 Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. We are discussing H87 regarding criminal code reclassification. And then also later today we will be discussing our recommendations to the appropriations committee for the FY 2022 budget. And then I'm going to turn it over to Representative Martin LaLonde for H87. And we also have Council Eric Fitzpatrick here. So, Martin, go ahead. Thank you. And, and I think we'll start where we left off, which was walking through the bill. And looking at each of the offenses that are involved in the bill with a brief explanation of what the offense is about and what we're doing as far as the penalty. What this bill is doing as far as the penalty. So I'll turn that over to Eric. I don't know if you want to, you shared your screen, I think last time I probably make some sense again to do it that way Eric, I would imagine. Yes, that definitely makes sense. Thank you, Representative LaLonde. Kevin, if you could make me a coast, but you did immediately. Thanks so much. Good afternoon everybody. Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Council here to pick up on the explanation I was doing. I think it was last week regarding H87 and in particular going through all the property offenses and indicating sort of some discussion where it wasn't obvious what the offense was but also at some point what the, how the penalty would change compared to current law versus the proposal in H87 and the classification system for crimes that set up. So what I'll do then is try and pick up. I think we got about two thirds of the way through. We did quite a bit. So I will pull up those documents again so that and try and pick up where we left off at that time. Let's see here. So here you may recognize the chart. This is the chart we were looking at last time this shows the offense in the far left hand column, the statutory citation the next one over then you have the third column over. Moving left to right. Excuse me. The third column over is the existing penalty. And then the last column is the proposed penalty under H87. So that gives you, you know, a comparison right there between the penalty and current law and the penalty as it would be under the particular property offense that's covered. So you'll see the other document here you may recall is the bill itself H87 but I put some edits and this is a version that sort of highlights what the substantive pieces of the offenses are as well as puts into the editorial content where it's helpful to help folks understand what the nature of the offense really is. So we'll pick up right actually just above here a little bit the first one that interestingly is a sort of a bit out of order in terms of the chart, but we had gone through all these leasing offenses falls claim etc. And we got to right up to here which is interestingly known as timber trespass is very unique in particular offense having to do with actually cutting down or destroying or removing timber or forest products very particular trespass and involving trees, forest products, that sort of thing. And if we go over to the chart, you'll see that timber trespass as it's referred to is right down at the bottom of that column there's that the existing penalties it depends on whether it's a first offense or a second offense but the penalties are fairly, fairly steep. A two year misdemeanor $20,000 fine for a first offense, and a two year misdemeanor $50,000 fine for a second offense so you see if you go continue over the this is one of those offenses where the proposal from 87 does not follow the, the tiered system that the proposal is to go with this level levelization tiered system that we've talked about it's to assign them particular penalties and for the timber offense. Sorry timber trespass first offense. If the proposal is a class V misdemeanor, which is a one year imprisonment $5,000 found penalty so I think, given the particular nature of these offenses. And the proposal is to keep the penalties consistent with existing law. So I see existing law for that one it's a one year misdemeanor and the proposal is a one year misdemeanor as well. Much, much reduced fine from $20,000 to $5,000. And it's the same with the second offense the second offense is a two year misdemeanor. Same thing in the proposal to your misdemeanor, but also drops the, the fine from $50,000 to $10,000. Yeah. Oh, are you done with your timber Trump trespass. Yeah, I was thank you. Okay, okay, no thank you. And I get I don't know if this is going to be if it's going to come out as a question or a statement but it'll be for either you or, or Martin or both but but timber trespass really isn't that unusual. I think it would be of it of a number of times through the years, and it can, it can relate to thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. You know that somebody may take from somebody's land and timber before they get caught but is with something like that. I don't know any crime but would there be restitution in that. And it would be, I think it would be pretty complicated to figure out restitution if there was because in most cases or a lot of cases, the lumber is gone and mixed in would say the plot next door that was a legal So I guess in wrapping up my question slash statement. I was just looking at to me anyway that the the penalties seem really really low compared to what the dollar amounts of what could be taken so that's it. Yeah, well to your to your first question represented yes there would definitely be restitution involved in a case like this. You know the out of pocket expenses would be coverable under under the person who was the victim in other words the property owner in this case. Yeah, but you know you make a good point that it might be hard to value the amount of the loss in a situation like that if it were hard to track down the timber that was stolen or if it was already commingles with something else but but the difficulty and valuation piece aside for a second restitution would apply for sure. And I kind of guessed that and maybe Martin could touch on why these penalties. Well the penalty that we have that would be imposed through this categorization system is actually the same as it is under current law, except, except for the, at least the incarceration is let me look at what the yes the fine is definitely less for for this particular offense. The class a misdemeanor carries a $10,000 fine not a $50,000 fine. I think the critical point with with that and with all fines is is there really are two critical points as far as, as far as I understand it. I think that courts and we heard from the other the sentencing commission heard this and I don't know if we've heard the testimony this year, or if it was last year but court simply really do not focus as much on the monetary penalty for for most of you know there's that certainly part of it but my understanding has been and this is something that I think really was confirmed by the testimony of Chris Fennell on Tuesday I guess that was is restitution is the is the more important point as far as a property crime. Rather than a stiff penalty monetary penalty which goes to the state. The idea is to focus on the restitution so that the individual who's actually harmed is is kind of first in line for receiving whatever money there may be available. At least that's been my understanding that something we can certainly ask Pepper as well when he comes in. Yeah, that that kind of went through my mind to that maybe it's to make it easier for restitution. But with that said, I know there's a lot more study that went into it than me just looking at it, saying, that's too low. But, but yeah thank you, I appreciate it. Yeah, and I know that can had a question as well. I'm going to go completely the other way from what Tom saying, if I've got one tree that's cut on somebody else's land that just was a mistake that they thought was on my property. I could get hit with this fine and this all this stuff, or anybody could. I'm not sure I understand the question but I'll let maybe Eric understood it. I'm logging. Let me, let me make it very simple. I'm logging my property which I'm about to do. I think the trees on my land. It's not one tree gets cut I could have this thrown at me. This requires knowingly or knowingly or recklessly mindset I'm looking at the language on time line 12. So anything that's accidental, or even negligent would not be criminalized it has to be knowingly you know that the that the tree is on the other person's land but you cut it anyway, or recklessly, generally the definition of recklessly is also conscious disregard of a known risk. So you know that it's likely that it's on the other person's land but you cut it anyway. If it's a, if it's a garden variety lack of reasonable care mistake accidental wouldn't be covered. So I'm talking, I'm talking Eric, mainly boundary lines you're not 100% sure you think you would then 50 feet of you know one way or the other, right on this one tree, you're saying that that would be that would fall under. Would you say accidental. Yes. So I don't think that would be covered if you're talking about an honest mistake. You know, just, just to you, you miss miss misunderstood where the boundary was no to me that would not not rise the level of recklessness. Would there still be there probably still be restitution because I mean if you get a, you know, a 36 inch in diameter oak log that's that's 50 or 60 feet long the things probably going to be worth quite a few thousand dollars. So there would probably still have to be restitution or pay them for further for their log I would have to say that probably gets away from whether that's a criminal charge. Right. No, no, no, some sort of a civil damage claim. So I think that's kind of getting a little ways away from this bill. No doubt, no doubt. Bob had a question. Yeah, looking at the criminal penalty itself, having been someone exposed to this. Is there a number attached to this. Is this just one tree or is this someone comes in takes out a load of logs or what says first defense second offense how do you come up with the. I don't have the restitution is what I'm concerned about. I know the old rule of thumb was it used to be it in fact this this did happen you'd you'd go out identify the tree measure the stump and the value of restitution we three times thumb value. That's the old rule of thumb. So how many trees can you cut down can take out a load of trees here just one tree before you get this first defense or where does that come into play. I realize we're not talking about changing the elements this trespass criminal penalty here. I don't know I don't know if Eric knows. I think it's if you look at line 13 and 14 it's any timber or forest products so I think even one tree could conceivably make it a criminal violation if you were doing it knowing if you knowingly did it then one tree could constitute a violation by a second offense. Generally viewed as like if you were to say you cut down three trees at the same time. I think it might be viewed as a separate offense generally that's part of