 Okay, welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee, and it is Thursday, March 11th. And I would like to start with the House Committee Corrections and Institutions Committee Bill. And what we are working on is draft 1.1. I don't have that right, Bryn will correct me, but that is what we were looking at yesterday. And this incorporates the language from a small group of folks that were working together and testified on it yesterday. And we did get to complete our testimony. I would like to see us support this language, you know, for consideration by the Corrections and Institutions Committee. Again, they really are the policy committee. So ultimately they will need to decide whether or not this is the correct policy. However, it does, we do have joint jurisdiction to some extent, and certainly the original law that we're looking at did come through Judiciary Committee. And I think that while this bill doesn't expand our current law as far as it was originally proposed, it does expand it some, and it does also protect the, and address the concerns that we heard about from some of the witnesses where there is an existing consensual relationship at the time of sentencing. And I think it does comport, I think it is consistent with the Downs-Rackland and Martin report. So that's where I'm at. And again, we don't need a vote. We're not going to be reporting it. We don't have possession of the bill, but we happen to have to look at it. So I'll just open it up for discussion. And Tom, I see your hand. Yeah, I'm just wondering if we're going to do a walkthrough on that new language. Um, sure. So I guess also where to find it. Okay. So it should be from yesterday, right, Bryn? Or maybe it's today under under your name. Yeah, I think it was yesterday that we did a walkthrough of 1.1. I think it was yesterday. It is on today's calendar. I mean, it's on today's date as well. So it got repeated. Draft 1.1? Yep. Okay. It's under the date. Yeah, I don't, I don't see under the date under Bryn's name. I think it's today under today. Yeah, today under Bryn's name. Yep. Section eight. Okay, there it is. Yeah, section. Yeah, I don't think that as far as section eight. Thank you. Okay. So, um, so, so Bryn, yeah, if you could, if you can do a walkthrough. That'd be great. Thank you. So sure. Good afternoon committee for the record. Bryn here from legislative council. So this is draft 1.1. And again, this is just language that has sort of been plucked out of this committee bill from corrections and institutions. So it just is this one section, which is 13 BSA 3257. And the changes are that we've amended the title of this section of law. So it applies to any person who's under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. And subsection a makes a few changes. We sort of reformat the way that we phrase this prohibition. So it provides that a correctional employee contractor or another person who's providing services to offenders on behalf of the department. Shall not engage in sexual contact with either a person who the who the employee of the department knows is confined to a correctional facility. So that subdivision one applies to people who are incarcerated. And then subdivision two applies to any offender who's being supervised by the department. While on probation parole furlough or another community supervised sentence that the employee of the department knows or reasonably should have known was being supervised by the department. And then you've got that carve out language on lines 18 to 21 that says unless the offender and the employee were engaged in a sexual relationship at the time that the person who's being supervised was sentenced for that offense. So kind of reformatting of the statute and so broadening of the statute and also a creation of this exemption for people who were in a sexual relationship at the time that the offender was sentenced. Right. Thank you. Thank you, Bryn. And that language came from Ashley Messier who was who was with the Women's Justice and Freedom Initiative, Sarah Robinson of the Network and AJ Rubin with disability rights Vermont. And they testified in support of it yesterday. We did hear from Steve Howard, but I think he was looking at the wrong the wrong draft because some of his concerns are are addressed in this language. And I think he he recognized that at the end. So, Tom, your hand is your hand is up. Not sure if it's actually I saw that it was up. I put it down for like 10 seconds and put it back up. OK, go for it. Probably geared toward you Maxine or Bryn also. So this the woman from the Freedom Initiative, she is the one that would have become a criminal basically with the language that we had is that right? You know, I don't want to speak on her behalf because I don't think I was here for all of her testimony. I'm not sure if she was a supervisor or a supervisor at the time. But again, this this is a criminal statute that applies to the department, the person who's employed by the department. And and so that's who it applies to. OK, so excuse me. So I guess I'll ask it another way that and I think I know the answer to it. But she's satisfied with this new language. Yes, yes, yes. And she she was part of the group that that proposed proposed the language. She did say that it didn't go as far as she would like. But she does does support it. She did testify to that that she does support it. Um, you know, in terms of wanting to to compromise, ultimately, this is a matter of prosecutorial discretion and any of these cases are. But she yes, so she does. