 So, I think the first thing we'll do is look at one, or 251, as 251, which is the act of the vestiture. We have draft 1.3 in front of us, dated 3, 10, 2022, 1037 p.m. Is that what you have in front of you, Tom? Yes, that's the copy I have in front of me as well. All right, so I'm going to, um, I think this is the latest one we got from Becky. Yeah, it is. And I just, there were changes I had asked for the art. There's one more that I had. I had asked for section one to be titled, a deep decarbonization of a public pension. But everything else, I think, given the new title, are what we asked for. Well, why don't you walk us through it so we know what the new title is. And here at the beginning, which is with the new title, which she would, I had, we had asked, as you'll recall yesterday, we'd asked for a new title being an act relating to the decarbonization and phased in divestment to the fullest extent possible. It doesn't really, I'm just going to tell you what I said. And I'm going to spend from fossil, from fossil fuel companies. And she came back to us saying, I can't do that in a title. It's too long. So instead she has a new title that is an act relating to the study of decarbonization and phased in divestment of the state pension funds. And instead adds in the body, which I haven't fully found yet, but I'm sure everybody else has found it. I'm not on page one or two to the fullest extent possible is here somewhere. And I just haven't found it, but Tom, maybe you found it. Page two line one. Oh, well, there it is. Thank you, Thomas. I see. I just read it. Yeah. Okay. Sorry, Tom, we've been on the floor and it's been a kind of crazy day. No worries. It's Friday. So I imagine you had a long week. Yeah, anyway, that's not the reason. So that is, and we, and then I think everything else we've asked for. Tom, I haven't been able to see what your response was because we've been so flat out here on the floor. But so that is her response to being able to retitle it that was we added to the fullest extent possible where we could. And we added the models used in New York and other states. And on page two, I would say most of the changes are on page two. And the other change I'd asked her to make is the titling of section one, which was to be the which she didn't do, but we can easily get that done. And Tom, I'd ask you how you felt and I've had work. Well, I emailed back. I can forward it to the group. I'll just read what I wrote. I said long term the position would be ideal because it would give resources and flexibility to the team to continue and annually maintain all the anticipated projects currently called for so I had put the language for the dollar amount and that's listed on page two. That's the language that I sent. Okay, so you send this to her. That's the language I sent to her that I think would be appropriate whether or not it's a person or whether it's 75,000. I guess it would be to be determined but that was my, the preference would be the person because then we could use it. So if you're in year out and it could really help us with a lot of the different projects we have ongoing. And, you know, we have a lot of money involved with studies and if we could balance that out with more internal staff that would be helpful to us but that's, that's just a preference. Yeah. So, if it's, I guess my point is when I emailed you back about position is a little more challenging because and they didn't fill the position I would then have a difficulty with just 75,000 because I think that your credit need that didn't we do 100 last time for a position. But we did and I talked to Eric about that and he said he'd make it work at 75,000 for the first year and then we come back in next year's fiscal budget request. So if he said originally it was for 75 but he could, we'd use the extra person to maybe lower the amounts needed for the compensation study request, and also the asset liability study request by using the new individual. And so he felt he would be comfortable with 75,000 as a line item for an individual. Yeah, that's fine with me. I think that the problem with this is going to be. If you're asking for a position that's going to have to go, it's going to have to go to appropriations anyway because of the money but if you're asking for a position, they're going to have to also approve a position. So my, what I would do is I'll leave that off and just say hire a consultant to assist, because you can hire a consultant on a limited service as a limited service position or consultant, and you could in your next budget request next year. And you felt that you needed to you could turn that into a full time position, but that would be for next year I would not put in that higher analysis. That's, that's fine with me. You know, getting the funds in is fine and we'll figure out how to use it. That's what I tried to message in my email back to you which is a positions of a slightly thornier. I thought I had a response back that said that since we're an independent entity now JFO made it. Didn't Becky Becky responded to that and said that the chance to look at an email since then. So, okay, I thought Becky had replied to that and that's why I did. Let me find it here. Oh, here it says. Yeah, I would take that out to you but I'm fine with either way, you know, it's it's the dollar amounts to help us do the work. Long term I'd rather have a person but we can we can talk about that in the future and it was part of the negotiation with the governor's office so. Yeah, I would, I would cut I would take that out so that it just says the the pick to hire a consultant. Okay. Or to hire consulting services are just I would just leave it just like this and hire that. Yeah, and then the section one would be the carbonization of public funds. Were you okay with that Tom. I'm fine with that you know I think there's a lot of, you know, clearly I, you know, there's a difference of opinion in regards to the title link I do feel that that title tends to stay the the end result but we phrased it in a way that we can work with it and and I'm okay with it. Yeah. I won't go into it again I don't want to quibble over a word. I just back up. I could go back to the position there. I found Rebecca's email. He says I checked the JFO and it's a sense feedback is now in an entity we do not have to create a state position. So he's saying, she's waiting to sell. We don't have to say for what we don't have to create a position. We just allocate $75,000 to assist. We don't have to say anything just to