 Okay, great. So here we are back again. We had a little mini break and we are now looking at as 250 as 250 is up. I'm going to call it all but the kitchen sink law enforcement. Some changes and suggestions and around law enforcement and it has very discrete parts some of them are related but they are they do tend to be discrete so we're going to look at them in a discrete manner and there are nine sections. And we have eliminated section two, because that's a section that talks about qualified immunity and, and I believe, Senator Rom Hinsdale that it was put in there to make sure that qualified immunity was dealt with in one place or the other and it is the same bill that we've been having hours and hours on testimony in the judiciary committee. So, if I could just say, you know, to me, it's part of a continuum of accountability for officers because otherwise I don't think you ever get to, you know, a full the case that you need to make around qualified immunity if you don't have a registry and sort of take care of a lot of other concerns around misconduct so I hope to see them pieces of this past together but yes this I wrote this bill last year with this with qualified immunity in it so it wasn't anticipating it being in a separate bill. And I believe that it is exactly the same as the bill that was introduced to judiciary I've been wrote them both and I believe it was exactly the same bill am I right, Ben. Yeah, it was identical as the as introduced version of that. Okay. So, section two we're not going to address section three I think what we heard. The time was that there needs to be more training on bias, but that it needs to be embedded in all the training and that gets hard to start quantifying the hours, as opposed to having a quality training experience and so. My understanding is that the decision or the testimony led us or led me to the decision that we didn't need to address that because it was being addressed and was being embedded and we didn't need to add hours what we need to do is make sure we have quality training. Is that right. You know, I alluded to this a little bit before I think a ton. And I mean, I put that section in because of a request from him, you know, previously, so that he had more conversations and felt comfortable without more funding and more hours set aside. You know, I am okay with at this point, because that that was something that came from him so you know I think what still gives me pause is that some of this is done as a. Online module, you know that is kind of just like click through. And then you're done. And I think this is better done as a discussion out loud with peers. So I just want to say that out loud but I'm happy to not. And I think that we will later on after crossover. I intend to have. We passed 124. I keep referring to 124 and there were a lot of reports in there. And some of them will be from the criminal justice council and we can talk about the training and how they're doing it and the kind of training that they're doing so we'll have a have reports on on that after crossover. Section four. I know that a ton sent information about the data that is currently collected. And I believe the commissioner did also but I'm not sure that everybody get that. Huh. Yes. Okay. So are there. Is there anything in section four that is not currently being collected that we need to collect. I mean, I just want to say I asked all break for clarity from from the commissioner and from others. And I got a chart of, you know, overall things that are supposed to be collected. But I did not get. I mean, I just feel like the commissioner said we are collecting this information. We have this information. So even if it takes a few days to liberate it. My impression from what he said is that we could have that information upon request, even if it wasn't plainly available to people. And I did not receive it after a week of asking multiple times for it. So I don't feel satisfied that it's available or being collected. And we just need to ask for it in the right way. I don't think that's fair to the public. Well, is that true also what a ton sent. I got another document from a ton several days ago, I asked him for clarification because I said I still don't see the information here. I scanned the whole thing. And I didn't see that information. So I had asked that by today's testimony, maybe they're coming in in a few minutes, someone could produce that information, not just was a very long document that had a big, a big spreadsheet of what they plan to collect no timeline, etc. And that that I did not see that information anywhere or a nod to that information anywhere and I asked for clarification three days ago and I don't have it. Okay, well, I'm sure the commissioner. I'm not sure a ton is joining us because I think what he told me is that he thought he had said what he needed to say and that they are collecting the information and that we don't need to address that because it is being collected, but we'll ask the commissioner when he comes in. So, um, let's I'm looking around at who's here. I think that one of the sections that intrigued me was section nine. So, and that's, um, gaining a confession by use of false information from the arresting officer or the officers that are confessions based on false information. Is anybody prepared to talk about that and how that currently happens and why we would allow that in the first place. I mean I know, I guess, I guess it's common but Falco, did you have any insight into that section. I can speak to that and I'm sure they'll hear from others as well. So the record, Falco Schilling advocacy director for the ACLU of Vermont. And so the ACLU of Vermont is supportive of this section and think that this is evidence that can be rightfully excluded from trial and I guess I can go into that this is a technique that can be used in practices that can often lead to false confessions, which can then be used as evidence at trial against defendants, even if they have not committed the crime. You know interrogation techniques are one of the we've seen that false confessions are a thing that happens quite regularly. I wish I had reports from the innocent project with me but there's a certain pretty good percentage of false convictions call come from false confession so just very quickly speaking to the section we'd be very supportive of this moving forward and appreciate the committee looking at this and considering this as a change to current law. And is the language as it. Is it the correct language. And we support the language as as drafted at this time, but be happy to see if there's any amendments going forward. Okay, so thank you. So from maybe I should ask a prosecutor. Do we have a prosecutor with us here. Oh, yes, I see there's Mr Lucy states attorney. Can you speak to this a little bit are you still with us bins. Maybe not. Would anybody else like to speak to this section. Sheriff Anderson. Although you, I guess arrest you don't get confessions but I was not prepared to speak to this section I share follow has been a representative for this bill but she wasn't able to make it today so I think that we might have comments I just don't have the comments to share at this time. Okay. Chris, Raquel where it would you have anything. Oh, and then I see Mike Scherling has also joined us. Thank you madam chair and no I would not offer any comment to section nine I would certainly defer commissioner Scherling on that section. Thank you. Mr Scherling, we're looking at section nine. Not that we've gone through all other sections but I jumped to this one because it seemed to me so clear that is something we shouldn't be doing so. And Falco has just supported it from the ACLU point of view and would you like to comment on it it's the confessions based on false information prohibiting that. Sorry I was on at 315 but there wasn't anybody here so I checked the schedule and it says you were starting at 330 so apologies for the wire that was crossed. Section nine. I think our position is this is well covered in existing case law. You'd like more detail we certainly have other witnesses from special investigation units drug units etc who could give you an illegal team who could give you additional depth as necessary. I just want to say my question would be is there harm and putting it in statute. I've known people who go to court quoting statute because that's what they can see they don't always know case law so I feel like if you're saying. This is not a practice that is condoned or accepted in the court then we might as well put it in statute. Well it's a good question senator I think the the like everything the devil's in the details what I'm suggesting is that the existing case law covers. The inappropriate use of. Investigative techniques that. That would. There's a variety of different ways it's described things that would shock the conscience is the one that stands out to me as the one of the litmus tests set by the court. The as written the statute would create different guardrails so it would create. A different landscape that would need to be litigated and it would create complexity especially around our our undercover operations and. Particularly some key cases like everything from homicide to. Sexual violence and child sexual abuse cases where these techniques are most often used. It's important to know for the committee that the current training methodology is. Not to use deception to the greatest extent possible. You know we're some short way of saying we're on the same page here but I would hesitate to create a statutory framework that would have. Unintended consequences going forward because it would change boundaries that and we wouldn't know that until after we went through a variety of litigation to figure out where those boundaries are. Can you give an example of when you think it is appropriate in egregious cases. Certainly well use a couple of examples that are specific to things that in cases that I've been involved in. May or may not surprise the committee to learn that in my career part of my job has been to actually assume the role of a 13 or 14 year old boy and girl and online undercover investigations. We'd have to figure out where the intersection of that kind of work lies with what's been written here in section nine. What that would be different than getting a confession from then an interrogation that leads to a confession. Not necessarily senator a confession can be made under a variety of different circumstances and if we use that kind of deception which is essential in an online undercover child exploitation investigations and the person says something to indicate that they're. They have previously abused a child in response to something that was said by the undercover operative that may be inadmissible under what's been written here. I just yes. If Ben had an opinion on how the language is written around the kind of period of time in which you're talking about introducing false information. Yes I can I realize I never introduced myself for the record. I'm Ben from the office of legislative council. And you know I can read into the record. The most recent case law about what an involuntary confession is. And then as comparison what the statute or fill languages is written. So an involuntary confession is admissible under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. It doesn't prohibit all police tactics or psychological pressure rather a defendant statement is admissible as voluntary if it was a product of the defendant's own balancing of competing considerations. Would you repeat that last part. And I'll get into a little bit more detail as to what that is and the test is whether based on the totality of circumstances the suspects will was overborn by police. A confession is involuntary if law enforcement coercion played a significant role in inducing it. The facts of police coercion and the characteristics of the defendant are both considered in a voluntariness analysis, not all psychological coercion exerted by police is prohibited, especially where a promise is ambiguous or not specific. For example, a police officer use use of psychological coercion involving promises of leniency and misrepresentations of authority can render a confession and voluntary. The lies about incriminating evidence, taken alone are not enough to make any result in confession is voluntary. The, and the court basically reviews the facts established at regarding the balling there is the plane rare that's the goes to impeller reviews so it's really, it's a case by case basis. The psychological coercion of leniency and misrepresentations of authority can make something involuntary to make a confession involuntary, but lies about incriminating evidence by themselves, don't necessarily render a confession and voluntary on their own. So what this section would do is really outline definitively what constitutes an involuntary confession, rather than sort of leaving it up to the courts inside. But this is sort of what the court's test is that I just read, and then this, the proposed section 6609 would more definitively state exactly what the involuntary nest is, what constitutes involuntary confession. You may not know the answer to this but New York introduced an I believe past something similar I'm looking right now to see if it passed. Do you happen to know if this aligns with New York's what did, did you learn if this. That's something that I have to look a bit more into to see the comparison between the two. So, this is saying that. Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't sure if you were looking for more from me, Madam chair. Yeah, if you only bends description was exactly what I would have our legal folks explained to you as well and in our assessment is the courts have handled this well. This is something that in Vermont is is fairly well established law and the guardrails are are in the right place and well well known well trained on section nine would be more disruptive than helpful. So I guess. What we're what you're saying is that the courts and that we have case law in Vermont that defines when what what kinds of information can be used or what kinds of pressure whatever can be used to obtain a confession, and the courts follow that that common law standard and that they apply it when they're looking at a confession. And that if we did, if we wrote this we are, we are changing the changing that common law understanding by the courts and by law enforcement as to what they can and can't do. So what you're saying. It is, it is, I would describe it slightly differently. The standard in play here is a constitutional standard both under two articles of the United States Constitution and the Vermont Constitution and the. Constitutional standard against self incrimination statements made must be knowing intelligent and voluntary, and the courts have created very well established guardrails and rules around what constitutes a knowing intelligent and voluntary statement in a custodial environment and then also what constitutes and what constitutes custody to create that custodial environment and then what other parameters like undercover operations where where those guardrails are so there's an enormous amount of detail that we train on to ensure that folks are staying within the boundaries of the constitutional standards and the case law that flow from those constitutional standards. Does anybody else have a comment or question on this. Well, I don't know if Falco wants to weigh in but I mean other states are doing this as well what I'm hearing from the commissioner is it relies on individual judges to follow that case law and that sort of trust us we're working seems to be the refrain on a lot of these sections when you know commissioner Shirley you weren't here when I said that I was frustrated that I asked for information you said was available around the ability to collect data and liberate data for the general public around use of force and injury and death related to use of force and I asked all all break for that you had said last time that that is something that's being collected and can be made available and then I feel like the attitude changed when I asked for that information so you know I feel like we keep hearing. This is what we're doing this is already in practice and then not seeing the evidence of that. So Senator taking back to front the most recent comments you're not accurately representing my communication with you relative to that to begin with I apologize for any confusion over what I was describing I was describing that we now have an information technology system in place that is designed to collect all of that information and to be able to report it out in the future in both dashboard form and in raw data form. Additionally I sent you examples of those dashboards that are currently publicly available on the state police website that dig into the details of use of force in the intersection of everything from race to the types of encounters to the time of day that those events occurred. And there was extensive communication answering your questions so to indicate that we were not responsive or somehow misleading is certainly not accurate there may have been a lack of clarity on the fly. In terms of what I was trying to relay to take the. I'm sorry but the information itself wasn't presented you said you showed a long list of things that will be collected in the future. Is that accurate. I did not send you a list of things that would be collected in the future. In the legislation there are a variety of things that are contemplated to be directed as sort of directives to collect what I'm indicating is that all of those fields of data are now are currently able to be collected in a new system that has been in place now for roughly 60 days. And I have been testifying for two years that part of our modernization strategy is to make not only the intersection with the fields of data that are contemplated in the legislation but basically every connection that could be made between events people without biographical specificity use of force mental health opiates a host of different really high profile and important data points. The goal is to make those available using the types of dashboards that I sent you links to and also to make all of that information publicly available. In aggregate form so that researchers were monitors students others can do their own individual queries of that data. What I've described previously is it gives people the opportunity to query that data and ask questions that we haven't yet even thought to ask. And when is that. The work that is all in progress now, as I indicated a couple of times the dashboards I sent you links to our examples of what we are we will be working to build again we're 60 days into this new system. And, frankly, we are quite distracted by the volume of legislation that we have to work on right now so working on other things. At the same time we're working on a pandemic is a little difficult. So you don't have a timeline. It's as quickly as possible. So, yes, Alison. Yeah, so, I mean, and eight times report to eight times sent us that work and it also data will be collected and I can I understand, you know, a case of concern which is that definitely you identified great data to collect. Michael are you saying that for six that now you've got that up and going, you've been collecting it for 60 days. How long before we might get a sense of being able to see the results of some of that data collected how long do we need to collect some of that data in order to report on it for any substantive, you know, ability to analyze or analyze or look at any impactful data collection. That's a great question center to to have really impactful analysis you're going to need multiple years of data to compare and contrast and look at trending so we're at the precipice of, or at the beginning of that process so it'll take quite a while before we actually have data sets they're large enough to have meaningful information in them. What I'm trying to get across is that we are, we are actively working on innovative ways to collect and then and as I've indicated we're now working on, you know, how are we going to do the the forward facing analysis and create these dashboards so that we're here behind in rendering information that it can be done in 30 or 60 or 90 days up more on the fly than than has been possible using our more antiquated systems that we've now moved away from. Right. I appreciate that and I appreciate it's taken time to get it up and I appreciate the challenge it you know we've discussed that in the different ways different police departments report information I remember in the past we've talked about data is collected and transmitted different what different now I think all in the same fashion or on the same system. I appreciate that I'm just trying to get a sense of when you know when it's hard to think that oh my gosh we have to wait years to get data, you know, any kind of analysis on some of this data but you know I, I think that may be the case of some of cases frustration here is that I applaud the moving forward in all of your modernization efforts and moving forward on on this data collection it's just, it's just hard to know that it's going to be a while before we get to see the results. I would like to say that that it isn't. There's always more data to be collected and more ways of looking at the data but I also know that five years ago when we did our tour of the state there we could look on the state police. Right and we could see every single call and the nature of the call that was in every town, every town has access to that and we could look at that also. So, data is always evolving it isn't as if there's never been data collected and data, given out and I don't know why I did it about two years ago I did a search for all uses of force by state police and the race of the victim. And I was able to do that, and I'm, I'm a real novice here at looking at information and gathering it so and I was able to do that and that was at least two years ago. So, Mark. Madam chair, I forget if I've introduced myself or so for the record, share Mark Anderson of Wyndham County. I'm the president of the Montshire Association. I did come prepared to talk about data today. Oh good informally I serve as one of the key focal points for communicating the traffic stop race data information. Up until the end of 2020 for roughly 40 of Vermont law enforcement agencies. This is the data that Dr. Seguino and her research colleagues use that crime research group and Dr. Joy have used the Vermont Criminal Justice Council uses. So to that end, and specific to the language saw after in this bill much of that is already captured for all traffic stops, and that has been captured since I believe it was 2000. I don't have it right in front of you but roughly 2015 2016. One of the difficulties when we talk about data. And this has been the subject of testimony and other committees. I spoke with Senator Sears about this specifically. Also, as part of I believe it was justice reinvestment, and there's a variety of other places where it has intersected but when we start talking about data. One of the difficulties that we currently face and or face up until the end of 2021 was that everybody has different data dictionaries if you will and so an example of this is when we talk about gender. There are some entities within the state of Vermont that consider gender to be male and female. They consider gender to be about cisgender non binary and other expansions of that. When we talk about law enforcement information systems we interact with the FBI and the national national incident based reporting system so having access to town level crime information is based off of the neighbors reporting system which all Vermont law enforcement