 Okay, thank you, so everybody we're back on on each 9.23 For the record representative Heshim talking about 9.23 and so this is a issue that I've known about for a very long time and the thing that prompted me to Asked how this drafted was a recent Significant uptake in car breakings in Brownboro and some of the surrounding towns So basically under current law a person can enter another person's vehicle without their consent And so long as they don't break anything or steal anything That other person can be in that vehicle So for example, I can walk outside my driveway one morning and see somebody inside my truck if I leave it unlocked And they can either be taking a nap or rummaging through my things and that's not a crime and in my opinion People expect some degree of privacy for the interior of their vehicles I think that if if police are required to either get warrants or consent to enter somebody's vehicle I think we also need to create some standards for private citizens if they're going to enter somebody else's vehicle And I just want to be clear that you know, this isn't Some you know law and order type of thing that I'm trying to go for here. It's It's with the understanding that these car breakings are most likely paralleled to the opioid crisis and It's not as if every time a person gets arrested or charged with a crime They're just thrown into a dungeon and you know Left alone. Yeah, we have a lot of resources. I believe we have a lot of resources in our courts that allow people to get back on But when police find somebody rummaging around in somebody's car, there's nothing that they can do about it And that person is just free to go Then you're just You're just letting the car breakings continue further and so it so I I'm just trying to give some more resources for law enforcement to To assist and help these people who are breaking into other people's cars and I think that When we think about harm reduction, it's going to be difficult to Pursuade the public to support harm reduction policies when they don't feel as if their own property is even protected so That is oh and regarding the the penalty for the crime the As it stands the the smallest or the least punitive measure in this bill is In prison if you're not more than one year for a fine not more than $500 and that's for a building other than a residence So like a business for example Since cars the interior cars are not equivalent to a house or a building of any sort I suggested a penalty of not more than six months and a fine of $250 and that's First one that you Sit in the bill the first one do you mean the current law or Are you in terms of the penalty What you said first was the most $1,000 or the least punitive measure is yes in section I'm sorry line 16 So that's current law. Yes. Yes, so not building other than a residence and And For the record Michelle child's Office of Legislative Council and You should have a copy of already done The Amendment there which I had to do because it was a short form But I wanted to show you a little bit of the context of the existing Statute because I didn't reproduce all of it. I didn't include in the bill because we weren't amending it subsection a but As Nara mentioned, it's so there's basically it's structured so that there's kind of a Graduated increase in penalties depending on what property the person is is accused of trespassing On and so you see subsection a Is a three-month misdemeanor And you'll see if a person without legal authority or consent of the person in lawful possession Enteres or remains on any land or in any place As to which notice against trespass is given and so that's the key on this one that My is that you can look at and there's some case law that says that when it's where it refers to any place that that does include a vehicle But the kicker there is that you have to have given the person notice that they don't have that they're not able to be there So the case had to do with Someone there was a domestic situation going on Woman tells ex to get out of her car a number of times fight ensued He wasn't getting out of the cars the court found that the vehicle did Fit within subsection a inch and by her saying, you know several times Please get out of my car. He's got my car that she had given him notice But in the circumstances that you're talking about you just have cars parked in someone's driveway or out on the green or whatever And they may be unlocked There's no, you know, there's no way that that can work to get at your issue because there's no notice to the person and so So if it's locked Doesn't that mean isn't that some form of notice if you know versus unlocked You could go there if you want like and as you guys all start to discuss and listen to witnesses because and you know Things like that how you want to do that if we look at if you look at some of these other ones here It talks about locked versus unlocked and whether it's knowing like to because you want to make sure You know, you cuz basically we're gonna set forth a criminal provision You want to make sure that people understand what is prohibited conduct? And so you can you can go that route I just from a starting point started here and tried to fit it in is that subsection a would be basically You have to provide the person with some kind of Notice if you look at subsection C That's the person who enters a building other than a residence whose access is normally locked Whether or not it's locked when that person enters it or a residence in violation of a court order And that's a one-year misdemeanor Then you go down to D and it's a person who enters a dwelling whether or not the person a person is actually present and The person enters knowing that he or she is not licensed or privileged to do so So there's a different kind of standard So what I used for here again just kind of to get things trying to think about what would be the most straightforward And to get the discussion going was as I use the standard up in a which is the person enters without legal authority Or the consent of the person because I was trying to think about if you're going into a vehicle You know, and I'm sure people can probably give seniors like I started to think well where might people get confused Well, what about like the dog in a car on a 90 degree day, you know and somebody opens the car You know like and I'm sure the witnesses can probably give you know Scenarios where we might want to think about how that works or doesn't work But that but that's without legal authority or the consent of the person and then see is I just raise it, but I think I didn't mean y'all pass something that says you can actually break into a car Yeah, I think you might have I was just I'm just saying there may be as with all of these things You know we kind of come up with something and then people say well, what about this and what about that? And that's the process doesn't we want to do is make sure you don't have any unintended consequences I was just saying that with this you want to think about what's going to fit within and outside This the standard of without legal authority or the consent of the person because you don't want to put I Think for your purposes, you don't want to put so much onus on the on the owner of the car to be saying You know because you're saying there's an expectation that if I that people aren't going to be rummaging through my car Unless I give them permission You know to rummage through my car and so I'm trying to think about how do you you know? What's the best standard and trying to use one of the ones we already have? So I feel like there was some sort of exception where regarding residences Where if somebody is lost in the woods, they stumble upon a cabin and they need shelter in order to survive They can take refuge in that cabin for the night or whatever Whatever storm would that And