the same common a common nucleus of facts the same activity. You know kind of it may remind people of the of the member the particular statute that was passed for the organized retail theft because people were doing things separately and that that's because if they, if you know they're all done at once it's one defense. On the other hand if it was done as separate events, then it might then it would be a second subsequent offense but you know one, one event, you know one trespass on the other person's property in which you cut down three trees. I would read that as a single offense, whereas if you cut down one tree, you know, one day and went back a few days later and cut down the second one that seems more like a second offense. So one instance of where he goes and cuts down a log load of timber takes that it's it's a one first defense and a $5,000 fine. I didn't understand I didn't follow that sorry. You were talking about one versus three trees. I was talking about and you said this one offense there and I said okay but so someone goes and takes out a log load of trees is that still first defense and $5,000 fine. Yes. Okay. The tree goes further than that. Restitution is generally they try to have it as a value of the property taken so. As far as the value of a tree goes there's I don't remember the name of the national organization it's an arborist organization there's actually a formula that you can use, you know, with percentages and whatever I used to know it. You can determine the value of a tree and part of the equation is if it's in the woods, or in somebody's front yard, because if you if you took like a somebody had a 36 inch say, beautiful maple tree in their front yard, and you know and somebody came and cut it down with that formula. At the age of 18, that tree is going to be worth tens of thousands of dollars, but you take the same tree in the middle of the woods, where it hasn't got a log on it and it's only got fire, firewood value. It might be worth, you know, 1000 or $2,000 the same exact tree. Shall we get out of the forest and move on. Out of the weeds and into the woods. This is just unlawful mischief out of the woods into the unlawful mischief and this is just, this is your, your standard property damage criminal statute so if somebody. This is what's the is usually used for general offense that involves just damaging someone else's property you know you, you use a use a sledgehammer to pound in somebody's car doors or something like that or you knock over their mailboxes are you. Do something to damage their property that this unlawful mischief statute is typically what's used and as you would imagine in a situation like that. It varies depending on how much property is damaged. So, if you, your standard I'm looking right above the, the, I'm off the timber trust by statute that we just looked at on the chart, skip over the explosive one for a moment. So, your garden variety the next one up is your garden variety unlawful mischief. And that would generally be up to $250 in property damage so that's your, your lowest level one under existing law so if you do $250 or less of property damage it's a six month misdemeanor, you see that third column over or $500 fine. The proposal from 87 is to follow the tiered proposal in this case. So for unlawful mischief you see that for all the unlawful mischief, mischief offenses, the proposal is going to be to go with the tiered system. And that means, in some cases it would be lower and some cases it might be equal for example under that tiered system remember, if it's a less than $100 worth of damage, then it's a 30 day offense 30 day misdemeanor. If that were the case that would be a, a lesser penalty than under existing law which always has a six month misdemeanor for anything less than $250. The next category up in the tier is between $100 and $1,000 basically of property damage and if that's the case, then it's a six month misdemeanor. So you see, in some of those cases, the six months period would be the same say you did $500 worth of property damage for damage. Well, that were the case then it'll be a six month misdemeanor under current law and it would be under the tiered proposal as well. On the other hand, if you did $800 worth of property damage, then under the tiered proposal, that would still be the six month misdemeanor, but under the current unlawful mischief statute. You see that would be a one year misdemeanor because that bumps you up one level to between $250 and $1,000. So in general, the penalties for unlawful mischiefs are either going to be the same or, or slightly less under the tiered proposal. The very top one that goes on to the next, just above it on the page above unlawful mischief, more than $1,000. That one under current law is a felony, it's a five year felony, $5,000 penalty. So under that one also is proposed by H87 to follow the tiered proposal. So if it was more than $1,000 worth of property damage, then it would follow the tiered system which again that depends on it's more, there are more categories than just above $1,000. So between $1,000 and $3,000, it's a two year misdemeanor, which would be less than the existing penalty. If it's between $3,000 and $100,000, it's a three year misdemeanor, also less than the five years. But if it's more than $100,000 worth of property damage, then it's a class D felony. And that's a five year felony. Same as the penalty for unlawful mischief. Currently, if the offense evolves more than $1,000 worth of damage. So again, that sort of structure, generally speaking, for the amount of property damage you're doing results in either the same or a less severe penalty. So that's unlawful mischief. We just did a timber trespass as well. Now we're on to general trespass. I think everybody understands what that is trespass on someone else's land. The, this is a case where the proposal uses rather than the tiered system it use some specific specific categories of penalty, instead of following that tiered tiered system. For the first unlawful trespass offense that's the very bottom of the page on top. And I should say that's a gen, I didn't mean first offense that's a general unlawful trespass to somebody else's property. The current penalty for that is three months $500. The 87 proposes 30 days $500 that's a class D misdemeanor. So you see it goes from three months to 30 days but the $500 fine is the same. You know, there's a couple other specific unlawful trespass offenses you see one involves going into a building and another into a dwelling. The building offense is a one year misdemeanor. And that is the same proposal in 87 one year. This one, because it makes the class B the $500 fine. The current law is increased to $5,000 in the 87 and similar to unlawful trespass in a dwelling again it keeps the, the penalty, the incarceration period I should say in the same three years in existing law it's a classy felony which also has two years. But the penalty side to find is bumped up from 2015 to then you then have a couple of interesting property trespass related statutes they've been on the books for a long time very particular one of them involving on the unauthorized book removal from a library, very specific. There's a unique penalty in that the penalty for that is a fine of not more than $50 half of it goes to the library and half of it covers prosecution costs. So that's highly unusual and has been on the books for quite a long time as you might imagine the proposal from 87 is to change that to a $250 fine only offense. That's what we know no incarceration note no jail time for unauthorized removal. Similar to opening a dam, also a very particular type of property events you open, open a dam and let the, let the dam didn't water flow out that's a five year felony under existing existing law and 87 and keeps that a five year five. Sorry keeps it a five year felony but the fine goes from 500 to 25,000. Now the motor vehicle. Fine. Go ahead can opening dam is that an existing dam. What. Does anybody find that odd. If you see the language yet it does have to apply to an existing dam you have to willfully and maliciously injury remover open a dam reservoir gate or phone. I didn't catch this at the very end also applies to a public public or tall bridge didn't realize that. I think it's very specific you're right to represent Goslin it's a one of those older statutes that that has been been around for quite some time and probably the penalties itself are also someone dated. I feel like I'm dated. I'm sorry I can't see. I think I think Tom did but I was just wondering if can listen to both. I'm missing a boat if it went in my dam that got removed. I'm done. Let's jump in and add. I can easily think of a couple of small dams and in Rutland City, where if, you know, if they're older their earthen dams, it really wouldn't take that much to knock one out maliciously. And it would potentially cause millions of dollars of damage. So, you know, I certainly think this is something that's worth keeping on the books. So, so I, I understand that I guess I was talking about smaller recreational dams or something like that but I guess that's not what this applies to. Well, if I could just just reply, you know, I can think of at least one dam that the city is looking at is whether it needs to be taken out or not because of the you know how it's affecting the water, the water that flows out of the dam and through the city. And that is small that was built recreationally to build to build a pond in a neighborhood that was being developed in the 1950s. But at this point, because so much has been built up down underneath it there's so many homes that weren't there before that if that dam were to be, were to be taken out. You know, it would the flow of water and silt and whatnot would be high dollar damage. So, you know, I think that even like small recreational dams that are just creating a neighborhood pond, depending on what's downstream. The effects could be very negative for our community. Yeah, I'm also on my, my question. From the chat. I had two obstruction then Eric. Yeah, this one is basically it's almost trespassing with a vehicle. Essentially, that's the idea or obstructing both are covered so if without the permission of the owner you use a motor vehicle to either obstruct a private driveway. Or travel on a private road that's marked private or other private lands, or interestingly number three enter on private lands for the purpose of camping. So you camp on somebody else's property using a car, obviously, is the whole idea here. So that under existing law you see is a $500 fine. The proposal under the 87. The C motor vehicle trespasses essentially what that is also keeps it a fine only offense so there's no, no jail time. And it goes from 500 to $250. This is, you see the exact same situation happens in the next two offenses, operating a vehicle on state owned land out that means it's not just, again, it's not a non knowing situation the land has to be posted by the state and it has to be contrary to the rules of that are governing the land that the state has and