 Good morning. Good morning, questioner. This is Maxine. Can you hear me? I'm Chair. So how many Friday are you going? I'm going. You're starting us off. Thank you for being able to speak to us today. No problem. Thanks for taking the time. Just confirming I'm on the same page. We're on 610, right? Correct. Well, thanks for having me. I know you have a busy day. I should probably just ask for a placeholder. Were there anything involved from yesterday morning's draft? What I have is version 4.1, which I think was the yesterday morning because I just want to keep on the correct page. Version 4.1, did you say, Commissioner? Is it 4.1? Is that right? Yes. 4.1 and 235 p.m.? Yes. That's what we're working on. Great. Okay. So I'm on the same page. So I think we just have a couple of things to offer on the draft, and they relate specifically to the search warrant component in the wake of abuse prevention order. Okay. And then firearm storage, which I was going to address with you anyway, but I understand the Police Association introduced some possible language, or it suggested some possible language about adopting more responsibility for firearm storage. So those are the two things that I was going to talk about, and I think I can do them both in three or four minutes and then take any questions and go from there. No need to rush. Okay. So the spirit of ensuring that we are taking firearms should the rest of the construct of the abuse prevention order language pass, and even under the current operating methodology if a judge was to order firearms to be pushed pursuant to an abuse prevention order. The spirit of where you're headed and that being a priority and using a search warrant if necessary to obtain those firearms. I think we agree with the where the, I guess where our concern is the... Excuse me, Commissioner, can you... Sorry, this is vaccine, sorry for interrupting you. So can you please repeat what you said in terms of what you agree with? We agree with the spirit of it being a priority to if a court order indicates that firearms should be relinquished, that law enforcement should be, and I think largely does, follow up on that if there's indication that compliance with that order has not occurred and a search warrant is one tool in the toolbox that we have already to be able to follow up and investigate whether that order is not being complied with or conversely as being violated. So where we have some questions is around the methodology to do that, and I think you probably heard yesterday from a couple of witnesses in the law enforcement realm that are suggesting that the existing framework of Rule 41 already allows for this. I think we would echo that testimony and say that we do believe we've got the tools necessary should the judiciary issue an order on an abuse prevention order, whether it's temporary or final, where firearms need to be relinquished. Then really all it takes from that point is a standard investigation to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that the person hasn't complied with that, and that would take the form of primarily witness interviews, and then we could apply for a search warrant in circumstances that we could tightly control, go in and obtain those, either using a search warrant or a warrantless search exception. So that's a really long way of saying I don't know that the added language that's being suggested here is necessary, and then going a step further, my fear is always when we make the operating environment more complicated, we create the possibility for error, and enforcement is the operating environment in law enforcement gets increasingly complex every year, and both law enforcement leaders, the executive branch, and I know the judiciary are looking for ways to improve outcomes and reduce the error rate. Adding complexity takes us unfortunately in a different direction, so that's a really long way of saying let's do this in the most simplistic, easily reproducible way possible that is likely using Rule 41 and sort of working from there as the foundation rather than creating a separate construct for that. We are also as a placeholder, I'm here to, can you still hear me? Yes, thank you. I'm here to talk with the board about our overall modernization strategy, which I think would help to inform a lot of the things contemplated in this bill, in particular the data, the workflow behind how some of these things actually happen, and if we improve, we're actively working to improve some of our systems and taking a systems approach to trying to produce reproducible results on any event that we're responding to, whether it's domestic violence or an act or a crisis scenario or anything else, that's the approach we're taking to try to improve the outcomes on all of these things. In an extension of that, I was talking with Major Jonas just a couple of days ago about implementing more systems and checklists, and she indicated that we are in the midst of drafting a domestic violence checklist. They exist in some forms now and we have them for certain components of TV, but to try to improve outcomes, one of the things we're working on is a comprehensive checklist from law enforcement that can be used to ensure outcomes. And one of the things we put on there would dovetail into whatever passes in 610 around ensuring that we're checking abuse prevention orders for all the components and then ensuring that we're pulling on any requested threats of evidence that someone may be in violation, in particular, travel, contact and firearms would be the high risk areas of abuse prevention order violations. So we're doing a lot of background work to systematize the way things get done is the moral of that piece of the puzzle. Let's see here. Excuse me, there's a question. Yeah, a few questions. This is Martin Lohn. Before you move on to storage, unless you had some additional comments on this component of it. No, I think I'll take questions at any time. They'll likely intersect something I was going to say anyway. So just by way of background, what we're trying or what I'm trying certainly to do with this component of the bill is really two-fold. I do understand law enforcement takes these orders very seriously, but having the sense of urgency is one component of it, making sure that this is being followed up particularly with the temporary order very expeditiously. The other equally, if not more important, is the transparency. The transparency of what has been done as far as getting the firearms relinquished, whether that is at the time the order is served and relinquished, or following up with the warrant and such. And the transparency is as much for the sense of safety of the victim as anything really. And that's kind of the ideas behind what we're trying to do with this. We're also at the same time not trying to complete, we're not trying to modify really the warrant process. I mean, I don't think anything we have in here unless I've missed something has, is different or undermines the fact that Rule 41 would have to be followed. So that's kind of the concept behind this, and that's why, just let me ask a couple specific questions and follow up. As far as in E1, this is on page 11, this is where the ex parte temporary order is served. And the expectation is, and you can tell me if this is, if I'm wrong about this, but the expectation is that at that time law enforcement would go over the order, and if there's a relinquishment order would presumably request at that time the relinquishment of the firearms, am I wrong about that process? I'm trying to find that section right now. Yeah, it's on page 11, the bottom of page 11, line 16 to 20. Section number. Section E1. Yeah, the origin I'm looking at is one that the VPA sent me, so it's got, the lines got messed up. So I'm looking at E1, I'll complain for ex parte temporary order is the first piece. So I was actually, my initial reaction is that the return of service is the man, it would be the best method for creating this transparency that you're talking about. So the officers got to complete the return of service and having them address any components of the order that relate to firearms, that wouldn't be an additional burden. And I think that would create the requisite documentation that we need. I should let you know that among the modernization things we're doing is we're moving rapidly to a statewide electronic, electronically based warrant system. And then the follow up to that will be to bring these prevention orders onto that electronic system. So the current methodology in Vermont is that there are holding stations, departments that hold paper copies of the state. And there is a combination of telephone, e-mail, law enforcement, telecommunications network, a closed system of communication that happens to verify those things and then we move the copies back and forth between courts. We're