 Good morning. This is Senate Judiciary by Thursday, February 11th, 2021, or Abraham Lincoln's birthday. People forget that now, President's Day. April 12th is Lincoln's birthday. I think we should celebrate that even when it's been going on in Washington. Today's topic, first topic is S7, which is an act relating to expanding access to expungement and sealing of criminal history records. Our witness is Sarah George, the state's attorney of our Lagos County, Chittenden County. So, Sarah, welcome to Senate Judiciary. I think this is your first time this year. It is my first time. Thank you for having me. Happy new year. I guess it's a little belated. That's all right. I'll take it. Nice to have you with us. Thank you. Thanks for having me. I know that this bill was initially discussed on January 14th and I had sent an email. I think to all of you right beforehand, I wasn't aware that it was being heard and just wanted to get one quick thought out or comment out to the committee. I can readdress that, but since I was asked to testify and looked into it a little bit more, I would add just a couple of other things. So with regards to the email that I sent, it was really just an addition of one word or two words on, I think it was line, page 16, line 17, that essentially at least my reading of it prevented state's attorneys from stipulating to expunge felony property crimes. Really ever if you read it in a particular way, the petitioners could seal by stipulation, but could not expunge by stipulation. So the recommendation was just to add the court may grant the petition to seal or expunge without a hearing. And then I also wanted to, I had looked over prior testimony and was given a copy of Attorney O'Reilly's testimony regarding the bill and I would just echo her thoughts on the technical amendment to effectuate the surcharge amendment that was done. There is some pushback within the judiciary around what that really means and whether or not it's really in their discretion to waive the surcharges when doing expungements, they are still occasionally being denied due to that surcharge. So I do appreciate her language that she suggested in her testimony, but I believe was just her post amendment and the surcharges imposed by this section shall not be waived by the court except as part of an expungement or sealing proceeding where the petitioner demonstrates an inability to pay. I do think that would be incredibly helpful for a lot of the expungements that we're doing in Shetland County. And that was a great deal of testimony back before COVID in Manuski when we had the public hearing. I believe you were there. I was. And a lot of the witnesses had significant surcharges that were making it impossible for them to make the payment. Yeah. And our surcharges in general are significant for people. And some of them are surcharges that they got 15 to 20 years ago and still just can't pay them off, which does seem like an unnecessary barrier for, again, the people that can't afford it, where people that can have had no issues with that. And the final thing I just wanted to, I think, I don't know if James Pepper's on this call, but I'm sure that he has also said this. I'm sure the judiciary has said this, but I wholly support the expansion of expungements. I would go beyond this even to allow state attorneys to expunge anything that they deem appropriate really if certain criteria are met. But with that comes a lot of additional work on our office. In 2019, our office processed 3,517 expungement petitions. And in 2020, we did 3,497, which is a lot of work. And it really has been put on myself and Chief Deputy State Attorney Dustin Dyer and do all the review, which takes a lot of time because of, frankly, how complicated our expungement statute has become. But then once we stipulate and file them, which we are now doing a lot more of because of odyssey, it's really difficult for people in the community to file things like this. So I'm actually doing the filing on behalf of a lot of people as well. And then when our office is processing them, Jennifer Buford, our Chief Administrative Assistant, does all of them and it is a lot. It's a lot of work for her, which again, we're all very grateful to do it. I just wanted to, I would be remiss if I didn't point out how much extra work it is on the offices, which I think automatic expungements would be incredibly helpful. Yeah, I personally resisted automatic expungement for a number of reasons. And part of that is that feel like a person needs to show the motivation to at least take some action to the less than expungement. Maybe that's old fashioned. Well, and also, I mean, again, kind of going back to it sometimes takes me 20 minutes just to read the statue and understand whether or not a case is eligible. And I'm an attorney. I think that to some extent, some people might read the statue and their motivation level will go down just because of the complications and not knowing whether or not their case is eligible. And then on top of that, when they call my office and say, I have this, I filled out this form, but I don't know what to do with it. I don't have an odyssey account. Is that the only way I can file something with the court? You know, there's there's a lot of barriers for people that even once they do get that initial motivation to look into it, they stop because of the system, the system that we have. I didn't have anything else specifically yet. Senator Nick has a question. So I'm just wondering with regard to the odyssey account and layperson to file that is the fee there for them or can the fee be waived or is this the there's no fee anymore? There the filing fee did get that got eliminated a couple of years ago, so they don't have to pay a filing fee unless they're stealing a DUI. I believe that still has a $90 filing fee. But