be picked commission $75,000 to assist the joint oversight committee with the one described. We don't say hire anybody or. The funds are appropriated to be picked to assist the joint. Public pension oversight committee with the work described. Right. However they do that. Okay. Thank you. Is the title okay now. Okay. The title is okay. Yeah. But you want the decarbonization. I do it. Page one. Do we want to replace. Divestment with the carbonization. That's the question that was your suggestion. I don't know. I don't know. I had been one of my suggestions back in chief of divestment. So it doesn't matter to me. I don't care one way or the other. Please say both. People would prefer decarbonization because then it matches our policy that we're putting together. But that's. Let's change it to decarbonization. And then the new title talks about both. And how are you okay with where we're landing. I am, I am, I think there's a lot of positives in this. And I think it can. It can help extend the progress we've made in the 2017 report with the extra funds and. I think it's listed certain things that I had concerned with with in regards to. a new share of responsibility and put that language in that I saw in Maine. So I'm comfortable with it. I think we can come together with a good report, a good presentation to the state for next January. Okay. Right. Okay. So that would be probably, I don't know how they do drafts here. Major drafts, no, drafts that come from the committee get a new first number and drafts that come from anyway, whatever the draft number would be. Are we agreed that we can? Yeah. It'll either be 1.4 or it will be 2.11. Okay. I mean, is it either way? So I would, you ready for us? Yes. Quickly, just go over the changes and we'll recognize you. Okay. Do you have the text in front of you? Okay. So the change we're making is in the title, which couldn't be as full as we wanted. So that is now reflected on the top of page two. The first change on this paper copy of the page one is on line seven of the section one will be called the decarbonization of the pension funds joint pension oversight. The second change will be to and including the investment to the fullest. No, that isn't a change. It is. It's an addition. I just meant the change we made today. Oh, I'm sorry. So the changes, that's a bit, that's a chance and that is today. That's on page one, the decarbonization instead of investment. And on page two, on lines 12 and 13, we are again, what's our pleasure to give two choice? No, we're crossing off. Okay, we're crossing off to fill an investment analyst position or to hire a consultant to assist. Right. And they could choose to spend their money as they want. Got it. That's right. I have that's the second. So we'll get that. Okay. All right. Those are our two changes. Oh, so. I think there be. So I think that he did try to honor our title change. It just comes at the end. Yes. Oh, the title change always has to come in. OK, sorry, because it's introduced to something else. Oh, I thought I was confused. No, no, no, what she what she felt she couldn't honor was what Allison had sent her was way too long. So she did say also. Yeah, yeah. OK, sorry. OK. All right. So are we OK? I'm OK. OK. I'm happy to move it. OK. I would vote. Wait, I meant S 251 with draft, whatever the next draft is, whether it's 2.1 or 1.4. OK. Senator Clarkson, yes. Senator Colmar, no. Senator Polina, who's myself? Senator Romney, still, yes. Senator White, yes. Or 1.0. No. Oh, yeah. For Windsor. And then I would win a little money. OK, I would further move that we pass out favorably as 251 as a member. Senator Clarkson, yes. Senator Colmar, no. Senator Polina, yes. Senator Romney, so, yes. Senator White, yes. Or 1.0, yeah. OK. All right, done with that one. We need to take a reporter. Not me. OK, thank you. You don't need me anymore. Oh, we do need you. I'm going to be in touch with you, depending on who's reporting it. OK, that's good. Thanks. Have a great weekend. 29 to Tom, you're going to want your port 250, right? Sure. Yeah, I'm not going to chair it. Just I'm just trying to think. I'm happy to do this. I am not a financial whiz, but I'm happy to take it on. I don't unless it's just asking for a study. Yes. Yeah, no, I know. Anthony, would you feel strongly? Would you like to? Is our green economy first? Would you like to do this? I don't feel strongly about it. OK. Me. Then I'm happy to do it. I just. OK, Allison, we'll do it. It's going to go to a front. Oh, there we are. OK, OK. Oh, my gosh, this is quite different. This camera. Oh, I just think I didn't have anybody in the witness seat. And I. Yeah, I appreciate this view while I was eating. You can't. Yeah, well, I didn't get off quite so well. I just noticed it before and it was right front. I know. Well, just like there's actually, I mean, well, but it's a different angle. Yeah. Oh, my God. Ben, would you like to join us? Sure. Thank you. So I'm going to get together camera and because then see that you see there. Yeah. So I do not have a completely new draft. I have language that is. It's like 95 percent. Yeah, I should. And I'd say it's about. But I did have a couple of questions. And I guess once we're out for a while. But as just as far as the study that was discussed about non-courses. Oh, yeah. Just some details about that that we can get to at some point. But, you know, Chair White, I just wanted to let you know that a new draft is forthcoming, depending on sort of, I guess, discussions today. And I can work that into what's supposed to be drafted. Yeah. Because I think that what if I am right here on section four, we asked for a report, an annual report on. I wrote you that note this morning and I don't know if I got asked for an annual report on what data on data collection, what data is being collected? Is it being collected in the same way? Universally, is it how many how many agencies are collecting it? How is it being used and how is it accessible? Is that basically what? Yes, what we wanted in that report. So that's section four. That would be the report. Section four. So OK, and I had drafted that section. But again, this is not has not been submitted for public posting yet, but you just bear with me. And we'll pull that up. This is what's section two. But the. So this would still go within section 2366 of title 20. So that's the law enforcement agency fair and partial police and policy race data collection section. And what we do is it amends under subsection three. So we would now read that on before