going to an electronic version of that. It will probably take the better part of a year to implement, to get it out to all the courts. That's the main piece. Law enforcement training for that's pretty straightforward. That will allow us, once we move to the APO side of that, it will allow for an electronic version of the return of service which we can then mine data on. So right now the paper form is hand filled out. In the future we'll be able to do that and actually get live data up to the minute on how many are active, how many have been served, and how many instances there have been indications that someone's violated provision on the possession of firearms, for example. Right. So that will be great. I hope that that necessarily changes the approach in the bill requiring a return of service. And we had some testimony yesterday. I think that we will be reacting to that and I think the concept that I'll just go to you since we have you right now is that we will have specific questions on the return of service so that we're actually making very specific what we want to understand. And it would really, the three questions that I come to mind are whether there was relinquishment of firearms and what they were. If there wasn't relinquishment whether the law enforcement is following up as far as pursuing a war and such. And then actually third, if it's a vacate, the premises type order, what is the mailing address for the individual going forward? There may be other questions, but the concept is to make it more routine as far as the exact information that we're trying to get back. And whether that's on the paper form currently or in electronic form that I believe doesn't matter. But that's if you could comment on that concept. And that came in part from Chief Burke suggesting that we be specific what we want to know and have questions on a return of service form. I think you're on the right track there that create additional complexity of the form that's already being filled out. Whether it's electronic or paper doesn't matter. The electronic version will have some advantages in our ability to track it more quickly. But I think that is a good approach to accomplishing what you describe the intent is. So I think that the concept as well is that, all right, we get a return of service presumably fairly rapidly after it has been served. We have some language trying to make sure that that's happening. And I guess the second step is if the weapons aren't relinquished and a warrant is going to be sought, then presumably there is a return of service on the warrant or there's my understanding. Yeah, that is part of the process now. So it's also important to understand that we may have probable cause to believe there are firearms still present and the defendant is violating the conditions of these prevention order and or their conditions of release or both. And a warrant is not always the methodology to get those firearms. There are exceptions to the search warrant requirement. They're relatively narrow, but they are used in order to get compliance as well. So a warrant is not always necessary. And would that presumably occur at the time when the law enforcement is serving the order? It depends on a variety of circumstances. It's where the order is being served. How many are there other people at the residence? What are the circumstances of the event, the underlying event itself? Is there some ongoing exigency? Has the defendant just made a threat and is not at the residence right now? But can you articulate an exigent circumstance that would obviate the need for a warrant? There's an innumerable number of potential variables. Okay. So it seems, I think, that as far as the transparency component, the return of service is the appropriate place. And I think we'll be working on language hopefully to make that clear. The other issue, though, is what I call the urgency. And we do have language in here now. And this is subsection E2 and E3. But E2 is talking about the return of service. And I mean, it'll have to be modified a little bit because I don't think we're talking about necessarily having the affidavit with the return of service. We're having instead of answering a question of whether they're still seeking probable cause. In any event, we have there as far as the earliest possible time and taking precedence over other summons and orders. And if you could comment on that, and if you don't agree with that, if you have any other suggestions of how we can kind of underline the urgency of this process. That's a great question. I think you start by saying that that message begins to be sent by adding what you're suggesting to the return of service. So I would take a sort of an iterative approach to this. I would take that step and then measure what we're seeing as a result and then determine whether we need to take more affirmative measures to push people to prioritize. I think by and large, it's rare to see in the 30 years I've been doing this, it's very rare to see folks not take seriously something that needs to be followed up on. That's of a serious nature and DB is in that bucket. I think we spend an equal amount of time trying to get officers to, I mean, this is a balancing equation, right? And it will blow down in certain circumstances, and that is an equal part of this. So I have a variety of fears around creating a statutory push or prioritization of any one thing, because once you open that box, then what is, and how do you prioritize everything else? You have to then create something that says, well, this goes above that, and this goes below this, and there's just no way to do that because the operating environment changes so rapidly that you wouldn't be able to create a construct for that. Prioritizing it above other summits and service of subpoenas and things like that, you could write that down, but that's the way it works already, the common sense approach. And in that regard, I would caution you against trying to legislate common sense because that's another conversation that could never end. You could end up in all kinds of different scenarios where people are asking you to put something above something else. Emergency services just doesn't lend itself to that kind of structure because you just, for the same reason, my last answer was it depends on a variety of circumstances. Same thing. Is it the shaft very bare? Yes, that's why I couldn't be with you. And a fatal accident came in because what takes precedent is it the firearms or is it the closed road with a deceased driver? It depends on a variety of circumstances. What's the nature of the DVK? Is there an ongoing threat? Where is the victim? Is the victim secure? So there's just no way to do that. Sure. Yeah, I understand that. We actually had narrowed it from a broader prioritization to the summons and orders. It sounds like that's already practiced. I think just a couple other questions. Are any others? Oh yeah, I'm sure. Because for clarification purposes, in your testimony you referenced some other language that was being proposed. I don't know what you're talking about. It's making it difficult to follow along with some of the I know that you're going through a series of questions about stuff that's in the bill. Right. But there was a reference to some other potential language that it would be helpful to have to look over. Right, the VPA proposal, which I don't... Does anyone have that? I was told it was posted on there. It's posted. Yeah, they're coming out next week. Oh, okay. That's what he's referring to. It's a VPA proposed language. Okay, thanks. So yeah, I didn't mean to leave off. No, no, that's fine. Sure. And when we get to storage, I think we'll hear it conceptually. There is language, but we'll hear it conceptually on that. But I guess my last question or issue is we have a provision regarding follow-up if there isn't action right at the time of service, if the defendant doesn't relinquish firearms and the law enforcement officer doesn't have probable cause to seek a warrant right then, but instead has a reasonable suspicion and wants to essentially do more investigation. We say, yeah, investigate this as soon as practicable. We say 48 hours or as soon as practicable. But the concept there is, again, that if there hasn't been relinquishment, we want to know what is happening, particularly for the victim's sense of security and safety again, that something is happening, that the law enforcement is seeking to establish probable cause. And the other point is that we'd like something that would tell us if probable cause wasn't established, if law enforcement is no longer trying to seek those firearms. And part of that information is not just for the safety of the victim, but also going into presumably the final order and the carrying on the final order. But if you have another concept of how that information can get