say with the components that are in the model policy because that is the way of ensuring that we are being protective and that Somebody's not going to do something that we disagree with strongly on the policy That being said we fully support The legislature giving the direction and saying all right. We are now are adding a value judgment to this statute and that value judgment is Components that go beyond the minimum They can be more protective and they could conflict with current components as long as they're more Protective of immigrant communities. I Will say plainly with regard to the Winooski statute Sorry, the Winooski policy that policy is plainly in violation of both Act 54 and federal law Our office Given the open-ended leeway has chosen not yet to say to Winooski You must adopt the model policy the reasons because we are coming to this with the attitude of trying to be as protective as possible And we're hopeful that a change in the statute But change in Act 54 will allow when it would allow Winooski before we go in and say all right you're You know you're done We're going back to the model and you can't do what you want what you were trying to do that We did it does allow them a little more leeway we And so that's sort of been our attitude again trying as best we can to be accommodating to being protective of immigrant communities It would allow some of what Winooski has done I think our reading of Winooski is that it also would You know we're we're still saying that we are obligated as a state to follow the law We're obligated by this legislature additionally to follow the federal law And so there isn't completely leeway for them to violate federal law or to buy it to change components such that it would be Violent of federal law But there are at least let's say one and a half components where We think that there could be adjustments made that don't have anything to do federal law and We'll land back from migrant justice was correct and saying that well most of the disputes the final disputes that Remained at the end of the negotiation process were about 1373 and where federal law lies and What our obligations are towards it? There were definitely one and arguably a part of another one that was not really tightly related to federal law and I can go into that if you want, but for now I'll just leave it there And that would be an example where a local agency could make a different decision about their public safety priorities than the council decided to make the other piece that we would say is Making it explicitly clear that When a court of competent jurisdiction says that 1373 does not apply to Vermont. I should say if or when a court of competent jurisdiction says a 1373 and 1644 don't apply for whatever reason that might be That would sort of be an automatic we don't have to wait for an active legislature, but at that time Agencies are free to move beyond the model policy to be more again more protective and now Taking on stances that may previously have been violative of 1373 Arguably the current language could support that interpretation, but in order to avoid those arguments and again in order to make it clear to future Occupants of government seats who may have a different outlook on these things to make it clear that local agencies Can do that without there being any ambiguity there I'm trying to think if there's any other Big things I think that was most of the points. I wanted to get out and happy to take questions Yeah, sorry for the legalese there it's a term that just means a court that has jurisdiction over our state in this case And just saying so That's either the second circuit of the US Supreme Court or the Vermont District Court Having a different take and overruling what the second circuit did so I didn't know when you use that language if you meant to somehow Look at one direction versus another if you want to add it Yeah, so our belief is that there is as far as Vermont is concerned. No court has overruled The prior law saying at 1373 Overruling 1373 all we have right now is precedent saying that it is constitutional It is true that there's a recent court case and our office has taken the position that this recent court case Means that 1373 is unconstitutional But we don't have any ruling saying The Supreme Court case that we're talking about was not about 1373. It was about sports gambling however, the implications of that Ruling seemed to indicate that 1373 is also unconstitutional But we don't have a court that has said that that has jurisdiction over Vermont and it's since our obligation to Follow the law and follow the courts. We have to wait for that before that can take place so I mean one way to get that ruling would be for the state to stand behind the policy of a policy that You 1373 is unconstitutional and argue it in the case of a Right, well, I mean, yeah, I think A couple things here one is that the idea has already said that we're I don't think we need to do more to have a Reason to argue with the Department of Justice since they're already saying that we're out of compliance Which we think is untrue that gives us a book So that is something that could Probably happen and I you know some of when it comes to choosing to do lawsuits or not to do lawsuits To be transparent with the committee, I'm somewhat we provide legal advice to clients who are other state agencies and I can't Talk I can't talk about that without being in violation of our obligations as attorneys as to those discussions But that is a discussion that would happen between our office and the client agency because That's how the suit would come to pass and that's something that We'll have to Take place so David It sounds like You're I guess I want to understand is your office saying we hope the legislature will Take action or that If the legislature wants things to change they're gonna need to take action because the AG's office is not going to Put a value judgment on the war issue It is our hope that the legislature does take action in order to allow us to Okay, enact these policies the way they hope we're hoping they they can be enacted and Again, we don't feel we're free to yes Add a viewpoint where the law