 Good morning and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is April 1st and we are starting with H203 and actually relating to criminal threatening, a state employee or elected official. And actually, Representative Richardson is one of the, or maybe the elite sponsor. I don't know if you wanted to say a few words before we do the walkthrough or I'll just briefly say that this past year and definitely the past few months, we've seen a lot of officials and government workers threatened, including in our state and there's one actually I just sent the chair that was in the newspaper. I forget now which one that was I think it was maybe Winooski, but but it's been rather a regular occurrence nationally and here in Vermont. And one of the things that seems important is us taking a stand that just because somebody is a government worker or an elected official. That sort of over that crosses the line to be making threats of harm of death to these people and I'm hoping that it would deter other people from from doing such actions that are not in the spirit of civility or public service. So that's it basically. Great. Well, thank you. Appreciate that. And we're now going to turn to Attorney Bryn Hare to help us again realize it's a short form so we're not doing a walkthrough but certainly update us on the on the law. Other states have have similar laws. So I will turn it over to you. Thank you so much. Sure. Good morning committee for the record Bryn here from legislative council. I thought it might make sense to talk briefly about the existing criminal threatening statute for just as a reminder to the committee of what it is what it says what it does. Before talking about this proposal to create an enhanced penalty. So, we can, if everybody wants to pull up the statute or I can just talk about it, or I can share my screen what would the committee prefer books. Do you have a preference to want to look at it want me to just talk about it. I've got it in front of me already so. Okay. We have it. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. So, so the criminal threatening statute was added about five years ago and is 13 vs a 1702. So the this existing statute provides that a person shall not knowingly threaten another person. And as a result of that threat place the other person in reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily injury. So this statute is really designed to reach only true threats. And as many members of this committee is aware. True threats is a category of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment. And they encompass like those statements that are where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an unlawful act of violence against a particular person or group of people. So that that is really the definition of true threats from US Supreme Court jurisprudence, and this statute the criminal threatening statute is pretty narrowly drawn to only encompass true threats. And if you are looking at the statute, you'll see that there's a subsection B is the penalty section. And if you violate that subsection a is subject to a misdemeanor penalty of one year imprisonment or $1000 fine or both. And then subsection C provides an enhanced penalty. And this, I think was added probably that a year after the criminal threatening statute was created. It creates an enhanced penalty for a person who commits the act of criminal threatening as it's set out in subsection a with some specific intent and that specific intent is to prohibit or prevent a person, another person from reporting child abuse or neglect to the department for children and families. So that imposes a heightened penalty of two years or $1000 fine or both. And then subsection D creates the definitions. And that's where you define what serious bodily injury means, which is what it means throughout Title 13. And then you also included some language here that says threat or threatened shall not include constitutionally protected activity. So this was this, some of the committee members may remember the discussion about this language. This was added to make sure that the statute was only covering true threats or other speech that is not protected by the Constitution. And then subsection F or subsection E provides that a person who's under 18 she'll be adjudicated as a juvenile delinquent if they're charged under the statute. And then subsection F sets out an affirmative defense that a person can raise if they can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they didn't have the ability to carry out the threat. So the H203 the short form would create the short form proposes to create another enhanced penalty. So like that enhanced penalty that you see in subsection C for an intent to prevent a person from reporting child abuse or neglect. It would be an enhanced penalty. If the person had the intent to threaten the state employee or an elected official. And the short form statement of purpose doesn't set out what that enhanced penalty would be specifically but obviously that would be up for up to the committee to think about and decide. There are other states that provide for some sort of some type of criminal penalty for threatening a public official. I thought I would give a couple of examples. One is Louisiana has a has a has a separate statute for threatening a public official. And so they they have a statute that prohibits threatening a public official with serious bodily injury or death. And they also have an enhanced provision for if a person threatens a public official with the intent to influence his or her conduct in relation to their official duty, or with the intent to retaliate against that person for one of their actions that were considered as a part of their position as a public official. So, that's one example. There's also Wisconsin also has quite an assortment of criminal threatening statutes and prohibitions. And similarly they have they have a provision that a threat to a witness is prohibited so a witness and some type of