back to the court and therefore the victim, it would certainly be open to understanding that. But I just wanted to let you know what our concept was behind that provision. I would build it into our new records management system that I'm actually stepped out of a demonstration with sort of three vendors that's demonstrating. I would build it into the data system because that's the best way to get the kind of information you're talking about. I would, again, I would not, it's creating a statutory direction for investigation. I don't know of any other place in statute where that exists. And I think it's opening Pandora's box. And it's making the assumption that this is not happening already. And I have never seen an instance where any component of an abuse prevention or conditions of release have not been actively investigated. It's just, it's not to say it couldn't happen, but I've been involved with a variety of departments over 30 years. I've never seen it happen. It assumes that there are, that multiple things have failed. We've hired the wrong person. We've not trained them. We don't have adequate policy. We don't have adequate supervision. And, well, we, there is occasionally error. The error is still going to happen if, even if it's in statute because all these other things have failed already and our policies by and large already speak to all of this. They say you will investigate and you will prioritize things based on risk. And it just, it, unless there's, we have data that indicates that this isn't being done, I would set it aside for now. That, no, that sounds, I understand where you're coming from on that. I guess putting aside the directive of what law enforcement should be doing, I guess I'm as much, if not most concerned with, with again the court and therefore the victim having access or understanding what is being done. So it's more the transparency for the victim and for the court than pushing the investigation along or telling them how to do the investigation. It's, it's that knowledge component of it and I'm hearing what you're suggesting is to build it into the new data system and could we, I mean would, one idea is to have in here somewhere essentially a directive that, that this be studied and determined, you know, as far as this information component and how that would be accommodated by this new data system. That's a better approach, but I would also say, you know, our job and again I would point back to our overarching modernization strategy, we're trying to take a holistic systems approach to this and many other things so that we're not chasing individual fragmentary outcomes. We're working to build a data system that can answer any and all relevant questions without having to chase a tiny fragment of an outcome. When we do that we end up actually getting distracted and not being able to deliver the more robust results that we really want to deliver. And that actually dovetails perfectly into the storage piece which I'll move to whenever you'd like, but I don't take my testimony as saying no, we don't want to do this really more as a, we're taking a comprehensive approach to this and we're working as fast as possible and that's new just in the last five months. So we'll have a lot more to report next year, but I fear that the more fragmentation there is the less we're able to focus on getting results for everything, if that makes any sense. There are, as another placeholder, there are 220 bills that have been introduced in kind of public safety operations. It's difficult to navigate to the least and it's a lot of fragmentary efforts that if we do a better job whole, we'll have all the answers and we'll have better results and we'll have better outcomes if we can just get the focus on the, I'm essentially saying let's go bigger and get better results. So at a minimum, and this is just me talking and there's many other interests and views on this, actually requiring your department to report back by a date certain sometime next biennium on the data system, the modernization attempts including but not limited to how this kind of domestic violence data would be provided or available, something along those lines. He's excited to do that. I'm not being facetious. I mean this is a core piece of what the future has to look like for public safety, not just in the law enforcement department, the entire grant of emergency management, fire safety, et cetera. Thank you. I think those are all the questions on. Did I get that? Yeah. Great. So storage? Storage. The bottom line is I believe that the Department of Public Safety, the state should be the backup when everything else fails for the storage of firearms related to domestic violence and abuse prevention or cases once they reach the final stage and we're talking about the temporary stuff. And it doesn't require staff to write language to do that. We are actively writing and should have in the next couple of days a draft MOU for agencies who don't have any other options. Their storage capacity has been tapped out. Third party storage is not available. It doesn't meet the statutory criteria to go into the BGS process and they're out of space. The plan is to have them simply drop off any excess firearms that they can't store when they drop off evidence here at headquarters to the lab. I was talking about that a couple of months ago before I even knew this still existed. So that's the direction we're moving. And I would ask that you not pass legislation for no other reason than the good faith effort at legislation to allow BGS to take the guns. We needed that so that wasn't optional. But the way the language was crafted ended up being very confusing for a variety of different state lawyers and there was a protracted delay to get it implemented. And I finally had to, when I got here I had to say enough debating with lawyers we're going to simply do this. We're going to do it by MOU with BGS and we had to do a workaround to make it work. So I would ask that you not pass a law to do it. We're going to do it anyway and we'll be able to do it without a statutory construct because no one had lawyers fighting over how to implement it. So when you ask us, so there's nothing in 610. I believe there's something. Yeah, I'm responding to the VPA. Exactly. That was my question. Okay. So thank you. That's helpful. So, but you're not saying to hold up H610. You're just saying don't put in the solution or try to solve the storage problem in this bill. Correct. We're going to solve the storage problem operationally. It's, it's this just strikes me as a silly conversation. We don't have a place to store things that are that are have an entry or are being seated by statute. It's a silly conversation. And I understand there are many small departments and many large departments that come from the largest municipal department in Vermont. Storage space was at a premium. I get that. But if this is all executing state law, this is about the state providing backup resources to those public safety entities. And again, when I have a chance to launch a Charm modernization strategy on our pocket of that is how we provide better support to local and county public safety assets. Not only in law enforcement, but in fire safety and EMS and emergency management and modernizing the way we do that. And I see this as an extension of that. If they need help to do something, the state should be there to help them do it. Amazing. Yeah. Thank you. Commissioner, in looking over that I appreciate what you're saying there and your attitude to sort of just get a an ongoing problem fixed. But I'm wondering if you had an opportunity to sort of think about if you know what the sort of the overall universal size of this is. And as a second part of that, with the changes to confiscation of firearms contemplated in 610, do you see that the size of that problem perhaps getting larger? No. The full universe of that yet. I think the number is about 700 APOs. It sure someone in the room is nodding that I'm right. I predict exactly what that's going to look like. Relative to if we know the existing universe, is the deputy commissioner in the room? Yes. Okay. He can confirm that what I'm about to say is accurate. But my recollection is that there was a survey done of law enforcement agencies. We only got 18 or so responses. And the universe was about 200, maybe 220 firearms. 