so I think she's talking about the fee to odyssey because we're putting in to Vermont Legal Aid to take care of the filing fees right now anyway. The figure out the budget adjustment bill passes. That's where the money is to continue that to mark. Yeah. So I would bring that up too, though, that there have been people who have wanted to seal a DUI and they do have a $90 filing fee and getting that to the court while e-filing something is a whole not like they're right now they're mailing it to me and I'm walking it down to the court so that I know that it goes in at the same time that I'm filing it for them. It's there's a lot of complications and again, I'm happy to do it. It's something I care a lot about, but for a layperson, that motivation level gets less and less as each of those barriers is put up. So I guess my question to different folks that are in the meeting room right now is how can we simplify the process? So without, you know, I mean, I suppose you could say that every misdemeanor other than domestic violence or something was a part of the defense could be done in a different way from some of the problems. Yeah, I know that there is discussion around simplifying it and I don't have, I'm not, I don't have the best answer because I, I know that some people think we should go to an all ceiling and I really don't agree with that because I think that even the ceiling of records gets overused by law enforcement in ways that harm people and so I don't necessarily agree with that particular outcome. I do think that all in most cases, all records should eventually be destroyed, but I do think that the the multi-level and different timelines can can get confusing and I don't, I don't have the, I think there is a committee working on that though. I'm sure they can come up with something perfect. We've got Judge Brierson here. I wonder if you'd like to comment today or wait until next week. I can briefly comment. Good morning to the committee. Good morning, Sarah. Good morning. For the record, Brian Grierson, Chief Superior Judge. It's interesting to hear Sarah talk about the workload on on expungements because I can't agree more and as the committee knows and I believe more recently Pat has, Pat Gable has testified in appropriations. I don't know if it was house or senate appropriations. Tend to be house. Yeah. On the the cost involved to process these so I won't belabor that point. I've made that point to the committee before but what Sarah is really saying, we use this word automatic and whether it's her even with the stipulation that she's talking about, even if the state and the party agree, there's still a work effort involved and there is a committee, if you will, a informal committee myself, David Shear, Matt Valerio, Marshall Paul, May read O'Reilly and maybe some others have been meeting informally while this bill is pending to talk about trying to simplify the process. I think that's probably the best way to put it. Whether we'll be able to or not, I don't know, but I think Odyssey opens up some doors that were clearly not available to us before and at some point in this discussion with this group, I will make sure that we get somebody from Odyssey involved who is intimately involved with what the program can do and not do and so far we have not done that but I understand Sarah's concerns about ceiling. I think what this committee has been discussing and you probably hear more from others involved, it's really a discussion of who has access for what purpose and for how long. Because in the final analysis, whether you call it expungement or whether you call it ceiling eliminate any access, it's going to amount to the same thing under the Odyssey system. The court system will be an electronic system. There will be no paper files per se to be destroyed. It's a matter of an entry in a system that will say this file is confidential. There is no access. So we've got to figure out between the time of conviction because that's the triggering event until whatever the sentence is has been executed or completed, whatever term we want to use, it's that second point that is the triggering point for the time to start on to what extent is a file sealed or do we wait just by way of example? Conviction today, do we wait three years before sealing and then you have a period of sealing where you have to determine who has access during that sealing period before it reaches a final point that the system can trigger. The system can say three years after a conviction on a misdemeanor it can be sealed and these are the people that have access during the sealing period and at some point in the future, let's say two years after sealing, all access is denied. The system can do that. The problem is is picking up the intervening charges that may come in that may impact that. That's where you get into DUI that normally maybe could be expunged but because of an intervening charge or another conviction won't. So we've got to work out the details of that but the system will be different in the sense that it won't be destroying records, it will be denying access to those records and I would like to think there's a way of simplifying this and make it more. I don't want to suggest to anyone that it's going to be completely automatic but we can go a lot further than we have in the past and we would like this committee would continue to work and I think there's a provision in this bill as it reads now Senator that talks about referring to the sentencing commission to decide if other offenses that could be expunged and I would suggest I think I did in my earlier testimony that is part of that referral to sentencing commission that they explore this process of sealing and expungement so that it can be simplified and I agree with with with with Sarah. I can remember when a request for expungement