contested case or judicial proceeding threats to an officer of the court threats to law enforcement officers. The Department of Revenue employees are also specifically prohibited and threats to Department of Public Safety, or professional services department or workforce development employees so they get pretty specific with what kind of employees. They, they are protecting here. So that's just a couple of examples. There is not it's the majority of states don't have specific protections in place for elected officials or state employees with respect to criminal threatening. But I did I was able to find a couple of them. I'm going to pause there to see if there's some questions for me. I think I'm going to get you in a second so bring the Wisconsin and the other states these are separate laws as opposed to enhance penalties. Yes, they are separate provisions. And Wisconsin actually has a separate provision for each category of employee or protected person that they want to prohibit criminals running with respect to. They do break it out quite, quite, quite liberally there. Okay, thank you. Tom and then Barbara. Morning. I'm just wondering about Louisiana and Wisconsin, how, how long these laws have been in effect if you knew that. And I guess another question would be, why did they choose to go in this direction. You know, I that I don't know I didn't do. I didn't do sort of comprehensive research about their statutes, it would be I'm sure it'd be easy for me to find out how long they've been in place. And I can try and find out what their, what their motivation was. That would be great. Yeah. Thank you. So when I introduced this I didn't think about town clerks or mayors and I know that they've been some of the people that actually have been receiving threats and other sort of either retaliation. So, I don't know how that would affect this. If that's something we could do if we take this bill up or, or not. So anyway, I just wanted to put that out there. Thank you. And in terms of the other statutes are against the actual official or our family members. So that is varies depending on the statute so in Wisconsin. It does also include family members for certain types of protected officials. I think that it's witnesses. And actually, no, for everybody, everyone in Wisconsin is it also includes their family members, not just the protected official, but also their family members. And Louisiana only includes the public official and not additional members. Thank you. Well, thank you. Yeah, just a couple things. Obviously, this is, you know, for me, this is a certainly bill I'm interested in. Last year, my family had to buy a home security system because of threats my wife received in her role as president of the Roland City School Board. So I mean, this is something that that we've thought about. And also quite frankly, you know, it can be a little frustrating because the what my wife received were threats via text and via email. And there are websites out there which allow people to go on and send these message anonymously and they're very hard to trace. And so, you know, it also seemed like, to some degree, I mean, I understand it's not the easiest task for law enforcement to trace it, but there seem to be a time issue. It seemed to be like it certainly never seemed like anyone's priority, quite frankly. And you know, maybe with an enhanced penalty that would be a little added impetus to move things along. But one other thing I wanted to know was in regard to something that Barbara said in regards to, you know, intend to threaten a state employee or elected official. And thinking back to my time in local city government. I'm not certain anyone quite frankly was more threatened than the building inspector. So I would certainly if we move forward encourage something that said, you know, threaten a state or municipal employee, because there are people like the city clerk like the building inspector like the zoning inspector, who are employees of local government who often take the brunt of people's people's anger and that boils over sometimes. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And that made me also think about their number of appointed officials, in addition to elective so something else to put on the consideration list. Bob. Yes. Good morning, Brian. I didn't have the number of the bill you were quoting. I've got the short form bill here to review what was that again. So the short form is h203. And the other bill you're looking at this morning is h302. Easy to remember their opposite each other. Thank you. And looking at this and listening to many other members of the committee here obviously, as written this is a wide and could be very encompassing a bill with many different avenues of family members elected employees and I'm looking at state employees or elected officials and I'm looking at state employees which happened to be, say, Vermont State police officers fishing games so and so forth. And there's no inclusion in there for I can I can just see the other, the share some misciples coming forward and say, Well, wait a minute, you know, aren't our two cents worth anything here also mean, because it's defined as state employees and state officials. And I don't know I'm looking at why don't we just have a law and enhance a law that says no one should be subject to being threatened or versus trying to identify school boards and town clerks and mayors and all these things just. It's just a thought I mean just just a lot on itself it says everyone's included in this. No one's known should not be left out of this. That's what you have currently that there is a prohibition on criminal threats to anybody currently. And when you win the legislature created the criminal threatening statute there was some initial conversation about whether or not there should be certain protected categories that were subject to a heightened penalty and the idea didn't didn't take hold. I don't know if it's clear, but I think that there was a thought that continuing