July 1st, 2023, and when thereafter, law enforcement agencies shall provide all data collected by the agency, including the data collected under the subsection, which is the roadside data collection. And then it goes on to further amend subdivision four by striking out that the receiving agency shall also report the data annually to the General Assembly and creating a new subdivision five, where there would be an annual report. So annually, on or before July 1, all law enforcement agencies shall report the data collected pursuant to subdivision three, all data collected by the law enforcement agency, inclusive of roadside data to the House Committee on Government Operations and the House and Senate committees on judiciary. The report shall detail how the data is collected, how the data is accessible, how the data is used by the law enforcement agency, a review of the data to determine if additional data criteria is needed and any recommendations to improve data collection use. I think that sounds good. Other people? I mean, it really is what we're asking for is to act. Is it the reports that we know where we are and what needs to be changed? Yeah, okay, perfect. Okay. And in this new draft, obviously sections two and three have been removed as we previously discussed. It's called quality immunity and the training, minimum training section. We voted on a qualified immunity bill today, such as it is. Oh, it's a paradox, considerably. Yes. Yes. It's essentially codifying Zulu and applying it to all law enforcement agencies in the state because Zulu only dealt with state police. And what we heard is that it would be applied by the courts but there wasn't an assurance that it would be. So this applies it to all law enforcement agencies in the state and then asked for a report back from the council on a whole bunch of stuff around qualified immunity. Like where is it coming from? What are the issues in Vermont? What are, how is it being used? A lot of reports from them in association with Joint Justice Oversight Committee. Yes, and if may I realize, I've introduced myself to the right. Oh, I'm sorry. No, I don't jump right in. It's that type of day. Ben Obagrowski of Legislative Council. And yeah, to elaborate on that, the report would essentially just create a broad overview of the status of qualified immunity in Vermont, how it's used in court cases, what obstacles it may prevent to the access to civil justice and just more details along that. And the report would be published to Joint Oversight from Legislative Council but with the assistance of the Attorney General, the Defender General, the Vermont Law School, and then any other stakeholders that are interested in the system. And then it would also create a basically repository of judgments and settlements from entered into with each law enforcement agency. So those would be subject to public disclosure pending any applicable Public Records Act exemption and shall maintain the name of the law enforcement agency and the amount of money paid out pursuant to any judgment or settlement. So that's to kind of help track exactly what's going on as far as payouts to individuals and also the impact that it may have on the law enforcement agency itself as well. So. Yeah, so that's what it does. Okay. So going back to S250, there is a new addition as well. We discussed that in lieu of the custodial, the standard that would have been created under section nine, there's now an amendment in what is new section seven to 13 VSA section 5585, which is the electronic recording of a custodial interrogation section. So what this would do, the addition to just updating a couple of stylistic changes for more gender neutral language, the immensable so that in subsection B1, a custodial interrogation that occurs in a place of detention concerning the investigation of a felony violation of this title shall be electronically recorded in its entirety that expands it from just a felony violation of homicide or sexual assault. So it would apply to all felonies and then it would create and then it makes changes to ensure that that language is consistent throughout statute and would also create a new subdivision C2 that creates the prohibition of custodial interrogation on children and requires custodial interrogation of, I would guess I would refer to them as youths that are not children. So it would now read that custodial interrogation of a person who is 14 years old or older that occurs in a place of detention concerning any crime shall be electronically recorded in its entirety pursuant to this section. The custodial interrogation in a place of detention of a person who is younger than 14 years old is prohibited. I think it's good for the community to know that the age that was picked as the dividing line varies throughout our statutes over who is considered a child, who is considered a juvenile, who is considered a youthful offender. The ages range anywhere throughout our statute of 10, 12 years old, 14 years old. And there's also the considerations of the raise the age initiative. And this was sort of a middle ground that was presented, the 14 years old. However, there would be a policy decision for the committee to change that age, that dividing line, if it so chooses. But I think that's important for the committee to understand that these different age levels exist throughout our statutes. So I'm going to make one comment on that as in this just on a side, but when we were doing something before, I don't even remember what it was, but it was looking at ages of consent or whatever you want to call it. Age you can get married, age you can become an emancipated minor, age of which you can buy cigarettes. I mean, all of those things. One of the things I found, or somebody found for me and wasn't, is that at what age do you think if a parent has a child that is completely out of control and they just, they simply can't deal with them and they really think that child needs some kind of residential treatment? At what age, and this was a while ago, so it may have changed, but at what age do you think that the child has the ability to say no and object to the residential treatment? 16. Brian? What should it be? No, no, what was it? It's always different. 