233, sir. Thank you. So that's what we know. And that's the universe of guns currently being held. How many of those would be overflowed and have to go somewhere else? Is that a different question? And I very much appreciate the idea of saying to the legislature, please don't try to legislate something and fix it so that we don't accidentally ruin it. But I do want to ask you, do you feel confident that you have, I mean, sorry, are you still there? Please. You know, I've made people disappear before, but luckily. Okay. First of all, I'm sorry, we got this. Okay. Maybe it's, maybe it's I can't stand this guy talking. I, that's what I would do if I were asking you to be here on my phone. I would have done that. I have a visitor on my phone if you want. He'll be fine. Does that work? Can we hear him? All right. It's a matter of whether or not we can all. How's that? Mike, go ahead and sit. The question was about who was that? I think I got one order. Okay, that's fine. So, you know, outside of legislating, outside of legislating something, I do want to make sure that you feel fairly confident that to implement the plan that you're proposing to do internally, that you are able to do that within your existing appropriation and that no additional funds would be necessary. Yes. I am. The requisite storage space. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Can we circle back around to just sort of like a summary of this? Yeah, sure. Anything. So, I just want to, one more time, just make sure that I'm understanding. So, you're a little bit concerned about the legislation sort of mandating an order for you and you're more comfortable with sort of allow us to do our job and prioritize appropriately based on what you're seeing in the real world. Is that fair? Yes. Okay. And collecting some data on that, the return of service forms and then eventually collecting data will help to inform whether we've come policy supervision the results we want successful. So, if you want to tell us how to prioritize it, have at it. And luckily, we know where to find you also. So, We have a three digit phone number, which is nice. Yeah. One other last question, just as a whole, is the Department of Public Safety in support of opposed or neutral on the legislation? On the other composite legislation, we don't have a stance at this point. We've been sifting to the last two weeks, the hundreds of bills, and we're taking them as they come with a schedule testimony. So admittedly, we're a little behind the ball. We don't have the staff to get through everything. So I guess you could mark us as a neutral on the rest of it. We're focused on the parts that are operationally impactful at this point. Is this one that you anticipate having a position on in the future or just sort of reviewing and providing guidance and assistance as necessary? I think the latter is probably the best bet on the other components of the bill. Okay. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Thank you. Thanks for letting me do this by phone. Just one more question, actually. I apologize. I need to back up about something we were discussing, but regarding the service, return of service and the like, so is there a way until the new data system is in place, I think that what I'm trying to find or looking for is some sort of status that goes back to the court. Some sort of status that goes back to the court. There's been the orders been served. There's been a return of service out there. There's a question that talks about follow up if no firearms were relinquished. And it says that the law enforcement is following up or seeking a warrant or whatnot. But having a status of what happened with that is my concern in the interim that some sort of information can go back to the court. I would understand that if a warrant is successful, there's a return of service on the warrant. But if they don't establish probable cause or the warrant's not executed for some reason, how is the court informed of that or how can the court be informed of that? If there's a parallel domestic violence case then that would all or if there's a parallel domestic violence case that would be part of what the court could inquire of the officer or the prosecutor in that process. But this would be in the civil, this will be a civil matter still presumably. It's an RFA that's a temporary RFA that's issued by civil by court in civil proceeding. Yes. In most cases in Vermont the judge sitting in a particular circuit is hearing all of those. So there is some cross pollination of information. The first thing that comes to mind to be able to go back and inquire of that or audit is to as you're asking the questions on the return of service form did this result in the seizure of firearms? If no, is there an active investigation or is the investigation completed to now check those boxes and then ask for the incident number that goes with that investigation, the case number of the law enforcement agency that way you have until we get the electronic work and going actually even if you have if we have the electronic version you have a way to at least randomly select some of these or audit all of them potentially to find out when the outcome's working. Yeah, I'm not thinking of audit I'm just thinking of setting up a process whereby the victim and the court understands what has happened to any subsequent investigation after the return of service has been provided for the service of the order itself that's kind of what I'm trying to figure out. In the basic way that that happened the folks would have access to that, the victim in particular would have access to that now by just asking for a copy of the investigation that they're party to and or calling the officer or if they're more comfortable doing that calling a supervisor to ask that question having the incident number faster or somebody else to be able to ask that question particularly the court asking for an update on the status of that investigation. All right, I appreciate that. Thank you. Anybody else? Commissioner, thank you very much. Appreciate this. Thank you for having me weekend. Yeah, thanks you too. See you later. Yeah, bye-bye. So do you want to join us? I will. Great, thank you. Before we begin this I can't find that language. Is it possible for to let me know where it is the proposed language from the police association? How will we propose it? Do you know what it will propose it under? Who the witnesses? Okay, thank you. Good morning for the record. I'm Christopher Eric. I'm the Commissioner of Public Safety. I guess there's probably not a lot I can add unless you have other questions. If you wanted to delve into specific areas that the Commissioner didn't get into I certainly can make myself I think he covered it pretty well. So can you talk a little bit more about what's being done with respect to the holding stations? Commissioner just mentioned that briefly but if you could give us a little bit. Yeah, I can do that. How it works now and what the vision is for... So there's nobody mandated by statute to be responsible for the holding of their issued and so currently we have a variety of folks who do it, mostly state police because it has to be a 24-hour agency but local agencies do also handle them. For instance, Juan William Berry Washington County Sheriff holds them for their area but other agencies have in the past said we're not doing this anymore. We don't get reimbursed. It's a workload issue and we're to Department of Public Safety strapped as well in terms of being on the manager and so we began looking at this process working with the judiciary and some of the other holding stations on coming up with a better way to manage it. It is arcane right now. It involves email, faxing, paper copies exactly and so we're trying to come into the 19th century and Burlington currently uses a system called views and we have worked with them and we're going to implement it on a statewide level. So now the originating agency will be responsible for submitting the warrants and really from these stories into the system and there'll still be 24-hour agencies but they'll have electronic access to them and law enforcement agencies will be able to see them see what's actually going on immediately once upon being entered and so I don't know the timeline on that we had hope to do it fairly soon I wouldn't imagine we'll probably have it up at least beta testing before you go home by the end of the session so we're going really long or you think you're going really fast? I think I'm just joking you've already gone too long I'm kidding I don't know when you're going to go home maybe you have a better sense of that but it's going to be a nice spring in May so that's the answer to that we look forward to modernizing that and it is an alignment with what the commissioner mentioned that we're modernizing all over the place kind of we are streamlining our business process we're trying to get rid of paper to the degree we can for instance e-citation is one of the projects that I've been managing so every state police cruiser is outfitted now with the ability to write tickets electronically and one of the benefits of that which might be of interest to this committee is we've mandated responses so that we no longer will have on the state police side you can't finish a ticket if you haven't entered the race date and so we won't no