if you do still in violation of the rules and the sign, operate the vehicle on the state owned land it's a $500 fine. Same thing if you do it causing damage 3940 and both of those take the same approach under 87 that we just talked about the $500 fine. It still maintains it as a fine only penalty but it goes to $250. And I'll just make a quick comment on some of the continuing work of the Sentencing Commission is to look at various fine only offenses and decide whether they should become civil offenses instead of, as they currently are criminal offenses, including the unauthorized removal books from the library the ones we just talked about here but that's some further consideration that we may be seeing a recommendation from them down the road so we may be revisiting these someday. So, back to you Eric. Sure. The next three offenses are all similar in the sense that they're related to property property offenses involving cemeteries and graveyards. You see the first one is is the most serious it's the unauthorized removal of human remains. It's pretty self evident what that is. That is a serious offense it's a 15 year felony for basically stealing human remains from a cemetery. The proposal from 87 it keeps it a serious fence it's a slightly less it's a 10 year felony instead of a 15 year felony, and the, I'm reading it right I believe the fine is increased from 10,000 to 50,000. That's the proposal. There's also a five year I'm on the next one down now stealing or removing grave markers headstones cemetery markers. The proposal of felony, you do that that's a five year felony $5,000 fine. The proposal from 87 keeps it a five year felony the fine increases to 25 K, but the penalty, sorry the incarceration is the same. And similar with with stealing removing flowers and plants at a graveyard. You'll see also is a specific offense that was a one year misdemeanor with a $500 fine. The one year misdemeanor is maintained in 87, which proposes the class put in the category of class B misdemeanor which has, as I said a one year misdemeanor, along with a $5,000 fine. This next one is disturbing a funeral that's having a protest within a certain within a certain distance from a funeral while the funeral is going on. That's a specific offense. Let's say 30 day misdemeanor under existing law with a $500 fine. You'll see that that is maintained in the proposal also it's a mixed the class D misdemeanor, which has the exact same penalties 30 days $500. Now you'll see also a similar theme in the next full five offenses, or so you see they all involved, essentially, some sort of interference with utility property. So, and these are very specific types, each one's a different type of utility. And you can just go through them very quickly you see the first one is tapping a gas pipeline so you tap into a gas pipeline illegally that obviously belongs to somebody else. The second one tapping electric lines next one interfering with a utility meter injuring lights those are public no lights, not just not just belonging to some on someone else's house but rather electric company lights power company. And lastly tapping unauthorized tapping of cable TV wires. So, these all have very specific penalties. The top one again the tapping gas one goes from one year a one year misdemeanor to a two year misdemeanor under the proposal electric lines stays at two years to your misdemeanor under existing law and under the proposal. The interfering with the utility meter as a three month misdemeanor under existing law, and that goes down to a 30 day misdemeanor and the proposal. This one injuring lights goes from three months to 30 days also just like the utility meter one did. And lastly, the unauthorized tapping of a cable television wire is a fine on the penalty of $100. And it's also maintained as a fine on the penalty, the maximum of 250 in the proposal. So, so Eric. I think going back to the tapping the gas one types with intent to defraud. It's consistent with what the current penalty is, it should be a class B misdemeanor I believe. I think that somehow that was overlooked, because it suggests in the document that we got from the Sentencing Commission that it's the same that it should be a class A misdemeanor but that class A is a two year misdemeanor class B is a one year misdemeanor the current penalty is one year. So I do believe we need to probably change that to a class B misdemeanor. Yeah, yeah, I see I was just going back to the language to double check that I didn't make a, that it wasn't a typo in my part between what the proposed bill says but yeah you're right so it does say it does have class A misdemeanor in the proposal. So class B, right. Yeah, it should be class B and actually somehow that that was in the recommendation and I think that was just an oversight with the Sentencing Commission recommendation. Okay. Martin. Yes, Barbara. This Barbara I cannot believe it is not a fine to interfere with maple tapping in our state. Seriously. Well, we proposing a new crime but I was surprised. Can we just change the terms gas to maple syrup in this particular crime. That's the same thing. That's kind of the same thing right. So it's, it's the fuel that runs the state so we can make an argument that it's already covered Barbara. All right, sorry Eric. No, I was just, I was starting that sounds like a proposal for the maple amendment. Can I just say something. Please guys. This maple thing. You know what's way more expensive is the birch syrup now that's coming on big time. Well, but can that really be qualified as the gas that runs the state I don't know Ken. I'm just telling him. Right future reference. Can we get out of the trees. Yeah. Let's move on to the utility meters. I'd like to get out of the trees and into the right away for a second if I could. The, the list of crimes they had up there Eric, and maybe it's somewhere else that I didn't see or probably covered somewhere else. I'm just tapping pipelines and gas lines or electric lines and that type of thing is there somewhere else as far as damaging electric lines. And what's going through my mind, and again I'm going back to my 24 years in the tree business that people. I don't understand why, but there's actually people that will go out on a transmission line with it 345,000 volts going through them and they'll shoot at the lines and put holes in the lines I mean the lines are as big as your wrist I mean they're huge but I didn't know if I got to believe it's covered somewhere. It would be covered in unlawful mischief for certain, I would say, and perhaps elsewhere. Eric, where else do you think that that might be covered. Yeah, I think I didn't quite hear that less less commentary. Well I was just saying that that would probably be unlawful mischief. Yeah, so we're exactly right. What are the penalties. There, if anybody knows off the top of their head. That's right here. Unlawful mischief. Although, did you say represent verdict was it was it blocking someone's right away. No, no, no, I, no, I said out of the woods and into the right away because I was talking about electric line right of ways. But people like the big transmission lines. I don't know maybe they're bigger now but back when I was in the business there were 345,000 volts going through those things and people used to shoot at them. They're too big to, you know, to break basically but certainly to damage and weaken. And so I was just wondering where what what crime would cover that. So I was suggesting unlawful mischief depend on the value of the damage. So if it was over $100,000 in damage that would be a five year felony. But that's that's that tiered value of the damage that we have been here. Well, over 100,000 over 25,000. No it's over $100,000. You can see it at the age five of the bill that it says for value of $100. It's a class D misdemeanor or I should say less than $100 a class D misdemeanor 100 to $1,000 is a class C misdemeanor 1000 to $3,000 is a class a misdemeanor 3000 to $100,000 is a class E felony which is three years. And if it's over $100,000 it's a class D felony which is a five year felony. Gotcha. Okay, no that provides the restitution component as well that we've talked about. Right, right. Okay, thank you. Sure. I think that it's sort of a wordy statute here 3782, although it's called tapping electric lines injuries to electric plants. I think that that also could conceivably apply I think, given the language at the very first part of the sentence. The willfully commits or causes to commit, be committed an act with intent to injure a machine apparatus or structure appertain to the works of, etc, etc engage in manufacturing selling or distributing electrical energy. So, that could, that could be encompassed by that same conduct you were describing. Eric this doesn't say if the damage is caused what while they were trying to steal the power basically. I don't think I well I don't know. That's just me but you might be right online eight evening or whereby such works. Well yeah I mean at the beginning it talks about intent to injure machine apparatus or structure, but then it says appertaining to the works of a person firm association or corporation engaged in manufacturing selling or distributing the energy. I think that means damaging any, any apparatus by appertaining is sort of connected to, you know, any company or person that's selling energy electric electricity. Does that encompass just the vandal out there shooting the lines though. I think so. Okay, but you know it's an old statute and I don't know for sure but that language is. And how I would write it right now. Let's put it that way. But, but, but it seems like it certainly could. Okay. Moving on to, we all set to move on sorry. I'm still. I'm still a little puzzled about that and I don't. I'm, I'm just a lay person but that's not the way I see that and I didn't know if maybe there's just a small word change that we could make to definitely encompass somebody who's out there vandalizing, or if even that's the place to do it. Or are we, are we covered enough someplace else. Yeah, I mean my view and we could ask pepper. This is that on that one recovered better under unlawful mischief, which would cover the behavior you're talking about because this one does not really take into account the, the value of the damage, whereas the unlawful mischief does. And the way that the sentencing commission looked at this, and the reason they didn't use the tiered value is they really focused on the, the tapping of the electricity, you know, because that's part of this provision. Not the potential damage, because the comment the sentencing commission made with respect to this one was it would be hard to measure the value of whatever electricity may have been tapped so therefore just keep it as a straight class a misdemeanor that was the rationale for why they recommended this route. I don't know how I don't recall how much they looked at the damage component of it or if they just figured that would be sufficiently covered under the unlawful mischief. And I'm sure it would be just thinking out loud I guess