I'm not sure where I remember reading that but would that also apply could that also apply to cars in the event You know the same scenario but instead of a cabin You know, I don't know so some of the some of the either the state's attorneys or the Defender General's office that had me have more familiarity in practice with the with how the current statute works might be able to Let you know that I went through and I just skimmed through all the case notes for For unlawful trespass and I didn't see anything that like that But it doesn't mean it's not out there just wasn't in the case in the notes for the for the statute So, you know, I can it can look at that But I think maybe some of the practitioners might be able to talk to you a little bit more about the ways that they see The statute currently used and where there might be some exceptions and where you might want to create some exceptions in This new subsection C And so just D is the is the residence and that's a three-year felony so this was putting this at the at the one year miss or do one year six months six months is in between the Subsection a and then the entering a non residents without Section a is the the kind of just general one So that's the one where you think about where somebody, you know, like if Let's say you have a somebody who goes to a business and is constantly rowdy at that business or plunks themselves down in the corner And that stays there all day long drinking their Water when they need the table and they're on their computer and they say well, you can only stay at this table for two You know and they say We don't we don't want you to to squat here We don't want you to be hanging out here all day long right and we are providing you with you If you won't leave when we ask you to leave we're providing you with notice of trespass if you come back We've already told you we don't want to hear But if they provide you with a notice of trespass and then you come then that's a violation of this And so this is the low-level, you know unlawful trespass and you know It's mostly used in the context of when you're thinking about You know land or buildings or things like because we have an open lands Policy so, you know lands may not be posted or against trespass They things like that So somebody may not know and and knowing that you're trespassing and being giving given notice in some way Is an important element of this crime? So that last example, I know I'm thinking of the homeless Bill of Rights and some of the concerns related to People discriminating against homeless people by a cup of coffee and or sitting down for a while or whatever Just I mean, so this is already law I realized but it just it seems like there could be Weird ways that people in Choose to do it, you know, I mean like what if somebody decided that They were not going to let any Asians in the restaurant that'd be a violation of the public accommodations Right, but something might just yeah, I'm just wondering how Overused that Again, probably the witnesses, but you know, can I let you know where they see it how often they see it, you know we could certainly ask for data on Number of charges or convictions under under this provision if you're interested. Oh, I didn't oh, I didn't show you the bill So this is just adding this new language as we already talked about so using the standard in subsection a so without legal authority or Consent of the person in lawful possession of the vehicle Then it's a Thanks, good afternoon. I'm Mike Fitzgerald. He brought a bro police chief It's my first time ever testifying in front of a body so if I go off into the woods, please feel free to Slap me back and I'll get back on on track basically what I wanted to bring to the committee was what I've been hearing from the citizens and what I have been hearing and feeling the frustrations from the officers in the police department we have had a dramatic increase of Vehicle break-ins in the last three months compared to the previous year 225% increase and same time period and That brought to light some serious challenges when we went to look to find out Okay, what what is going on here? And what what can we do and I? believe that number is much much higher because a lot of vehicles were gone through that they didn't call the police department simply because You know, it was just a couple cents or as cheap sunglasses, whatever the reasons I've heard many of them But after this came to light that it was a groundswell of people saying yes, my vehicle was rummaged through and I Didn't report it. So I believe that 225 is a very very conservative number in the increases We the the citizens were extremely frustrated when we would respond and If there was if the vehicle was locked and there was damage and they went into the vehicle then we had the tools that we could Utilize in that if the vehicle was unlocked and they stole something. We had the tools in place To deal with that what we didn't have in place were the tools if they went in the vehicle rummaged through the vehicle did no damage and took nothing but then left and it was even a case where People were hanging out. They were like napping like you were saying in the vehicles and The the homeowners were extremely frustrated with law enforcement when we pretty much told them that Look at police call us when they come up here. We can talk to them. We can ID him But other than that there's there's we can't arrest them for this offense because there is no offense and and they were They didn't feel safe. They were fearful They were frustrated. They felt abandoned by the community by by the government by the law enforcement and As in many Vermont communities a lot of the individuals also snowplowed and Their significant others would stay up at night While they went out in snowplowed in the wee hours of the morning before they would go to work We'd get a snowstorm. They'd get up at two or three They were so afraid of people being on their property and in their Vehicles and are they coming in the garage? Are they gonna come in the house? That they literally would stay up and The other individual as they snowplowed would constantly go by the house to make sure everything was okay And that was I heard that more than once by numerous people that it was extremely nerve-wracking There were certain things that they could do that we told them were options According to 3705 You could post your property As no trespass That is notice if it's posted it's clearly visible that is considered notice Some of them did do that Some of them also put in at great expense some really good video cameras Some really good lights The problem with that is now certain neighborhoods To be quite honest look more like a penitentiary than a neighborhood that you would want To move your family to no trespass signs posted all over garages front porches You walk down the sidewalk four or five floodlights would go on and It's really detracting Especially if you were going to put your house on the market or if if you wanted to move To that community you you would might think second twice about it, but those were the options Get some cameras light the area up and post your property at this point It was absolutely incredible that a citizen brought me a video Of an individual that walked up her driveway looked in the car The glass was too dark for that individual to look into went over to the floodlight Waved his arms so the light could come on and then go back and look in the vehicle I mean, that's how brazen some of these individuals are getting so needless to say they were there were some there were some frustrations as Police officers It was talked about earlier I will always assume there was an expectation of privacy in someone's vehicle because we needed a warrant to go in there and Maybe wrongfully so but I just assumed that extended to every citizen that an