16, yeah. Okay. I'm going to guess like single digits. I was going to guess single digits too. Yeah, like I was going to guess four. You have an out of control child and at four years old? Four, that's what it was at the time that we looked into it. I impressed you too, got single digits. I thought 16 was consistent with other things. They might not have guessed single digits if I hadn't been to a home. I mean, clearly it was something that I was just stunned. I don't know how you could get in a younger and send a child away, but... Yeah, anyway, that's kind of an aside, but so remind me here, it says that all custodial interrogations or interviews of juveniles have to be recorded. He says, I thought this was the section, now I'm not using false interrogations. Well, it's in the same division. So the way it reads is that custodial interrogation of a person who is 14 years or older that occurs in a place of detention concerning any crime shall be electronically recorded in its entirety. So if you're 14 years or older, it needs to be recorded like any felony would be for an adult. And then there's a prohibition on any recording if you're below 14 years old. What do you mean, you can't record it? I'm sorry. You can't record it if they're under 14? Correct, and that was my understanding of what the committee had in motion yesterday. I think that what we wanted was to say that no interrogations of juveniles could use those coercive tests. Right, yeah. Okay, all right, my apologies. Yeah, I think that that was, and I would use the term juvenile. Yes, and I was thinking at a higher age. Yeah, because if you use juvenile, then it's gonna track with the raise the age of an adult. Okay. And Tucker and Eric would both know the cross-reference to where that is. Yeah, and I discussed it with them too. Yeah, and I don't know that we talked about the recording of June. I would be a little nervous about requiring that because of all. Well, I mean, okay, I didn't contemplate like the age of recording because I was just thinking if you can be detained and held, imprisoned, juvenile detention, et cetera. If that is evidence in the court of law, if it's a juvenile, it's going to be private. It's not gonna be shared as a recording in a public court of law. And it's very illuminating to know how the, for it to be discoverable and for defense to be able to see how the interrogation went and what methods were used. If you're doing this read technique with a 14-year-old, even if their parents are present, I think the defense would want to know how the interrogation that might have led to some kind of profession occurred. And it wouldn't be a publicly shared video. Right, because it's in juvenile, I'm in a family court. I just think anything that could, but it's not called a felony if it's a delinquent. Right, it's not, but felonies would be recorded. And a felony charge would be, as an adult, I mean, you'd be charged. And it could be actually, a juvenile could be charged with a felony and go to criminal court. Right. But that would, yeah, okay. All right, well, I kind of want to run this by Sears, but I don't know how to do that. But anyway, I think that was the intent, though, is not to, I don't know that I would even talk about recordings at this point for the juvenile, and I think that would raise a lot of questions. But I think we can say that they shouldn't use the coercive techniques. Right. And I don't know that that's the right word. But it shouldn't, can't introduce false information to coercive, whatever we were using. Right, okay. So we have, it could be, banning the use of coercive techniques, which would include the re-technique that we discussed yesterday, or I could try and insert some of the language as from the as introduced version that created new section 66.09 concerning involuntary confessions. Yeah. It may be worthwhile, though, to hear the input from other stakeholders if they're available just on what the correct terminology would be, just to make sure that it's learning. I hope you can see who's here as well. I hope so. I hope so. I hope so. Chris, Julio, and Velka. So what, let's look at that language then. But before you, I think the one other section on that, the one, the two other things we wanted in there was, wanted to ask the Justice, the Criminal Justice Council to look at appropriate training and particularly at training around coercive techniques. And then that was the, asking them to do that. And then asking Justice Oversight. And I did talk to Sears about this this morning and asking Justice Oversight to really look at that, the whole thing around the introduction of evidence and how that's used in interviewing techniques and that whole kind of ball of wax. Okay. So it would be a working group essentially. And then it's Justice Oversight. Okay, so Justice Oversight. And that was the part that I'm still working on. But, you know, basically a study on techniques or non-courses methods, and I think including the read method that we had talked about yesterday. And then to include the Criminal Justice Council, CSG, and other groups that are working on that, and others within that group. I mean, I think basically we're we talking about potentially contracting with them to... No, I don't think we're going that far. I think we're just asking Justice Oversight to look at it. And if they can talk to council of state governments into getting involved in it, then they can find lots of times they can find some funding. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that, I would just say with interested stakeholders including that it could include the CSG, whatever that is. Well, we pay dues to CSG. Well, yes, but you have to say them some stuff. Well, we get a ton from them, believe on around justice reinvestment they have done. They've done a huge amount of work and we have been one of their early champions. Yeah, yeah. So I think that, so those four things, I think were what we wanted around the section nine there that the recording of all felonies, the prohibition of using coercive techniques on interviewing children or juveniles, the CS, the criminal justice council to look at the training and what's appropriate and what can be used for recertification and particularly looking at training around coercive methods. Do they get to influence local police on that front? Well, I think that what they do is they, they have to have certain training every year or every so many hours and they could say, this is acceptable and this isn't acceptable. Local law enforcement as well. Well, it isn't, it's certified officers. Yeah, I mean, this is the first time I'm contemplating the difference between what's a coercive technique and what's introducing false information that coercive, that confession results in a confession. I mean, there are two other states