didn't happen. Okay, so It's part of what you hope we do To Address again, I'm concerned about ramifications For law enforcement if they're not following policy Don't know if there are other Vermont law. I mean there must be Vermont laws that if a police officer Does something? there's consequence so any sort of Advice on like where are their consequences and what might they be because How serious we are about it may be reflective in If it's like oh, you're not following it, but we're not gonna do anything about it So it really is up to the individual police chief to decide if it's important to them, right? I mean, I think actually ACLU had an important point earlier Which is that our professional licensing is one of the really valuable ways that you can get at that problem is to stake somebody's License on compliance of policy and that is already written into Statute I I'm not gonna remember the act number off the top of my head. I think it was passed in 17 also But looking at that again more carefully and saying have we done enough to really connect these things tightly and making sure that That's a piece of the landscape to know that It isn't just a matter of your feeling like you should do it. It's a matter of your licensing That's a and again, we definitely were hearing at the hearing last week People being very careful to say not using Resources and I'm wondering if when we're Clarifying if it's important for us to say just like other occupations have You can't take the information you have From your job and do it on your own time with your own resources because it does seem like there are professions that Spell that out Yeah, I think what you're getting at is actually at the heart of some litigation which is saying The federal government can't direct how a State allocates its own resources That's by inviolation of the 10th amendment. That's where we're getting towards this other That's where this other case that we keep referring to comes into play where it's it said This law was saying that the state Can't use the three sources in a certain way. So it is I I'm getting into the weeds quickly Okay, no your question is right at the heart of what these court cases and Does it though? Is there anything that you can think of that would keep us from adding into it? Because again, this wouldn't be state resource or federal resource. It's more Knowledge right because we're still not using anyone's resource if Kimberly at night wants to call ISEP but she's using knowledge she has as a legislator because she got to see a list of people's social security numbers who are undocumented like And so maybe it's not just law enforcement. Maybe it's also doctors or whatever, but like it seems like we don't Thank you. We don't I Don't want People using information that they only have because of their position Chew on their own time and not at the states or federal, you know Share that information right, and you're my so Hopefully it's very general Thompson can come in and clarify but my understanding is that the cases so far haven't hinged on the distinction that You're talking about the set my understanding of them is the access to the information itself Wouldn't exist for these individuals if they weren't being paid by their local Jurisdictions or states and so the courts as far as I understand have not been basing their arguments on this sort of Time-on time-off type of difference. It's just saying look you have this because you're employed your employer gets to set the rules and You're and the federal government coming in and trying to change that is not constitutional So if this fine group of people here agree with me and we built it into amendments to the act Would that trouble you? What what would you ask to that people cannot use information obtained as part of their job? To turn in people I think the specific language would really be important Again, it's been our attitude that as long as the federal law is the law we're obligated To follow you know We've taken out that requires us to follow that law and so the language would be important the bear and we'd really have to look at it and decide because these things often come down to a very close analysis of the word Again if you look at the model policy we have tried in various places to really tightly Restrict communications where we feel it's lawful to do so and we could try to use that as a model but the resources Peace you're right that some of the language in other policies has been talking about resources, but I think that the tort cases are Hinging on how much the federal government can command the local agencies to do or not And again, if there's corrections out there from the lawyers to be more closely involved in that But hopefully that Julio Thompson can come in at some point too and really delve into that side of it Dave quick question from I've heard from the law enforcement side of things is that one of the biggest concerns has to do with sex trafficking and Do you have advice on how we can move forward in a way that? protects the migrant communities in our state also allows while also allowing law enforcement to Adequately go after the sex trafficking cases right Yes, so I think there's a couple things one is if you do look at the model policy if it says We're not asking about immigration status or citizenship. I'm not asking about any of that For victims and witnesses unless it does have to do with crimes where it's necessary to know that so sex trafficking Trafficking of that crime examples of that. So I think you can write How it rules about that even if we're to imagine a world where 1373 doesn't exist or is ruled unconstitutional? my guess is that the vast majority of law enforcement agencies would still want to be able to Tackle those problems and to tackle them. They almost certainly will need to be able to access Federal knowledge for lack of a better term So I think it's unlikely that many agencies would say we're just not talking at all, but I think you can Build in restrictions where you say we're not talking except for these particular types of cases where it's Probably necessary that we'll need to access information that the feds may have Thanks