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. And I got to believe if they, you know, did a little investigating on her relationship that they probably wouldn't prosecute. But but that was my main question that I had on this this new language. And I can certainly support it. Great. Thank you. Selena. Oh, I just had raised my hand to help answer Tom's question. So I don't know that it's really needed now. But just to clarify that in her example, her partner was under community supervision. And she, although not currently a contractor with the OC, was doing a ton of work with them and could like easily see herself becoming, you know, in in a contractual relationship with them. So that was the example that I believe that was the example she shared. Great. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Selena. Ken. All right. Madam chair, you just use, I think judicial terms. I don't know what they mean. Oh, I think I said prosecutorial discretion. Thank you. So what that means is, is that it's it's up to the prosecutor, whether or not to, to charge and to, to bring a case. And I just, I was just pointing that that out of explanatory. I should have figured that out. Thank you. It's okay. It was in response to Tom's question about whether or not the witness would have been a criminal or would have been charged. So I told you I wasn't a lawyer. Okay. Any, any other questions, you know, questions for Brent about this? Not seeing any, any hands. So thoughts on terms of whether or not to recommend this language. And again, they, this is part of a bigger bill. I'm not sure where they are with that bill, but they are looking for recommendation. I do know that this is important to Senator Sears and that they also would, would like to see something like this pass, whether it's part of a corrections bill or a standalone bill. So we could do show our hands, yes, recommend it. Okay. Great. Any opposed to recommending it? Okay. Great. All right. Wonderful. Thank you. Okay. So then, yeah, so let's do hate motivated crimes if we could move to that. And yeah, I would love Selena and Will. I don't want to hold you here for much longer, if possible, or if we're still going in, and you want to go, imagine you need to break before retention. So, okay. So in terms of hate motivated crimes. Thank you coach for asking about armed forces, whether or not that includes the National Guard and it actually, I guess it wasn't clear, but it was better to put it in there, right? Is this was so we do have a another draft 4.1, which should be posted. And I think that's the only change that correct rim armed forces or the National Guard. Yeah. Yes. 4.1. The only change that you see to that draft is the addition of or National Guard or the National Guard. Because it since it is kind of a complicated relationship there, that it makes sense to just ensure that it's included, if you want to include it. Great. Thank you. So I think I would like committee discussion at this point about it where folks are at with the with the bill. I think we've had quite a bit of testimony. I do really appreciate the reporting section of it. Thanks, Selena and others who worked on this. Certainly a step in the right direction of our data collection in this state, which hopefully we will get back to start looking at some other bills. Thoughts? Ready? Don't make much opposition to that. Okay. All right. So Okay. I make a motion that we approve this committee bill and send it to the floor. Second. Okay. Wonderful. We have a first. Second. Any discussion? I lost you. I don't even know what we're doing. Okay. So we are looking at a committee bill. It's drafting request 21-0932 draft 4.1. Today's date. And it's an act relating to hate motivated crimes and misconduct. And so the first section removes the word maliciously from current law and adds National Guard to to make sure to clarify that National Guard are in fact included and has enhanced penalty. I think that's just just for the title of that section. And then it has an annual report required. And that is the piece that we actually had talked about it. Originally it was in H128 that passed today and and is here, which so does that help, Ken? Trying to find it. I'm trying to get back to it. Okay. Let's see where it should be on our committee page. Let me know when you have it, Ken. Thunder Bryn. Yes. Which one? 3.1? 4.1. Got updated, didn't it? Yes. Got it. Thank you. Okay. I'm just thank you. I'm just reaching out to the clerk. Melissa. Okay. Great. So discussion. We have a motion to second discussion. 