conversation was needed on on that. Well I just, it just seems as though I mean I know we're all elected officials here, which was a few exceptions but why would we create something that puts us at a level higher than than the general, then general public sort of speak is guess what I'm being protected I'm not concerned about it after dealing with it for a number of years here but when I look at things I look at things that are available for all of the members throughout the state of Vermont here and I'm just wondering why we're looking at a special section to put in this particular case us in that section. I appreciate that certainly certainly a consideration and certainly we'll hear from the witnesses is as well I'm sure regarding regarding that. Let's see. Tom Felicia will if I'm not getting your order correctly that bad. Bob great minds think alike I guess it's exactly what I had on my mind is that we have. You know we've got a law for that already. You know from the way I understand it and a little bit that I've heard so far is that there's some impression that an enhanced penalty. Will, you know, even for a special category I guess will maybe toward what's going on and you know, to me if we were going to go in this direction instead of making new laws. If an enhanced penalty is, you know, is potential I don't think it's going to but if it's going to potentially be a discourage people from doing it then just enhance some penalty and everybody's covered that way. Questions for for Bryn. We're going into committee discussion a little bit about policy which is which is fine but we also have witnesses here so questions for Bryn regarding the law. I'm losing my order here let's see everybody's popping up so Felicia coach, Martin, and I'm sorry if I'm going out of order of when you raised your hands but go ahead. So, I guess my point was more committee discussion so I'll keep it very brief but to to Ken and Tom's point. There is absolutely the perception that some of the harassment and some of the threats we received we signed up, or an elected official signed up to work for the public and so we have to take it. And I don't think that that is on par with a neighborly dispute that might get into criminal threatening or, you know, a feud of some kind. I think that there's very different classes of behavior because the average person isn't writing their neighbor hate mail on a weekly basis and sending it around it's not that way and just to put a slightly finer point on it. My partner runs a newspaper, he gets his fair share of hate and discontent and occasionally death threats, but when he calls local law enforcement to say hey I've received this just wanted to let you know about it. It was finally asked him, do you want a no trespass order for this person do you want a no contact what would you like to prevent this from happening and when I received the same it's okay well if that rises to a different level you can absolutely contact state police and when my house was shot at this summer, it was state police came up and they took a record of it but, well you're a public official and people feel entitled to tell you how they feel. And there's there's a point that people are crossing the line and we're seeing that increasingly with tensions rising around politics that people's opinions aren't opinions they're threats. In some cases, and I think that this looks to put a finer point on that because it wasn't just me. Receiving threats there was people who had children at home, more work legislators who they protestors out front of their house and that can be incredibly scary and it can drive people out of public service as we have seen. And that's why we, we look at creating a different class if we were, because there is a very different set of access and responsibility, and, and the public knows that, and that's I think what we're seeing. So that's, it's just my two cents I have the committee discussion. I'm sure. No, no thank you I appreciate that in and bring in terms of the case law or have you. I imagine that's been discussed. Right. Yes. So, you know I think I'm hearing representative leftlers sort of anecdotes about the kinds of stress that she's received and I that that wouldn't be qualify as a political hyperbole there is a category of speech that is protected. The United States Supreme Court talked about this kind of political speech and Watts versus the United States. Some of you might remember that was a case from the 60s when a person was charged with threatening the president because he made a statement at a public rally that if he was drafted to fight in Vietnam that he the first person he would set in this site and the court talked about that as being political hyperbole that wasn't a specific threat to the president and the I can give you a little quote from the from the court. They said debate on public issues should be uninhibited robust and wide open and may well include vehement caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. But that, that kind of language is protected, but that true threats language if the language is intended to place the target in fear. Then that is not protected speech under political hyperbole so I think that I just want to make it clear to the committee that threats to public officials threats that are that you're receiving the place you in fear. If the person intended to place you in fear. That is a, that is a true threat. If it's motivated by political animus or mom. Thank you. Coach Martin Barbara. Good morning, everyone. Sorry, sorry I had two of me go on there. Had some problems with connectivity. And I just like to say that wills comments earlier and Felicia's speak directly, you know, to the reality of what's going on. And I don't think that they're, you know, just by having the general that the people will respond the way that we would hope. And so, you know what I what I've seen over time and I think we've all seen it is members of the body, you know, being threatened. You know, I mean directly threatened, not