individual in their vehicle had an expectation of privacy in that vehicle um It it was just common sense and unfortunately that that wasn't the case Our officers where we're at We look at Community issues Maybe a little bit differently than your traditional law enforcement officers down in Brattleboro our mission statement Says in part that when we're dealing with the public we will conduct ourselves Accordingly and know the difference between those who need our help those who made a poor decision and those who choose to victimize others and Every time we go out on a call that is exactly how the officers are expected to adjust Conduct themselves ask them this one question is this individual a person that needs our help Is this an individual that made a poor decision or is this an individual that chooses to victimize others? The goal That we try to do is When we're talking the quality of life issues and let's be honest. That's what we do mostly There's there's this misconception out there that We do a lot of criminal cases It's not not so much the case We do more quality of life issues than we do Criminal cases throughout our day if you had to look at the 10-hour shift of an officer I would I would be very surprised if less than 70% was not quality of life issues and 30% was dealing with criminal issues so With that in mind. Yes, sir. How was that? How long have you been a police officer 20 years or 20? Yes. Yeah this was 70 30 with Life issues how much has that changed since you started? The flip flop pretty close there. Well, I would say the what what has changed mostly is is the attitude Towards it when I first started if it was not a crime We pretty much didn't address it like if it was a mental health issue If it was something like this, we wouldn't pursue it. We'd be like there's no crime here And then we would just move on so now I think the law enforcement, thank God has evolved in in the past several years to be more of Frontline dealing with quality of life issues because we we're we're the first contact with a lot of these individuals And if we have the tools at our trade where we can get them in the system and get the help that they need Ultimately the goal is to fix. Why are you in that car at 2 o'clock in the morning? Not giving you a citation because you're in that car at 2 o'clock in the morning So and unfortunately too many times people have equated law enforcement involvement with incarceration Carcerations a way but not the way there is a lot of options within our judicial system that we can get people in there You have restorative justice you have diversion and and you can reach out to all these different services to Hook this individual up with and hopefully They can get whatever help they need whether that be mental health substance misuse homelessness You know the list is very long That's where I think and I apologize for the long answer, but I think no, that's great That's where the law enforcement that I have seen has changed greatly Since I've been on I Personally have seen that work Within our own department. We started off with the within the opiate crisis Um Ravaged Brattaburl we're right there off of 91 and the three states it literally ravished and still is we started what we called a a Program called project care and Basically what we did is in line with our mission statement finding people that need our help we would go up and Like if someone Odead We go back to that residence within 24 hours and talk to everybody that's in their residence Even not just the person that just OD that everybody that was associated with them Let them know about the different Services that are available and just keep on contact with that People that we have arrested Two three times a week for substance misuse Now work for the police department in project care because they have gone through Recovery they have gone through turning point. They're still in recovery And they are on our team Yes, sir any similarities to I'm not familiar with that. I have heard of it, but I'm I'm really not Yeah So we the biggest thing is accountability. I mean and this is not a You know, we're totally turning a blind eye to people's actions Nothing could be further from the truth. The point is there's different ways people can be held accountable And it doesn't have to be in a cage and that's that's what I promote that there's different ways that you could hold people accountable So the it does work I have seen it work with my own eyes with people that we have reached out and made them held accountable for their actions, but have turned around and Been very very successful members of our community as a matter. They work with us when we go to these homes These individuals don't want to talk to me But if there's a person there that they know I don't know the trials and tribulations that These individuals go through and I'm not even going to pretend that I know I'm not going to read an article and regurgitate it back to somebody who is experiencing These these these demons But an individual who has walked that road Can talk to them and when they get ready. We're there to introduce them in there. I Did go off into the woods again. I apologize from from going into cars to heroin, but it is It is parallel and sometimes they intertwine each other where why is that individual in that vehicle and I truly hope that You would support this bill because I think it would be a disservice to both the homeowners Who have that expectation of privacy and to the individuals who? Need our help and we can get them in the system. Thank you Here So office is very much opposed to this bill I think that this bill is going to Criminalize way more people that you don't intend to criminalize then it is going to address the problems that you are attending Attempting to address this has no mens re or requirement in it That means there's no requirement that somebody be intending to do any harm when they go into a car in order for them to Be criminalized for so for example just the other day I want to say It was last week sometime One of the people in my office called who whose office overlooks the parking lot Called over to me who my office doesn't overlook the parking lot to tell me that somebody was in my car And I went over and I looked out the window and sure enough there was somebody who was sitting in my car And they had the door open and I went down to grab my shit and that's my stuff and ran I Apologize it's been a long time Before I grabbed my stuff I ran downstairs and it was somebody who works in another building right next to ours who was actually meant to get into her car Which wasn't exactly like my car, but very similar both compact white SUVs Two cars over with a big van in between them. I before I drove this car I Drove a Honda element and before that I drove a forest green Subaru outback station wagon Which had to have been the most popular car in Vermont at least at the time and on at least three occasions I got into the wrong car choice It was the same wrong car from somebody who had a similar car that parked it where I dropped my kids off for summer camp Day camp and then one time it was actually right here on the street in Montpelier And that time I actually got in and they just like me leave their keys in the ignition I started the car and it was only when the radio came on and it wasn't my station that I realized that it wasn't my car And so I took a quick poll of the people in our office and with the exception of one Secretary every single person in my office said that they had at some point or another Got in the wrong car on accident and in fact it prompted one story which was actually I Had heard but I'd totally forgotten about until somebody reminded me of it Which is one of our attorneys in our office who'd been there for a long time actually accidentally stole somebody's car for It was she was in her