18. Bob looks like Bob might have a question. Just a quick question. Originally I thought I saw like a second draft or whatever it said for the National Guard or the Air National Guard. Does that include the Air National Guard also here? Bryn, I guess I would ask. Yeah. It's inclusive of the other National Guards. It was the advice of our Legislative Council, Damien Leonard, that we didn't need to include the specific titles for all the other reserve forces that if we said, if we referred to the National Guard, that would be sufficient. That's really his area of expertise. So I'm relying on his advice. Don't want to leave anybody out. Anybody else? Okay. Great. Then the clerk shall commence to call the roll. Can everybody hear me? See me? Anything? Both. Yeah. You're good. Auburn. Yes. Donnelly. Ghostland. Yep. LaLon. Yes. Lefler. Norris. Yes. Not. Yes. Barbara. Yes. Christy. Yes. Burdick. Yes. Grad. Yes. We'll hold for LaLon. I just texted her because I'd heard from her, but she may be driving again. We can wait a little bit and see if she'd have to call and yes, it's interesting. Well, I think she said she was going to be calling in. So once we got on the road, I saw we should probably give her. Okay. All right. Let's do that. Okay. Okay. So Bryn, you need to go. I see that. Okay. I'm sorry. All right. Yeah. Thanks so much. Okay. Also, anybody dying to report this or one would like to report it? And I guess we should turn it in. So it's a committee bill, right? So it's going to be, has to be unnoticed for two days. So. I didn't realize that was the case. Interesting. Yeah. Me neither. Every day. I know. Pretty sure a committee bill. Yeah. I think that's right. Yeah. Any takers? Coach, are you? I don't know if Coach is on the phone or if he's... No, no, no. I was trying to get my button here, you know. Are we pushing your buttons? Just the space bar, you know. Yeah, yeah. So do you want to report this? I wasn't sure if you were raising your hand to report or... Yes, that's that. That was the... You were asking for volunteers, so I... Wonderful. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. So that leaves the forfeiture bill, right? And then 183. Am I missing anything? We could take some down from the wall just for fun. Oh yeah. And 145 is... Oh yeah. I'm sorry. Thank you. That's on tomorrow. Okay. So Barbara was... Brynn was going to do a walkthrough, right? So maybe... I'm not sure if she was going to do a walkthrough, because I'm not sure of her availability. Okay. Brian came in with his amendment just as I was starting to meet with Brynn, and so Felicia met with Brynn. And Brynn redid, you got a copy of it, right? So Felicia had had a chance to go through the draft we got this morning and make some changes, which she texted me some notes from. So I'm happy to read off of the notes, but I don't think people saw the other draft. So what's... I don't know what your preference is. I'm happy to... Yeah. I think I'd like to await when she's available, because since she's working together and she took the lead, she did say that she... In terms of the hate crimes, she has a yes and she will jump back on... She said when she's through Sheldon and Regain service. So we will hear from her, at least on the bill, but why don't we wait? That's great. Yeah, I think we have Brynn. So we will add that to the list tomorrow. And any... While we're waiting for any quick questions or anything about either 183 or 145. Gavaps did here to take testimony on the council, and so they're going to get back to us. I think they're leaning towards the Attorney General's office as the appointing authority for the prosecutor on the council. Both Barbara and I have been in touch with the appropriations regarding the appropriation. I've heard some different sort of theories. I don't know what I'm tired, but anyway, in terms of the council and the needed appropriation, I've heard that Legislative Council can't staff it because it's not a legislative committee, which is why the network is in there. But I don't know, that's... Appropriations will figure that one out. But we're waiting for that. And then I think Michelle will get us a new draft with just some of the tweaks today. Martin, Michelle and I were trying to remember if you had language or did we... In terms of 183 or did we... Or disability rights, okay, going with the federal language and the language that... Yeah, it sounded to me like they... Yeah, I just was pushing as far as if we were going to go with that to make it consistent. But then I think they pushed back once they heard from Rory. It was my understanding. So no, I have no... I'm fine with where we are with it. Okay. All right. Great. So then Michelle will get us a new draft, which that should be pretty easy. So okay, there's... There you are, Felicia. Wonderful. Thank you. So Ken will ask you your vote on the committee bill to hate motivated crimes. I distracted