longer have gaps in that information like we have in some of the previous years and we're rolling this out some local agencies have it now and by the end of September most of them should have it so it should be a statewide implementation and so that's really an exciting project so not just the state police but correct there are some local agencies that have it now and we're in the midst of the first round of sub grants for this federal fiscal year we'll be making awards soon and then there'll be another wave in a few months and then by the end of December I mean the calendar year the fiscal year for the feds ends in September we get a little bit of a leeway with implementation but by the end of that time any local agency who wants it should have it or will have it then there's a grant it's a NHTSA grant that's paying for the installation so it's at no cost to them so can I answer any other questions? great I'll be you know if you know what to get over me I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you thank you very much James Febber department of state's stories and sheriffs and each 610 just giving back to my testimony last time the majority of the bill that deals with mandatory relinquishment of firearms really from abuse orders is a civil process it doesn't really impact criminal court or the state's turrets unless there's violations so I would probably just limit my testimony to the sections that actually implicate the state's attorneys unless there's any questions about that which I would be happy to answer I don't think there was many changes to the sections that implicate the state's attorneys other than the section on family members or household members seeking relief from abuse orders during court hours I understand the court's concern about their recommendation and we're fine with that I don't think I mentioned last time but this department is fully supportive of section 4 which extends prohibited person status to people that are the respondent of an emergency really from abuse order to the extent that section 1 protects public safety is certainly supportive of that I think there is a real public safety risk when there's a default proceed for a prohibited person and then an ATF agent has to go and try and retrieve that firearm I think that poses a significant public safety risk so we would extend the approach taken in the bill or any other approach to close the now in Charleston people I'm not sure that there's much else that directly impacts the state's attorneys but if there are any questions I'd be happy to answer so you're I just want to make sure I really heard you correctly you're comfortable with the amendments to section 6 because I'm just recalling that in earlier testimony we heard some questions raised about just the role of state's attorneys and standing around this expansion of who can file an ARCO so I just want to make sure I understand that we're out with this section I don't think it's entirely clear what sort of I mean just to take a step back traditionally state's attorneys and to a lesser extent but I mean the concurrent jurisdiction in the office are the gatekeepers of extremist protection they hear from witnesses they hear from law enforcement about whether to proceed with a petition and they bear the burden of proof and they have continuing obligation to represent the state in the final order and in any appeals this adds a new party to the mix the household member and I did have a question about that household member would carry that burden throughout the process and I think I mean just straight reading of the bill which is what the judge would say that they have the continued obligation I think that they could potentially work with the state's attorney if they wanted to but I think just a plain reading of the bill suggested that household member would be the one to kind of if they're seeking an emergency order then seek the final order and if there is an appeal handle the appeal that's just my reading of it I mean it's something the committee should discuss whether they want the state's attorney to assume the role kind of stand in the shoes of the household member for any of those subsequent proceedings I don't think it would be required under this bill I think the household member could just continue thank you David share with the attorney general's office so I had a couple brief general marks about the updated version and I've also been listening over the last couple of days and have notes about specific issues that I've heard the committee ask about and I thought I would go through those and make some comments on those which I hopeful to the committee be responsive to what you've been talking about in the last couple of days and obviously interrupt the questions as we go first I just wanted to note our general support for the updated version it took into account some of the concerns or the intention certainly was to take into account some of the concerns we heard from the judiciary and operational concerns from police we think those concerns are reasonable and we think that a good accommodation was made here to address those concerns and as more things might need to be tweaked we'll be happy to help with that a couple things I wanted to bring up in particular that we've heard about are several things I'll sort of go through a couple of conceptual things and then after that go through a couple detail oriented things one thing that got brought up yesterday was the constitutional review issue and attorney Fitzpatrick had a good job of giving a summary of how that comes into play but I just wanted to reiterate a couple points on that one is that when we're talking about burdens of proof by which a court needs to find something like clear and convincing evidence or preponderance of evidence that is really just directing the court about how they're going to make decisions the question of constitutionality is whether the courts are allowed to make those decisions in the first place so the burdens of proof that are in any particular statute don't directly go to that question the constitutionality question gets addressed by the levels of scrutiny that attorney Fitzpatrick talked about yesterday so we just wanted to separate those two concepts and make sure there was clarity there and when we look at that constitutional issue courts around the country have made come to decisions on the federal side of this with respect to removal of firearms the allowability of requiring relinquishment and pretty much universally have decided that it is allowable under the federal analogy to what we're doing here in terms of making people prohibited persons so I think we're on pretty safe ground on this constitutionally but just wanted to clarify that when we're looking at those burdens of proof that's not really the constitutional inquiry I think there were some questions about reasonable suspicion probable cause and how officers are going to find that how courts are going to find that again attorney Fitzpatrick I think correctly talked about how it's hard to reduce that precisely but I would also note that this is the type of work that police and judges do all the time we're not introducing something new we're not introducing something that is that they're going to be unfamiliar with it is certainly not easy but it is the type of work that gets done constantly and I don't see this as being a new burden or something to fill up trouble handling Judge Gerson brought up some points about whether or not evidence is going to come in with respect to firearms and how judges will deal with that and might be able to deal with that or not I think it's important to note generally that courts always deal with the challenge of sufficient evidence it will be the case that there are times under this bill maybe many times even that there is not sufficient evidence to make a finding that or to make a a specific finding about weapons and that's okay I mean that that is the world we deal with sometimes relief from abuse order requests are filed and the affidavit isn't sufficient to issue one that is part of the world we live in and I don't think that's a reason not to try to make things better which we believe this bill will do that's part of the challenge and the courts deal with all the time it is not new and I don't think that's not a reason to do something Judge Gerson did mention the issue of making a finding I think the way that we would the way the statute is written now where there's a presumption that it will be done unless there's a finding that it shouldn't be done a specific finding that shouldn't be done the way I would our office would read that in the way that we would expect many judges to look at that is to say alright if there isn't sufficient information you will issue the relinquishment order because it's saying issue the relinquishment order unless there are