first week at the office and it was her first time Doing work outside of the office and she had to go get a fleet car And somebody explained to her. Yeah, he just go over to the food parking lot and there will be a Toyota Prius That's there for you and she went and she found a Toyota Prius That was unlocked and had the push button start and she started it and drove up to Waterbury And it was only when she was pulling out of Waterbury and a cop stopped her to tell her that the car She was driving had then reported stolen that she discovered that she had gotten in the wrong Toyota Prius And it was somebody who had left their key Fob, I guess they don't have a real key in the Priuses But a key fob in the Prius and the thing started up and she drove away with it So it really is something that happens accidentally all the time Nothing they just you know, and and I think that that is you know, obviously this is that's not the type of conduct that this is Intended to criminalize but I think that when we criminalize a wide swath of conduct some of which we intend to criminalize some of which We don't We just end up in a situation where it becomes complete police or prosecutor discretion as to who gets charged and who doesn't and yes In 90% of the cases police and prosecutors exercise their discretion appropriately They charge people appropriately and they don't charge people when there's not a good reason to charge people But there's a significant number of cases where that doesn't work out or where people see things differently Where somebody says no, this was an accident and another person is saying no, we don't see this as being an accident I mean honestly if I had been picked up after the second time I accidentally got in the other guy's car at the Wreck Camp parking lot Somebody very well kind of looked and said nobody makes that mistake twice with the same car And come up with a good theory that I was actually intentionally getting in other people's cars Which I wasn't it was just early in the morning before I had my coffee and One green out that looks like another So my only point is that really this is actually a very very broad offense It criminalizes a lot of behavior that I don't think we mean to criminalize And it doesn't actually address all of the problems that the chief of police was talking about that are That are happening out there and honestly, you know the best Solution to this problem would be for people to lock the doors to their car Which you know I'm as guilty of anyone else is not of not locking the doors to my car But that would solve the problem that nobody can break into a locked car and have that not be a crime And for that matter nobody can break into a car and steal something even something trivial like Sunglasses and have that not be a crime Those really make it clear that you are doing something wrong if you if a door is locked and you keep persisting getting into the car then you clearly You clearly are a wrong doer and you clearly are in the category of people who don't we don't need a new law to criminalize Yes, though, I also would say that it's not necessary Having the intent language would render the whole bill unnecessary because if you put in language that says something like that You have an intent to steal something out of the car do something wrongful like that You've already proven all the elements of attempted larceny or attempted theft So because if you prove that someone has the intent to steal stuff and they actually take the step of breaking In a car into a car to do it that certainly gets you far far enough along the path of an attempt But they've already broken a lot and they've already broken a law that's more serious than this one Yeah, thank you. I was gonna ask a similar question to my scenes, but I mean What if it was the intent language was not intent to steal but you tend to Enter a vehicle that you Know not to be your own, right? I mean is there You sort of alluded to this earlier where you said It doesn't get at the problem you're trying to solve Well, and the reason I mentioned the problems we're trying to solve is because I think the the chief Mentioned a few points with it were really more about enforcement and identification rather than Criminality of what was involved You know when it comes to the question of a rash of car break-ins and the need for lights and cameras and whatnot That really has to do with identifying perpetrators not criminalizing something. That's not already criminal but When it comes to intent like what you're suggesting would be more like a knowledge provision that says if you enter a car with Knowledge that the car doesn't belong to you etc. Etc. I I mean, I think that would be fine. I think that would solve the problem We're not gonna support You know a new criminal penalty for something that we don't see as really being a major issue But at the same time I would it Certainly take it out of the realm of where we see it now Which is as something that is we like probably criminalizing a lot more conduct that you don't need to criminalize then that you do Certainly that would address that problem. I mean I think probably on any on any given day in the state of Vermont More people accidentally open up the wrong car door then purposefully open up the wrong car door That's just speculation but Given a Sounds like it Sure because there's no need for this I mean we're at a point right now We have the lowest property crime rate in the history of Vermont as long as we've been keeping statistics It is so I mean it's it's gone down precipitously to the point where You know just ten years ago by 20. I guess I didn't have 2010 Statistics so 2009 for whatever reason the chart I was using used odd number years so go 2009 2011 But so about ten years ago not quite ten years ago The violent guard the property crime rate in Vermont was double what it is now about ten years before that It was double what it was then when you go back to 1980 It was about five almost six times as high as it is today So we're already looking at what we have an extraordinarily low property crime rate. We have an extraordinarily Low rate of crime overall in general Both compared to other states and compared to Vermont historically and we just don't see there being a real need for a Provision that really is going to be used to target the most vulnerable people in Vermont I mean if we're talking about people who are Breaking into unlock cars and rummaging through them and not stealing anything I'm not exactly sure what puts you in a position where you're doing that kind of thing, but it can't be anything good Just not seeing the necessity for yet another criminal offense yet another criminal penalty I mean we have this history in Vermont of the crime rate decreasing and yet we Criminalize more things and more people wind up in jail, you know, and I appreciate what the chief says about there being a lot of non-incarcerative options for Dealing with people, but this is a statute that just provides an incarcerated option you know, it's We talk a lot about the non-incarcerative options that are available and yet we still pass statutes over and over again That only provide for incarceration as a remedy to our mind This isn't a problem that needs to be solved. Certainly not by putting people in cages Selena covered basically what I was going to ask to because One of my concerns was people unintentionally getting into other people's cars I mean I almost did it once and then my daughter even my daughter was like, I don't think this is your truck and so I Certainly don't want to criminalize the people who are just having an airhead moment But I mean I so if we were to introduce language The intentionality That introduces the intentionality element of it with that bring you from very opposed to just opposed. Yes I mean, you know because we're opposed for a couple