here. Laughler? Yes. I can't go back to driving. Okay. Great. Okay. So, Max, I don't know if you... On 183 or if we're going to have more discussion tomorrow, because I did want to just... If it makes sense now to address... It's something that... The case that Rebecca Turner had mentioned, suggesting that it was a case supporting the concern regarding the should have known language. And I don't think she sent that to... I don't think she sent that to everybody. But I looked at the case. I mean, is this something we can discuss at this point, or is that going to happen tomorrow? Or... Go ahead, people. Go ahead. And you know, Selena... I don't know if Will is gone, but if you need to drop off, go ahead, Selena and Will. But go ahead, Martin. Yeah, it's just that... I think Attorney Turner was talking about the fact that we have this should have known language. And this is language that I've been questioning to make sure I understood it as well. I had some of the same concerns that when she raised it, but really in looking at it further and information that Rory has provided. And then actually looking at the case that Attorney Turner suggested supported the fact that this was strict liability and we should not proceed with it. I looked at that case and I'll just read this one quote that I kind of highlighted. And it had to do with a Washington law that had to do with drug possession. And whether somebody had knowledge or not of possessing the drugs, they would be held liable criminally. And the court rejected that and said that it was strict liability. But then I went ahead and said it's the rare Washington state statute that criminalizes innocent passive conduct or non-conduct, I should say. Most Washington laws target actual conduct and most Washington laws target people who know or should know, that being key language there, that they're engaging in that actual targeted conduct. So by the analysis of that case that was pointed to, what we have in H183 would be fine. Because it is a should know. It's not criminalizing innocent passive non-conduct. It is obviously criminalizing conduct based on the fact that somebody should really know of the non-consent of the individual. So that just further, reading that case that was supposedly going the other way further satisfied me that there's not a problem with H183. So I'm going to be in support of it. Great. Thank you. And I do think that Rory did a good job when he talked about that there's actually two steps in the analysis in terms of the mens rea when the defender general's office was saying that we've eliminated the mens rea. And the mens rea is the first step, whether or not there is the act. And then he spoke about the act. And then once there is an act, then the question is whether or not there was consent. And that's where this bill comes in. This bill is talking about that consent piece. So I thought that was helpful. So, okay. Great. Well, thank you, Martin. That's helpful. So, okay. All right. So I, so, so coach, with a committee bill, and I actually guess everybody, this is, and I was reminded by this. So with a committee bill, as chair, I need to send it to somebody totally different than the clerk's office, and get bring involved to certify that that's, in fact, the correct version, it's a little bit more complicated, but I'll copy you, coach, on it. And so why don't we adjourn? Because that way I can do this and get to the clerk in the editor's office. Now, and back to Alice Emmons, and then hopefully everybody can make it at 845. Oh, wait, so we're, I'm sorry, we're meeting at 845 tomorrow. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Michelle, yeah, if you can, Michelle is, she's not available. Otherwise, and I'm not sure how long we'll be on the floor. So at least we can get a, that's why when you said in the morning, I kept thinking, well, you're thinking we're getting off in the morning. So, okay, sorry, that all makes more sense. Yeah, pretty much on the floor, I think we, the floor, the only thing might be in fact, each 87. And I will find out later if they're going to want me to postpone that, I'll be ready to report it. And if I do, that'll be about 20 minutes, I would say. Okay. And 133. Yeah, that's true. 133. But yeah, maybe it's always possible we could get an amendment, but it seems unlikely to me. And given the strong vote today, hopefully that'll be quick tomorrow. Right. Right. So, so we may have time to get these things done, hopefully. Right. So, okay. And then in terms of scheduling for next week, I, I really, I'm not really sure what, what we'll be doing. And so we can talk about it tomorrow. Coach and Tom and and Evan, but I think we need to be pretty flexible. Otherwise, we're going to just start peeling things off the wall. That's the, that's the fun time when you just grab all the bills on the wall and you throw them in the air and see how they go down the steps when we're in the building. All right. I mean, so many suggestions. I have so many. Okay, so anyway, okay, we'll