agencies submit data to. They do not recognize anything other than male and female, and they are specific to sex. So there are. That's just dealing with with sex and gender alone when we talk about race, the Vermont Judicial Bureau acknowledges Hispanic as a race which it is an ethnicity which is an entirely separate field to capture. So when we try to communicate across multiple different data systems that are collecting all of this is incredibly difficult to provide any reasonable analysis that is an apples to apples comparison. Commissioner Sherling has testified to this new data system that now truly allows all Vermont law enforcement to communicate in state with in state data dictionaries that allow us to or allow researchers to be able to analyze and develop information that is valuable either for their studies or for the General Assembly's digestion. Senator Clarkson you said you you want to have the information now and to some degree that's available now it's just what conclusions can we draw from it. And so with the as Commissioner Sherling has testified about making dashboards available. There are things that the Department of Public Safety has has far more resources than many of the smaller Vermont law enforcement agencies. Me being a computer aficionado and I love playing with data and Excel and and other tools. I'm unique. The reason why I took on this role to help communicate out the traffic stop and race data is because I talked to several sheriffs and chiefs who said I don't even know how to run that report. We're walking through how to turn on computers and so there's there's a generational turnover that is also occurring that allows access to these things and what what this initiative with the new data system has allowed is for people who do have the skill sets to do it provides a resource for agencies and organizations that traditionally haven't had the ability to do these things to do it because it was provided through a for a lot of forward thinking methodologies to get us all on the same system without having to to consider things such as costs to small agencies where the software system means either having another officer or having the software. So I'm happy to speak more in depth about about it. I know I can also make a lot of people young when we start to talk about data collection, but it is a very complex thing for which I hold an acorn and a giant forest of research data science database design. application development and I have a whole presentation I'd be happy to share if I were not on my phone. So we kind of left from section 9 back over to 4 but but I'm curious if we have satisfied our that do we need to have section 4 in this bill since we're now talking about data. And we have Mark with us is section 4 which is the data collection if it's already happening and it's a matter of figuring out how to how to get it in the most presentable and usable forms do we need to have this section of the bill which tells us what to collect but not how to but doesn't give any help and formatting it or making it available and usable. That's the question. Mark. I would like to submit for your consideration. Caution or hesitation to legislate what data to collect but rather capture the intent of what you're looking for us to collect my presentation that I cannot share with you right now but I'm happy to share is based off of the traffic stop race data report those past I believe in the 14 session and we started capturing data in 2015 it was left to interpretation what data is collected at what frequency how do we analyze it and so we had some agencies with a more conservative interpretation who were tracking race data on parking tickets. And when I saw that data I said how do you know the race of the person if it's a parking ticket and there's no person present. So the there generally we develop these the data points to capture so that we can get the relevant information out by talking with researchers and what was illuminating for me is that talking with Dr. Siglino talking with Dr. Joy and a variety of other stakeholders on the traffic stop and race data report alone. What we found was that there are numerous assumptions made that would then lead to various different conclusions that wasn't based on the data because different people have different understandings of how it was collected. So as part of a bill that a ton was a part of I can't quote it as part of this current legislative session about racial justice statistics it might be Senate judiciary but I'm certainly happy to be corrected by anyone who knows. One of the goals was to capture within within state government an office that was able to help develop what these data points should be and allow it to be flexible enough to pivot away from from old research concepts to new research concepts so that when we find out that it's been demonstrated through research and science that technique a is no longer valid. We can then say let's pivot to technique be currently we have had to evolve our data systems to match legislative expectations which also probably don't result in the information that is a desire to be communicated out an example of this. I believe it was last year of the session before we are now capturing whether use of force data is used on traffic stops. Now I can wholly respect why it's desired to know if use of force data is use of force information about law enforcement interactions with people but historically within my own agency's perspective use of force doesn't occur on traffic stops. What's more valuable is to know where it does occur and that is usually outside of traffic stops in my agency's case. So we have a use of force report that we're able to report out on that is completely would completely ignore traffic stop information and so allowing us to be able to look at it based on current research practices I think would be the best thing and trying to support. I don't want to necessarily submit that is the executive director on racial equities office's responsibility but at least as a starting point of a conversation to say someone such as Luzana Davis and her office be given the resources to help say what data needs to be tracked how do we report these things out and just simply capture in statute if it's necessary the intent of what we're trying to get out of the system not the directive of how to get it because it often becomes far more complex when we talk about the various nuances of a traffic stop or car crash or use of force incident. Thank you, Mark. That was okay. Okay. Kaysha unless you were going to say something else and I was about to talk about section four whether you believe it should remain. But I thought you were trying to say something first. Yeah, no, I'll go. So happy to have to jump in. So as I testified before we're supportive of including section four in this legislation moving forward because we do think there is a value to enumerating the information that needs to be collected in statute. One that we aren't this is a conversation we're having on the, the bill that was referenced earlier, where there, we're saying all right well we have a certain category of information we'd like to collect, but we're going to wait until we're looking down the road, or group to get together and then discuss what information we might want. I think it's clear this is information, which is valuable. And that's the reason it was enumerated in this bill and we've already heard that this data is going to be collected. So I see no harm in saying if this data is already going to be collected. And we think it's important moving forward and requiring in statute to be collected. So this is kind of where we come down on this, this portion of the bill and that we are supportive of including data recording requirements specifically in statute. Yeah, I was that's sort of what I was going to say I didn't hear a reason not to and you know I, I often. I need to read the you know bill on the Office of Racial Statistics which I also hope passes I hope a lot of these things. You know that Susan has been working on become available I think Susan is clearly also been tasked with things beyond racial justice, and it's hard for me to know where for in so many ways you have to combine racial data with other demographic data you have to know if this is happening to people of color with disabilities, you know, you have to know if this is happening to black men. There is a real need to understand a lot of intersectional information. And especially on this front, you know when you look at suspension and expulsion or other punitive measures, you see a pattern with kids with disabilities and kids of color. And so I just don't want to lose track of other critical information. And I think use of force is a particularly important item to uplift. And as we look for more information from the Criminal Justice Council about how they're investigating use of force and what's happening when complaints are made about use of force that results in injury and death. I'm going to throw out a. I am. If this information is already being collected, and why would we put it into statute I think that Mark suggestion that sometimes listing things in a statute is not defining enough and could be to or could be to defining one where the other so if we are saying, when, when this happens, we are going to get the age, gender and race of the driver. That's all we're, that's the only information we're asking for on the driver or the victim and it's it doesn't ask for disability it doesn't ask for anything anything else that would give you information on the driver or the victim. It's just ace age, gender and race. So by putting that in there, what we're saying is that that's all you need to collect. That's what you should be collecting is just that and then there's the question of who defines what gender means and who defines what race means, as Mark pointed out. In some places. Hispanic is a race and in some it's an ethnicity so how do you. So I, I, I. So, I mean, so the intent here, and maybe that's helpful is that we get this information isn't buried somewhere or researchers don't have to go looking for it that we hear regularly maybe once annually. What's happening with use of force who is experiencing use of force that results in injury or death and how that compares to what's being investigated by the criminal justice council. I also think that there's a role for the legislation to play and deciding what kind of data should be collected. And, you know, we know bureaucracies can sometimes move slowly, legislators, our job is to sometimes think further ahead. And I think it'd be good for us to get in the habit of talking about what kind of data should be collected because we might, because we're close to constituents we might know before the bureaucracy does that something is emerging and important. And I think that it would be important for us to get to play more of a role in talking about what that should be collected, what it should be used for. And what data would you put in there that should be collected. Well, I think that would that should be the basic stuff like you meant to be for that. But it should be that should be the minimum, you know, should include the following go to the data that should be included. Are you suggesting we put that in this bill. I'm suggesting that it's section four. But they're already collecting this data. Right, but there's no reason for us not to put our mark on it and say that we think this is important. Because they're already doing something I don't think that means that we should think that we don't have a role to play in it. You know that isn't my point my point was, if we put this in in the legislation we say these are the things that we need to collect. Then the bureaucracy could say this is what you told us to collect where that's what we're going to collect. That's all we're going to collect. We don't have to collect more because you've made