reasons one is we don't support concept The other is the way that it's implemented here. We think criminalize is way too much stuff So yeah, that would move us from very opposed double opposed to single opposed. I suppose I just think that You know, I mean you're saying that it's not necessary and I do just respectfully disagree because you know, I when I think about my car think about the belongings that I have in there and the Expectation of privacy that I have for it I'm not okay with people Sure that would go a lot further towards making us supportive of it Again, I Well, no would give you know, that would certainly give people making it a civil violation would have to think about what that would do as far as giving the police a hook to Get in and go and deal with people. I mean it would certainly I have to take a look at that. But yeah, I mean, I think that would certainly alleviate a lot of our concerns And Probably but I mean I'll tell you like I you know, I'm always resistant to Criminalizing things as a way of providing services. I think the criminal justice system is a terrible way to provide social services So I think yes, you know, a civil violation is not going to make you eligible for Kind of court diversion programs But at the same time, you know, we shouldn't be criminalizing things just to get people into court diversion There's got to be a better way to provide social services and through the I mean It's something I always kind of bristle at because you know, I Wasn't social work before I went into law I don't want to it lawyers are terrible social workers judges are terrible social workers We do it because we're a lot of times the end of the line But you have social workers doing social work and Channeling people into social work and making connections and making referrals and doing that work not and it's a super expensive and inefficient way to do it, too I mean Bad social workers and we're expensive social workers. You would get no Disagreement from me on that argument. I think but what I think I've seen in Burlington Where people use a lot of? civil violations Intiqueting for Similar kinds of fences that might be related to similar root causes is that what happens is people accrue hundreds, I mean just fine after fine after fine and there is no way to There's not this option to then It is I mean we know the financial insolvency issue. We know that both incarceration and Financial penalties are really lousy ways to change people's behavior. They tend to not work Incarcerating people tends to make them behave more poorly than they did before they were incarcerated Giving people who can't afford fines fines Doesn't really do or accomplish anything doesn't seem to be good or bad as far as recidivism goes just seems to be a non Issue That said You know that's based mostly on national research and maybe in Vermont where we have where we do have more social services available than a lot of States maybe the results are different. I'll tell you that when it comes to this type of sort of You know what I would consider a quality of life offense the kind of stuff like you know What I lived in New York the kind of people who have turnstiles that they would pick up and the people you know the stuff That's like it is Undoubtedly not good that people are doing this stuff But does the criminal justice system actually have an adequate response to it? I? Would say that I don't think that our system has the tools to solve the problem that you're trying to solve here You can certainly criminalize this and that will Cause some people to come into the system. Will this solve any problem? Hypothetically remove the six Carceration, but leave the $250 fine and make it remain a criminal violation as an avenue that leads to more of the restorative justice programs that Sweeney's discussing Would that be slightly more palatable absolutely? I mean, you know from our perspective Incarceration is the So you know incarceration is so Blunt and inappropriate of a tool for this case that if you remove incarceration from it that really does remove a lot of our objections to it to complicate matters further, but they see where Representing is going with that that there might be more access to diversion to restorative justice to eliminating the Having the fine imposed all together right it if it remained a criminal violation But can you talk about the collateral? Consequences folks who don't get the restorative option of a misdemeanor and conviction versus a civil violation Even if they do get the restorative justice Alternative there is still a lot of collateral consequences that go along with it even a civil criminal conviction Has a lot of collateral consequences and you know honestly it's Even though there's been a lot of efforts to mitigate the collateral consequences of convictions It's almost like from our office's perspective, and this is purely anecdotal, but it's almost like we're seeing more and more I mean, I just spent a few hours on the phone earlier this morning dealing with a situation where it was I was talking to a Arm services recruiter about a former client of mine Who was trying to join I think the army I forgot but in any case the point being that They were able to look back and see expunged arrest records, and they were using those as a disqualification from for military service and I if you had asked me Before I talked to this guy do the kind of military recruiter get access to an expunged arrest record I would guess no And I was surprised to find out that they do and I we keep seeing more and more and more of that So yeah, absolutely It was a misdemeanor and it was a it didn't end in a conviction It was just an arrest and we'd gotten the record of the arrest expunged And yet it still wound up somewhere. I asked him where anyone told me where he got it from so I don't actually know And in fact, you know There's still I Was just the other day looking at this was a problem I thought was completely solved and it turned out it isn't On college applications. They still ask you whether you've ever been arrested for anything Even if it's been expunged or anything like that I was just working with another former client of mine on a college application that still to this day Asks if you had arrest as a juvenile and just asked about arrests not even convictions or anything like that Just your arrest Which there is if you ever run into that problem the way around it is you can it costs more But if you use the common application that one doesn't ask It's only the institutionally specific ones. Well, I'm just yeah Thank you, thank you Hey James Pepper department states turning some sheriffs So this bill when I heard about it and saw the sponsors I reached out to our Wyndham County State's attorney I wondering if she was the one that had requested this and she hadn't but she did absolutely agree with the testimony That we've heard today that there are a huge number of these break-ins and vehicles In her county and she certainly supported the proposal. I only had the short form I didn't so I didn't see the specific language at that point But you know, I think that there actually is an implied intent in this already of knowingly But we would have no issue with adding that explicitly kind of as drafted behind me I think already Defendants can raise the affirmative defense of mistake. So I don't think that anyone who mistakenly Entered a car would actually be criminally liable for doing that So I don't think that's a real concern with this bill And then with respect to Necessity I think is the affirmative defense of necessity is what you were talking about if it was incredibly cold outside and someone had To enter a car in order to stay warm overnight. That's another affirmative defense that already exists in Vermont law You could add it explicitly if you wanted to however, I don't it's already