 Can you turn that off? Good morning, this is Senate Judiciary Committee. Are we speaking with Mr. Keck? Yes, this is me, Keck. Oh, great. Yeah, I can hear you now. Good. And Auburn Watersong is going to introduce you. Hi, David. Thank you so much for being here. So for the record, I'm Auburn Watersong, policy director of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. David has agreed to come speak to you. He is the director of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence and Firearms, which is a project of the Battery Women's Justice Project, a national partner of ours in efforts to end domestic violence. And they have a national scope. And so I thought, given the specialty of his project, that it might be worthwhile to have a chance to hear from him. And I think he can introduce himself. I know that he's an attorney. And he can talk more about his experience with you. Good. Thank you, David. Thank you, David. This is Senator Dick Sears. I chair the Senate Judiciary Committee. And with me, Senator Bill Bennett, Senator Alice Nithka, Senator Jeanette White, and Senator Tim Mazz will be here shortly. So if you would feel free to comment on 8.4.22 either as it passed the House. We've had some amendments offered by the Attorney General's Office, particularly to relating to Section 2, the removal of firearms. But please feel free to talk about whatever you want around this bill and how other states have were particularly interested in the constitutionality under Article 4 of the United States Constitution and Article 11 of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution and how it interplays, how this bill would interplay with those certain seizure-wise constitutional requirements. OK. Thank you. Thank you for writing me this speech this morning. As it became that I am with the Better Women's Justice Project, we are funded through the Office on Violence Against Women. My position is director of the National Domestic Violence and Firearms Resource Center, and this is kind of the area that we would be working with firearms seizure and firearms surrender protocol. I will think at this point, and you also need to point out that because of the funding we have, I am not allowed to engage in any kind of lobbying either for or against any pending legislation. So I'm not here to do that. I am, however, here to hear your answer. Questions you have will speak in general about the process and about whether two things have done and sort of observations about this process. So with that understanding, at first of all, it sounds like your question has to do with the issue that's being considered right now has to do with the Fourth Amendment, not the Second Amendment, but the Fourth Amendment. Right. I can comment on that as well. And I think that there's a good place to start and a good focus to have here with this type of legislation. I did look at, I think it's probably the most recent amendment to the proposed legislation. And I think that the important things to point out here are some things to observe on that. It looks like from what I'm seeing, there is a due process hearing that is contemplated within a septic. In most cases, it probably would be within 24 hours of the seizure of the filing. That is contemplated. OK, I think with that in place, you're going to take care of any concerns that there may be regarding due process and due process taking. And I think that most jurisdictions that have looked at this issue have taken these steps of coming to the conclusion that this is a Fifth Amendment or Fourth Amendment taking without due process. And so I think that's the important thing to look at is you're not just possessing the person of ownership of the filing. You're just possessing them of the possession of it. And it's only until there's a time for the hearing. I think a lot of communities give up to 14 days to give a hearing. So I think you're probably on a much more solid ground by giving that opportunity for that hearing to take place that quickly. So that would be my first observation with respect to what you're looking at right here. There was evidently a New Jersey ruling on one of these types of laws. Can you speak to that? So pretty much the city, I'm trying to think of it. Can you just give me an answer and try to think about it? I think I know I read it, but I'm going to go with specifically. We don't. I don't believe we have that particular. Well, we don't have that one. It's the State v. Harris. Pardon me? Oh, it's the State v. Harris. It's one of the ones that we are talking about. It's in the file. What is it called? One of the ones. There's two that have been brought up. One of them was State v. Harris. State v. Harris. I don't remember the name of it. The other one was a forfeiture. And that I put that case in your folders yesterday. And I think I actually sent David that case as well. Hagerty and Addison County? No. No, it says New Jersey forfeiture. Oh, New Jersey. That's not the one that David was talking about yesterday. He was talking about another one in New Jersey. Yeah, that's what I was looking at. That is the one that you want to cite. It's State v. Harris. 211, New Jersey, 566. State v. Harris. If you don't have it, I don't like to take people by surprise. And I'm sorry for doing that. I do have it here in front of me. OK, great. This is the one that's brought up in responding to a police officer, really. Yeah, I think we lost you, David. Oh, I'm still here. Sorry, I was just looking at the case. It looks like this is one that's called a police officer at the respondent. And I don't hope that usually here had to do so much with the Fourth Amendment as with the new process, I think, of it. Yeah. OK, so it was more a new process. And I think that important issue here to look at when you're considering something like this is really how this is a different sort of a different Fourth Amendment analysis that you might make with a criminal prosecution and seizure of evidence for the purposes of prosecuting a crime. And that's a different analysis, I think, than you make with these types of seizures. Because this serves a different purpose than that. This is more about it's really working to a community caretaker function. This is an officer who's taking this bylaw because of the danger it might have to the victim as well as the community there. So this is kind of a different kind of taking. And I think this is a different kind of seizure. So I think it's important to keep that in mind. This