but yeah. Alright, Martin. Martin. Yeah, yes, coach. You know, in our earlier discussions that we had with the prosecutors, being the state's attorneys. It would seem that a lot of this would fall under prosecutorial discretion. Because depending on who the arresting agency, you know, was, and the charges they bought forward, because in the case that Tom was talking about, if I happen to have been a game warden, and I came upon, you know, someone who was lawfully, you know, shooting at, you know, private property. It would be up to me to, you know, determine, you know, how I would bring that, you know, a sale and back to be charged, and then the prosecutor would make the final decision as to the charges he or she was going to bring forward. So it's, I don't think anybody's going to get away with that level of mischief, I would think. Probably not. All right, let's interfere with some meters. I think we've already gone through all these utility offenses. We're getting to another specific offense having to do with cutting ice and not fencing the whole very Vermont specific offense. So you take ice from water over which people are accustomed to pass don't place around the opening. There's a suitable guard to prevent a person from falling in that under existing law is a $50 fine. And under the proposal it becomes a class E misdemeanor, which you'll see is a, where are we here. $250 fines yes the second to last one from the bottom existing law not more than $50 the proposal from 87 makes it a classy misdemeanor, again a fine only penalty no incarceration $250. Very similar to the structure actually exactly from almost identical to the provisions for removing a survey marker. If you remove a survey marker from property. Currently it's a not more than $100 fine proposal is to make it a also a classy misdemeanor, like the previous couple of offenses but those have a $250 maximum fine, but it is fine only. So there's no. All does that unfenced all advice, because I'm guessing it goes back to the days when there was ice companies, you know cutting the ice in the winter time. Which I to me the potential not. I mean now I'm guessing it would probably pertain more to an ice fisherman that it would an ice company I guess. But the potential of injury is certainly incredibly high compared to removing a survey marker, but yeah I just pulled it up and that on the online statutes it doesn't actually give a date as to when it was enacted so. I don't think pens, pens and pencils probably weren't invented yet. So in the green books that looks like originally 1872 but it appears that something happened in 1947. The refrigerator. Maybe they raised it to $50 in 1947 but it was when it was. Actually, all the status were were recodified in 47. That's when there was a codification of the green books. So you weren't involved in that were you Eric. I was close I think I was still in Moscow. Getting a little punchier. That's a good one. Before we lose everybody. So we're moving out we're very close to the end here we see that we've got just a bunch of the computer fraud offenses are all here on the same, same grouping you see them and they also under existing law they depend. And how much property you've, you've obtained through the use of computer fraud. You know for $500 or less it's a one year misdemeanor. Second offense is a two year misdemeanor $500 or less, more than $500 10 year misdemeanor. And then you see there's a there's a specific offense for actually altering or damaging a computer network. That also depends on how much damage you've actually done. That's one year. I'm sorry if it's $500 or less one year $500 or more, or sorry, or less second offense two years and then more than $500 is a 10 year felony for damaging a computer network. And in all of these cases, all these computer offenses you see all during the far right column, the proposals to follow the tiered proposal. So in each case, you'll you'll swap the offense. Based on how much property was damaged with the computer fraud or altering the computer network that will slot into one of the tiered categories so if it's less than $100 it's a 30 day misdemeanor $100 to $999 six month misdemeanor between $3,000 and $3,000 class a misdemeanor two year penalty to your penalty and then if it's between $3,000 and $100,000, then it kicks into a felony category three year felony, five year felony if it's more than $100,000. So, with all of those computer offenses their proposal is to use that tiered structure. So Eric, the, the case that UVM with the medical records and the breach to that security system that would be at the top of the tier then. Yeah, in terms of the amount of damage done. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. That would be in the top tier for sure. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Eric, there's one crime that you jumped over that I noticed is not in the chart I don't think and that's the unlawful taking of tangible personal property. Which, which you probably will see in your other, your other document is just a, it's in between the ice and the survey surveying monuments, but I don't think it's actually on the. It's in the bill. It's in the bill though yeah. Oh, yeah. It didn't make it to the chart sorry about that. Yeah, no, no, that's that it wasn't in the chart for some reason from the sentencing commission either so. Oh, but committing you know that that it's just a fine where we're being consistent with the saying that it's a classy. Interestingly enough Selena has a question. Just what is that like how is that. Yeah. I believe and what that is. Well Eric, are you familiar with that one. Are we talking about this tangible personal property. Yeah. It is interesting that it's, it appears to only apply on line 19 with the intent of depriving the owner temporarily. Right, the lawful possession of the property. I'm not sure what, what that means in other words it so that's why it obviously it wouldn't be a theft, because a theft is you're taking it permanently to be to your own possession but this seems to be you take it away, or carry it away any tangible personal property. Only with the intent of depriving the owner temporarily of possession. So I'm not maybe maybe say you, you take somebody's car out for a joy ride but you, you intend to bring it back. That's off the top of my head. It's like borrowing without permission. Right. That's a good way to put it. That's probably a kind way of putting it. Barbara, did you have a question, or is that from before. It's from before sorry. I'm sorry coach, did you have a, did you have something. Yeah, a question so you would think maybe some of that might have to do with internet related types of, you know, of, of crimes. If someone was using your network. And, you know, not necessarily profiting, you know, but using it for ill, you know, like, you know, let's say, you know, the computer sex crimes or something like that. And, you know, I wonder if, if, if those kinds of things would would categorize because you know that's that's why you have to have such a high level of security on even on your home. Because some of those new routers can pick up from a pretty great distance. Right. Right. Could be. Yeah, that could fit too. Yeah. Okay. All right, so when are we, as far as our last, our last group of offenses are on the last page now. I think it's the last page and we don't. Sorry me. Yes, so now we're down to. Yes, so here we are last few. And actually, no, we're not there. We've already done them. It was just another series of offenses based on the amount of property involved in the, in the theft of the computer network. So we are we already went over it actually there were just another structure of existing penalties for for second offense subsequent offense, etc. And in each case, as I mentioned earlier, the the tiered proposal was followed except for the unauthorized access to a computer network. I see that's the one situation where the proposal is not to follow the tiered proposal but to make it a six month misdemeanor, which is the same as existing law but let's see what that is unauthorized accessing of a computer network. And I think that likely is similar to what Yeah, here we are knowingly and intentionally without lawful authority accessing any computer computer system. This is what you were talking about, coach, I think, very similar. No accessing someone else's computer system computer network is a class D misdemeanor which let's double check on that again. I think it's six months correct yeah six months misdemeanor under existing law and under the proposal. But that brings us to the end yeah. So any other questions at the moment for Eric I know that there are at least three changes I see and I have of course, I will ask a little later when we get through this what else people want to, or who else. People want to hear from, but why don't we jump to Robyn Joy to go over the documents that she sent us last week if we could do that and should I stop sharing that these documents. Yeah, if you could stop sharing that I'm wondering. Well Robin I don't think you're in a position to share the screen are you you're not. I'm wondering if we should share the screen from here and you should describe it or folks can actually access while talking what's what's your all preference because I could probably I know that some of the Excel spreadsheets that I sent did not translate well to PDF. I think that the original Excel spreadsheets might be better to share on the screen. And so I sent those to you, as well as Evan. Those were sent to the house judiciary or just to Evan and to me. Yeah, yeah. Okay. All right, well let me. So, while I'm looking for that. Why don't we have James pepper jump on and there's a couple questions I'd like to address to him. And if he has anything else to add just generally but or or Evan if you could actually look for the email from from Robyn so maybe you can share the screen of those documents but any event so so pepper the both of you are listened in and all but there were a couple possible changes that that we were thinking that that I was going to propose that we make. And I wanted to get your input on those. It's just a proposal at this point, folks haven't agreed or disagreed with it. But it's on, I don't know if you have the document in front of you but it's page 16 of the bill as introduced. And it's section 18 and 19, the fraud or embezzlement I should say, or that's section 2532 of 13 BSA or receiver or trustee embezzlement from by a receiver trustee which is 13 BSA 2533 and the those laws and offenses as they are on the books right now are not associated with a particular value. And I think that's primarily because these are positions that are, are positions of trust, and it's, it's even really the breaching of trust that leads these to being a, I think, current under current law 10 year felonies. I was going to propose that instead of following the valuation tiers for property is to have those be a class. D felony, which is a five year felony to be consistent kind of with with the upper level of those tiers that