sufficient facts to tell you not to so the absence of facts we believe as the statute is currently written would lead to the issuance of the order and we think that's perfectly appropriate given the serious public safety issues at stake which we discussed extensively when we first took up the bill I did note that Judge Gerson also said that if there is evidence of firearms there could be a mandatory relinquishment order I think we would support that too if the judge feels more comfortable with that we think that's a good way of accomplishing the goal as well so I'd like to reject so I want to sort this between final order and temporary order so on the final order it seems like we can just have the relinquishment order period that the court should issue that because when that final order is issued it is now illegal for that person subject to that order to possess firearms period so that seems pretty straightforward the only question is if there was a temporary restraining order already put in place and requiring relinquishment is do you really need to have relinquishment to get in the final order I'll put that aside so on the emergency relief just what you were saying like unless there's evidence of the contrary the issue of relinquishment order given Judge Gerson's testimony you have a little trouble by that because there's it's an ex parte proceeding and there's nobody to be countering whatever evidence that the victim or plaintiff is putting forward I mean so it's whatever the victim puts into the affidavit in complaint that's the only evidence presumably in front of the court so if the victim doesn't put any firearms list firearms I think we need to make that affidavit much clearer I've looked at that affidavit and it's not specific enough it's not asking the victim for the presence of firearms but I just don't know how that works if there's absent information we're just going to say relinquish firearms so a couple main points I'd make on that one ex parte orders are a rare tool in the court systems because of what you're saying they don't allow for a response immediately although they always require an eventual hearing and they do here as well but the ex parte relief from abuse order right now courts have interpreted to allow for their relinquishment order so it's not actually changing that by doing this it's just making it more likely to happen and they already allow for very significant imposition on somebody's liberty they have stay away orders they have no contact orders they have vacate orders those are really significant as I said imposition on somebody's liberty and those are allowed to happen now I don't think that we're actually changing that much by doing that again ex parte orders are an unusual tool for the courts to exercise but they exist here because there's an understanding and they've certainly been found valid here and everywhere because there's an understanding that there are serious public safety interest at stake and the state needs to be able to respond to those quickly so I don't see this as changing anything significantly the other point I would make is that with respect to the difference between the initial order and the final order if this bill passes with that change to title 13 on prohibited persons under either order after the issuance of either order somebody's immediately going to become a prohibited person so it will be unlawful for them to hold firearms I still think that this legislation is important to include the order part of it because enforcement is important in letting people know that they are not supposed to have weapons is essential so I don't think that you can just rely on this piece of law that probably most people are never going to know about or certainly are not going to know about initially to affect the change that you need to see affected with respect to getting weapons removed the noticed victims is in what they have to file with the court for the ex-party order and having looked at it, right now it doesn't ask to list or explain the presence of firearms I think if you put that into that affidavit and they have to answer that and if they answer that there are firearms then yeah, you've issued a relinquishment order but if they answer that there are no firearms then the reason the counter to what you're saying and the reason to do this is when we say relinquishment we're putting a whole new obligation on law enforcement and if we're saying relinquishment every time even if there are no firearms there's no evidence of firearms and we made very explicit that the victim has to that's one of the things that they have to state no firearms or hear what I know about the firearms if that's not there why have that relinquishment order at that stage of the game I mean I understand they capture as much as possible but the pushback on this is if you have 3000 RFAs and a bunch of them are narrower they're just seeking narrow relief or a bunch of them have no evidence of firearms it seems we should exclude that from that at least this is what I'm certainly hearing from other witnesses right and so your point is that we should let me make sure I'm hearing the question correctly and then I'll try to answer it the point you're trying to get an answer to is we should only have these orders go out when we have good evidence for firearms I'd say any evidence I mean the evidence being what is on the affidavit which is insufficient now the new affidavit that says the firearms present if so identify with as much specificity as possible if that's in there order gets issued if it's not there there's not any evidence and also gives an opportunity for the court to have some discretion if it's just seeking stay away I don't know what order stay away order I suppose or that's all that victim is seeking on that form put that part aside I think really the part is really is there any evidence of firearms I mean I think so I would proceed with the discussion assuming that we have a good form so we don't have to worry about what that might be let's assume there's a good form but I'll elicit or ask for the information that we want to get at and I think that this again goes back to the fundamental question of why are we doing the bill and it's because there is a deep concern that there has not been sufficient attention paid to the issue of firearms in intimate partner violence situations and we need to do better with that and again the network and since Attorney General Hanson have spoken to that extensively we need to shift the thinking in the state of law enforcement in terms of and courts in terms of how we're focused on that and that's why there's this presumption towards paying attention to that again the process may roll out in a way that I should say the process in any particular case may roll out in a way that okay there's an order issued law enforcement is now required to do some investigation on that which will be it will remain within their discretion in terms of how much they do there and it may be that there's no probable cause and then there's also nothing results from there's no reasonable suspicion in which case it really doesn't go forward at all or there's reasonable suspicion they don't develop probable cause I mean it doesn't necessarily mean that this is going to result in a warrant issuing for seizing the weapons in any particular case I think it's important to remember that this remains a case specific as it will but the point is to change the weight of the assumption towards protecting survivors from firearms and addressing that serious public safety issue I think if another way out address your question is perhaps your concern or the concern you're expressing I should say is would be better addressed by Judge Gerrison's proposal which was to say if there's any evidence then it will be a shall well that's what I was suggesting that was what I was suggesting but I'm understanding what you're saying as well but if we're going with you shall issue a period I think the clear and convincing evidence which I think that after Judge Gerrison that doesn't work so putting that aside so if it's some form of you shall do this I'm still concerned that there's no longer any discretion in those instances where the court really thinks that it has a sound basis for not issuing relinquishable relinquishable order Judge gave us some examples of that I can't remember them off the top of my head but that's my concern and one way to resolve that is if there's any evidence in that affidavit that's newly formed and asked that question then it shall be issued that's one way right I think that's a fair way to do it and I think that does go along with what the judge was saying and again I would also point out that anytime any of these orders is issued with or without a relinquishable order somebody is going to be a prohibited person assuming that piece passes