would come in before the stipulation or even when a petition came in and going through the statutes to figure out whether someone is eligible at that point in time is a time consuming process. The only other two points I'll make now and I'll be glad to talk later. I do agree with Sarah on the surcharges that was as you indicated Senator Sears part of the bill last year and I think I'd got lost so we're comfortable with the language that may read as proposed. The only other issue that I wanted the committee to be aware of as long as Sarah's here I think she'll be familiar with it. It's come up a couple of times in the last six months I've heard from VCIC the state and the defense are stipulating to a sealing of a case but the individual has a sex offender registry requirement that is not addressed and so VCIC is caught in the middle. They get an order that says seal this but it has it says nothing about the impact on the sex offender registry and I don't know what the answer is but I think it's something that we need to discuss. The Manhattan laws federal law as well because there's certain consequences to not placing people on the registry who have committed certain acts and we we are as I remind myself we forget it but because we don't put minors on the sex offender registry we are docked I believe 10 percent of the burn grant every year. Yeah and I don't know the details of cases. So I don't know what what the impact would be. Yeah we've had a couple we've had a couple that came out of Chittenden County that's why I referenced Sarah and I think she's familiar with them but what they're finding is that person for instance might have a 10-year registry requirement but there's been an agreement to seal the record within that 10 years and VCIC said what are we supposed to do? So I just wanted the committee to be aware of that issue and I think it's something that needs to be addressed. The more expungement that we get into there's some of these collateral consequences that we need to be addressed. I'm glad you brought that up. No actually next week we're going to hear from the Justice Center they've been doing some great work looking at barriers to employment and structural barriers and Josh Grimes will be with us next week and Peggy will I hope will post by Monday he has three power points one is a playbook of national barriers to employment one is a playbook for Vermont specific to they looked at Vermont specifically and what we do to prevent people from getting jobs much of this is going to be in the government operations realm so we're lucky to have Senator White on this committee but it's amazing the work they've done and there are actually some kind of a grant that I'm not sure what it is but willing would like to work with Vermont on these collateral consequences occupational licensing business license and employment health care banking transfer insurance adult care nursing homes the whole bunch of things so there's three power points Peggy will post on our website I believe he's going to be with us next Thursday is that right Brent or Peggy um he is on Wednesday it is hold on one second um Wednesday so um if you could post that so people can who are interested can look at that um before he testifies um do you want me to post it before Wednesday typically yeah why don't we post it on on Monday to not confuse people okay what's going on this week okay but Brennan and I met with he and the director of the justice center and they're excited to work with Vermont on this it may hold up passage of the bill but I think it would be good to be able to include some of these tendernesses and it goes beyond expungement but many of our barriers are unrelated to whatever job the person's looking at senator I can just add to the comments Sarah made about the self-represented litigant who doesn't have access to Odyssey I checked while we were talking and much like a person comes to the court now with their petition for expungement or used to they can bring their hard copy their paper to the court and the court staff will scan that into the system so it will become without charge so essentially for the self-represented litigant without access to Odyssey it's the same process they come to court with their paperwork and will scan them by the staff I don't know I don't know that they can do that right now but they could mail it I assume right well they as long as they get the paperwork to court it'll be scanned in and process would be the same I agree with everything that we can do to simplify the process for the person um it's it's it can be intimidating trying to understand and I I've worked with a fellow who's getting a record expunge and he was thrilled to get three of his four crimes expunge but then he finds out that one of them can't be expunged under the current law and this bill would change that to allow him to expunge everything he had no problem getting three of them but then the fourth one is a hindrance and that continues a barrier for him to be able to do certain things so I you know I think that you should do whatever we can to simplify it both the the judiciary the state I'm interested in one thing you said Sarah that I'd like to expand on further is the effect of sealing versus expunging and how you that I um we've been talking about both sort of as a g if it's simpler to seal than let's just do sealing can you comment further on that why you're opposed to sealing I'm not opposed to it I think that I would echo what Judge Grisham was saying that I think it more so depends on who has access to that while it's sealed because right now my understanding at least is that all law enforcement have access to that even the the individual who's out doing traffic stops and can access somebody's sealed record from 15 years ago and use that as a pretextual stop whether that ultimately