we've established, but but have that recognize that these are offenses that involve really more a breach of trust and what the underlying value is. At least that's the way they are in the books currently. So I don't know if you have a viewpoint on that. Okay, so the record James Pepper from the Department of State studies and sheriffs. You're right I mean these are, they're almost akin but not exactly to status offenses where it's really the status of the actor that is driving the enhancement here and you know so these crimes do not fall neatly into the underlying logic of what the administration proposed, which was, look at the amount of property property damage or look at the harm that was caused, and try to evaluate the appropriate tier. Of course adjusting downward for the actual going rate but really look at the underlying damage done or property stolen. And as you mentioned, you know this is, these are somewhat different because, you know, if this was not done by someone who's, you know, been put in, you know, in a position of trust, then you could just follow the tiered proposal and look at the amount of property stolen but this is enhanced in our current statutes because of that breach of trust. I think that it does deserve a different set of considerations when you're thinking about the tiered structure and not just about the, the damage done. I think that you should be guided in evaluating whether it should be a class D or a class E by what the current going rate is for these types of embezzlement crimes based on kind of historical sentencing practices or more recent sentencing practices for these types of crimes. So that might be a question for Robin specifically on on this, this subsection of crimes. I appreciate that we can follow up with Robin, although I think jumping down from a 10 year to a three year might be a little more than folks would want to do so but we can look at yeah what the going rate is. That's what's in this anyway so I had a other question while this is just pointing out that there was we did walk through of every single crime we did notice that there was one that the recommendation from the Sentencing Commission was not accurate. This is a tapping gas pipes with intent to defraud which is currently a one year misdemeanor and the Sentencing Commission wanted it to be the same. They said class A misdemeanor which is two years so my proposals we change that to a class B I think that was just an oversight. I would agree I was looking at it just as you know Eric was doing the walkthrough and it's seen and it seems like that was a typo. There's one other one other thing I just wanted to hit on real quickly because it is something I that I raised that are when we were going over this last week. As far as far as counterfeiting paper money and we were just really kind of wondering if this is a crime that's really charges this really should be a federal crime and Robin Joy came back to me and said that it is actually a crime that has been charged. And I don't know if you have any knowledge about that particular offense that happens to be on page nine of this right draft. So I did. I was watching the testimony on YouTube. And so I did catch you talking about that. It looks like counterfeiting money is really both the production or the trying to pass those counterfeited dollars. And so I looked in our case management software which has some historic data. It looks like there were 91 cases where counterfeiting and it didn't separate between either the production of the counterfeited money or it was that trying to purchase using counterfeited money. The 91 historic cases that I came across the most recent one I think was from 2020 and that was a person trying to pass off counterfeited $100 bills at a gas station or something along those lines. I did have a follow up question on that as far as in determining what property value tier would apply and this is a question for you that, you know if an individual has has produced $10,000 worth of $100 bills, but he's not using one $100 bill at the local grocery store. But you know you find that there's another $9900 and his wallet. How would that be figured out for for the tears and so there's a follow up kind of question for this which is, do the tears really fit in this for this particular crime because this is this is another one of those crimes that doesn't have a dollar value associated with what level of punishment under current law, and we're proposing a change to that, but I'm wondering, you know as we've looked at this a little bit more deeply, whether that really fits. It is an interesting question because there are as you've noted a number of crimes that really are kind of adjacent to the structure that you know that are the kind of underlying logic behind what the Sentencing Commission put forward and you know another few examples are you know some are some of the later sections of retail theft where you're possessing altered UPC labels or you're possessing tools like that would try and shield from the kind of magnetic theft detector. There's a lot of potential for for property theft, but none has actually occurred in the case of just possessing counterfeit bills. And so maybe for that crime. I know that, you know, this wasn't part of the kind of recommendation from the Sentencing Commission certainly not an h87 but maybe thinking about splitting up the counterfeiting crime, maybe into an a and a B. You know, a could be the mere possession and you could keep, you know, the whatever the kind of going raid or whatever the statutory penalty for that is just kind of as part of the non withstanding language and just set the mere possession of counterfeited money to tag it to a specific tier. And then, you know, if someone's actually trying to, you know, if someone's trying to pass $100 bill then then that could be dealt with through the kind of tiered structure. If anyone's trying to actually use $100 bill, the counterfeit or counterfeit of money to use that value as the as the penalty. Right, which, which to make this particular. I guess I think of the situation if an individual only has one $100 bill. And is passing that off that under the current law could be subject to a 14 year felony just doesn't make sense to me, frankly, but if yeah somebody has been using it using counterfeit money for a while. That's a whole other issue. Personally, I think that this one needs probably a lot more thought in an additional testimony as well because I there's, I'm still trying to really figure out the individual who still might have $900 or have $10,000 in bills. And if they never use it really what should be the penalty if there's not really been I mean is that is the the offense just the producing these bills. I mean if they're not being used then I don't understand what the what the harm is. You know I mean I know there's harm in having counterfeit money out there. And then there's a situation where somebody is just using $100 I mean they're actually using it but they seem to be more blame worthy or culpable or whatever than the person who has $10,000 and hasn't used it and doesn't intend to use it. I'm only throwing these out here because there are complications and I, I think at this stage just for this point because we want to definitely have this in in I think we need to be complete as far as these property crimes is it would be good to find out what the going rate is for counterfeiting paper money and just stick with like a class either class E or class D felony at this point and then kind of put a pin in it so to speak and come back to it to see if we need to go a little bit deeper. What do you think Maxine. Yeah, I think that's fine just kind of the market. Yeah. But, but I don't think I really don't think that the tiered system works. I think it needs to afford to adjust to the property value. I think it's going to take a little bit more time. I think this does violence to the whole recommendation of the sentencing commission pepper, or does it sound like reasonable. No, it is reasonable I mean you see it in other areas where you're you're not looking at the actual property value of the damage done that the, you know the breaking of the dam, you know it's impossible to calculate what kind of damages done so you're just the crime to a specific tier. And remember that that tier only provides a maximum there's, you know, at sentencing, you know, all of these crimes, by the way, are subject to deferred sentencing. So, you know, a court could look at the person that has, you know, $500 counterfeit bills, but never really intended to use them or there's no indication in, you know, offer that person a deferred sentence that would ultimately lead to a dismissal of the charges. Right. Well, we'll need to find I guess we need to find out the going rate for for the embezzlement crimes we just talked about in the counterfeiting crimes, and I'll certainly make that as a recommendation, or proposed amendment to this. That's all I had for pepper that were there other questions that I'm forgetting. Okay, thanks. Thanks, Maxine. It's been up for an hour and a half. But anyway, I'm winter word intent be in there. Let me I have you know if you got if you spent $100 and you got whatever Martin said 9900 or something like that which all I can think it's beer on the wall. I would say you have to have you have to make alter forge or counterfeit with the intent to injure defraud a person. So there is an intent element but it's hard, you know, why else would you be making counterfeit money, except with the intent to defraud. I don't know I'm trying to understand this whole judicial system but it's like, it's like. I agree with what you're saying on that but how do you prosecute if you haven't actually used it. Maybe you're just using it for the monopoly, and I'm not even trying to be funny. Well, I can tell you that the most recent cases that I've seen on this are when people are actually using them. And that's that's the, that's the area where I think most of the litigation on this comes from. Yeah, I would assume that it would be difficult to to tie the intent to defraud to the making or the altering of the currency, as opposed to the use. But, um, yeah, so, so, but I think just for the interim that I think it fits better to have just either, you know, either a class. It might be a felony because we're talking about a 14 year felony under current law, but take a look at the going rate and try to match that up to a to one of the classes that we have or categories of felony that we have. It would be my suggestion and we can find out from Robin, she could probably quickly, and maybe even already knows what the going rate is for that one. Yeah, I did it while you guys were talking. I knew you would I knew you would. So were there any other questions for James Pepper. He has. I see Kate has your handle. Yeah, thanks. Good to see you pepper. I'm just curious. It's clear that a lot of work went into these cheered systems and in the, like, vast majority of them, the length of potential time served goes significantly down, but I'm, there's