that have banned it. So I just wonder if we want to look at their language to see how they framed it. Okay. Yep. Okay. Yeah. Well, let me look right now. Okay. So let's, let's ask on, on this section here, that you, everybody's who is with us has heard the four things that we're asking to put into this section that would like to start us off here. And then I can't think. Chris for Cal, you can talk about the involvement of the criminal justice council. And then have a baby. I'm happy to jump in and get things started. So for the record, my name is Falco Schilling. I'm the advocacy director for the ACLU of Vermont. And without having seen the bill text itself as it's being worked on in real time right now from what I've been able to gather from the committee discussion up to this point. I don't think we have any objections. But I think this, this is all sounds in line with what was discussed by the committee before. So I don't have much to add, but we'd be happy to review the bill text as it comes forward to see if there's any concerns that arise from that. Okay. All right. So Chris, do you want to thank you Falco? Chris, do you want to weigh in on the, particularly the training piece here? Absolutely. Madam chair. And thank you again. This Chris, Chris Perkel, the deputy director of the Vermont criminal justice council. Again, as just stated hearing this language just verbally and not seeing it. I'll weigh in on what the conversation is that I heard and certainly from the council's perspective, we would certainly want to be a part of any discussion that discusses training and what potential training might have any type of coercive type of nature to it. That's not something that we would endorse and certainly nothing that we train in interviewing skills now. So we, we would certainly be happy to be a part of that. One clarification I heard in your conversation that I think that committee should know is that when you talk about rule 13 and training, the in-service training for law enforcement currently that's at a 30 hours per year for full-time in-service training hours. And the only mandated training is what is statutorily mandated that law enforcement has to take such as domestic violence, fair and partial policing. But the other training hours that are submitted to the criminal justice council for in-service training are decided upon by the agencies. So we do not specify, for instance, to agency A, B or C, what that training is that they take throughout the year, other than the state mandated training. In fact, that's something that we're discussing in-house and we're in the process of an audit right now going on. So those are some of the things that we're looking at. But as far as the training, I just wanted the committee to be aware that we don't specify what that training is outside of the state mandated training. So maybe then we just let you continue with the audit of what you're doing and then come back to us next year and say this is our, we're recommending to law enforcement agencies around the state that this type of training would be acceptable. And this is kind of questionable and to have some kind of with the law enforcement agencies develop some kind of a policy around what kind of training would be acceptable. So maybe we just leave that out of this bill now and let you do your thing. That makes a lot of sense for those discussions are ongoing as what is acceptable training. Okay. I was sometimes I get confused with criminal justice, criminal justice oversight committee. I think you said yesterday that somewhere it was advertised there be technique. You said that somebody tested. Christopher, Julio may have said that it just, it did strike me that there is, you know, a training happening now that's on a technique that I wonder if you, if you were familiar with that technique and think in that opinion it would pass muster if we looked at this with more scrutiny in the future. I think that's certainly questionable. Listening to the conversation, whether it was yesterday or the day before, I know it was mentioned and I do believe it was Julio that mentioned it. We as the council do post things for other agencies when they are having training so that other agencies are aware of the trainings that are going on. It's not a matter of support of a specific training. It's just advertising for them. But having had been trained in the re-technique in the past and also knowing the model that's trained here at the academy, they are two very distinct different models. And one does use types of coercion. And that may be something that we may want to look at as to whether it's acceptable training on the council's part. Yeah, great. I think I think that that makes sense for us to knowing the sentiment of the committee and where we're going to go forth and do it and do good work. What is that go forth and do good work? Prosper. Oh, and prosper. But it's so we can say. Ben, so does that help you with that? So we'll leave that part out about the criminal justice council. Okay. With the training. Okay. So no training for them, but that was, but we're still keeping the report for joint. Yeah. So now we have three things that we're looking at here. And so if that, those of you would comment on that one is the recording of all felony interrogations or interviews, I guess it's the word. The second, that is such a euphemism. I'm sorry. I just have to say. The second is the prohibition about using coercive techniques with juveniles. When interviewing juveniles. And the third is the joint oversight committee doing a. Some. A study over the summer on. Interviewing techniques in general, but particularly around the introduction of false information. False evidence. I mean. Yeah. So. Evan, it looks like you're, you've just joined us. Would you like to weigh in? Yes. Thank you very much for the record. My name is Evan mean. And I'm a deputy state's attorney. I listened to the committee's last hearing in which commissioner shirling flagged that some of the language pertaining to. Providing false facts during. Could compromise undercover investigations and the example that he gave to the committee. Was a child pornography investigations. And I thought it might be useful if. I explained a little bit of my experience as a prosecutor with the Vermont internet crimes against children task force. I worked on those cases for. Probably close to five years. And I think that. The, the concerns that commissioner shirling raised could still be present. Even if this language was restricted