holds up is another question but I think that they're even within law enforcement really needs to be limited by by who can see it and for how long I think that really the only reasons we should be able to see particular prior conduct is if it's a subsequent offense and recent and otherwise I just I think that they are going to continue it won't hold people back necessarily in the community and housing or other issues but it will continue to hold them back within the legal system in ways that I think only perpetuate all of the same problems that we already have and certain prosecutors will use old old offenses against people that they in my opinion shouldn't be able to so I just think the people that do a lot of the harm from prior using prior convictions against against people are still going to have access to it and can still continue to harm them and I think that especially when it comes to it actually does ultimately hurt them in housing because if we're using those to ask for for example a case we maybe would have done some other alternative process for but we see that they have this prior case that's similar from 15 years ago and so we don't we require that they go through the regular system and get another conviction it just perpetuates the cycle for those individuals it really doesn't allow them to fully move on when the people that can use it against them have access to it but if it's recent and it's a subsequent offense then I understand the importance of that and I think those cases we should be able to see that somebody got a DUI two years ago and you know it's getting another one and that that makes sense to me but somebody having a felony from 20 years ago felony property offense for example that has long since done what they needed to do on that case and just ran into some other issue 15 years later I don't think we should be able to use that against them and it will get used against them by some prosecutors yeah do you have that same experience with the juvenile records too which have been sealed I mean we never I don't think we ever expunge juvenile records I don't know we certainly don't in Chittenden County we don't look at those when somebody is out of the system I mean we've certainly had conversations if a particular prosecutor knew that they had a case with that child they may they may mention it but we don't use that information in the criminal cases but we could you know I'm speaking on behalf of Chittenden County they we could use it against them and law enforcement could use it against them if they cannot have access to it they can if they have access to it they I mean whether they're actually using it against them like they they have that in their head they can their biases could be triggered they can they can use that information whether they say they're using that information or not they I have had law enforcement say I saw that this kid had this particular violent offense when he was 15 like this isn't his first time those types of conversations happen when we're trying to get a 19-year-old especially now into youthful offender we've had law enforcement bring those up like well this isn't his first time he shouldn't get a youthful offender status because he did this sort of thing when he was 15 so that's what I mean by they they do use it against them in wanting a particular outcome that's helpful I thought this was a simple bill we passed that last year and there wouldn't be any problem I guess maybe I'm making it more complex but there are problems with the current system and I hopefully we we take another look at the bill and do whatever we can to make it as simple as possible for somebody to get their records and move the barriers if they're eligible for expungement state agrees the judge agrees there's no reason anybody else would like to comment on this right now senator the only other thing I would add yeah the only other thing I would add is under the current statutes as to both ceiling and expungement the the the phrase is that if a person if the court is asked the phrase is there is no record and that applies to whether it's a sealed or an expunged record and so in that sense they're similar and again I'll just repeat myself that with the case management system it should be easier to to manage that electronic file and hopefully eliminate some of the steps that are now part of this process but I would agree with with this George that it's it's a question of access who and how long and what do they have to do to get that access we can resolve that part then I think whatever we call it sealing or expungement is not critical it's it's the access and for how long thank you thank you uh James thank you thank you sir I appreciate your being with us James Pepper did you have a comment I had uh yes for the record James Pepper from the department of state's attorneys and sheriffs and I just wanted to thank Sarah George for all of her work on expungement her office uh you know I think had I think she mentioned 3500 expungements just last year which is an incredible undertaking um with the help of legal aid of course who's been just so incredible getting um all of our state's attorneys on board and comfortable with expungements and ceilings and has held I think expungement clinics in every county of the state um helping people navigate this very complex process um I have one substantive uh comment on the bill if that's appropriate for this time yeah absolutely we've got about 25 minutes to continue talking about okay so and I've raised this with um at least some of the stakeholders that are in this uh you know kind of informal subcommittee on sealing um and what this bill does is it allow it expands eligibility to a number of crimes in fact all the crimes except for the non-listed crimes and uh it applies to all non-listed and non-drug