a lot of them where the fines go up pretty significantly. And I, you know, I'm sort of like circling on my own paper a number of those areas. Credit card frauds $50 or more just alone was $1,000 it would be $2,500 there somewhere it goes from $2,000 fine to a $10,000 fine theoretically. I'm curious to hear a little bit more about that structure the fine structure and also if you're the right person to ask I guess I'm curious to hear a little bit more about the potential outcome that could arise for someone if they were unable to pay a fine or how that might impact them in their process we took testimony yesterday. You know from the department that handles restitution and talked about that they were sort of at the end of the line in terms of collecting money from folks and feel like if fines are higher does that impact them and their ability to, you know, handle restitution I just have a lot of questions about that fine component of this. Yeah, and it's I'm really glad that you picked up on that, because there are some very significant fine increases as a part of this bill. So and that's really a reflection of the fact that when the sentencing commission set out initially to do its work in classification. They created this tiered system based on the statutory imprisonment rate that the kind of the the incarceration maximum penalty. And you know created categories tiers class A through E for felonies and a through E for misdemeanors. So on the fines and what they did was they create they tagged a specific fine amount to each of those categories. You know starting with the most serious fine that we have which is a million dollars, and then just kind of picked round numbers, you know cut it in half for class B 500,000 and 250,000 and then 100,000. That's kind of down the list I know the, I know that that's not what you're seeing in H 87 because those fines are actually reduced in H 87. But a lot of that work was kind of done in a vacuum at the outset of the sentence and commissions work. And we, the Sentencing Commission voted on that classification structure and approved it and then sent it over to the legislature as a commission. And then when they moved to the second part of their work, which was actually inserting crimes into these tiers. The Sensing Commission noticed just like you did that well, like, some of these fines are increasing significantly, you know, moving from, because the fines are really, you know, they're, they were created. The fine was created, a fine was assigned, and it may have never been looked at again. But you know just by way of an example of the larceny from a person, 10 year felony, how maximum potential of a 10 year sentence, and the fine is $500. So if you put that into the tiered structure, you know it would probably be, you know, class C felony. It could be 10 years, but then the fine, the potential fine there could be up to $50,000 or I guess, if you look at the H 87 maybe 25,000. So the Sensing Commission actually in its 2019 report to the legislature recommended rescinding the fine structure because of this very problem that we identified, kind of after the fact once we started doing more work. At that point there's a lot. There's a few important things to consider when looking at fines. One is fines can eliminating fines altogether or increasing them for that matter can affect a person's right to access a public defender. And so it's just, I don't know the exact statute that says who's eligible for a public defender or not and so maybe you would want to hear from the public defender but it is something that was raised at the sentencing commission that they're trying to fundamentally alter the fine structure could affect who's eligible and who's not eligible for a public defender so that's one thing just to keep in mind when you're working on the fine structure. The second thing, which is also important is that fines are very rarely used in Vermont. And they're, they're also the court has the ability to adjust a fine based on someone's income or ability to pay. So, we don't have debtor spray is prison or so a court is not going to impose a fine on a person that simply just cannot afford a fine. And it's important to note also that I think the defender general's office, you know there's income eligibility for public defenders and I think, you know, Matt, I think that Valerio's office usually I think handles somewhere between 85 and 95% of all criminal defendants. And so most people in the criminal justice system unfortunately do not have the ability to pay fines. And so fines are very rarely imposed. And this is a good segue to Robin joy because she, at one of our sentencing commission meetings was just looking at the fine data, and I could leave it to her to pick up right and I think that the statistic that she gave us, and I might be a little off here but she looked over the last. She picked a random crime and looked at the fines that were imposed for that crime over the past 10 years. And so she looked at grand larceny over $900 that that's a possible fine of $5,000. She said that in the past 10 years, a fine was only imposed in five instances, and that the highest fine of those five instances was was $500. So that just gives you know and she picked a random crime out of the books. So, it just gives you some insight into the use of fine so I think that the fine structure in this bill. It seems very high and I and certainly the states attorneys would support decreasing the fines here. You know, it's no, it's not going to be truly reflective of the fines that would actually be imposed. So, I hope that answers your question and I'm sure that Robin who's been listening in can give you more on the fines. Yeah, it does. Thanks. And I guess just before Robin jumps in I just, you know, it seems like so much of the intent or an aspect of the intent behind this. People kept using the phrase like truth and sentencing and sort of this work that was done, looking at how what sentences are actually applied to certain crimes and so it just seems. Maybe a little confusing to me to do all that work and then have the fine structure not be at all reflective of what is actually occurring in the court to get just want to make that comment. Right. That's absolutely right and the sentencing commission has committed to establishing a different fine structure, but it's very difficult to find one that can can. That would be consistent and also lower fines across the board, just because they vary so wildly based upon when the bill was enacted or last amended. And, you know, the fines are current fine structure just seems to have very little rhyme or reason to it. And so we, the sentencing commission was having a difficult time figuring out, you know, to create a tiered system that made sense that didn't lead to increases in at least certain fines. Thank you. More of a comment than a question but just, I'll just note that I last year we were last biennium we the house passed a bill that would have made it possible for anyone charged with a crime to obtain the services of a public defender and sort of got rid of some of the fines that were being sold and maybe that's something we should be looking at again as we think about this because I would hate to think of us, you know, needing to hold on to penalties or fines simply so someone could obtain representation. I do have a question of who else on the sentencing commission is working on the fine issue and whether we should hear a little bit more from whoever else is actually on the subcommittee working on the fines. So that is subcommittee see the chair of that is judge Treadwell. So I wonder if we should maybe ask judge Treadwell to perhaps come in and weigh in on the fine so we can try to figure out something that satisfactory going forward. Because yeah, it's really interesting that the fines are holding this up because, like pepper said the fun they're not being imposed that often. My bigger issue is that restitution money should be coming before somebody has to pay fines, frankly. But there is, I mean, and I guess, but there is a need to have some consistency in the fines because they are all over the place. And it's because that I guess, and I've seen how you know perhaps we're doing the same thing now as well, because in the last six years I've seen some, I've had some opportunities to to figure out what the fine would be and it's just kind of picking things out of the air although, although I think recently we do kind of look at other crimes that are comparable and try to mirror what the other crimes are. That's kind of what this is attempting to do, at least I don't mean to defend precisely the numbers that we have here but that the reason for this is that the fines for again similar behavior, we are matching up perhaps what the incarceration should be, and should we perhaps be matching up with the potential fine is, but the potential potential fine has. Well, there's a lot of things one looks at for determining exactly what the incarceration should be such as past history and other things but, but there's certainly need to look for setting a fine the court looks to what the individual can, you know what their financial situation is are they going to be able to pay the fine like pepper said so. Yeah, I'm rambling on I'm trying I'm not just exactly sure the best way forward on that one issue. Last year I think we largely punted because we were going to be revisiting when we got a new recommendation. And maybe that's not the best way but we'll have to chat about that further and maybe get some input from Treadwell. And I know we don't have that much time but I'm hoping we can at least get a few more minutes with with Robin for her to kind of briefly the documents that she emailed and if Evan can actually email the documents forward it to the house judiciary to the whole committee. I think that would probably be helpful. But, Evan are you able to kind of to put the kind of run through I think there was where there are three or four. There's three documents, if I'm recalling right. And if we could. You can just pick whichever one you want let's well let's start with the toughest one first let's start with restitution because I have probably the most questions on the restitution one. And actually, you probably have seen some of my questions I emailed you some of the questions before. Yes, so for the record Robin joy from crime research group. So, let me just give you a unique. Let me give everyone a background of where these data come from. I get an extract from the courts every month of cases that have been filed and cases that have been disposed. And so when you ask me about sentences and things that happen after the filing this comes from a file of things that are disposed. And when a case is disposed. I'll get the sentencing information the fine information. A bunch of other information including perhaps on whether restitution was it was ordered and I say perhaps because as I was trying to look at your questions and if we look at the restitution for property crimes so just without boring you with a lot of