it clear to us that these are the thing, the three things that are important age gender and race. That's what we're going to collect. So by listing them, we might be limiting the kinds of things that are actually collected, because people like Susanna and Commissioner Sherling and Sheriff Anderson and Falco can sit down and say, well, and Stephanie. I can't think of what her last name is can sit down and say, well, wait a minute if you if you really want to get at this what you should also be collecting is one of the things that case I said, the disability status. It's our, our, or, and, and what do we mean by gender are we going to limit it to what the FBI limits it to or the national to male and female, are we going. How are we going to define those things and by putting it in the statute I think we're, we're limiting. We're telling them this is all you have to do I like cases. Suggestion that we should, and, and we could ask for that. We don't have to put it in a report require a report but we could say, once a year, or once every six months we're going to say, how is this data collection, working. Bring it, bring it in and show it to us show us how to, how to manipulate it so that we can then help our constituents know how to manipulate it show us show us what you're collecting and how it's being applied to the policies and how it's being applied to the, the execution rate I that isn't the right word and how it's accessible. Right, so. I agree with what you're saying about every six months or whatever it's the only review and decide what she went. Do we put that in the legislation and do we just presume that that's going to happen or how do we make sure that that happens that's that's what I'm trying to get at. That's our responsibility to ask for it, I think. I've been asking for it. I mean, you know. I did get some of it and you got what was available. So, I mean, we've seen some pretty alarming statistics from a tones report right but you know the rate of youth criminalization for black young people is off the charts in places where there are large numbers of young black youth so you know, I like in it to like the definition that right has a report once a year that tells us these are the statistics around domestic violence that's resulted in death. And we look at that every year as a way to have a touchstone for how we improve our domestic violence related laws I, I think, you know use of force is an important touchstone. I think there are some key touchstones that should be linked to a report around what they're doing to drive those to change those numbers. So we could we we could require a report similar to the DV report every year. I think that makes a lot of sense. A report around use of force. And we do get an incarceration report I believe. Well, the corrections like somebody gets all that. Well, the Department of Corrections puts out a report a really extensive report every year on who's incarcerated how long for how long the race the gender the age. And they put out a very extensive report every year, but I don't think we've ever asked for a use of force report. I think that that is something we, we, we should consider doing Falco. Thank you. So I just wanted to share our perspective on this and that when we look at this data. The data is limiting the collection of any other data in any way. This is would be what's the floor. This is what's required. And if there needs to be more flexibility and other data or information to be collected. That's still something that the entities are collecting the data could collect more data and report on it, especially if it's helpful in clarifying what the situation looks like and I think maybe it's a something to be illustrative of why it's helpful to have data on the issues you're just speaking to the Department of Corrections and they're reporting on the demographics of the people who are incarcerated in the state of Vermont. For a couple of years, they completely stopped issuing that report that you were talking about. It wasn't until the start of the pandemic when we had some pretty concerted advocacy with the Department of Corrections and a group of stakeholders that they started issuing more regular reports on what the demographics of the population looks like, and even the numbers like the daily headcount was something that was hard to get for quite a while unless you were actually working within the facilities. And so we were very pleased with that and that was something that did not require a statute. But as things move forward, there were times when that collection was no longer you know that data was no longer being made public. And that does mean that things can change over time. And I think that is where the value in creating a baseline for information to be collected in statute. Why so that's just my perspective on that. Yep. Okay. Yep. Commissioner. Thank you Madam Chair. There seems to be a recurring theme that somehow I am opposed or the department is opposed or both of us are opposed to making progress and it strikes me based on the conversation that's happening in committee right now that that first that is not the case. I've never been accused of going slowly or inhibiting progress and I am probably as frustrated as any person in Vermont with the pace of change in state government on a number of different fronts. But with that as the background, I'll make some observations that I hope will help us collectively get to improvements in systems. The first is the opposition is because is in part because like in section four, the effort is too small. It's not enough. It doesn't it's and it's duplicating what we already do. We should be making all of our data available. And that's what we're working toward. With the exception of personally identifying information and you know, confidential reports but I'm talking about the data fields so that you can do relational analysis. There are other sections of a variety of legislation that are solving problems that are not problems in Vermont. We are opposed to those things because they distract from focusing on the things that we do need to focus on and I will observe that very few of the sponsor legislators for key pieces of public safety legislation have engaged the public safety prior to introducing the legislation. If they had we could have helped to create a better bill or even ask the question or even made the statement listen the question you're asking is something that's already answered or or solving a problem that already has a particular solution in Vermont but over here there's another thing that does need to be worked on. So, I just thought it important to give you the context of why we're not opposed to change. Quite the contrary we're running headlong into the future and have been for decades. But we need to focus on the things that are going to be impactful and not be distracted by the things that simply create confusion in the operating environment and don't take us forward. Else I, I will say, for me, I'm not convinced that we need to put this in legislation if it's already being done. I'm, I do think that it would be that asking for a report. An annual report. Similar to the DB report. I think it's a good idea. But I don't see any need to put into legislation. What we're already already doing. I don't know where everybody anybody else is. I can agree with that I mean I was looking at the, the link that commissioner Shirley just sent in wondering how you send it to all of us. I don't know. Yes. Right. Well, look it up. Well, yes. So, if we're So, I think the answer sounds like, no, we don't need it. Well, I mean, to me, I think these things need to be put in context in a way that's public at least once a year. I mean, we just heard that There isn't consolidated information there now is for the last two months. And so then we're seeing data going back to use a force year after year. So it sounds like that's in part that's incomplete data, or you now have a better system to track it. You know, it. This doesn't help the average person I think or give us the opportunity once a year to ask questions about what is happening how do you have 170 incident incidents and 176 subjects of force, you know, where help the public digest what changes are being made to accomplish greater outcomes. So I think we should have a report. I don't think it just needs to be use of force. I think there are some key indicators and I would love the, the department's input on, you know, which indicators you're trying to change year over year, and how to make a report that the public can truly, you know, understand and be part of that's honest and transparent. That's what people have been asking for for a decade or more. Those are all great observations senator the dashboard I just sent you has been publicly available, and we release it with with press releases for the last three years. So it goes back and you can see the trending for three years it is specific to the state police although I observed that we released similar reports when I was chief in Burlington for the seven and a half years I was chief and actually dating back before that when chief trembling was there. So these efforts of transparency particularly around use force and race data collection have been in play for some time. The goal now is to be able to aggregate that data and represent this on a statewide basis and it is work that's going to take a little while to do as Sheriff Anderson indicated it's it's not without its complexities and ensuring that we're rendering data in an accurate way but it is we've taken the first big steps it's it was a key project when I arrived at public safety and it is now come to fruition and now we take it to the next level when we start to do our data analysis using this. Sheriff Anderson you're saying that as of two months ago or based on the ongoing work of collecting better data, all local law enforcement are now collecting this information and and you are helping to aggregate it as well because that's been a major concern is not just the state police that have been probably more transparent on this scale but local law enforcement and local incidents of use of force. Specifically, the, what I'm referencing is the traffic stop race data report that's required under 20 vs a 2366 I believe, and that's where it's actually already captured many, many if not all of these fields in statute. In the, either the last biennium or last year. The capturing of use of force data was added to that. So, to answer that question. Yes, we've been capturing that at the local and county levels, as should all state agencies, the. That's been a requirement since to September 2015. So that's been captured and failure to do so actually comes with the consequence of loss of funding or loss of access to state services which includes the services of the police academy. So there's already incentive there's already a stick. One of the things I frequently advocate for is the carrot, which Commissioner Sherling's ability to provide this records management system, free of charge to local and county agencies has actually been a carrot. We have been talking about how to improve the the traffic stop race data report. So we've referenced the floor. We've been working with researchers to build out a far better one because we know based on their research and pure peer reviewed model peer reviewed studies that we can actually provide information that helps us either identify issues, solve problems or communicate why it's not a problem. So that work has already been underway. I've worked with CRG, Dr. Seguino, and I believe it's, I forget the name of the new vendor for the council, but there's a new vendor we just met for back in, I believe, two months ago to talk about their research and some of these issues are being identified of how we can locate the information that we're all capturing the difficulty and use of force reporting right now while our new tool does capture