in, you know, a casual way, or political hyperbole. You know, when people come into your house, or in on your property, that's different. You know, then just, you know, having, you know, send in an email or whatever, you know, I got three of them, you know, like yesterday, you know, so it's like, And please don't tell me that's what I signed up for. You know, I didn't sign up for people being a disrespectful. You know, I treat everybody with respect and I expect, you know, that in return, you know, I understand that we're in a very volatile time, but that still does not change. You know, the the expectation, you know, discourses discourse and conversation is conversation. But when when people go to the lens that, you know, Felicia was talking about and will, you know, to my fellow, you know, colleagues that are trying to do this work of service. It's over the edge, you know, that's crossing the line. And I think that this will hopefully, when we hear from our witnesses, especially the state's attorneys, who actually have the discretion to work with more intentional language, especially if we enact something to this regard, then that's where the change is going to occur. You know, you prosecute a few of these folks that thought they would do what they used to do. And that will change behavior. But I just wanted to thank Will and Felicia for their, their comments. Thank you. Thank you coach. Let's see, Martin and then Barbara. So, I do have a question for Bryn, but I'm going to jump in and throw my two cents within as well since everybody else before I get to my question. So, my view, I mean if we start if we start having enhancements for one particular class of people, we're just going to be going down. And we'll start putting teachers in there medical profession. You know, we can, you know, once you start down that road as we've seen in other places where we've done enhancements we keep on having people say well why not me. And that we're really this is an interesting area because of course the Supreme Court jurisprudence on First Amendment law really restricts what we can do here. And, and I guess one other point is that, you know, enhancing the penalty is going to do nothing frankly and I'm sure we'll hear from Marshall out to this extent, enhancing a penalty is not something that really affects behavior. It's an enforcement and that's where I'm going to get to a question in this in just a second. But I guess the question I have for Brent it's not what I'm expecting you to give it as an answer right at this moment but it's something will broader is, you know, where else, you know, looking at what other states have done look at looking at the latest jurisprudence over this area. Are there any other ways that we can strengthen this area of law of criminal threatening. I tend to doubt that because we've been looking at this for a while, but it's worth a look and that's a little bit broader and it's not something that can be done in the near term I wouldn't think maybe this is an interim, you know, something for an intern or whatever or maybe you already know, bring if there are other areas of being able to strengthen this that's one question the other point I'm going to make and I don't know if this is this may be a question for bring as well. As far as I'm just this enhancement is there. Should we be looking at what what gov gov ops can do as far as training, or as far as giving law enforcement the tools they need to be able to identify, you know, the wills issue, as far as trying to improve enforcement in other words, as as far as just an enhancement. And that's another question I have, as far as, you know, maybe there's something out there that we can do that really gets to the issue, which is identifying who is actually sending these anonymous threats. So I'll have a lot of questions there. Brent if you want to respond. Yeah, you know, you you summarize it pretty well you've been looking at these issues year after year really ways to strengthen these types of threatening behavior ways to strengthen the penalties or the prohibitions on these types of threatening behaviors. You have discussed in the past, the enforcement question there there you have heard testimony in the past that there may be uneven enforcement of these probe of the criminal threatening prohibition across the state. You know, I think the gov ops committee has heard testimony to that effect as well. And with respect to your question about how to how to strengthen the criminal threatening provision. You know, I think that your, your goal with the criminal threatening statute was to only prohibit the kind of speech that is not protected by the Constitution and, and you've done that pretty carefully and clearly. If we look at H 302, I think that expands it a little bit in a way that I believe is constitutionally permissible to prohibit threats against a person's family, because really what is true threats are threats that are intended to terrorize a person. So, so it may be that a person is receiving a threat against a member of their household and not personally against them. And, and as long as that person is reasonably placed in terror, then that that is true threats territory there so I think H 302 does expand it a little bit, strengthen a little strengthen the, the prohibition a little bit. So I'm sure you'll hear from here from other witnesses about that question too. Can I just follow up question wouldn't I get a chance because I had one more question I forgot to ask. Yeah, actually I'm going to go first. Can you tell us more about intent you talked about intended to terrorize or, and I'm looking at the language of, you know, knowingly what can you speak to us about what what a court would look to and in terms of intent here. Okay, so the way that you have established the mens rea and criminal threatening is to use the, the men's rate of knowingly, which is when a person is aware that it's practically certain that their conduct is going to cause a certain result, it's practically