for inviting me I'm happy to clarify anything from last week and others questions about Vermont State Police policy Excuse me It's fine. Yeah Let's see. I I just want to Mention that I appreciate the efforts of this committee to try to get this right and I appreciate the efforts of everyone who's provided Customs only today and Earl and last week because I do think that this is a complicated matter We really do need to get it right Other than people who are in Vermont I can't think of any entity that has more to lose than police to not get this right because Essentially, what's at risk is the trust of the people that we Take an oath to protect so What makes me uncomfortable is when it's implied or gladly said that police are discriminating That is a very serious allegation And I think that if there are cases where people feel that police are discriminating We should take every step possible to make a formal complaint about that in whatever way that is whether it's through a suit a lawsuit through a Internal affairs complaint. I am certain that the Commissioner of Public Safety I mean I'm speaking for one agency, but our commissioner would take it very seriously if We have discriminated against him So I want to say that first Let's see Just for context I want to make it clear that state police is one policing agency in Vermont We provide the primary policing services for 200 towns across 90% of the land mass of Vermont and serve 50% of the population We have 334 sworn members 60 emergency dispatchers and many civilian support staff across the state An example of sort of a typical year call for service. We had 59,736 calls for service in 2018 Calls for service include Something like domestic assault related calls in that one category. We had a thousand calls for service We made approximately 65,086 motor vehicle stops in 2018 In that time frame of 2018 I am aware of one case where We received a call for service Somebody leaving the scene of a crash We followed we were able to find that car and the operator of that car We had probable cause that that person was under the influence of alcohol We arrested that person process that person brought them back to the barracks and through that process Contacted a federal entity. I think it was border patrol or ice and that person was picked up by that by ice I think that sometimes there are Misunderstandings about what the law enforcement purpose would be for reaching out to a federal authority And I'm very uncomfortable with the supposition that it's always about Something sinister in fact, I don't think there should ever be a time Where we contact federal authorities unless there is a law enforcement purpose and that purpose has to do with Identification or authentic or authentication of a person's identity Or their form of identification I should say Other than that sort of collaborating or sharing information for no purpose is Directly hurts the public trust and hurts the public that we serve So but but having said that there's there needs to be clarification around the practical reasons why a law enforcement Entity or a law enforcement officer will contact federal authorities and I think that there's like a sweeping Character mischaracterization around why that would happen granted there are instances and examples that were provided today that are Disturbing on their face without looking deeper into them that everybody should be concerned about but There are reasons why authorities like why law enforcement authorities communicate and And it has to do with public safety as a whole Having said that just some background around the policy process itself in 2003 state police enacted the first fair and partial policing policy. I think of any Policing agency. I can't say that for sure, but I believe that in 2003 over the first in 2009 we revised our policy with assistance from Governors legal counsel now Justice Beth Robinson. We worked really hard on it. It's been revised three times since then Today it was distributed to the field for its sixth revision since 2003 when it was enacted In general policies for police and policies for all organizations are a reflection of your values as an agency So our policies have to be operational and easy to understand in the field And they also reflect the values of your organization. I can tell you that this is a policy that we Take very seriously because it really does reflect our most core values And it's also something that we receive that we have to pay attention to because it has to be operational to the people who actually are in the field using this policy and the portion around Collaboration with federal authorities and what questions you can and cannot ask is Can be confusing to people in the field Look, we're talking about it here at length and for years and years imagine being in the field and Trying to know what to do. That's right And what isn't right? So please keep that in mind and we appreciated the assistance of the Attorney General's office to help Cut through all of the different interests to help us create a policy that is the most Operational I have a lot to say, but I'm going to try to pare it down Just a reminder that Act 54 said that Model policy needed to be modified to the extent necessary to be in compliance with these federal codes We have no interest in enforcing civil or criminal Immigration laws. However, we do have a big interest in being compliant with federal law. So if I Can tell you that there is not a single case that I'm aware of or a victim or a witness of a crime has ever been asked in any Necessary way what their citizenship status is Victims and witnesses of crimes are not asked those kinds of questions Nor is there communication with federal authorities about that unless it's in the context of Assisting someone in getting a visa that could help them to be able to stay here Another point I want to make Is You know, we are also in a position and this whole thing about money and the Department of Justice money being held I feel like that's It's a real thing for our department It impacts How we enforce drug related Crimes, but at the same time I don't want it to be heard as like wall They're gonna lose money