and provide agencies the ability to capture use of force information. A lot of agencies have already gone to other vendors prior to this and they're using their own tools. So now it's going back to, we could have upwards of 20 different data dictionaries where we have a tool that allows for the capture use of force data and every agency should can and most likely does capture use of force information. It might not be in a way we can connect with other vendors to help us to help us. So these are where we will make requests to the legislature. Please provide us the resources to do this work. Please provide the academy, the funds to fund an investigator to look into excessive use of force or an attorney and these are things that the legislature's done. And I believe it was this committee that actually put the stick in about about the funds as well as the access to state services based on the public safety agencies the small p for public safety, not the department of public safety, but public safety and we want to be measured and we want to have transparency we want to have an open door to this conversation we want to be partners in the conversation. So the center I drifted a little I think I hope I've answered your question I'm happy to clarify if I have not. I think I need clarification I mean so is what you're saying that there is still a discrepancy in the information that's being collected and we're not going to be able to see it aggregated or it took time to aggregate it and now that will be available soon is local law enforcement incidents of use of force reported in a streamlined way. And so what we're going to do the system that Commissioner Shirley referenced that's been existence for 60 days. That is where we are. We've begun the marathon of apples to apples comparison, but agencies across the two systems that existed before 60 days ago. And then what we're also talking about is the future which is we want to do more. So data dashboards that are accessible, working with data scientists and and engineers to come up with structures that make sense. I mean we're talking about building the basement of this data system right now, so that we have a house that that can stand on and for monitors can walk into and look into if you'll allow for the metaphor. Senator also responsive to your question I mentioned this during my brief testimony that was a little confusing week before last, there are two agencies with opted out of the statewide system. So they've opted not to use the statewide system that we're providing to agencies for free. I don't think there's an a various purpose in that but there are two that are not on. So that so there's a lot of populations that will not be captured in critical data because of that. Relatively small departments but in terms of service area I don't know the populations offhand. So what I was going to add to share of Anderson's sort of carrot and stick analogy is that we got 71 of 73 agencies on board using the carrot. Next up is trying to ensure that folks are now put it there's a there's the ability for this system to aggregate not only the traffic stop information but use force information. So, we have begun the process of outreach to agencies to try to incentivize them to use that particular use of force module instead of having another system that we would then have to make connections to and do data analysis across multiple systems that's what we're trying to get away from. If that effort doesn't come to fruition and the carrots don't work we could be back next year saying, Listen, we don't have we haven't been successful in getting everyone to use this universally for all the data fields that we'd like to analyze on the fly. It may make sense for you to look at creating more of a structure to that. But we're so early in the process it's premature to say that that's necessary. Anybody else have any thoughts on this. So, well I guess I'd sort of like to get a sense of where we are at the moment, I mean this is my life said this is great. Thank you very much. And it, I appreciate seeing it it's very interesting and confirms lots of things we might have already thought about things like time of day and days of week. The things happen, they're not great. I'm just curious where we are with section for now are we asking, are we replacing this specific data request with a report on the on the intended data we are wanting to collect that we're an update on an annual date or an update on an annual basis of where the collection is how it's being analyzed and how it's being in a presentation of how it's presented and accessible to the public. So what we're replacing section for with, I thought that's where we were headed that just curious. I think that's up to the committee that would be my intention but I think that that's okay. I'm on board with that because it does. I think that sounds good because then we'll be able to see fairly soon and at least where they are and I don't know whenever January February 1 whatever is would be great. I'd love to have more time to just go through all the things they're collecting in this and this in. This is just use of force data dashboard you have other traffic stop dashboards you have other dashboards that you've got like that are as as prepared as this right Michael you've got. You've got a couple others that are have data that's analyzed like this, or at least presented. Oh, yeah. Not necessarily in dashboard form we we lost some momentum there because of covid and the data teams that work on this for have been working on the covid dashboards now for two years. I thought that might work equally well. And I heard this suggested in another committee, potentially sending a having the committee in lieu of legislation send us a letter of interest or almost a letter of intent indicating an interest in statewide dashboards similar to the use of force dashboard and integrating traffic stop data would give us an interesting additional piece of the foundation with which to have conversations with agencies statewide about helping that process along and telegraphing that in the absence of doing it the right way now there may be legislation mandating that it done is done the right way in the future. It gives the requisite plus flexibility and telegraphs legislatures intent. Again, I'm pirating that from another committee that something similar was suggested. So, I, I, I would not be opposed to putting a report requirement in here that asks for an annual report on not not necessarily use of force but on on how what data is being collected. How available is it to for people to access and how is it being used in terms of policies and procedures. Possibly. Now the thing to add to that would be whether there's need for new new data points or not. Well, well, that's what I said what data is being collected. And at the current time and then there would be opportunity I would suppose for a legislative committee to say, you know, maybe you ought to think about collecting this data in addition. Right or recommendations from the agency. Right, whatever but just a report that says what data is being collected how accessible is it. Yeah, and, and how is it being used. Yeah. So, Chair White, if I may ask question just about the details what you're looking for where would. So just to make sure I have it straight. So this would be an annual report. In the in the year would would the committee want it. And right now under section 2366 which I believe was referenced in previous testimony there is the report that we discussed about race roadside stop data. That is I believe produced every September 1. So that's the one side of that and where do we want the report to go to that believe that that report is receiving the agency of the report. She'll also report it annually to the General Assembly. Do we want to go to the General Assembly do want to go to specific committees. Do we want to go to specifically government operations and judiciary committees. Yes, and, and I think that I would make it January 15 I don't know why on earth we ever would make reports do on September 15 or November 15 session and I think because of our drafting deadline I spoke a little bit on that that's when the law enforcement agencies provide the data to the executive director of the racial equity. And then there actually is no firm date about when it's reported to the General Assembly. I would make it January I Yeah. If I could say I also think we're looking for qualitative reporting right you know like they get the data and then we want to understand it in context and how they're you know what policy changes they might need or investments they might You know I'm hearing oh talk to us well you know tell show us the data and tell us what you need to improve outcomes. Right. Yeah, that's that's what I was trying to say by how it's being used but yes. I think that is exactly what we want. Okay, so and then just getting into the substance of what would be in the report. It would be a request of what data collected and how expansive would it be would it just be for, you know, use of force incidents would be Oh, because I'd stop just just all data that's collected by law enforcement. Yeah. Okay. Right and I really want to emphasize I mean it sounds like this has not been done across all local public safety and law enforcement agencies thus far that that is what's new and would be available. So just making sure that is explicit that we're looking for all law enforcement data not just state police. Well, it sounds to the credit it sounds like 73 or I think I heard 73 or 74 local agencies are reporting their data. Yeah. And I don't know how I forgotten how many additional ones there are. He said there's 71 out of the 73 that are using the same system and and the two that aren't using the same system might be collecting the data but not using the same system and I think that the the sticks that we put in front of people to start complying with this are pretty severe they they can't have access to any state grants that come through for law enforcement and they can't have access to the academy that means that they can't send somebody to the academy for training. That's pretty severe, severe. Yeah. So, I see mark has his hand up. It's interesting on this hybrid system we can't see that. So I don't know how you'd see it once you're sitting with us here. Well, if we're all sitting there we don't need to see it. No, but Mark may still be remote. Okay. All right, we'll figure that out. I don't want to get there now we have enough to do. Mark. Thank you madam chair just specific to the the reporting timelines with respect to what's valuable from our perspective. I guess is if this is a desire for a report to the legislature committees of jurisdiction, or whomever and this is such as let's say we write a letter in January like this is what's going on. I don't see an issue specifically with January 15. What I would suggest though, given that the traffic stop race data is currently collected on a calendar basis. The reason why we went with calendar basis is it makes sense that we have consistent periods of time and so when we start talking about analyzing data. If we create a different timeframe for which use of force data will be reported compared to traffic stop data, we're going to have to pick a different date. Then, then we do traffic stop data reporting so for the purpose of apples and apples comparing traffic stop data to use of force data, even though they are separate data sets, there may be some correlations, or even causations that can be developed based on research or input. The second reason why I would ask for more time than January 15. We go with the calendar year reporting is because agencies need time to go in and do the, what I call quality assurance. Specifically, when we do specifically when we do the traffic stop race data analysis we go through searching for blank fields. I just took a look at my agency's fields