trafficking crimes so it also allows a the respondent which could be either the state's attorney or the attorney general to stipulate to uh to waive the time period um the waiting period uh for any crime and that that is a good thing and it's something the state's attorneys have asked for in the past the ability to waive certain time periods where we get a little bit nervous is that there's this concurrent jurisdiction between uh the state's attorneys and the attorney general for waiving those time periods and so the office that prosecuted the case is not necessarily the office that would be allowed to waive that time period and that gives us a little bit of pause um especially considering the victim notification that's required under uh 7608 um so you know it's our it's the office that prosecuted the case that I think should be in charge of determining whether uh to waive the time period or not and do that victim notification you know it's uh the office that prosecuted the case that has the victim advocate that has the relationship with the victim um that should be the one reaching out to that victim and seeing if there's any objection to the ceiling or an expungement and I would say that um I think without exception when people are eligible eligible for expungement and they don't have any disqualifying um criteria and the victim has had an opportunity to weigh in it's very very rare and I think um it would be difficult to find many cases where a state's attorney has not granted an expungement or a or a ceiling but I do think that it should be the office that prosecuted the case that is in charge of determining whether or not to waive that time period friend do you have that um as a possible amendment um I have not talked to bren about that but I'd be happy to no I do now but um yeah okay I'm sorry I thought um I understand what about when they do the clinics though I mean you have an attorney and attorney general there if that's the case then if there's that open line of communication um that's fine with me it's just we've seen a couple of times where uh an expungement petition has come through where the state's attorney had not been notified and it was because it was done and I don't know the specifics of of maybe you know there was an attempt to notify uh that just didn't happen but um we've seen one or two instances around the state where you know a ceiling order or an expungement order comes through and the state's attorney had no idea um so can um David did you want to comment on that since you're the one you're the attorney you're not the one excuse me you're the attorney you're representing the attorney general's office sure thank you senator uh and for the record david chair with the attorney general's office um on that point it is the case that we have concurrent jurisdiction the way the statute's written to stipulate two expungements if we chose to it's my belief it's my understanding that in every case in which we've done that there has been consultation with the state's attorney's office involved I have and you know I understand there's different evidence being put in front of the committee but that that is not my understanding of what's happened it is the case that um I have excuse me I have standing permission actually from the chitlin county state's attorney to review and stipulate to expungement conditions sorry expungement petitions out of chitlin county uh and when david cahill with state's attorney in windsor county I had similar standing permission to do that this was especially relevant during the clinics that you're talking about where even though they take place in one county you know people don't often realize that they're uh or whether they realize it or not that we get we get petitions for cases that were coming out of all counties so at at these clinics even if they're aimed at one specific county so it was often very useful for me to be able to do that and in cases where we didn't have standing permission there have been times certainly when um the attorney general has felt that a expungement or stipulation was was warranted but my belief was that in my in what I witnessed as being president at the clinics is that the attorney general would call the state's attorney and say look I really think this is a one that's worthy of stipulation and I'd like to sign it and and talk to them about it so I I don't know you know I don't I don't know the specifics of the cases that attorney peppers talking about um I do think it's useful in um volume management especially for some of these big counties to be able to have these cooperative agreements it's certainly I would certainly never stipulate to a petition unless I had some sort of permission from the state's attorney and I my belief is that is the policy of our office um and really nobody else in our office frankly deals with expungements other than me um but yeah so our our our position would be that it is useful and helps deal with volume management and can be a useful tool to have the attorney general's office able to review these as well I understand that's a perhaps a point of disagreement with with us and and some of the state's attorneys um but just wanted to put that out there thank you uh pepper I I just I would actually agree with um most of what uh attorney chair has just said and that I do think it's useful for there to be this concurrent jurisdiction with respect to um ceiling and expungement what I'm I'm just talking about this additional provision that would allow uh the respondent which is either the state's attorney or the or the attorney general under current law to waive the time period I I think that that you know that could mean a person is um convicted of a crime today and then tomorrow um the attorney general could come and seal the petition or stipulate to seal the petition when