if they don't comply with unconstitutional laws I care about our department's missions in all of these different areas But not at the extent of our integrity or our values or what we care about Having said that I think it's important for this committee to know that at the same time that we are literally told that called You know publicly that we're discriminating against people yet I don't see any allegations formally filed through our very accessible Misconduct process we are also Contacted by the Department of Justice and Asked you know your policy is the reason why the money is being repelled in my most simplistic way of understanding it Is that they are saying that we are not in compliance with 1373? So it's kind of interesting that on one side we are accused of discrimination and doing bad things and Then the feds are saying we're not in compliance so it's kind of crazy making and also They have they had asked us in a letter most recently In my summation of reading that letter to make it a little clearer to the field that there's a much broader way that we could interpret 1373 if we wanted to which was very uncomfortable for me to read and our commissioner said no way tell us where we're in violation of 1373 and And and leave it at that So I feel like it's just interesting to be in that position where we are hearing it from all sides that we're wrong when what we want to do is the right thing by people in Vermont and We're open to answering all these questions at any time So that is my my speech in terms of the policy itself. I'm happy to answer questions. We were You know again, we have this model policy It then sort of was outdated and it was missing the mark in like four or five areas with in comparison to the model policy We have since worked with the Attorney General's office to get it in compliance. It had to do with Nick sort of When we could ask questions about someone's status Interpreter services with them was another aspect there were some minor tweaks to our victim and witness policy And some other areas that I can refer to specifically if you want That policy was published it went through the whole formatting process that we have an approval process and it is out in the field now You have said it's out in the field for revision as of today Not for revision it's out in the field for adherence to the policy now over adherence Sorry, I thought I heard you say revision not for vision now Can't use you about that. Okay, so it's just adopted fully adopted in being implemented as of today, right? It's distributed to the field and then every member Has to read it and sign it But having said that it's it's in the field now so I Apologize if I have certainly added to any of the points that you raised because one I know how hard you have been working to bring the state police forward on these issues and In talking about law enforcement as a whole I think we have to be careful about what we Mean by that because again my You know, I don't have any specific examples, and I think you're right about people need to speak up I'm concerned and I'm concerned about each town Right, so it's interesting because you all represent 50% of or provide services to 50% of the towns leaving the other 50% up to their own Devices and it also seems like whatever action The fact that it's out there, and it's being revised again like even hearing the Comments from last week people have been making Movement on in your department, so So I say what do you I'm sorry, so it sounds like I know last week there was some comment made at the hearing about that the state police did not have their policy and We didn't until yes, but right so that we're using the old policy. Yeah, so I think we have to be careful to not have that single story about law enforcement, and I know when we use the term bad actors. I'm thinking more about Confused intention like I didn't want to think about bad actors as much as confused or unclear intentions or bias that We need to assume sort of good intention in training first rather than assuming that people are trying to Bill will because again, yeah, so so thank you, and I just feel like It's an it's important to see and I was going to go check on Burlington's like is it front and center how to make a complaint if there's been a law enforcement issue because it is on So I'm not sure Other other you know towns because I think that's going to be key for people to come forward and not just They can fence that's not if one can go to you know the ACLU to represent them And I and I should say too there was one allegate. I mean there are several allegations made against any member of our department in a year We average I think Maybe 50 ish cases that the Commissioner opens for formal internal investigation Don't necessarily quote me on that number because it could be a little less There were zero allegations of bias-based policing last year. There were two allegations in 2017 that We're open for formal investigation The Commissioner did not make findings of bias-based policing in those two instances in 2017 so Just for context not all local departments of law enforcement Handle things the way the state police do I'm assuming right like like you can't speak for law enforcement as Occupation in Vermont right like you're not Intimately familiar with what each I can't really speak for each department. I can speak generally about How complaints are handled but not you know not specifically what type of how rigorous each department's process is there certainly Ways in which anyone can make a complaint about a department and should Do you have any and I realized this is more asking your opinion, but do you have any thoughts about The number of police departments that haven't adopted a policy. I mean, I'm assuming most of them Have different rationale than why the state police one doesn't Any depart the number of departments that have not adopted a fair and impartial policing policy I would defer to the Attorney General on that. I don't yeah, I'm sorry I don't I don't see I don't know but I can't see where people wouldn't have just adopted the model policy if they didn't Have a policy. It's right there for them Just wonder of being