and we were missing statistics, I should say information collected on the paper ticket but not collected within our record system. And so we had to go through roughly 100 different incidents to find out why, why either gender wasn't captured or why we forgot to put the date of birth in or something like that so that there needs to be some sort of time allowed for agencies to do that. While I personally don't care for the September date, given that we're reporting 2021 data by September of 2022. I've been told by some smaller agencies that lack administrative resources that they will literally need those nine months to make sure that all of their data is accurate. And so we literally need probably a month to do it. Public safety I believe does it on the in real time because they have staff to support that initiative. So, I guess my recommendation if you're considering timelines would be to mirror the traffic stop race data collection because those the administrative burden is going to be carried by the same people. And they might be able to realize some benefits while they do both report reporting work at the same time. And if you want to change the frequency or how quickly you get the information, you might want to consider changing what's in 20 vs a 2366, maybe to a July report date that also coincides with the report date for use of force data coming out. Okay, I think that makes sense to me so it's a we should then did you get that. So just to clarify so do we want the September 1 date was that to accommodate the smaller agencies as well. I think Mark suggested we could go with July because the smaller agencies might become more adept at it as they go on and get more used to use using it and if it's, even if they were having a hard time reporting it's probably some of the really smaller ones and we'd get a lot of data anyway. By July 1 is my guess. Does that make sense. So I'm still trying to clarify so data from 2021 would be available in July of 2022. Yeah, right. And then we would get a report. Ungenu in July. In July. Yeah. Okay. The data would be standardized and it may take them a while to do a report after the data is. Yeah, no, and yeah, I'm not opposed to a time outside of our session I think there's a lot of other people who care, and we can still. I'm fine with either July or September, whatever you think is best. I think Joe, I think July is that gives six months. Okay. And then one more thing for the committee just as far as the substance of it. So, talking asking for the type of data collected how it's accessible. How it's being used a review of the data to determine if additional data points are needed and recommendations as to what those data points may be. And then any recommendations related to resources needed to facilitate the data collection. Well, recommendations for changes that need may need to be made, whether it's resources or legislative changes or policy changes or whatever just recommended recommended recommendations for helping to improve the data collection and use. Okay. Okay. Thank you for indulging. That's all. All right, so. Well, we whipped right through that one. No, but these are, these are important issues and it's important for us to understand what it is we're doing and why we're doing it so I think that that whipping through is not the best, the best choice. I want to go back to section nine, because we did begin to take some testimony on that falco. Talked about it and that he said not really. Is there another section that you'd want to tackle I'd like to get spend another 10 minutes maybe. I have a five o'clock call but I think that would be great if we could deal with section nine. It makes me want to know whether the section is different from false. So. Um, go ahead. And I would like to share why if I made you, you know, in this potentially some examples from the cases may be helpful to elucidate sort of what this law may do compared to at least what's considered in the case law right now. What this does, I believe, is that it would elevate misrepresentations. Regarding evidence that create questions of the suspects culpability, meaning like false incrimination, and it would put them on the same level of false statements that may induce a confession by overcoming the suspects will and that and that sort of distinction in the case law right now. I mean, I think a good example to give that is that lies that threaten the suspects ability to retain custody of a child rendered child rendering confession and voluntary because they could induce a confession by overcoming the suspects will that's not necessarily anything that has to do with the evidence of the case that's something that's sort of outside extrinsic to the case. However, the case law also says lies about evidence of the charge, which would have to do with the case itself, or likely to evoke feelings of a suspect suspects beliefs about his or her own culpability. And that last point isn't necessarily something that could be considered involuntary in every case. What this law would do is elevate, you know, those beliefs about culpability, you know, maybe falsely incriminating oneself to the same level of those beliefs of overcoming someone's will. I'm happy to answer questions on that distinction a little bit more but that's why, for instance, if you look in the bill itself in subsection be subdivision to know it says that basically it would be involuntary if it creates a substantial risk of the defendant might falsely incriminate themselves. So that could go to their own culpability. They think that oh well I'm culpable because of this false statement based on the evidence. That's something then that can now be considered, as opposed to under the case law. It's less clear that it would be. And so what this bill would do is elevated to say this is something that could be considered in the involuntary confession analysis. And I'd also say there's no way that this would do away with litigation on the subject at all. This would absolutely continue to be litigated but it would provide and perhaps how Commissioner Sherling can categorize it as different guardrails for the court to consider within that analysis. I hope that they hope you stay with me and I know it's a little dense. Can you give us some examples maybe I Commissioner Sherling's example was a good one. He's talking about more examples like what Michael gave us opposing as a 13 or 14 year old child. Yeah, no I'm thinking of that's that is I'm thinking about the misrepresentation that would create a substantial risk that the defendant might falsely incriminate himself or herself and elevating this to that same level of overcoming the subject's will. I just I guess I don't Yeah, I can attempt to do that and I think what what it would be so for instance there's another example and then there's a case that actually really outlines all this it's a state me colts case colts colts yes And in that case are various arguments put forth about whether or not certain confessions were considered involuntary based on the circumstances there was one that the defendant argue that the police course them into confessing by promising that if he did not or that if he did then his confessions would not have to testify in the case and threats to arrest suspects family member can render a confession involuntary. However, the court found, but there's no legal authority to support the defendant's contention that the prosecution was involuntary, because police suggested that the nice would have to testify unless he confessed to having sold it or and this was not a promise made by the detectives, but a prediction. So it wasn't something that was, you know, misrepresented. It wasn't something that would happen. So it's, it's a fine line and a fine distinction, but it doesn't also have to do with the evidence that's already gathered. It's about what the evidence that would be put forth in the future. And so they said that that wasn't necessarily enough to overcome this will because it wasn't. It didn't have to do with with the case itself. And I know that we're kind of getting into really, really fine details and concepts. Right. And I think I think that the main point to take away from this is that there are a lot of tactics that police can use that go to, you know, whether or not it can play to the individuals feelings. However, what this law would do is to make it clear that if it goes to the evidence of the case, and not necessarily someone's feelings, it can be elevated to an involuntary confession level. So you can. I apologize if I'm, if I'm tolerating the issue. Makes sense. But, but it really, you know, it's, it's a totality of the circumstances analysis. And, you know, and another thing is, is that courts reason that an interviewers use of false evidence is less likely to produce an involuntary confession. And a lot of viewers lie about matters that are external to the charge itself. And I think what this bill, what the language of the bill would do is to elevate that false evidence or what are representations about false evidence would be elevated to that says about external matters as well. So makes it, it puts it on the same level to say that these things can be considered involuntary as an involuntary confession. What is a challenge for one for that I think that that's what is a challenge for Michael. So what, what's the bar for communicating false facts about evidence. I mean I'm trying to think here if we say well, we found the, we found the gun, but they really found the gun that's clearly say that is false evidence, false information about evidence. But if they say well, I mean, where, where is the line about what is false information about evidence, is there a line or is it a case by case decision or if I may Madam chair, I think I can I can give you where we train and where. So, also for the record I was a criminal law instructor at the Academy for have lost track of the number of years so this is an area of operations that's near and dear to my heart. Both the case law and our training curriculum. The current training curriculum is not to use deception at the greatest extent possible it's actually evolved quite a bit Vermont was one of the early adopters of a curriculum that we're happy to share that uses deception in a very limited fashion. But deception is used in, especially in egregious cases in and facts are presented or potential facts are presented because it is not often isn't never in a guilty defendants interest to incriminate themselves. So, the senator's example of gun being located, we may say something like what surprised you to learn that we have found the murder weapon. We would not say and we train in the case law indicates we would not say to someone. We found the weapon and your fingerprints are on it. If we don't know the answer to that, we may frame a question saying, and maybe we've actually found the weapon we may frame it and say the weapons been located. Is there any reason to believe your fingerprints are on it or would it surprise you to learn your fingerprints are on it before an analysis is complete. On the fingerprints. That is, the courts have ruled that those kinds of questions that pose a an alternative to someone who is guilty of the crime or who is in this case fingerprints that we found on that weapon is not enough to induce an innocent person to say, Sure, that you probably found my fingerprints on this murder weapon. So it's those kinds of things that are hesitate to call them deceptive but they are alternative questions that are designed specifically to elicit a response from someone who is involved in whatever it is that's being investigated. I'll just give you one other example and it also goes to child sexual exploitation. It would not be uncommon for a sex crimes investigator and I've done this so you can read about it and affidavits I authored some years ago to say to a defendant, you know, Well, we're talking about a six or seven