in there Yeah, it's already part of Vermont law so It's established a case law just the I don't think it's it's not It's just it's just a common law concept and there's a showing that has to be made by the defendant essentially that the risk of harm Outweighed the criminal act so I mean there's more to it than that, but that's essentially the concept We wouldn't have any objection to Decreasing the penalty. I think that there is kind of a range of Motivations for this type of crime and the fact that it is a lesser penalty is actually good for us. We think that it should be a Diversion presumptive crime presumptively diversion eligible crime So but then if there is kind of an escalation of the behavior if it's kind of a rash of these things or repeated behavior Then having some sort of graduated sanction, you know makes sense so, I mean whether you eliminate the The incarcerated penalty altogether or have it I mean disorderly conduct has a 60-day maximum You know It's it's good to keep this as a low-level misdemeanor either way is my point So other than that, you know, the state's attorneys are supportive of this ball Diversion eligible presumptively diversion eligible and it's in line with You know what I would consider similarly harmed crimes I'm awful mischief disorderly conduct and then I think the Justification when I talked to the lead sponsor of the machine it was, you know, the penalty that was chosen the bill is half of entering a house So, you know Kind of like on the scale of the intrusion or It seems to be in line with that and if you decrease the penalty even more We really wouldn't have much of an issue with that Would we It's actually might be a better question for Michelle, but would we need to make a provision in this to make it diversion presumptive so that The diversion statutes Already say that any Expungement eligible misdemeanor there should be a presumption that the state's attorney will refer to diversion So you wouldn't need to change anything. This would fall into that category already Today So it would just be to say that We have case law in Vermont that says that the Supreme Court won't read in an intent element a mens rea element Unless there's two things one is that it's a serious offense or two is that there's some indication that It was intended to be there but was left out in the cases where they've specifically not done it Our cases like this where there are multiple Sections to an offense and some have higher penalties and a mens rea and the other and the next one has a lower penalty And no mens rea then they presume that it is intended to be a specific intent crime or a I'm sorry a strict liability offense Not an intent-based crime so they wouldn't read an intent element into this and There's no mistake of fact doctrine that would apply because the in Vermont There are mistake of fact doctrines in other states that work differently But in Vermont mistake of fact only applies when it negates a intent element Which if there is none then there is no such thing as mistake of fact Kind of amazing because I mean originally I just look at it read it. Yeah, good idea that I was There there can be so much more to something that appears so simple Seasons to amaze me I'm totally fine with Getting rid of the incarceration part of it. I mean I I don't think somebody should go to jail for this my main Focus is getting people. You know there's two focuses one is getting people to a sort of justice or diversion and the other is the fact that many people in the public are Really outraged at the fact that their vehicles are considered public space if they forget to lock it or leave it unlocked And I'm happy to work to make language that would Protect the person who's having an airhead moment and tries getting in somebody else's car I mean I've done that and currently lots of other people have done that as well. And so I mean that that's not Who this bill is trying to go after so to speak Those are my thoughts Or do you have I mean I have between I have I think some of the amendments we talked about would be helpful for sure I Thanks feelings about making I've mixed feelings at best about making a new crime so Ponder that I mean I was sort of curious like are we an outlier and it seems like there were few states that have this weird loophole But I'm wondering back to Again if it's better to be a Civil penalty rather than a misdemeanor and if it's like I can't remember which bill we did where they need to make a referral to Diversion unless there's a reason not to Right we have it as a default on That's the presumptive diversion In the diversion statutes But diversions more Existed a version is actually more limited in civil Right, right, so that's the challenge I mean as there's that's our make it okay if I ask yeah, is there there's some precedence for Probably want to direct that to David share This runs the diversion programs. I mean, there's underage drinking Okay, underage tobacco marijuana Right into the bill Yeah, okay, I don't know if I said not you Keeps make it a felony so stuff right. Yeah That's where it started originally with adolescence, you know, yeah We're doing that back in the late 90s Check in with David has more conversations Sure I mean, I don't know if that's if you're if you're interested in if we made it a civil penalty And But look to her diversion pathway Question of whether not to version in any cases this might Resulting But it seems like there's enough interest to have another draft with some sort And so subcommittee or just to put you know to keep and then come back to it next week And where we are Great, thank you very much. Thank you for coming. Yeah So, all right. Thanks. So we will To the budget Thank you so much for the invitation to come testify I am Jessica Barquist with the Vermont Network against domestic and sexual violence And I'm going to talk to you about our appropriations request for this year So as you your committee well knows the Vermont Network serves every town in Vermont We have 15 member organizations together we serve every square inch of Vermont and in 2019 member programs helped 8,760 individuals and reached 12,000 youth through prevention programming in schools and other settings throughout our state This year we're requesting a $500,000 increase in state funding which would go to the Vermont Network and it's 15 member programs So 16 programs in total We currently receive an allocation through the Center for Crime Victim Services but this appropriation has not seen an increase since 2008 and As you know because we talk about it a lot in this committee over those past 12 years the landscape of our work has really changed dramatically The opioid crisis the ongoing issues with affordable housing have just made it really increasingly difficult for survivors to find safety and stability Emergency shelter stays for the past three years have increased from what used to be an average length of stay of a few weeks Or a few days now the average length of stay is 52 days in our shelters and As Vermont continues to innovate and invest in our criminal justice reform efforts Those efforts must also include investments in meeting the needs of our victims and survivors Our programs are both resourceful and tenacious and have managed to maintain quality care for survivors in need across the state But they are increasingly doing more with fewer resources Many programs have cut staff and are relying more and more on volunteers to provide critical services such as our 24-hour hotlines When asked about the the landscape the current landscape one of our executive director said You know, I know that I should be doing outreach in my community But I can't keep up with the people who find out about us and walk through our doors So there's no way for me to do more outreach into the community and We know that advocacy services work Survivors