in the field if there's anything. Yeah I'm not I don't know any anecdotal stories of departments that haven't adopted a policy and Your thoughts about my teeth question for If law enforcement isn't following This law as either as it gets amended or doesn't like what teeth like Sounds like two people have suggested the professional Licensing or Well, there's certification certification right? Yes. No, we get our certification through the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council That is certain that certainly has teeth to be decertified You know, obviously they have to be due process and but that certainly Has teeth but also, you know in our department, you know Allegation of misconduct which discrimination or those types of things are is a very serious, you know allegation so Back should be used broadly if that's the case. Can you remind me how much federal money state police Stand to lose roughly. I want to say roughly two million dollars But I don't it's like two to five million and I should know this but I don't okay. No Because I know that there are other So it's the same amount that Woodside is getting back filled for losing your Medicaid money right now So anyway, that's good to know. Thank you major so Question so trailing off of the money part of this the money that is currently being withheld by the federal government That was going to the state police's drug unit. Is that that's correct the drug task force Yes, which is kind of a combined effort between the state police and other law enforcement entities and The drug task force they're still currently operational. They're still detectives and they're doing that is correct and where Are they where's that unit currently getting its money from? I? Don't have the exact answer for that my understanding is that we maybe are able to sort of Borrow from somewhere else while we await like maybe borrow from somewhere else while we await that While we await that decision about that money I Should have brushed up on that before I came here, but I think we sort of been given permission to Take it from somewhere else with Expectation of it being Reinstated Don't quote me on that. Okay, and One more quick question. So Do we Does the state police stand to lose federal money in any other areas any other? Task forces if we were if this committee were to hypothetically take a stronger stance against 1373 I don't I'm not aware of other Areas where we have federal funding being applied. Thank you I mean That being said, I think we're all about trying to make sure that That's a shared philosophy through outlaw enforcement I think our colleague Is question to you in reference to Effect that our chain might have It seems like Well, I mean I can't speak to the work of the drug passerset is a big part of the mission of the state police and I Our sense because about is something that the state of Vermont wants us to be Dedicated to so I am not saying that that is not something we would Like what I'm not saying something we'd let go of without a lot of concerns. I Just want to say that I was using that as an example of on one hand We are being told that we're discriminatory for Biding by the law which is 1373 and 1644 on the other hand the federal authorities are saying that you're not Providing by the law because you're not taking a broader definition of what it means that you can collaborate about and we're saying Pound sand that's not how we're going to handle this so But I'm not meaning to be heard as saying the money isn't something that we need to do our jobs You know, we've made accommodations at present Hopefully we don't have to continue Their heads back on the street But getting back to the operational As far as what happens in the field As long as they're here there are So, you know, that's it's a tough It's a tough space I Do think it would be helpful to have Julio come in I think what I'm struggling with this having especially the late person the testimony today is I'm really trying to understand when What is really going to get us to the point of accepting That this is unconstitutional we're hearing that there's a number of cases that have ruled that but we're And in some ways it's a position of the state, but at the same time we're sort of so I feel like there's nuance there that maybe a little could Help us at least understand On that issue, which is real quickly I mean, I think we have probably prevented best arguments For that There just seems to be this this sort of agreement of like Some agreement and then the sort of tension about Thinking like okay, so when how do we when do we have the plan where we decide I'm I'm feeling pretty strongly about the idea that we need to stand up more so for minor rights and migrant workers as well and you know, this comes From my own belief that The police in the state are supposed to affect everybody in their community and when you start picking and choosing different communities It started it starts creating problems in the broader picture and what I understand is that The ramon state police's drug task force has already lost the federal money and As ranger Jonas indicated It doesn't seem that there's any other federal money that is at risk of being lost And despite that loss of money the drug task force is still operational They're still detectives doing that work In our communities to combat the opioid crisis that we do have and is something that we have to address as well But yeah, that's that's my feeling is that we should stand I also had to note here thinking about that and what if we could get maybe someone from the department of public safety And because one of the questions if we are to do changes to this Our colleagues asking us what are the consequences? And we need to be really clear if we're talking about dollar consequences They look like this And if we're talking about other things that's that gets us into the realm of some of the things we're discussing today But it would be good just to put to rest What that is so that we're able to ask answer Just walk back back in um, do you have any specific questions that you um That you didn't hear today that maybe The money that you yeah Ask and they and