to. Juveniles. And to understand why I think it's important to keep two things in mind. One is that in Vermont, because of the raised the age law. A juvenile can be someone up to 22 years of age. That's when someone ages out of a family court jurisdiction. So a case involving luring a child to engage in sexual activity. Could involve a 22, a 21 year old perpetrator. And for example, a 12 or 13 year old child. The other thing to keep in mind is that this language in the bill. Is arguably not just restricted to actual confessions. Made by a suspect during a law enforcement interview. And to illustrate why that's true. I can go through. A very quick hypothetical. Let's say an officer goes undercover online and pretends to be a 12 or 13 year old. And engages in an email correspondence with a 22 year old perpetrator. And engages in an email correspondence with a 20, 21 year old. And that 21 year old asks the officer to meet and engage in sex. The question under this bill would be. Does the officer's representation that he's a 13 year old. Constitute a false fact about evidence. Then let's say in the hypothetical that the suspect arrives at the location and is arrested by law enforcement. Law enforcement interviews the suspect and asks, would it surprise you to learn that we have emails from you. Asking a 13 year old to engage in sex. Again, the question would be. Does that question constitute a false fact about evidence. Such that if the defendant says, yes, I did ask a 13 year old to engage in sex. That statement would be inadmissible. Alternatively, let's say the defendant denies having the conversation. And when confronted with the conversation says, that's not my email address. And lies about that. And law enforcement verifies that it is his email address because it used either a subpoena or a search warrant to get subscriber information confirming that it's his email address. That denial is a lie. It's a lie. But that lie is still incriminating. It's a statement. And so it's covered by this bill, but it's not a confession and it's not an admission. And so the question is, since this denial is a lie. Is it inadmissible even though it's incriminating, because a lie is not reliable under 66. Oh, nine B one. I know this bill refers to involuntary statements. It really does change the inquiry of what a voluntary statement is. Yes. At your previous meeting, Ledge counsel did a great job of explaining that currently underlaw the question is whether under totality of the circumstances, a suspect statement was not a product of their own free will. And rational consideration of coercive. Because of coercive government conduct under this bill, 66. Oh, nine B. Really the inquiry becomes is the statement that the defendant made reliable because it's true or untrue. The truth of any witnesses statement is normally a question for the jury. But this change arguably would require the judge to make that decision during pretrial litigation. I haven't had an opportunity to meet with all of the state's attorneys and get their approval for any alternative proposal. But I know that the committee's time is very tight and we're nearing the end here. And the intention is not to disrupt the purpose of this bill because nobody wants to rely on a coerced statement in court. But I think it would be easy to make an adjustment. To 66. Oh, nine B. By saying, and such facts when viewed in the totality of circumstances induced a confession by overcoming the defendant's will. And really it addresses the fact that we don't want people lying about evidence during interviews. The central nature of the inquiry is whether or not the defendant's will was overcome. But hopefully it would not interfere to his greater degree in undercover investigations such as child pornography investigations. And I'm happy to answer any additional questions. So I'm going to make a suggestion here in the hope. I think we're moving moving forward here. That it seems that it's more complicated even with doing else than anticipated and perhaps, perhaps we just charged judicial oversight this summer to really look at the whole issue of interviews, interviewing techniques, false information, using some of the language from here and looking at the whole, the whole thing instead of trying to reword here in a way that might or might not serve the purpose. And I know that that is kicking the can down the road, but I think that if we can ask them to do some kind of in depth research and hopefully council of state governments, the Justice Center can, can really be helpful with them around that about what, what are best practices in, in interviewing and what are, how should, how should we do this and how should we avoid getting confessions by the use of false statements and when is it appropriate and when is it not appropriate because it might be appropriate when you're, if you're dealing with child pornography that there might be some instances where it really is appropriate to, to use some of those and we don't want to, it is, I'm trying to get us to a point where we can, we can really move, move something forward here and, and ask them to, to look at it and they meet regularly and they are, I will say a very effective and hardworking Yeah, I mean, I personally didn't hear that as particularly compelling to not be able to find a way to work on the language to deal with those circumstances. So I was going to ask Evan if he's familiar with Illinois's law that they passed around this, but probably took into account the concerns that he raised and hear from Julio because the whole second piece personally, I didn't, I don't think that's relevant. I didn't, I wasn't hearing where that was relevant to the bill at all. The idea that if someone, if you confront them with a fact and they deny that fact, that that's somehow introducing false information. I didn't understand the point there. Sure. So, and I guess to answer the first part of your question, I'm not familiar with Illinois's law. And I think the, and the, the, the issue that I'm trying to raise is that it's, it's not clear to me at least that this bill is restricted to interviews as of suspects when they make, when they confess to a crime. And that is because on page 19 line four, it refers to confessions, admissions or other statements. So it's really any statement by a defendant, whether or not the statement is true or untrue. So it could be a statement where they admit to doing something wrong or it could be a statement where they deny doing something wrong, but that denial is also