certain that the conduct will cause the person to be in fear of serious bodily injury or death. And we talked about this before that there is a requirement there's a constitutional requirement that the speaker have intended to place the person in fear. And that is to avoid like chilling legitimately protected speech. So I think that it was, I may be reading which the US Supreme Court decision talks about this I believe it was the aloneness decision. But the court there provided that by requiring the speaker to intend to scare his or her targets, the law would guard the speech of those individuals who need no harm. So there is an intent element that's required. There's a there is a split in the way in the way states handle this intent element. It's, it has what aloneness made clear is that it has to be that recklessly, it has to be some somewhere above reckless. It's the Supreme Court hasn't made it totally thoroughly clear if it has to be what what the mens rea element has to be. But we know that it has to be above recklessly. So that's why the legislature went with knowingly when it was deciding what kind of intent element to place in the statute. Okay. Thank you so Martin for your follow up. My question was on h 302 and we haven't had to even to walk through 302 yet so I'll hold mine. Okay, I know I'm thinking that I wonder if I, maybe I could have done this differently because they're really we're looking at the same, the same statute but anyway sorry. Okay, Barbara, I want to just amend my answer to that last question just for a moment, if I may. I want to just split in the federal circuits about whether about what level of intent is required. So that's why I'm sort of relying on aloneness at this point. Okay, right. Thank you and hopefully our witnesses will will speak to that as well. Okay, so Barbara Selena coach I see your hand up I'm not sure if it's from before but Barbara Selena impossible. So, a couple of things I think Martin makes a good point and wonder about a separate law maybe and maybe one that I think there was a law that we passed that when child abuse investigators were getting threatened a lot because I remember at my organization, how excited they were and we put a sign up that said something about whatever the wording was but you're like you're not allowed to it's against the law to threaten and people felt really good about even the signage. Obviously you're not going to put that up at your house. I also want to remind people that I think it has an effect on people running. I mean we lost a committee mate who couldn't take that I mean it got to her and her family was unsafe. So, I don't think it's about so much protecting ourselves as it is about not having it be what people sign up for the last thing that I want to say is yesterday. One of our witnesses talked about a neighbor calling in a threat or concern, and the police. I don't know who shared it but obviously the person who called it in then got the, the whole ire of the person for calling it in. I don't know what confidentiality there is about reporting that because that was really I keep thinking about that yesterday, like that made matters worse. So as we think about this stuff. I would hate to have an unintended consequence. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And then coach. Hi, sorry. In a minute. I just want to know, I wasn't sure if I should speak up now or later but I share some of the questions and concerns that folks have raised about like creating enhancements I know there's enhancements for you know DC in certain kinds of DCF case threatening. I share some of the current concerns folks have raised around creating an enhancement just for elected officials. I think that might be. Well, we know that we're in a moment where you know there's a there's a lot of threats directed and by pop folks that Asian Americans in our community and I just I just worry about sort of being like I think it could be a really hard read to pass something on its face that just address selected officials when many members of the community would like all editorialize and say rightly you know think probably we haven't done enough to offer protection and support. And so I share those concerns that folks have raised and I also know that one those identities intersect. It's particularly has clearly been particularly hard for folks of color to serve in elected office in our state. And, you know, like, we used to have a colleague with us on this committee whose wisdom I really miss on partnership and I know that at times the interpretation of the law has been kind of like what Felicia described experiencing like well you're an elected official so you're actually less protected. And I just wonder, Bryn, if you could speak to that ladder point and like how if there's something. If there's a way of approaching that interpretation. So represent Colburn for the question I understand the question. And I just would reiterate what I said earlier which is that I do not believe that it's true that you're less protected by the statute because you're an elected official. And this is where it might get to that enforcement question, because the criminal threatening statute applies to everyone. And, and I you know talked a little bit earlier about that kind of speech that is protected that political hyperbole speech. But that that is a category of speech that does not include what is prohibited by the criminal threatening statute. So, so I read the statute is being quite clear that it applies to public officials you're no less subject to protection because you're a public official. And it's, I think that maybe there is the maybe enforcement law enforcement may have some question about what what the what the speech looks like. But again if it if if the speech falls within the within the statute then it is a true threat and it is not protected speech. Thank you. Coach. You know after after hearing the continued questions. I went back to a session that we were having with the prosecutors. And part