who work with advocates have lower risks of re-abuse and are more connected to community supports in 2019 98% of the survivors served by our member organizations Reported that as a result of the advocacy they received they knew more about their rights and options Studies indicate that when advocates are present in the legal and medical proceedings following assault Victims fare better in both the short and long term Experience less psychological distress physical health struggles sexual risk-taking behaviors self-blame guilt and depression And I actually have a little hand out for you guys that includes all of these stats. Yeah I don't know that I sent that my my testimony was posted for yesterday. I think Yeah So although the needs of our programs are ongoing We had heard that there might be some one-time funding available this year And we would very much greatly benefit from an infusion of one-time funding and I put out a call to our member organizations Like if it was one-time funding How would the the programs use that and I want to give you a sense of some of their ideas So they said they would expand their emergency housing shelter Implement a county. Why just thinking you know, it'd be worth You know checking, you know, maybe I'll just call Chris winners. I'll find out my curiosity The answer so did it double for that one year or come pretty close to doubling and then So, which one is it? Sorry 2016 okay, so we had an additional 186,000 in 2016 and then that fund went back to being 38,000 in the red in 2018 and 54,000 in the red for 2019 So that we get part of that and then crime victim services has other things that come out of that as well So they over spent More than what came in that year So well So 16 was the first year so I'm assuming the money came in and 17 which which doesn't really matter What would have been your allocation each year that is yeah, so that's That goes through a funding formula to our program. So that allocation is Different for every program Do you know the total number? So the DVSV special fund funds are member organizations Actually only 14 of them. It does not include the pride center Vermont and it also funds a few other statewide projects including the child advocacy centers Some funds go to the special investigative units as well and so when there are years when There are excess funds in that fund. They're kept in the fund and then the following year They're basically kept in the fund and rolled over into the following year So that one year of increased revenue has been able to balance out for the last two years declining revenues and more Expenses than revenues coming into the fund But I know that the Center for Crime Victim Services has in testimony here and in the Senate expressed concern about Declining revenues in those special funds just broadly in generally The sentence in that was suggested The last one I sent here Yeah, yeah, that's fine I mean and maybe we do it as a group because I know it refers to domestic fund the network Oh There's totally It definitely is a little funky Oh, yeah Sort of Looked at those mostly in terms of the security, I guess Right, so we met with Matt and Matt said rather than us just go through request by request we should step back and look at what the Objectives are for our committee Right, so not right not objective. So it was handy to have that up here. So we picked and that's like of course you can't have them all so we picked Three and obviously geographic justice sort of fits in with fair and balanced justice system and Again, it seems like sometimes we're just Not we but the state like we make it up as we go along rather than what works our treatment courts working our reduced fines working so Really moving more to an evidence-based Matter of operating We're Well that that came, you know from some of the you know the Testimony that we had had up to date not this year so much like and then Matt mentioned that Maybe we needed to take a little different approach to where is our Most spending in that branch And one of the biggest items are the judges themselves And so if we're retraining the judges to do other courts other districts and Moving them it not only Creates more of an expense for the whole system, but it also Creates problems with some of the cases Because it's possible for people to maybe have a different judge But Maybe it's even we suggest Really makes feelings about the rotation and yeah, I think I can see some real positives to it and some real negatives from all the testimony of her today, and I would just want us to have Yes, really serious discussion about that before and probably more testimony before Being a recommendation or even a suggestion. Yes Which which actually is fine and as you noticed the The energy that that stimulated My point being Maybe that's what it needed to do here within the committee because there's no problem with you know, it's not like Take our toys and run away But I think the super heavy left and Matt Matt even himself said you know before you know because that came up during our discussion Sometimes that's how you stimulate the move or even a discussion within The specific area of jurisdiction I just have another suggestion or request which is I really appreciate the First of the bolded line saying we recommend increasing funds for the sort of outside label resources How I take that is sort of reinforcing the ask from the access to justice coalition If I would be happy if it read Legal and immigration clinics because I like of all the things we heard about it was That one was so compelling to me because when people are not Good point See the wordsmithing you know is is just that But what we referred back to and this you know is the core belief of the committee and That's where it resides because if you think about what saline Selena just said You know working towards creating a fair and imbalanced and balanced justice system that works for everyone You know for a safer Vermont, you know, that's more inclusive You know taking that community, you know that part of our community into effect as well You know and that that was the intent, you know, so Any time that you can further You know or broaden that perspective Okay, we just don't have the right file open So it was the bar it was the law line and it was It's an alliance Right So we recommend funding for Or Yeah, access to justice Well, that was in there Clinics, it is I just reading this I think you could yeah, I think it's encompassed in Legal clinics, but I think yeah, yeah, I would love us to just be a little more See actually their their sheet was more detailed than this statement So so it's trying to capture, you know that emphasis is the key If you're there today, so it's clearly specific Another legal support, okay This is really rough Oh Those proposals that we heard were we're all so valuable and I think in the case of that one It was like and when people get supported and Which is far more likely to happen when they don't have legal That's one of our core principles safer for font So it says here solicits I mean, I don't think we need to say what what part I mean unless there was some sort of that we wanted to weigh in on We could structure anywhere you want I just we just followed that Oh, no, I don't know if he does I don't know that in for that That was just in for coach to look at So so that that doesn't have to be there Yeah, see that that's a clear statement Because the statement before that's on the board I already achieved You know, we're there we live there already But you know, I think when we made this statement last year when we were putting, you know, our role together You know, we were talking about working towards creating a fair and balanced right system I can Know but Tom Tom your point about We understand it But if we don't ask the question if somebody else understands it, we don't