computer stuff. This field is a free text field. So courts clerks right in 499 to jiffy lube and restitution. It's not a very easily searchable field except for when they write none. So that's why you're getting those with no restitution because there was a clear capital N capital O none. That said, I think so these data show that restitution is not being ordered in a lot of property crime cases. And so this since you have been talking about it we you know I kind of looks into the data that I get and it may be because the way the statute is written. I'll defer to pepper or the judiciary or anyone other than me really the way the statute is written. It says that if defense and prosecution don't agree on the amount of restitution then it will be set for a hearing after sentencing and I don't get that hearing after sentencing. So I may not be the most accurate place to get the information that when I go through the free text field and some of them. So just because I have this data at my fingertips. I was looking up that timber the timber crime and there were eight charges filed in the last five years of that timber violation and none of them had restitution except that one said. SA to file in 30 days. So that would mean that the state's attorney would file something for a hearing in 30 days for restitution. And so I am not getting that restitution value, I think is what's an accurate statement. So so this this document is just showing from the initial order disposing of a case. Whether the whether that indicates there's restitution because because I was startled by the. I mean it makes it look like there's hardly any restitution which kind of was kind of counter to what we heard from Chris Bennell and Tuesday where they have 80 80 some hundred you know 8000 going cases of restitution and these numbers just didn't add up but now it started. And there's also when we looked at the restitution in the past and a different study we found that the most the most expensive crime was actually arson and DUI with with property damage. Right. Yeah, I guess I guess that what my concern was was not so much how it impacts each 87 frankly because you know restitution is somewhat similar but it's certainly something that's come up that representative ghost land and others are concerned as a my but to really understand the extent of restitution we did get some testimony from Chris Bennell and perhaps we should on the issue of restitution at some point really hear from some person or some judges to really understand because we want to make sure that restitution is being ordered and we just need to understand it more I just don't think it's makes a difference really with each 87 frankly. So I wonder if we could go to the other one of the other documents Evan. And if you could explain what we're seeing. Are you are you seeing what we're putting on the screen or need to explain which one you only get to you. Yeah you only get to hear my voice or I get to see you I can't do both. Okay. All right that one's fine let's see what that one is. And then I'll explain which one we're looking at. This one's called the crime property crime diversion. Sure. So this is an answer to the question of how many property crimes are being revered are being referred to diversion. And so what I did is I looked at how many dockets with an offense of these property crimes were referred to diversion during these years so I write on the line how to you know under the explanation how to read this chart. And so for bad checks in 2015 14 unique dockets that had a bad check charge were referred to diversion. So of course a docket can have many charges. It can have many charges of the same so I could be charged with five bad checks in which case I would be five of those 14 people here oh no sorry I would be one of those 14 people. I think we can do could you go to the top of that document Evan. I think that's the one that yeah oh wait I'm looking for bad checks. That check should be the first one under we're doing diversion right yeah there it is. Okay yeah we're looking at that. Okay, so yep in 2014 sorry in 2015 14 dockets with bad checks went to diversion so you can kind of say those are 14 people. That said one of those people may also be in the embezzlement right or in a credit card fraud. So a case can have many charges. I was just trying to get a sense of how many dockets were going to diversion. And so this will tell you that you know this is how many dockets, not a lot until you get down to retail theft, in which case you'll see there's about, you know, 200 dockets a year. Going to retail going to diversion. But this was a question that came up a few weeks ago. Okay. All right, so any questions for Robin on this particular document and it just kind of give you some background so folks can take a look at it at their leisure after Evan sends it out to us. Why don't we go to the last one and have an explanation of that one. And that one is the property values document. Yeah, so this is actually a spreadsheet with a few tabs. These data come from a different source they come from the national incident based reporting system. And so that's the police data, some of it, and what this is a way to kind of really get at the specifics of crimes and how they happen. So I gave this was to get at the question of how many how many charges were falling in between the 1000 to 3000 range. Right. So the way that your statutes are written, we just know whether it's over 900 or less than 900. We don't know the exact dollar amount. We look to the neighbors data to help us understand what the values may be. And so this is the one that did not translate very well at all to to PDF. But the way that police data look at the property and the way that prosecutors would charge it has to do with pieces of property, not necessarily offenses. So in one of these charts that I have at the bottom how to read that the how to read it. And it's so you would say that there were 3000 37,925 pieces of property involved in shoplifting that were valued up to $1000. So that could be me stealing 3000 30,000 or so stickers bars, right? Each time I steal a Snickers bar, I'm going to show up here once for every Snickers bar I steal. And I just want to make sure that people understand that one. Yep. Okay, good. So the first on this spreadsheet, you know, gives you the name and then shows you how many pieces of property were involved that were up to up to $1000 1000 2000, etc. All the way up to the amount that the police recorded. And so it was quite a lot of offense by property value. And then I just gave you a total number of pieces of property and value regardless of the crime. So you could just see. So there were 216,776 pieces of property valued at less than $1000. For these crimes that I looked at in 2015 to 2019. These were only crimes that we classified as property and the same, you know, group of crimes that you saw. I just was showing you a little different way to look at it. And then the last one property type yep. I see that. Yep. This is the second that was the second. Document there. Okay. Yep. And the last document on this one would start with aircraft at the top and it'll tell you whether it was recovered stolen. And I don't know what aircraft you can steal for under 1000 but somebody did it. I've been thinking about the little, I don't know if maybe that's how they would classify the, you know, the little plans that the kids play with, you know, obviously not a kid person there. I don't know what the name of those things are. So these are all the types of and I did this also just to show you the types of equipment that or the types of property that we have space for in the data system to to to store. So you'll see, you know, there were crops and how many were burned or destroyed or vandalized how many were recovered or how many reported stolen. And it gets down to all sorts of types of equipment. So you can see the value of property as it relates to the type that it was and the type of damage it may have sustained. So whether it's just damaged or stolen or seized or recovered and goes all the way down. Yep. So again, most of what what happens here is under 1000 dollars according to the police data. When you look at the first one again, the, the where I list the types of crimes all other larceny, you'll see, you know, how much would jump between, you know, and that things is about 3000 then things start to slow down a bit 4000 depending on the crime. And then less and less is of the more expensive. So, so let me so just in, I'm looking at the first page of this or the first spreadsheet on this document. And I guess I really can't tell I initially had looked at it's all right well larceny, all other larceny I'm just looking at the top one says 68,138 items are under 1000 dollars. 3107 are are between 1000 2000 1348 between two and 3000. So, but if, if the particular crime only involved one of those items in 1000 to 3000 dollar range. You know, and that would, let's just make that assumption that would be around 5500 there abouts. That would be 5500. Again, if each of those items were associated with, you know, just one item for each offense that could be 5500 offenses that would have been potentially chargeable as a as a misdemeanor under this 87 but we're chargeable as a felony under current law is my understanding. We can quite do it that way because we don't know how many items are associated with a particular offense which could be pushing it over 3000 or it could be pushing the mini the, you know, the 68,138 items valued at under 1000. Few of those to push them over the $900 rate, but under the 3000 that those are additional offenses that could be a misdemeanor under this bill, which would otherwise be a felony. But it really doesn't, we can't really exactly tell the impact, as far as the number of offenses that would be charged right now as a felony. I mean, you know, we could get you an average of the incidents. And I think I did that at one point, but that's just historical. It doesn't predict, you know, future performances that this is how. And if you think, for example, of things that have a skyrocketed in price during COVID. Those those that skyrocketing of price and inflation isn't actually isn't factored into these data. Right. Gotcha. Yeah, no, yeah, another complication of this as well. All right, but it kind of just gives a little bit of an of a look that it doesn't give us necessarily the definitive answer as far as what impact is this really going to ultimately have. Were there other questions for Robin. And I did go over the website. Yeah, I did. Yeah, over the I think I think actually we probably are going to have to postpone that. I'm going to go off the shared document because I think that we still have a couple of things that we need to do before 345 so we don't have a whole lot of time I believe I don't see Maxine because I'm, I'm still there's yeah there you are. I guess the one other question before you go is if you if you if you could tell us what the going rate was that you identify. I'll send that to both you and Evan. Yes, you