of the discussion was around prosecutorial discretion. And I think that gets to what Tom and and Bob were talking about as far as within the general category, you know of criminal threatening, if we're very, very clear about that fear and fear of bodily harm or fear of injury to family. It doesn't matter which category, it is, you know, fear is fear if someone places any individual like the, you know, the existing, you know, statute reads. Then that falls within that category. So what came out of that that meeting because I went back to, you know, my, my notes, and one of the witnesses is here today and I'll raise that that question with him when, when he's testifying. And it was around their ability to at least bring charges, or a claim of a charge, you know, against, you know, that defendant, you know, who perpetrated, you know, the, you know, the I think we're talking about now by creating a maybe a more intense version of, you know, our, our statute as it exists. But that's, and then that also includes what Martin was talking about, as far as the training, you know, piece, you know, if it's a clear understanding that this is unacceptable. So it isn't a question of, you know, one person thinks, you know, one law enforcement officer or one prosecutor thinks that, well, this is kind of almost there. No, it is, it is or it isn't. And I think that's where that training and clarity really could be helpful. I think. And maybe that's something that, you know, I'm not sure how you do that, Brent, you know, with with language. But it just raises, you know, an interesting theorem. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. So Brent, I guess. Lord my hand here. No better way to put it for me anyway. I, no matter what we, what we put into law is, is criminal threatening plain and simple just criminal threatening. Regardless of special interest groups or penalties. Or anything. I mean, even if we try to redefine criminal threatening, there's, I'm going to guess that there's already a standard in, you know, in courts higher than than we are that have defined it. Yep, that's the true, that's the true threats doctrine. That's the category of speech that the criminal threatening statute deals with that is speech that is not protected by the First Amendment. Okay, so the only thing we can really do then is to potentially create. This is a question potentially create a special interest group with an enhanced penalty. Well, so you've done the legislature has done this before and in different types of statutes for example there's an enhanced penalty for assaulting certain kinds of professionals like EMTs and fire fighters and I think there's some others DCF workers. I think that it's really it's a question of whether you see certain types of conduct as being worthy of a greater penalty than other types of conduct. Right. Yeah, yeah, I mean I have, I mean, it's, it's nothing to you I know, but I have a, just have it on this one, an issue with creating this special interest group and. I mean, after a while I mean with all these enhancements for special interest groups for just bringing more and more and more people into the fold and, and you know john cube public is is going to be left out. And I don't know I guess I would go back to we have a lot of cover it. And if we feel the need to enhance the penalties for for the public and put everybody on a par would would make sense to me because I, I understand you know, you know there's certain things to sign up for and not sign up for you know that type of thing but why should, to me why should I have a special category for myself because somebody threatens me over a political thing. Why should I be considered special when, you know, I'll go back to our testimony yesterday when, you know, people were threatened down in Bennington, and, and, and potentially, you know the same type of threat, the same type of fear that's involved in the same feelings and, and they don't get the, the considerations that I would. Barbara. Sorry, I'll be quick. Um, so, when Tom was saying that what occurred to me is, it could interfere with people doing their jobs, for example, if you get threatened very much about a position you have, you might choose not to vote that way or not show up for the vote, or, and I'm just thinking about other people doing their job so it's not that we're above the people I, and again, it's bigger than us. You know, like, it was somebody who recently threatened the Commissioner of Agriculture. A couple of weeks ago, like, like, I don't know. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. Well, and then Felicia. I'll be very quick, but I wanted to, to address the question, you know, sort of close to when Tom raised it. And, you know, one point I just wanted to make is, you know, you're talking about secluding John Q public from, from this group the group of elected officials, but any member of the public can become an elected and why I think this, this discussion has merit and considering this enhanced penalty or some other way to address this has merit is because threats people sending these threats are in effect having a negative consequences on who runs for office. I can name four people in Rutland City who chose not to run for public office, because my wife was threatened, who said, I have kids. I can't put myself out there like that. These sort of attacks on public officials these sort of threats directed at public officials are shaping our discourse, because they are not just potentially affecting the decisions of the officials who are threatened, but they are also convincing other people who want to serve their communities that it's not safe for them to do so. Thank you. Okay, Alicia and then I'm going to turn back to bring and then we'll take a break. Yeah, it, I just, I kind of wanted to respond to some of the comments and just in discourse. It's not elevating an elected official of any level above a member of the public. The public has a very different role than we have and when threatening