 I just stepped out for a second, but I'll just give you a little preamble after a lot of discussion back and forth over the weekend. The last few days I've been about the amendment and receiving emails from a number of opponents of the bill regarding clarity. Ben and I had a long conversation. If it was not clear how to make it clear, I thought it was clear the way it was done, but then it had excellent work. And you sent me an email that Commissioner Sherling had said. So we're trying to make sure that there's not confusion. So, this would strike out section. So, certainly they are of these two amendments. So, there's a third amendment, which is something that we already have on the calendar. I'm just going to join with video so I can share my share right now. Yeah, yes. Okay. Thank you for the office of legislative council. Dear points, Senator White subsection. So this is which fashion is a four minute to the report of the committee on S 254. It contains three instances of men of amendment to that are more significant. The third is really just more housekeeping. But as Senator Sears alluded to, there is discussion about how to make this clear, and really to give it the full force and effect that the committee had attended when it voted it out. So with with that in mind, subsection a of the report that was voted out is now replaced to read as is the intent of the general assembly to codify the common law principle for plaintiffs damages for an alleged violation of article 11 of the Vermont law enforcement agency as established by the Vermont Supreme Court's decision in Zulu v state 2019 vt one and apply it uniformly as a burden that a plaintiff must prove to recover damages in an action brought against any law Vermont law enforcement agency, alleging a violation of article 11. So this is a slight change in the sense that it adds some language about in common law principles so judge made law and just sort of some reformatting to really make clear that this principle was established in in Zulu but the intent is to make sure it applies uniformly to any law enforcement agency. And I think the clarification was necessary after consultation with the senator, also with colleagues in Orange Council and based on some other statutory destruction that already exists for consistency and really to provide the intent of what the committee was trying to do which is this the standard existed but there was the open question over whether or not extended beyond state police. And since that was the standard outlined in the case is just saying that this standard that was established there now applies uniformly to any Vermont law enforcement agency. The second instance of amendment would add a new subsection beat which actually enumerates the standard itself, it's almost a verbatim recitation from the Zulu case and this was necessary really to give it true statutory effect and the full force and effective law and it goes beyond just intent. And it's sort of a belt and suspenders standpoint to make sure that this truly will be what's applied in cases involving law enforcement agencies for violations of article 11. So it now reads a plaintiff seeking damages against any Vermont law enforcement agency directly under article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. Based on law enforcement officers alleged violation of that constitutional provision must show that one law enforcement officer committed a violation of article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. Two, there is no meaningful alternative in the context of the particular case in three law enforcement officer knew or should have known that the officer violated clearly established law or the officer acted in that case. And almost verbatim from section 55 of the decision just with some changes for context and to effectuate the committee's intent to apply to any law enforcement agency. Third is some clarification in section two on the report that would be commissioned to ensure that it was confined to the legal analysis, which I'll not make any policy recommendations. The remaining changes are just to ensure lettering is consistent with the changes. And also that there's a new title of the bill to read and act relating to recovering damages for article 11 violations by law enforcement and report on qualified. Yeah, before you do, before I get to work, we have a report on that. I just said that maybe you can bring it up. I have a report ready. So that should do it. Do you have questions? I just want to know, could you talk a little bit about number two at the top of page no meaningful part of the context of this particular case. Sure. And again, that is directly from the case itself. This can mean a really a multitude of things. So, you know, there's the concept that we talked about, for more compared in the United States to their own sovereigns. So an article four violation of the Vermont console is, there's article for the equivalent. It's the search and see the provision of article 11. It's to show that Vermont courts have the ability to remedy article 11 violations because article 11 is more expansive than article four, or then the fourth amendment. And so, bringing a case in the federal court for fourth amendment violation may not always provide meaningful remedy to one that's by the article 11. There could also be other remedies if there's a criminal case ongoing, where if a motion to suppress evidence granted in that case, it may provide the plaintiff and a civil action, the relief that they're looking for because it would toss out the evidence and they sink the criminal case so it's weak. And so, it's really contextual analysis analysis in a particular case to see if there are other remedies possible that don't necessitate damage. It could be like I said, give the emotion to suppress, it could be even injunctive relief to say that, you know, law enforcement agency can't pull cars over for having obscure registrations because maybe that would prevent this type of behavior that occurred in that case. So, it would be an analysis to say that those other remedies don't exist or aren't available or don't provide meaningful relief. And so, damages is really the way to go. Well, Senator Bruce not here to change it to Sears. Okay. Yeah, don't put me on. Okay. No, I'll be on the amendment. I mean, still. Well, Senator, if there's any questions about the additional language that I can answer. I think this is a good amendment. Yeah. Maybe you guys want to be on the amendment. I will say that the majority of the committee supports the amendment that not necessarily the bill. You're moving in the right direction. What I'm afraid of is how this is going to look when it comes back to the other body. Well, I don't know if the folks are there. You mean on our court. They've been taken counts. That's close. Yeah. I wonder yesterday he called me at 9am. I was on my way up and said, I believe he may not have, may not have realized we're meeting at 10 today. We're just doing it with waffles. So you can skip the conversation. I'm sorry. So just for clarification, Senator, are you want to be a part of the amendment? No, I don't know my name on it. I will vote for the. Just centers. And again, you've got the report already. Yeah, the report is really the report. It's not specific. I don't know what you just said. I've written it down on my notes, but I also need a complete copy. Well, I will go right back. I will change the. Who's moving for the amendment. And I'll do a quick write up. And I'll deliver to you. Okay. Email to me. Okay. Do the report triple space. You know, yesterday. About an eight point. I could not read it. I do 16 point. But I don't triple space. So. I couldn't read it. You know, for life of me, I could not remember. We did get to verbatim. The reason I couldn't remember it was so quick. He said, I'm not. He was not an advocate for the spirit. He jumped on the camera and said, I can just tell you that it's a policy determination. A legislature. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. That. I know. I know. Desperate. No. Judges reviewed that and said. They agree that we should have 90. Judges who received that active justice right now, reference today, as well as other studies. I won't get into that. You've heard a lot about that when you're not making a policy decision. As far as the judges today, not hearing any judges to receive or review that, who are doing civil work, indicate they believe that we should go to non-U.S. verdicts. That being said, if the legislature decides to go in that direction, I would go with the higher numbers of the super majority out of that. Are you going to read that a little more today? Well, and Brandy asked, we said, I mean, let me tell you why that came up yesterday. We had a client. He was in our publicist door around in Circle said, what do you got in the committee and what's your vote on? So when this particular vote came up, they asked me why I voted against it. I said, for two reasons. One is I think the report being 20 years old could use some updating. The other is that Judge Zone told us that all the judges had reported back to him and said, it's fine just leave it to be unanimous. And so he had that in his head since our caucus, which is why he got up and asked you on the floor if there was a survey of the judges. But I think that will go a long way. Yeah, yeah, I mean, he basically said, I don't know what. Well, some of them didn't even start. I'm not going to judge what they actually said. But some of them didn't respond. Those that did said they were fine. It's just the way it is. Yeah, right. And let me know when I should go offline. Oh,