well except for one other item out there if this is the approach that we go if it is something that there has to be some evidence then I think that other provision would have to be modified and I'm looking at page 9 in section 4 the person subject to relief from abuse orders prohibition of possession of weapons I think we would have to add that let's see a person shall not possess ship, transport, receive, a firearm if the person is a subject of an emergency relief from abuse order I think we would have to add language there that includes a requirement for relinquishable firearms in other words if we don't have language there then we might as well say shall because it's going to be legal for you to possess firearms period in any instance that an RFA is issued and again that's taken away the discretion from the judge and if we believe the judge that there are some instances where they want to have that discretion I respectfully disagree with that position it is currently the law under federal law and state law that anybody is the subject of a final relief of relief from abuse order is a prohibited person it doesn't matter if there is any specific finding here or anywhere in the country that the relief from abuse order said anything about guns and it has been repeatedly found by federal courts that that is okay right and in the final relief from abuse order to be for testing that and the due process concerns are taken care of so there is a little bit of a difference there I do also understand that the temporary emergency relief stage that's the critical time period that's obviously what we're balancing here but if we don't have that language that I just suggested yeah we might as well just say shall because you're not supposed to possess firearms if an RFA is issued an emergency RFA is issued period that would solve this I suppose as well right and again I would also come back to the earlier point which is that sure X-part day orders are a huge liberty or can be a huge imposition on somebody's liberty not just in the gun situation but in other really significant ways in terms of how they can move through the world where they can live I mean those are drastic interferences in somebody's life and those are allowed under X-part day orders right now and adding those are temporary conditions where if a final hearing is not held they will go away because somebody because of the point you're raising which is that somebody does have to eventually have the in pretty short order have the ability to contest those conditions the addition of this one piece of it is in line with what we already did with respect to the X-part day orders okay let me throw one other concept out here alright so if you have a relief from abuse order a emergency relief from abuse order no discretion has to be relinquished all the time and again Judge Grisson suggested there are instances where it just makes no sense but now you have this provision that says well if there's a relief from abuse order you cannot possess firearms um a couple things I already mentioned does that put more burden than we have to on one force then maybe not they go out and they serve the order there's no information that there are firearms but they can do some more investigation yeah I can understand that but could there be an unintended consequence where individuals will not seek an RFA that is narrower because they don't want to impose this relinquishment requirement or the non-possession of firearms requirement on whoever they want the RFA against I mean you know yes we want to get firearms out of the situations but there could be a situation where the victim doesn't want that component of it and maybe the victim no longer seeks a relief from abuse order or maybe the court looks at a federal request for relief from abuse order he or she doesn't issue the order because of the broad consequences with respect to firearms I'm just still there are some probably there are some probably downsides to having no deference and that's what this is suggesting so a couple things depending on how it's written it may be the case that if somebody doesn't add any information and again this will depend on the direction we decide to go let's say we go in Judge Gerrisson's direction where there's a shell in the instance where there's evidence of firearms somebody doesn't write anything down that part of the order won't likely won't issue or at least there will be discretion and it will remain in the court's hands if there is no evidence that's presented and just want real quick and again that goes so we're doing two different I agree to some degree this is a felt suspenders thing because in the final order too we're asking for a order even though they're prohibited and I don't think there's any argument that that piece of it is acceptable it clearly is but the point of the order is the knowledge and the directive to the police to follow up on it there is something happening because of that order that wouldn't happen without it and that's important so both giving notice saying you can't do this and that notice is I think a necessary part of this people don't know all of the criminal code and it's also as this bill is structured giving a directive to the officers to make an inquiry about that and that's maybe the key aspect of the bill okay yeah no problem I was just saying you had more follow up on that a couple other points I want to make and actually some that go that return a little bit to what you were just saying Judge Gerrison expressed some concern about judges asking about firearms and it's my understanding and the network will speak more to this I think in a few minutes victims advocates or survivors advocates would like that inquiry to be made in other words this actually goes to the point you were just making a little bit is there a concern that people won't come forward because of this relinquishment order or the potential for this relinquishment order would that prevent people from coming forward part of the issue is that there is a concern that if it is on the survivors shoulders to make the request that does expose them to greater danger potentially and it is an intimidating fact that could prevent them from coming forward if on the other hand it's the court's obligation to ask and to act the I believe that it's that there is that the network decision is that that is a good thing because you are removing the obligation from the survivor to make that affirmative request but we're the court doesn't want to ask these questions it's not its job I don't think to ask these questions necessarily but if we just say you shall issue relinquishment order period because it doesn't matter because we have this other part of the law that says you can't possess firearms if there is an emergency relief order that's the connection there then it puts it on law enforcement if they get the order and we're asking we're requiring that part of that order by any information about firearms so there's no information there it's still putting the obligation on law enforcement when they serve the order presumably to start the investigation ask about it and maybe that handles what you're after well I would say it should be the court's job to inquire about firearms just as they currently inquire about where somebody lives what the contact conditions are because they have to figure out how to formulate these orders so I wouldn't say that that it shouldn't be their job it is already the case that they are allowed to issue no firearms rule part of the concern behind this bill is that that isn't happening sufficiently and it needs to happen more so if this is in there they probably again it will be up to the judges that discretion about what they ask about will remain but they probably should in more cases be asking about this and that's as it should be so why are they asking if we're going to say you shall do this you shall issue the relinquishing order under either formulation under either standard again a judge could decide not to say something which wouldn't from our policy standpoint be a good idea but under either standard they could ask for information because under the standard as it's written they could be looking for whatever reason clear and convincing evidence excuse me for a reason not to issue the order in which case they would have to make a factual inquiry to do that or under Judge Greer's suggestion where it's like if there's evidence you shall issue then again we would have to look for facts on which to make that rule so under either circumstance there should be some inquiry again that will ultimately be up to the judge but we think that's the right policy outcome and it is protected for survivors and it makes survivors more likely to come forward it's not on them to do that I assume the only reason why a judge wouldn't ask a question is because they're prohibited not