want to confuse somebody else So, you know, that's a good point. Okay, so I'm going to take out all the judiciary staff I'm pure so less down. Yeah And this I'll send a draft run as soon as we're done playing with the first Right, I lost part of the sense there. Okay. Yeah, I think it's the our committee so what You know what it should be we The top priorities are those three things. So I need to make that clear and then I think in reviewing the request from judiciary Right, right Is the one-time funding for the Costello expansion around What they're calling that project, but essentially yeah, it's more accessible I think that fits in under what we just were talking about. So I don't know if it's and the Costello Well, see in one draft we we did have when we were talking with that we we specifically You know Targeted that program and what we said was being able to replicate that as soon as possible Because there's you know, that's the key Because that really fits into what we're talking about as far as if you're going to get balanced It just can't be in one part of the state then we're just you know continuing the geographic And you know Somebody else had money for that. Well, that's the yeah That came up as well, right? so Under as Barbara said it kind of fits under that first bullet point in the second section Because that's you know, that's what it what it details And other any other Changes because I'll send this draft around quick Which DLS thing Actually Sure James Dole them with human rights for kids And here I was here today to testify on a bill in senator serious committee over in the Senate side S1 217 which I guess is a bill similarly to what you guys took up yesterday On the house floor, but we have a provision in that bill to protect child sex trafficking victims who commit acts of violence against their traffickers or abusers wanting to protect girls in this situation folks might have heard of Centoya Brown We had Sarah Cruz and testified today via phone But there's these really horrible cases where these girls have gotten a very lengthy prison sentences for essentially killing the people who had been raping and abusing them for years on end and so it's kind of a loophole in the law because they're they don't technically qualify for self-defense and so We're hoping to close that a little bit and give judges a little bit more discretion in those sorts of cases and then working with representative Rachel sin on a couple of bills as well and dealing with I'm criminal justice reform all focused on kids. That's our big focus right now is Trying to get the country really to focus how the criminal justice system is failing kids and Looking at all of these different issues from right to counsel I'm making sure that when kids come into contact with the system at the very beginning that Their parents are notified before they can waive their constitutional rights that they have an opportunity to talk with As well as making sure that the felony murder rule is inapplicable to children I'm in the same way that it is to adults. So it's really sort of top to bottom looking at the entire justice system So that's why I'm down Thanks for being there. Absolutely. Thank you for your work Absolutely, so excited to be back. I haven't been here since I think 2011 when Children grad and I we're working with former rep Ram and Senator Sears on anti-human trafficking legislation back in I guess nine years ago now I know Yeah, we just Trafficking Because I remember I was in denial And you don't know you don't know right? And you remember working with amputee That's what I remember. It's so hard. Everything kind of blends together. I'm sure especially since you travel to somebody's day Yeah, yeah, it's been it's been really hectic, but you know Your base Washington, DC. Yeah Seattle for a year grew up in Las Vegas Living in California even briefly for a time a couple years of Baltimore kind of been all over James is a great resource Related to juvenile justice And criminal justice. We were talking about the death penalty before topics, so You And James and I worked together when he was at the campaign That life without parole bill which I think You and Keisha were working on and you asked me to work on because we just become chairs and say James was my go-to person and testified in Senate judiciary and It was lovely Here we are Well Okay, so and people just probably got the final final draft We got is You know not as much I mean a big focus of ours is really trying to draw attention to the interconnectedness between ACEs early childhood trauma And how kids end up in the system You know a lot of our focus is trying to reframe the whole conversation around early childhood trauma To get people to understand that our failure to identify and mitigate trauma in the first place is actually human rights abuse Because we know our failure to intervene in a child's life will eventually lead to poor health outcomes incarceration early death And so that's kind of a big part of our focus and then on the justice front This summer we're actually going to be releasing a national state meetings map kind of similar to what I was doing at Polaris If you remember madam chair Basically, we're going to be looking at how states are protecting the human rights of children in the justice system the The blueprint that you have before you kind of lays out Based on the UN convention on the rights of the child the human rights protections that are supposed to be in place to protect Children in the justice system from the point of entry due process protections to sentencing to collateral consequences So we're really excited about that and hopefully we're going to establish a new national floor by which children are treated in this country So that's kind of what we're what we're up to Absolutely Yeah, see back back when you were here in Judiciary I was in education. Oh, okay Spent six years on House that your service. Absolutely. No, thank you as well. I mean that's I mean it was funny because I was talking today About how Sort of this, you know, we have these different developmental paths for kids You know elementary school middle school high school And so a lot of what's reflected in the report to is trying to make sure that at those different stages We're treating kids the way that they should be treated So like elementary school kids shouldn't be in the juvenile justice system at all Yeah, and you know the same thing with you know middle schoolers making sure that they're not in the adult Well, I think amongst taking some interesting approaches to dealing with some of that especially but you know multi-tiered systems of support And a lot of that is based on a thesis research Because How it's presented Not change the substance just like Yeah complete wrap around services You guys also have a really great program We have it Keep everybody That's what's happening to so many places. I mean it's become siloed So, you know the kids in the child welfare system have a different judge have a different attorney Then when they're in the juvenile justice system, you know Do the same kids so that kids were failing in our education as you know Kids were failing in education as the same kids who are in a child welfare system Same kids who are in a juvenile justice system And it's about breaking down those silos and really creating a paradigm of treatment any trauma informed society And that's what our vision really is When you talk to Marshall he serves on Justice for children's task force And we have a data here It was started by the Chief Justice So he's got this task for the meets quarterly, but it's got some seriously Marshall's on it the whole judiciary is represented Child welfare But it's looking at the juvenile justice system and how all of those pieces intersect there are no silos within that framework It's pretty interesting. Yeah