behavior, not dealt with when credible threats not political speech not hyperbole when it's not dealt with. It impacts the votes, you're able to take you feel safe taking it impacts who runs who resigns. When I was looking to get into politics. One of the first stories I saw was Kaimort's resigning. And we've seen that trend continue where people feel so harassed and so unprotected as officials as leaders in their community that they don't even bother staying in the state let alone staying in that position. And it's not elevating our positions or other elected officials positions over that of the public. It is protecting our ability to do our job for our constituents. I represent 4000 disparate voices, and I should be able to do that. Without being the focal point of a lot of hate and direct threats, I have a thick skin I can take that annoyed that frustrated. But when it rises to that level. We have to do something about that and whether it's enforcement whether it's a heightened penalty. I don't think that we can push it off as well we don't want to make ourselves a special class, because it's not about us right now it's who's doing this job in the future. So that's just my two cents. Okay, thank you I was going to turn to bring but then Tom your, your hand. Just real quick, and then I'll be done for now I guess is that I can be threatened I haven't been. I can be, you know threatened, you know, maybe with physical harm, you know, with death or whatever, and my neighbor can too. My neighbor that's not in, you know, in the public I can be threatened to and, and I guess, why shouldn't he, he she they have the same considerations and the same protections as I would have. And not, you know, and then we eliminate any potential look of having elevated ourselves or, you know, creating another special interest group and protect all Vermonters. Okay. Well, well thank you and I certainly have let this discussion go on longer than than we usually do but it. It felt important to give committee members the the space to do this. And I think hopefully our witnesses will find it helpful when they when they do testify it says some of the policy considerations that we are that we are looking at. So before our break bring if you could, please just walk us through 302 and maybe I should have done that one, one first but I think it just might be helpful to for us to look at that and then witnesses can either do the bill separately or or together because they were really in the same section so. If I might just respond to one of representative Rachel since points that there I just wanted to point out we there is also a felony prohibition on hindering a public official or a public officer and that's 13 vs a 3001. That statute provides that if a if a person impedes a public officer. And that requires that they actually impede the public officer, the performance of their duties, whether they actually make the performance of their duties interfere with the performance of their duties. Then that that is a felony so that may also be a statute the committee wants to look at. So. I'll jump to 302 now. That's all right. And would the committee like me to put it up on the screen or does everybody have it available there. Everyone has it. Okay, I think we have it. Yeah. Thank you. So I already kind of walked through the existing criminal threatening statute so I feel like this is going to be this won't take too long. This bill really changes the criminal threatening statute in three ways. First it expands the existing criminal threatening prohibition to apply if the speaker threatens the listeners family. As we discussed before, it talks about that a little bit before. So that's at the bottom of page one. So the person would have to knowingly place the other person and reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily injury to the the listener or to the listeners family. And I wanted to point out that in the bill family is not defined. And if you do want to work on this draft I would recommend defining what family means. And one suggestion might be to use the household members definition that you use in title 15 abuse prevention chapter. So you encompass individuals who are a part of the household. So I just want to point that out. The second thing that the bill does is if you scroll down to page two, it adds an enhanced penalty to the criminal. As you've been discussing as an enhanced penalty for violating the statute by threatening to use a firearm or an explosive device at a school on school grounds and a school building at an institution of higher education. So that comes the penalty from one year to five years with $5,000 fine or both. So you've been talking a lot about enhanced penalties this morning so imagine that doesn't need a lot more explanation. And then the last change that the bill makes is down at the bottom of page two and subdivision F. I referenced earlier that this subdivision provides an affirmative defense that a defendant can raise to a charge under the section that they didn't have the ability to carry out the threat. So what this would do is it would instead make the fact that the defendant didn't have the ability to carry out the threat, rather than removing criminal liability for that, if the person was able to successfully introduce that evidence as an affirmative defense, it would instead make it a mitigating factor of sentencing. So essentially what with that change, effectively that change would really say this doesn't remove criminal liability, but it does. It does maybe require a little bit less of a penalty if the person didn't have the ability to carry out the threat. And that that's it to the changes made by each 302. Great. Thank you friend on line 18 and in F should that be the word that should that be struck out as well. Yeah, it should. Okay, thank you. Good catch. Great, thanks. So, okay, any questions about the language and 302 before we take a break. No. Great. Great. Thank you. So, let's take a 15 minute break please. And I'll be back here.