when that office did not was not involved in the prosecution so I'm only concerned about this additional new authority that's being granted that would allow um either the state's attorney or the attorney general to to waive that kind of waiting period which is permitted under s7 all right we should highlight that when we get to markup um there was a discussion about trellis and negligent driving um where are we with that matt larry I think somebody brought it up is that expungible are we talking about negligent operation with serious vital injury or death resulting that that's what I think we were talking about it's I believe those are listed currently um and if listed crimes were being excluded then they wouldn't be um expungible but to me those are usually negligent acts that over a period of time if there are no further problems should be subject to treatment like other negligent acts and and allow and allow expungement um you know there's not a criminal intent necessarily and what uh there's not a criminal intent necessarily but you know by definition it is a negligent act um that we have chosen to criminalize um so you know to me at at some point they need to needs to be something that comes off the record if uh you know if there aren't any other problems I mean there's what I think about what I think about you know worthiness for expungement or for or ceiling is what type of uh are you intending to commit a crime are you intending to do something that is criminal is there some sort of criminal thinking or uh you know uh I don't want to use the Latin but the bottom line is a a criminal element to your thinking that gives rise to what the state has deemed to be a crime and to me that the negligent or unintentional type acts are the types of things that are not the product of criminal thinking they are the product of mistake they are the product of of of uh inadvertence or negligence or um not paying attention where if you can get that under uh control and understand that you need to pay attention that you need to be um to be attending to detail in the like like when you're driving um those are the kinds of things that down the road would warrant a uh an expungement and ceiling and I use those two words interchangeably I know and it's it just confuses things but um you know I can see we're going to undo ultimately distill this down to what is the equivalent of expungement no matter no matter what you call it so to me I'm trying to get at the concept of what sorts of things are worthy of expungement on their face because of the lack of criminal thinking that went into uh the crime to begin with thanks it's actually helpful sometimes I wanted to have things get on certain lists um you know we've created lists of the big well listed crimes we add to those lists do things with them sometimes is it is it that correct well I mean it's clear over the years that the various victims groups and advocacy groups have had uh you know access the legislature to help expand the list of listed crimes from the old common law mrs baker crimes or what you call the big 12 now um but uh you know that that was a that was a time during the early 90s and the like when um criminalization of a lot of behavior started to uh started to erupt particularly regarding um alcohol uh drugs and domestic violence and I I will and I and we keep talking about this domestic the domestic violence as being one of the things that we uh are uh keep excluding from things I I'm just mindful of a uh seminar that I actually went to attended last friday for with a professor from the University of Maryland who was an advocate during the 90s regarding the domestic violence um issues and was she says one of the people who got domestic violence on the various lists as like listed crimes and and the like and then she's studied the issue over the last 30 years and has now come to the realization that we've done it completely wrong um and uh and that we need to deal with domestic violence in a different way I I really wish that the legislature at some point would uh give her some time to whether it's in this committee or another one or you know depending on the time frame or her name is um Lee uh I'm sorry I am uh Lee Goodmark and she's a doctorate professor at uh University of Maryland University of Maryland law school and uh she talks about uh the ways your certain European countries have addressed domestic violence in a way that has made progress on recidivism where in the United States despite our efforts we really haven't um made the type of progress that you would you would hope on the subject in any event separate separate issue but uh you know it's clear how these lists expanded over over time as um interested victims groups um became more active in the political process I was just looking for the through my file of the last one looking how we the last the bill last year and uh interesting my note from Sarah George need to simplify the system this is 127 20 senator white I was just going to comment on on what Matt just talked about because I have and I know this has nothing to do with the expungement thing but it is a follow-up on that the I I know that we will not allow domestic violence cases to go to the criminal justice center or our community justice centers um they're excluded from that and I know that when the sheriff down here was um doing his ankle bracelet program the um they said you cannot do a dv cases you just they aren't eligible they shouldn't ever happen and he convinced the state's attorney and the everybody to allow this person to do it and it was the best thing that happened both to that person and to the victim so I think that we we lump these things in and it doesn't make any sense and I agree with Matt we really should be um taking a deeper look at that it's one of those things that we we