to sorry still learning I mean which is what our job is in here is to go and not ask too many personal questions I don't know where I'm going with that but hopefully you understand what I'm saying I mean it's like we prohibit what they cannot ask or I certainly don't that would view the RFA statute in general as permitting inquiries that are it doesn't require inquiries but it allows for inquiries that are by their nature quite personal these are often very personal intimate situations between people and I think they're very challenging hearings where people are involved in them because of that that's the reality of the world we're dealing with when we talk about relief from abuse over hearings thanks another point that was brought out both by the judge and I believe the commissioner was getting at this a little bit too was with respect to the police process that is proposed to be happening and again this is to ensure that there is an adequate inquiry after an order is issued and that is the one of the key aspects of what's going on here is the and again the network will be able to speak to this they are the experts on this but just want to make the point that that is why that section of the statute is there we need to make sure that officers are following up on this and there is an understanding now that that is not always happening I have no doubt that Vermont State Police which is the department that commissioner Sherling supervises is doing a good job with this stuff they are one of four departments in the state and the point is to standardize this inquiry and to make sure that it is happening there is nothing in that section that removes police discretion in terms of how to prioritize things or when they address things or if there is emergency situations that they need to attend to they can do that there is nothing in that section that prohibits that or prevents that and I will say that the law about liability on this sort of thing about when police are not to do something which is how cases usually come forward is very favorable to police it is very hard to bring a successful lawsuit against police because they prioritize their day that it is widely understood both under federal supreme court case law and Vermont supreme court case law that police retain broad discretion even when there is a statute that tells them they should do something in fact when there is a statute that tells them the courts have still interpreted them to be able to make discretionary decisions and I think that this law is written in a way that they clearly retain discretion commissioner shirling brought up a point about well we don't want to focus too much on the warrant because there could be warrant requirement exceptions I think of course there is warrant requirement exceptions that is constitutional law nothing in this bill changes that constitutional law those remain if somebody would be more comfortable if there was a statement saying that in the law I think that's fine but I don't think it's necessary warrant requirement exceptions are there now and they will remain but again I think the underline point is we do want to make sure that this inquiry is happening but we are not burdening the police's discretion to make decisions about prioritization they have it now they will retain it and that actually goes to the next point I was going to make now I will delve into a little bit more specific language and I know we are running up against the end of the time so I will try to run through this very quickly but the 48 hour piece I think that saying it will happen within 48 hours or as soon as practicable certainly leaves open the discretion that we are talking about there's really two times when that would come into play one is in the station house and police stations where officers are trying to decide what to do again I think the director is pretty clear do it in the next couple of days but if something comes up do it as soon as you can but the next the only other time I think that language would really come into play is if somebody brings a lawsuit and again I want to emphasize that's really hard to do it almost never happens successfully and the fact that that language clearly leaves the discretion of the police means that we have no issue with liability attaching the only other piece I would make at this point relatively small on page 13 I think Judge Grinerson did actually raise a fair point about saying or the public with respect to this kind of public tech maybe that was on page 13 sorry that was on page 5 yeah page 5 through 7 I think I think that's a fair point this is about protecting survivors and that could be changed it could be changed to limit or the public or to borrow the language from page 13 I believe it was on page 13 where we have language about health or well being of a victim so I think that that could be a substitute for the or public that's more of a detail oriented piece that we can work on those are the pieces I had have been answering your questions well it seems to me that looking at the emergency relief or abuse order again that there's one of two approaches and maybe there are more but that's the one that I have in my mind but one is it just says shall there's a relinquishment period because we have this other provision which is going to make it illegal to possess a firearm anyway if that order issues so then it goes to law enforcement and if there's information that was provided by the victim on the affidavit or if the court inquiries that will be part of the order so the law enforcement will have some indication that there are weapons or not or firearms or not there's a relinquishment order and the law enforcement will do what they do they'll presumably investigate when they go to an issue or serve the order presumably they'll ask the individual if they have firearms because they're supposed to relinquish them and if they are suspicious that they do they can get a warrant so that looks like the one process it seems to me the other is that the court if there is any evidence of the presence of firearms or the perpetrator the defendant has access to firearms or possessions or owns or however the language is then it shall issue the order in that case we have to modify the offense the new offense that it applies only to relief emergency orders that include the relinquishment that seems to be the two avenues and all of other people I mean for you to ponder further I guess I will happily ponder I think that again I would my legal sense of what's allowable is that under either let me start that whole thought again the way in which we direct judges to make this decision doesn't necessarily affect doesn't I don't see a necessary legal connection between that and the person's decision I see your argument about that again as I've already expressed my feeling on that is that we don't need to put the caveat that you're suggesting well only if there's going to be RFAs without the relinquishment but again I go back and I see I understand your point that it's ex parte and therefore we should look at it but if we go back to the final order situation there are plenty of orders that get issued all over the country without any language about that and people remain prohibited persons without that and my argument earlier had been and remains that the ex parte order already setting the whole issue of guns aside has significant liberty and positions and that is allowable and this is this is adding one more in terms of the person's piece again although the relinquishment order is currently law it's currently allowable so I don't want to exaggerate what we're doing here we're not drastically changing what's permissible we're just making it more likely to happen and adding that sort of prohibited person's piece which is a time limited thing that will go away of no final order issues I don't see it as being a significant addition or one is necessarily tied to how we have the judges what you know the extent of discretion the judges have then it just I mean if that's the case it just seems to me we should say shell relinquish period whatever there's an order issue I think I understand your point on that certainly that's a way forward that's what we support at the beginning and I have no problem with it it's possible that Judge Gerson was concerned we'll have to ask him further that it was it was a fact that that automatically went to a civil warrant and no no it doesn't that's right so perhaps there's less concern I think that may be right and again I certainly don't think is that any issue we supported that and it's still support that solution alright thank you thanks alright so people would take a break for lunch quick break, keep going we have Sarah I don't see Bill Moore women's caucus has the new okay okay from is like new to one or something like that alright then let's get back here at one