year old, you know, she looks older than she is and I get that you know she was coming on to you. So that's probably why you let your guard down and let this happen. Am I telling them a true statement. Absolutely not. Is it going to induce an innocent person to provide a confession or admit to doing a sex act with a child. No, it's not. So those are the those are a couple of examples of again, much more rare instances now that we use deception or false facts as they're described here I wouldn't necessarily describe them exactly that way but those kinds of interview techniques to induce a person who is guilty to provide information that indicates their guilt and inhibiting those kinds of things would impair public safety in key arenas like sexual violence and homicide because they're typically used only in our most prominently I should say I guess I can't say they're never used in other cases but it's those kinds of cases where these kinds of detailed interviews occur. Do we know Falco or commissioner or anybody do we know how much of a problem this is in Vermont I mean we know that we hear that it's a huge problem in many places but do we know if it's a problem here in Vermont that we need to had take on. I am not aware of any false confession cases that have reared their heads in Vermont. But that just means I'm not aware of any that doesn't necessarily exclude them completely so. Falco do you know. I can look into that more but I do think that even if this is not something where we can point to a case on point right now that doesn't take away the utility of putting guard rails in place to make sure that these actions don't I want to speak to some of the examples that we heard where just the representation of false facts in itself would not disqualify a statement from being entered into evidence. You know if you look at B one and two those are the factors that need to be considered it would then need to undermine the reliability defendant statement or create a substantial risk the defendant might falsely incriminate themselves. And I believe the examples we heard earlier were situations where it would not be falsely incriminating themselves they might be getting false information, but then incriminating themselves for crimes that they actually did commit. So I think that's just one thing I want to elevate to this conversation is not prohibiting the use of any false information to gain confessions but it'd be those that substantially create a substantial risk the defendant might falsely incriminate themselves but also happy to look and see if I can find any statistics on false infestions here Vermont I still have those fingertips right now. Yep. Yes. Thank you. I see Julio has his hand up. You're muted Julio. Thank you Julio Thompson attorney general's office civil rights unit. There, there have been any studies put out by the innocence project and there's a national exoneration registry that is hosted by the University of Michigan, which also doesn't identify any false confession cases for Vermont. I, but in terms of whether it's an issue or not, I think that we need to have a fuller picture of the training that's provided in Vermont because it while it is true that the Academy teaches a model called the peace model which is really a creature of practice in the UK after a notorious series of cases involving false confession. I think through that Vermont is the site for training for other training that has come under a lot of criticism in by psych psychologists and criminologists and many law enforcement executives which is called the read technique. This May, the third week in May, the South Burlington Police Department is hosting a read technique seminar that's taught by that company that provides that style of interrogation the read technique unlike the peace technique which is taught at the South Burlington, and which is taught I believe to most of not all Vermont State Police detectives is a coercive model. It relies heavily on deception. I think I'll go off by assuming that the person being interrogated is where the interrogation phase to a confession starts with the with the assumption that the person's guilty and then there are various psychological plays that are used to get that confession, including misrepresenting facts. It's not to my knowledge. That's not prohibited for any law enforcement officer to sign up for. I don't think state police prohibits its officers to go to that, at least I haven't been informed of that. So I think that, you know, what's going on in Vermont is a little bit unknown to us there. I'm not really standards I'm not aware of any policy that I and I'd love to see them if they do exist because that would be good, good background and maybe models to use but I'm not aware of any policy that says deception should be used. Rarely. I missed the case the Colts case and I missed part of the testimony so forgive me if I'm repeating myself but that was a case where the defendant was told that they had enough DNA, enough DNA evidence to convict him which is very much like the fingerprints on the gun and the Vermont Supreme Court said that that did not result in an involuntary confession. So it remains very much unknown. I didn't hear testimony and again I'm sorry because I missed some of it. This has been recognized as an acute problem in the area of juveniles. When youth are being in terror, interrogated or interviewed that back in 2012, the International Association of the chiefs of police which is a law enforcement based organization put out a report specifically about interviews and interrogation of juveniles that relied heavily on a lot of empirical studies about how susceptible young people are to false memories through coercive techniques and through deception. So part of the report. The person may, if they're told by an adult or even several adults that they did it, they may, according to the IACP report, they may be at the point where they questioned their own recollection, they may think they blacked out and that they really did do it. They may be more likely to engage in short term thinking to confess in order to get out they might be told, you know that yeah if the quickest way to resolve this is just to confess. So it's a deep subject and the legislation that has been passed in the country so far since two states has focused on juvenile interviews not not adult interviews. So we're going to Illinois last year past laws that make it presumptively involuntary although the prosecution can overcome that presumption if they have evidence that it genuinely was a voluntary confession. This is this this area is really. But there's a lot more to especially juvenile interviews than this bill can address for example, Vermont right now is, I think lagging behind behind other states and just simply requiring that custodia, like felony interviews be recorded existing law only requires a recorded interview for a homicide or sexual assault investigation. To my to my ear in my eye when I look at this this seems to me like something that would be very ripe for criminal justice council examination, because I think that particularly in the area of juveniles where I think there is quite a bit of research, showing that that's more problematic than adults. There are many other dimensions of of interviews especially with underage subjects or suspects that that go beyond deception in terms in terms of their ability to when they can talk to their parents, how long the interview is and the like. So I think it's, and I think you would want to. I mean it's just, you know, after the, the legislature authorized the CJC to develop the fair and impartial policing policy where you had a lot of input, a lot of information about real experience, the use of force statewide use of force policy is something that's being trained now this is really to us the sort of subject that really deserves that examination because there there are lots. There are things that are in this bill that might be a little broad and then there are other things that, such as recording, which it seems like a simple thing that aren't in there and so I think, you know, you would want to something that's very robust. I thought I remembered when we were doing some work with the innocence project. And we had, I don't know if any of you read that book picking cotton. It was a pretty amazing book about this guy that was that the woman identified him as the rapist and meanwhile her real rapist was actually sitting in the courtroom, chuckling, and they got together afterwards and wrote a book and his name was cotton that's why it was called picking cotton. And it's a pretty amazing story and they came to Vermont and worked with us on the judiciary committee and I thought we we prohibit we did a couple things I thought we required that they'd be recorded and prohibited lineups and prohibited those show that when they show the pictures you know and they do different faces and put eyes and put them together in different ways I thought we did a lot of that at that time and that was maybe Oh, I don't know six years ago seven years ago. Well, the statute I'm referring to very is section 5585 of title 13, which identifies two classes of criminal offenses that require recordings. Oh, and that's that's homicide and sexual assault. Okay. So, I mean, my larger point really is that there, there is a lot. It's, it's a great issue. I think that to be examining. But I do, I do think that it's, it's a really deep issue and in particular, it's hard to like characterize the interrogation or the styles or how the techniques are used because it varies very much I think you got a little bit of that from the testimony interviews of a sex offender or a sex offense suspect versus the interview of a domestic violence suspect versus someone who is something who might be in it, you know, believe to be an experienced narcotics dealer or distributor that you know the approaches are really quite, really quite different. And, and also the demographic of the age it is true that the Vermont Supreme Court looks at it in a very fine grained way how old the person is if the person has any impairments and that's not just necessarily cognitive impairments it could be for example that the person has a ADHD or some other disorder that limits their ability to stay focused for a period of time or may have some impulse control and the like in terms of whether that's voluntary but it is secure it is a curious thing to us that the state is still the point where it's where different agencies are holding two very radically different models of interviewing because the piece method and then the retechny couldn't be further apart. In terms of their assumptions about whether into what extent officers can actually detect deception, or whether they are misinterpreting behaviors, fidgeting, I version as signs of anxiety versus something else which may fool examiners into, assuming too quickly that they have the right person and then using the more pressure filled techniques so the fact that there isn't a standard that is that is that applies once you leave the academy. I think the link to the read technique training I think it's actually provided currently on the CJC's website. I don't know if it's a endorsement but I think they list trainings that are available in the state for law enforcement and that's, I think that's how I found, I found that one so it may be some this to me sounds like a subject that the CJC really needs to get its minds around and talk to a lot of detectives and defense counsel and, you know, get information from, you know, the psychiatrist and psychologist who've looked at, you know, at the issue of volunteeriness and in that context. Is this something that, I mean the more I hear you talking the more I think that there's, there's something here but it's not enough that it's, it needs more depth and, and I wonder if, if it would make sense to ask the CJC and the justice oversight to work maybe