incriminating. For example, someone is captured on surveillance footage robbing a bank and they say, I wasn't at the bank. I was in another state at the time. That lie is indicative of their culpable mental state. And so the bit about some, and the reason why that's important is because on lines 14 and 15, it talks about undermining the reliability of the defendant's statement. Well, a lie is inherently unreliable because it's not truthful. So we're changing the inquiry from, did this person voluntarily make a statement? Or was their statement not true? That's the concern. I do think that it would be, I do think, I don't anticipate that the state's attorneys would oppose a bill that would say, if you lie, if you're providing false evidence, false information to a defendant during an interview, you're lying about the state of the evidence. And that lie coerces someone to make a false confession. That should not be admissible. And that's because that's established law. The question is how to get there. And I apologize, Senator White. I don't think I answered the first part of your questions, which is about recording law enforcement interviews, the change to 5585. I would not anticipate the state's attorneys would object to that. And they certainly would not object to joint legislative oversight or the criminal justice council considering this issue further. But I think it's worthy of additional consideration for sure. The only reason I'm suggesting that is because I'm, as I said, when we started here, people think we're a little frantic or disjointed. It's because we now have 15 minutes left for this bill. And I, I want us to get to a point where. I think we're in agreement that we should say. We're in agreement that we're in agreement that we're in agreement with all felony. Interviews should be recorded. Yes. Okay. So I think we can say that. And then I, I would put the rest into a study by the joint oversight committee just to get us. Yes, I don't. What? Well, I think we need to get it right. And, and I, I fear that in the next 15 minutes, we're not going to have the ability to get it really right. And I, it makes me very nervous to pass something that. And I didn't talk to Sears about it. And he said that they would be very happy to look at that whole thing about false information and false confessions and lying. Presenting false information. So he was, he was very open to that. And I just think that by working with. With the council state government. They're really helpful in coming up with good language. And they will know the Illinois bill and they will know, I think he said there was one other state that also did that. So that, that's my suggestion at this point with, with the section nine on the bill is, I realize William has his hand up. I just want to make sure that you know that we have 15 minutes to finish this bill. That's, that's it. So. Did you have a comment you wanted to make? Just a couple, just very brief comments that it might help. You know, it might help spur a decision in the next 15 minutes. So amending the bill to include. Or limit it to cases where it overcomes the person's voluntary in this. Is unnecessary. That's been constitutional law since 1969. That hasn't been permitted. In Vermont for over 50 years. And so it doesn't change the standard at all. So I don't, I don't see the point of adding it in statute. The other state that has. The law that was enacted was in Oregon, both Illinois and Oregon. Limit the, this issue to custodial interviews. That is somebody who's not free to leave. So someone who's arrested or detained and not free to leave. It does not cover under cover operations. Similarly, that those two laws only cover confessions. And they both say, that they are presumptively involuntary, but that the state can prove that if the state can come up with evidence to show that it really was voluntary, then the state has permitted to do that as have them having the burden of showing voluntariness rather than having the presumption of voluntariness and putting it on the defendant to put it in doubt. In Illinois, you have to prove it by putting it under cover operations. You have to put it in doubt in Illinois. You have to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence that was voluntary in Oregon. You have to prove it by clear and convincing evidence. So those are the existing laws. Our recommendation was from our office, we think that the committee could accomplish. A more ambitious goal, which is to have the CJ to have a bill that says that departments will have to comply with a model policy developed by the CJC and whoever else you went involved in that the same way that you required them to comply with an FIP policy and you can create the timelines, but policies and interrogations of interviews. This has been an issue that I pointed out that's been flagged by one of the leading law enforcement organizations, the IACP since 2012. So there's a stack of policies out there. Where people can get to work on this issue in plenty of time. So rather than having a study and then people starting in January about okay, what language to put together. Our office is, you know, would like to see just a mandate that they develop a policy by a certain date and that agencies have to comply with that policy. I don't mean to cut you off, but we now have 10 minutes and it isn't 10 minutes more of debate. It's 10 minutes to get this bill passed. We can't start rewording this in any way. I don't think and we can't. I don't want to put in here that they have to come up with a policy until we have until the Justice Oversight Committee looks at does a lot of research on it and tries to figure out what the policy might be because personally I'm not sure that sometimes I don't agree with mandated following mandated policies because they don't take into account any. And anyway, I'm not going to go into my grant on. On mandated policies, but. I think that what we have to do is we have to. I firmly believe that we need to ask. Justice oversight to work with the council of state governments or whoever to, but they should come up with some kind of a study here on how best to do this or New York. And I mean, Oregon and. Illinois, Illinois. Thank you. Oregon and Illinois. And other policies that are out there. And that. That's how we need to do it. We do not have time to. To start amending. This bill. I mean, we just, I mean, so. We don't. So what you just said is still amending about, right? It's still a change. So it's a. It's a struggle. It's a