probably just need to look at just by virtue of the fact that we aren't really making a lot of progress on it uh with what we're doing so unless there's no way to handle it ever and we just throw up our hands and say it's something that has no remedy um then look at other things and I as I understand it from the Dr. Goodmark that uh um there are programs that have worked um in in Europe and in other places that uh show good promise with recidivism and and the like on the domestic violence front um but it's not the way we address things here senator if you have my comment on the careless operation carol the negative operation please do yeah uh so the comments just now spurred me to do a quick search through both the bill and current law uh by way of background it is currently one of the perverse outcomes of our statutes that somebody can get a DUI sealed but cannot get a careless and exit operation sealed even though DUIs often get pled down to careless and negligence so it's a bizarre outcome uh but the reason why currently the reason why they can't get them sealed is because their predicate offenses and predicate offenses are uh not eligible for expungement or sealing it was the intention of this bill to include a bunch of predicate offenses and allow a predicate misdemeanors to be sealed and uh or expunged um but looking through the draft I just noticed what I think might be an error uh but if somebody has a knowledge that this was a purposeful change let me know we can discuss it but um on page three of uh of s7 line lines 15 and 16 it looks like there's an amendment to the listed offenses proposed that would in fact expand what is currently limited the listed offense is currently limited to grossly negligent operation resulting in serious bodily injury or death as defined in subsection b of the relevant statute and it looks like there's an amendment that it would open it up so that the listed offense would become any negligent or grossly negligent operation um so I just wanted to flag that because I my sense is that it wasn't the intention to open that up but maybe maybe there's some debate I'm I'm misremembering but if it's like that change were to be made then we would be left with a system where that couldn't be sealed or expunged and I don't think that that was the intention but again I defer to uh are we I'm now I'm confused so I need some help bring um are we saying simple gross negligent operation can't be expunged no so that so that was not the intent um the sentencing commission report uh that was issued last year recommended um an update to the listed crime statute that would correct the cross reference and there were I had quite a few discussions with various individuals last year when I was working on the bill so that removal of subsection b and I and I recently talked to Marshall from the defender general's office about this and in the next draft that um that subsection b that's removed in the as introduced version was going to be replaced um so the intent here was just to correct the cross reference and not to expand um what's considered a listed crime thank you senator sears yes chris uh chris fennel for the record um Vermont Center for Crime System Services I just wanted to state because of the conversation not just what happened but the conversation about domestic violence and um excluding it from from things and you know I've worked in the domestic violence field for over 30 years and we have learned a lot and I just want to assure and I see now that Sarah Robinson is on this call um but I want to assure folks that the network the network programs and then and nationally people are working on these issues they're hard issues just like trying to reform the criminal justice system how to keep victims safe and what that looks like and um how we can make sure and ensure that our communities are safe for everyone is number one thing and there are literally thousands of people working on this issue thank you um yeah in Brattleboro it was the domestic violence network program and I believe the Bennington network program also supported the use of ankle bracelets for domestic abusers who are getting treatment for whatever you want to programming on shipments so programming um it allowed them to continue their jobs pay child support other things and I know the pain and the pain was actively involved in Bennington I don't know what your network program is called the Women's Freedom Center but it also allowed the victim to know at any point where if the violator had straight off and gone someplace where he or she wasn't supposed to go it it was a it was a good program I would agree sorry we lost it yeah me too um it being uh almost 10 o'clock Sarah did you want to make a quick comment then we'll come back to this next week sure I would I would just say uh you know we're very supportive of these ongoing conversations and senator white I know there's been and we've been in conversation with the attorney general's office about the current carve out that there is around not referring domestic and sexual violence cases to community justice centers so I just wanted to assure the committee that those conversations are very robust and ongoing and we certainly hope to come back you know in the coming years uh with a with a very with some policy proposals but those are conversations are ongoing lots of stakeholders involved in those and we very much see the potentials for um diversion and restorative justice to have more of a role in domestic and sexual violence cases than they do right now good thank you with that we'll take a break until quarter after um and and then pick up with one of the yes all right my agenda s18 thank you last agenda third pick up with s18 um which is a bill regarding time we're going to sign off youtube for 15 minutes and be back at 10 15 thank you