even with CSG with the justice center around trying to figure out what kinds of what are the kinds of interviewing techniques that are good and, and what should, when should we record and when should, when, when should we use these methods and not other methods I, I don't know but I just separated into both juvenile and adult I guess and asked them to come back with some real in depth recommendations that we can then create some policies that and they could be, we could put them in legislation but they could also be statewide policies that are some of those policies that with where with the carrot and the stick that if, if agencies don't use those techniques or violate them, they wouldn't in the same way as violating other policies they wouldn't have access to the academy or to grants. I don't, I don't know if that makes sense but the more I hear you talking the more I think this needs to be more. Well I think that I mean, I think there is a distinction between policy and law and whether you want to have minimum requirements or something that is addressed and in a policy that everyone is entitled or is required or expected to use I mean like with the language that's used in here looks like it's borrowed in some parts from pending bills that are in New York State. And I haven't heard testimony or seen testimony there about how some of them would apply like I, you know, looking at the bill at least right now, I, I'm not sure how one would determine what is a substantial risk of a false confession. Because it doesn't I mean, even if I mean it sounds like that would be true, it would be involuntary even if later on other evidence show that the confession wasn't false. So, I think that I mean the other the approach that's used in the other states is like enough of presumption, but it's, but it's rebuttable so there's some flexibility. And it is targeted there it's just targeted for juveniles but they're all kinds of issues that can come up I mean the custodial interview policies that I'm familiar with from other non Vermont law enforcement agencies. I have 15 single space pages. I recently shared the ones that were recently enacted in Baltimore, the master policy about all custodial investigations and they have some limits on the types of deception for example you can't create a document and then present that as an authentic document can't do that. But then they have another 10 page policy that's specific to juveniles to detail what counts as effective consent from the juvenile, where is it going to be recorded, how long it how long the interview can take place, whether they're permitted to confer with their parents and when. Because there are, there are places where there are, they do have a history of false confessions I don't like I said I don't have information to say that that's been born out here but that's sort of like waiting for the coal mine to collapse in a way when you know, from our perspective the fact that the, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, you know, 12 years ago said you really have to be careful and really really avoid deception with juveniles for these psychological based psychology based reasons that to me is an environment that says we should, we shouldn't have to wait to get the cases we should just act responsibly and I think the work is already being done out there. I saw Senator Rahman still you had your hand. Yeah, I mean I know people are running late to things and I have a proposal I really appreciate who he was testimony I just started looking at the read method and it feels like exactly what people think, you know works from law and order that seems really problematic. If, if the investigator feels the person's guilt is clear, then they make an unequivocal statement that the evidence demonstrates the person's guilt as a positive confrontation to the suspect, then they present the moral justification for the offense and presents that in a sympathetic way to the person and then the rest of the interrogation follows I mean it seems like exactly what, what is a problem in, in a modern context for coercing a confession. So I sort of thought about a rewrite that I could work on and number one I actually I was under the impression mistakenly that we were recording all interrogations I feel like if something arises to rises to the level of interrogation it should simply be recorded I mean people go away for a long time for property crimes and you know other crimes that aren't considered as severe. So I would suggest we advance some or I'll rewrite something that says we record all interrogations. We, we ban the training, based on techniques that introduce the use of false information to coerce a confession, we ban this for youth, and then we study the rest we study what the, the sort of threshold is for what coerces a false information to, to return with more information. Could you, could you have that language done by tomorrow do you think so we could look at this, or at least just a rough maybe right I have my chicken scratch I'm looking at Ben. What time tomorrow. It'll be it'll be kind of like afternoon committee and we have the floor, which will be lengthy. Yeah, I think I can make that work. So just to go over so it was Senator Anzal could you just go over once more about what you'd like to what you just outlined. Yes, so recording all, all investigation, interrogation, that may lead to a criminal, yeah sorry felony confession. I have a ban on the training of the training that relies on false information to coerce a confession. I don't know if we need to call out the read technique I hope people would know what we're talking about. REID, REID. Okay. Thank you, I had the same question. A ban, a ban on the use of false information related to coercing a confession for youth which sounds from what we're doing like it generally shouldn't be a problem other states have done this. And then studying the rest of what we've talked about for adults. And the study would probably be done by criminal. The Justice Council and the justice oversight committee does that make sense using the expertise of the AG's office and law enforcement and ACLU and stuff. Is that who should be doing the study. Is the Justice Oversight Committee with the Criminal Justice Council. I'm not this Julio Thompson I'm not sure to whom you were directing the question. Well, I just, I was kind of asking Senator Rom Hinsdale that's who made sense to to be doing it but we can. So why don't I'll talk to Sears in the morning to see if that because he does the criminal justice council. I mean he does the Justice Oversight Committee and then the criminal justice council would be because they're they do the training and stuff. And look who showed up. Yeah. Does that make sense Chris. Christopher. Yeah, but the council be happy way in the network with other partners as well. Yeah. And, and council state governments the Justice Center might, might be helpful here too because they could look at this as part of read justice reinvestment to, I think. And maybe the, I think spoke about the innocence project that they also might. Yeah, they could, but I am thinking of officially naming who, right. Because if, if we can get the council state governments involved in it, they have resources. And when would the study report. Well, how long with the, you know, committee. Take it off and when would I need to issue a report. So they meet over the summer fall the Justice Oversight meets over the summer and fall. And I would say they should come with a, at least a progress report by mid January so that we can look at it and see if they don't. I wouldn't think they need to sometimes say putting a date on a report is more harmful than just saying, we need to have a progress report by this point. You may be done you make have come to your conclusions but at least we need some kind of a progress report. Okay. So progress report by at least in January 1. And, and then who would draft the report would that be criminal justice council would that be CSG. Well, I would leave it up to the Justice Oversight Committee because they have staff, they have the, it might be you. I don't know who will staff them this summer and fall it might be you, but it. We can figure out who will draft the report. Okay, so their discretion. Does that make sense. Yes, that does. Yeah, I think that was a good suggestions and around him still. Thank you. And thank you Julio. This has been really helpful and eliminated. There are, there are many people who are very, very knowledgeable about the non coercive method of interviewing the Vermont State Police. I think the commissioners left but I just add that I think in 2018. They were, I think the first in the state the pilot that program there's there's actually been a little bit of academic writing about the Vermont pilot program. And as the curriculum they teach at the academy. So there are, there are the, you know, like the current instructor was very helpful to me earlier in the week and getting up to speed in terms of where it's PSP is so I think we're lucky in Vermont that we have some subject matter experts about that more, more modern rapport based less pressure based paradigm of questioning which is, which is considered kind of the leading there are other non coercive models out there but the piece model is kind of the, you know, is the front edge of it so so we're lucky in that respect. Well, thank you everybody and thanks for hanging in there. So, tomorrow, hopefully tomorrow, we will have some time we will look at the, the section one is the Attorney General's ability to investigate. And I don't know if we need that if they can do it without that or not but we will look at that. And the, and Julio shaking his head so they cannot do it without this. So, okay so we'll look at that. And which of the remaining ones are the most the ones that we should look at the most and we should look at whether there's the independent investigations the law enforcement officer database, and, and then the disclaimer, which is the Giglio is that how it's pronounced. Julio. I wasn't announcing it. So, we have those. Which should we address first of those for remaining. I'm, I'm going to vote for Julio because I think there's been some discussion and agreement around that one. That's section eight. Yeah, okay. We'll take that one first. Okay. Okay, it would be great to get a state attorney. I mean, this is a big issue as you heard on vpr and digger for the state's attorney so I encourage us to state attorneys way and on this Evan. Evan probably we probably will have Evan. I'm sure that John Campbell has been notified and but Evan is really good. He's been spending a lot of time in judiciary. He's a great addition. So, okay, so we'll start with that. And then go next to the AG's ability to investigate. Is that makes sense. Yeah. Okay. All right. So we'll do it in that order and see where, how far we get. And then we'll, we'll go as far as we can. Yeah, I did not over the break talk to Bill Surrell about It feels like it doesn't qualify as independent or kind of the, the showing independence. So I will talk about that section with him before. Okay, but we'll start with the section eight and then section one, and then see how far we get. This has been really good discussion. Thank you. No, this was actually this was a very productive day. Yeah. Thank you and madam chair we look forward to seeing you in person tomorrow. I will be so I will be so happy although we have about five inches of snow right now. I don't have any. So you're driving to dry. Well, I'm, and I'm driving in the morning I'm not coming up tonight. And you might not be happy to see me but just, just to note that I will also be there in person. Oh, no, we won't be happy to see you. I have your wedding present, which is I have to say really a nice thing to be able to finally give you. It's always nice to be there in person in exchange. It will be great. It will be great. Okay. Okay.