struggle. Bill. And we're, but we're not going to start. Rewarding. This. Section. I don't think, I don't think we have time to do that. Okay. Okay. I'm just asking. I think the compromises. More along the lines of what Julio's saying, even if it doesn't come into effect without coming back to us. I just think it's as in first study. Isn't the same as asking for. A recommendation about model. Language. I can, we can ask for a recommendation. Okay. I don't want to. I'd like a recommendation similar to. But a recommendation for model policy. No. Okay. I'm just asking. I think the compromise is more along the lines of what Julio is saying. I don't know. I'm just asking. I'm just asking. I'm just asking, if you have a recommendation for model policy. Yeah. They can, they can recommend. They can romance recommended in direction. They will have studied, but there's a difference between them. Recommending a model policy and rec and then recommending. Directions for us to move around this issue. Well. Okay. If that's what's going to get us there. I'm so sorry. I guess I'm not appreciating the distinction. I would appreciate the oversight committee coming back to us having studied it. Yes. With a recommendation with a recommendation for the direction we move it. Yes. They can still say this was a decision that we made that you can make differently. But to have, I think it changes the nature of feeling like there is something concrete to react to rather than a study after study. Well, they would come back as a joint the joint justice oversight committee always come back comes back with recommendations. Right. That's how justice read investment one justice read investment to get all of those. That's how all of those happen. They come back with recommendations. I don't think I want them to come back with a recommendation for this is the model policy. But they could come back to the direction recommended direction for us to. They come back with like seven directions. But I don't I don't think I want to. Right. I think we hear you on that. Okay. And but I think either recommendations for options for the legislature to pursue or options for the direction for a direction. Right. That's what they do. Recommended legislation. Yeah. And if we want to include we could even go a step further to say and model policies for law enforcement to adopt. Well, or no, I don't think she's wanting the legislature to do the boss. No, I'm wanting them to come back and then see if we need to have a model policy or not. Right. But I mean, I think we heard in the evidence that we do need a policy. We heard that there are trainings happening with local law enforcement that we may think are concerning about how interrogations happen. I mean, you know, young people are two or three times more likely to confess based on false information. This technique is being taught in the state. So I feel like the evidence was there, but this isn't just a maybe we should look at it, but there should be a model policy that's developed. Okay, I just don't, I don't think that they, well, okay, I'm fine with that. I, I really, if they come back with a model policy that's just fine. I don't actually like model policies, but that's a different thing. And I, and, and what we heard is that around training, they're already the councils, the criminal justice council is already doing that. So we're not looking at training here, we're looking at what our interviewing techniques and how do we get, when is it appropriate to, to use false information, when is it not appropriate to how do we deal with you. So I think those are the things that they need to study. And so what is the model policy we'd be asking them to do? Is it around youth? Is it around when to introduce false information? What is the model policy we're asking them to come up with? Is it one policy around this? Is it three policies because it affects different areas? Maybe then it's just simply, I mean, I think it's up to the legislature to draft, well, maybe it's recommendations on directions for the legislature to pursue regarding these issues. We have asked, we're asking, in my opinion, we're doing the same thing we did in 124. We were asking them to look into, into different ways of approaching the use of military weapons by police departments. And then they came in and they talked about it. And then we said, could, do you think you could develop a model policy for people to use? And they said, yes. So they developed a model policy and then we looked at that policy. Now, I don't, I think that asking them to develop a model policy about something that we're, that has like, do you think it's premature? Is that, yeah, okay. That's what I, okay, that's what I, that's what I'm saying. You want them to send them off to, to do some of the research with the time we don't have and come back with recommendations for, for us to pursue. Yeah. Well, they come back with, that is what the oversight, however, you write up the stuff that the oversight committee looks at and we, you just did it for qualified immunity. Except it's not the oversight committee. Right. Come back with recommendations. So I know that we have probably what five minutes to do this. I'm going to try to just take a chance to knock this out and then come back. You can do anything you want for here. Okay. And you can just, if it's easier to just go next door. Sure. Yeah, that's fine. Thank you, Ben. We are agreed that we are going to put in there that all felony custodial interviews have to be recorded. And then everything else is going into the study that we just discussed. Yeah, I think that, I think that's where we're landing. I just, I can, I just can't see us. I mean, Holy, I suggested that there were changes could be made in the bill as it is. And I just, we don't have the time to do that. I get we're at zero. I would also suggest to that if for whatever reason, the language that's come up is imperfect to put it nicely. You know, there is the house process. And yeah, so. We often depend. Right, right, right. We trust them. We, some of us trust them. So we're in this in what you're doing now, you're going to have the, the section for the data collection report. And the section nine. What we've just been talking about. The data collection report is in this would be under title 20 that's staying in a statue. And then this report concerning non-course of tactics, the use of false information in the context of juveniles and adults. And I will tweak the rest. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Ben.