certainly if you don't know you can get back to us, but sure Is that is that dsb. Okay. Yes. Hi, um I was just saying that we're talking about different consequences of making modifications to act 54 And one of them that I just want to have a handle on if we do decide to go forward Is what might be the consequences and there are consequences that go all sorts of directions And one of them is that people will Say well, we might lose Department of justice funding or we might lose certain dollars and I just want to be clear in financial terms What might be the consequences we we heard today? It's about two million and then we heard some follow-up q&a about well money might be moved from one Place to another so just trying to get Sort of clarity about what might be the financial burden and where it's felt Well, I can just clarify what I said earlier, which is that it's over the record. I think I mean, you can just say there but just just say okay. Yeah, so Vermont state police or department of public safety gets approximately two million dollars. I'm sorry. I'm just pissed at your name I'm sorry either Jonas was placed, right? Thank you. Yeah Currently for a while now receives two million dollars per year in federal funds to for the drug task force So the anti harrowing mission of the department um, and so That would be one of the things that would be a consequence likely But I don't have all the details on that. I have to have to get more information and get back to you about But that's that's the currently the status right now. We're not receiving that We're not getting it from somewhere else currently. We're simply told that we can borrow it In hopes that wouldn't pay back paid by DOJ later But that is not a long-term plan or a replacement for the federal money that runs the drug task force And is it those same federal monies when I read in the local Times Argus that the city of Montpelier may have Lawson funding and I thought that it had to do with Protective police equipment or I can't remember frankly all the details. Is that unicycle Impact factored in or is the two million dollars talking about what's being used only in the Vermont state police I'm sorry. I don't know the other ways that federal funds are used around the state I only know about that the two million change that is used for our drug Our anti harrowing and other drug Task force, so I really can't speak I can't answer that Coach Barbara so I One of my earlier questions is resolved. Thank you Representative LaLonde for Requesting brems input, you know on the Where we're at with the The legal construct You know that that aspect And so so that eases a part of my questions Your question about the finances That side And I think to go one step further is Past the Uh dsp funding, you know, is there another Funding source that Municipalities go to directly other than dsp, you know, I mean is is that our federal umbrella for Special initiatives or does it come through some other avenue because like like you said when When and if we move forward with changes To be able to have talking points as a committee to be able to help Our other colleagues in the housing Possibly even the senate understand why we were we felt strongly about making You know the corrections and then this is the justification as to why And this and these are the consequences as well So I see we have um Those from the league, but I think could we turn to you to get that information or would it be more the chief I think uh exact of the lcd. Um, I think I Don't want to speak. Um I think the wrong thing. I do understand that burlington gets funding and I I don't know how the impact of Sheriff's departments get funding perhaps dmv. I don't know if there's there and there's other things to worry about other than dps Have to speak directly to dps if there's But it's much municipal, right, but I I in terms of municipal as I understand a dps doesn't Have any funding going to the town though. I'm afraid I did Um, but there might be something embedded that I don't know about And so I would say talk to these chiefs and have them weigh in more discreetly because they know about the real nitty-gritty stuff So one thing that I'm wondering is should we also Have a conversation with someone in senator lay his office given that he's on appropriations and judiciary Like there may be ways that he Might think of to have the state get money, but have it go to aid app and then I mean, so I just wonder it just seems worth us having a conversation Um with him. I also know that there's a lot of conversation about Um, the sheriffs and the money that they collect that they currently keep in their own budget and if that ends up following rules related to the rest of this State does it that might be money We just again Backfilled a bunch of federal money In the budget adjustment would sigh to The judiciary and ocs for the audits So we do do these things and if it's important to us as a state That could happen and i'm wondering why don't we try to have a phone A phone conversation with someone in the utah ag's office and find out how they've been Was it utah? That was Yeah With the nevada office because why not like we did that related to marijuana And maybe we can hear what they are thinking was in being able to do that I don't know if it's worth talking to Anyone In the states where the cities have done it, but why not try nevada? And it does seem important to move forward sort of making our The intent like I I just worry about Sort of In two years being in the same place if we don't take some action Right, okay, I was unsure what you're asking for feedback on if it was just on a particular Yeah What Broader like broader like what's important to us i'm i'm concerned about I am definitely concerned about the distinction that will come of people doing it on their own time and I'd rather And again, maybe we could ask nevada like what Were they what was important to them? I haven't looked at their Stop and why do they do that? I mean it seems like that will be as valuable as getting input here from brand about What her take is on it, but let's just go to the places that Did take the step it will give comfort to our colleagues