said that's one though that's my if you could tell us what that is because that should. Yeah, I'll tell you what it is. Let me just get it up. All right, so for counterfeit counterfeiting. I had from this is again the court data, and this is from 2015 through 2019. We had 10 charges that were deferred with an average of deferred for 3.8 years. Two charges that led to a sentence of incarceration with a max of 1.5 years and an average fine of $100 one charge that was sentenced to probation for about nine months. I'm sorry counterfeiting passing a good passing or you know passing trying to pass off the bill one charge was sent it was deferred for 3.5 years with no fine and two charges were sent into incarceration for about 30 to 90 days with no fine so that was counterfeiting for our embezzlement. We had a lot. So I gave you on this the chart the the statute number. And the average sentence it looks like for those who are sentenced to incarceration is generally about a year. The average sentence to split sentences are a high of four years, but there were three charges sentenced to four years. And for days to serve on a split right so the split sentences partially probationary and partially inside in the embezzlement official capacity the split sentence there there were four charges with an average of 400 days to serve. There were only two categories that had fines and the fine in one in five cases averaged out to be $210 and in another case was actually $100 that was the only punishment imposed for embezzlement of more than $100 and the crime was 100 the fine was $100 for one charge. And to the representative who was asking about the fine structure. The first time I was here this session. We submitted a document called the act 61 reclassification committee and this was the vacuum before the sentencing commission that pepper referred to. And in that report. The states that we looked at and some of the rationale and if I recall correctly, the $1 million cap was there because it already existed in state law. And there was an idea of how do you punish corporations who commit crimes and we're sentencing them to jail is probably not what you want to do and you want to get the rest, you know, to get the defines instead. But there is a there is on pages three and four of that an explanation of what states we looked at and how those find the original fine structures which are no longer in existence. We're, we're, how we started that. Okay. I appreciate that. Yep. Certainly let you know if there's more questions and thank you for sitting in on the on the conversation this afternoon and Evan if you could actually post those to the web that would be helpful as well so any other questions before Robin gets to head to green or white or pastures. I'm going to watch the Mars landing man that's what I'm doing. Oh well there you go. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Cool. Oh boy. All right. Well, that's a lot. Yeah, yeah, I'm going to have to ponder and maybe talk to some folks here as far as how to proceed or, you know, I'm not sure. Yeah, I've been concerned about the fines issue is probably the biggest one but I also want to keep this thing moving but figure something out. Yeah, so because we're going to do scheduling soon if you could, yeah, think about what more testimony you need. So we could set it up for, you know, this coming week and then. Yeah, I don't really see this moving at a committee until after time meeting, you know, yeah, yeah, yeah, if then I mean, I don't want to rush this either and as we've gotten more deeper into it. It seems like we've taken a deeper dive that we really had the opportunity to last year. I'm glad I'm glad I'm glad at that because you know, some of these issues are coming out that we really didn't see last year. I mean, we saw that we saw the fine issue certainly but anyway, yeah, so I will ponder and make a proposal as far as how to proceed with this one. Okay. All right. Okay, Barbara so I just let's just keep going since we only have a Tom's hand is up sorry. Yeah, just doesn't even need an answer Martin but I can't, I can't find my way out of the woods for what we were talking about earlier with the, you know, the restitution, as far as, say, timber was taken. And I didn't, I didn't know what a procedure would be. I mean when you go when there's a logging operation. There's parts of the woods that are just devastated you know when you're running dozers and and things like skitters back and forth and you know, you know the tops of the trees just laying there now and that type of thing and talking about restitution and kind of what was on my mind then was just reimbursement for the for the lumber, but there would be potentially thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars worth of damage to the to the woods themselves that and I didn't know how that would be handled in a court. So, so I think, I think the restitution issue is important, but it's not. I don't think the only the only extent to which it's critical or important to age 87 at least is the higher the fines are that are actually being imposed, the less capacity for the defendant to be able to pay for restitution No, I realize that. Right. And so that's I think really the only connection with age 87 because it's not about restitution. And we don't have anything about restitution in this in this bill. That's that's in a separate provision that covers restitution and I think it's one that we need to keep on exploring the reason why I'm glad it kind of came up and we saw that information from Rob and Joy that really concerned me because I've always been under the understanding that restitution is one of the primary penalties that our boards are really imposing this it's not even really a penalty. Oh, you need to make the situation whole. And that's, I think, you know, the best that that's kind of what we're trying to do with restorative justice as well as restitution, not just monetarily but just generally I'm not going to get right. Yeah, with you do with the age 87. But if we need to look at how are they valuing resource damage. I'm that's certainly something I'm all for looking into but I think that's a separate somewhat of a separate matter. Right. And I think with expungement is going to be put for some people be an incentive to get their restitution done so they can. But I'll get all kinds of tie a lot of it ties together but yeah all right thank you. Okay, great. So, um, so once again thank you Barbara and thank you Evan for helping to reformat the letter. Does everybody have it has been sent out again or posted I'm not sure where. I don't know if people got it yet. So what Barbara did before you did incorporate. Yeah, thank you Selena incorporated the sort of the mission of that statement and then are the guiding principles and then Martin's language substituted Martin's language. Did it make its way around I'm not seeing it. Is it in our documents. I sent it I emailed it like 332 I received it. Okay. Well that's good. I didn't but that's all right. Oh yeah okay I just got it. During that Wi-Fi. I mean that connectivity. So, you know, I think in the past what we've done is we've, we've done either, you know, show up hands or voice vote. You know it's not a, it's not a bill that we do a roll call or anything like that. But certainly would like to have the committee support on, you know, other recommendations that that we then submit to the appropriations committee. The deadline is what tomorrow right. Right. Yeah, and I when I was at appropriations this afternoon. Chris Venno testified and talked a lot about the structural issues and said that they asked her if she had a proposal. And she said she did that she was going to propose that a study committee be formed like was done before but it was before I was on judiciary. That came up with the last structure, and it had legislators from House and Senate basically the money and the judiciary committees, and then the executive director of crime victim services. Because she was talking about issues with sustainability and just some of the nuances of what their format is. So, Mary Hooper said did you present it to your committee of jurisdiction yet judiciary, and she said she had not. And Mary asked if she was going to and she said she was going to. And then they said, Oh, and I guess, since Barbara's here, she will note that you're presenting it. I doubt we'll get it by tomorrow but I didn't know we sort of reference it anyway. Yeah. So I was a study committee on the structure for the office of the Center for Victim Services. Yeah, I guess you need to think about whether or not we want to study this and if it's even us to study as opposed to government operations and right. I mean I think it's. Yeah, it goes back to the fees and paying for programs with fees so I, but yeah and and them being considered a state she went through what is required of them as a state agency but what they don't get, because they're not really state agency. Yeah, yeah, and again that does seem like I did wonder at government ops but I had already asked enough questions so I didn't ask. I think it's a, I think it's a longer range bigger conversation it's a very important conversation but. Anyway, I just felt the need to report. Thank you. So, um, so we've had a long afternoon I don't folks were where are folks at in terms of having read the letter if they feel like they're comfortable weighing in yet. They're not to do it. You know right after the floor or something or if. Okay I see Martin some thumbs up. I'm just trying to kind of take the pulse of where folks are at. Okay, Kate, I haven't read it. I read the first draft and then different to scant scant this draft quickly and all the content of it looks good there. I there's probably some small, like just, you know, grammatical like little minor edits that I would recommend if there's time and my could. Yeah, be happy to just take a look at it through that. Or though will is the professional editor. We should make him do it. I agree. Make will do it. Right so then why don't we. So after the so tomorrow morning after the floor we're doing 145. Before we do that, why don't we just quickly check in and see how folks are. We're doing with it. I mean we can get it read tonight right. Yeah, yeah so if you can read it tonight. And then again tomorrow morning just ask for a, I'll ask for a show of hands or. So whatever. But. Good work Barbara. Well, and I appreciate everybody's thoughts and comments that was very helpful. Super good work. I really appreciate all the other issues that you raised and just your thoroughness and really looking to all the stuff that really used to what we've been working on. Thanks. I made one comment Barbara something about going out of our lane or something and because it was a topic that isn't specifically ours but, and I think Selena just kind of touched on it words. It's kind of nice to go out of your lane a little bit just to see how things tie together. Right we don't want anyone crashing into our lane you know. Well. Okay. All right, so let's adjourn. Please.