is sort of a statement by the legislature that there's an acknowledgment that the domestic violence itself is something that sort of heightens the scrutiny about the firearm in the home in the possession of the respondent. It's a different way. And for example, let's just say, for example, law enforcement, in this case, police officers arrive at the scene. They observe the respondent, the husband in this case, or ex-husband, shoving his wife, ex-wife into the wall. She scratches on her arms. She's into evaluation. She reports that what was happening here. In that case, there's probably no way to take the firearm away because that firearm is not going to be evidence of that domestic abuse because the domestic abuse is involving hands. In a lot of cases, it involves strangulation. It involves touching, slapping, taking, those kinds of things where there is no firearm involved. And so to seek out a warrant to take the firearm away would be ineffective because that firearm isn't going to be linked to that. This type of statute, in this point of place, is really an acknowledgement by the legislature that there's a connection between the fact that there may be domestic violence in this relationship. So heightens the need to take the firearm out of that relationship because the statistics and evidence have proven that that firearm was much more likely to be used to commit an homicide. So that's kind of the distinction that you're major, I think, when you're looking at something like this. That's helpful. So basically, what can you take? Let's say you're at the scene that a firearm has not been used. What, under these laws, can you take legally? Anything in view, something that's not in view? Where are the limits? Well, I'm really on how, well, although the limits are, first of all, he has consent to conserve. I don't think that under this type of statute, the Fourth Amendment would ever allow an officer to conduct a search of the home, look in the dresser drawers, look in the closets, search through the house to find if there's any firearms there. Certainly, even absent this statute, absent this kind of a decision in states that have marital property law, either of the vouchers could consent to a search. And in lots of cases, anybody who's a valid resident of that in that home may be able to consent to a search. Consent is something different. I think plain view is one that would certainly be permissible here. Anything on the possession of the person that either is under a search based on a arrest or if you're just doing a terry stop to interview the potential respondent here or defendant here. If you're searching that, patting him down and find a firearm, any firearm possession, I think, would certainly be within that realm. And also, anything that's in plain view. Joe? David, my name is Joe Beding. And I have a couple of questions for you. Sure. The bill that we have talks about removing firearms from a domestic violence scene. I think where our chair was going with his question, I'd like to expand a little bit on it. The domestic violence scene is in the kitchen. And presuming that an officer has the ability to seize anything in plain view if the officer is immediately threatened. If we institute this piece of legislation, does that now authorize removal of weapons not just from the person of the alleged defendant, but the immediate surroundings of that person? Does it extend, for instance, to the garage or to the basement, the attic? Do you see that extension as problematic or no? I agree. I see what you're going with, and I agree. That would be one of the type of just speaking to a woman. Well, I don't think it's going to authorize a search of a home. The plain view document is someplace where the officer is allowed to be, and legally is just legally standing or legally positioned and competing in their plain view. So in your scenario where the officers are right at the door, clean the front door, and are led to the kitchen where the incident actually persuades, if, for example, the hallway, the living room, or any other room that they have to pass the clue of, they're legally allowed to be there. So if the fire room is visible, if that's what I think, that would be part of a plain view. The attic in the garage, unless there's some reason why they're walking through the garage, that maybe some people around here are going to respond, and people come through the garage sometimes when they come to a house. That feeling is fact specific. These are always fact specific issues. I don't think that unless there's a reason why the officer has to be in the attic, that they're going to be allowed to search there as well. Well, I guess what I'm trying to find out is if we pass this law, do you see this law as authorizing something that goes beyond the general perimeter of where the incident took place, so that in other words, if the alleged perpetrator is placed in handcuffs, brought outside, put into a police car, and the officer goes back inside to speak with the victim. And the victim has possession of the household as well and gives permission to search. Do you understand that this law would authorize removal of all weapons within the residence, including the garage, the attic and the basement? If it's wrapped in the way I just looked at it, I believe it would if there's consent to search yet. OK. Now, do you know anything about Article 11 in the Vermont Constitution, any jurisprudence there? I'm not familiar with it. OK. In your capacity as director, are you aware of the cooling off period that victims' advocates groups are saying needs to happen after a point of domestic violence? I'm familiar with the cooling off period in general, yes. What is the accepted cooling off period? I think that's, again, a cooling off period is going to be, again, fact specific. But you know, depending on the situation, the 24 hours, 72 hours are reasonable cooling off periods. Are you familiar with this particular bill's introduction through its amendment process? The initial call specifically for five days of awaiting period? No, I was not familiar with that. OK. Do you know anything about S-221, the bill that we've passed out of the Senate unanimously that called for up to 14 days? No, I wasn't familiar with the 14-day criminal off period. Well, it's an extreme risk bill, similar to Connecticut, Oregon, Washington, and several other states are moving in that direction. Yeah, those I'm familiar with, yes. It's very similar to that. So in any state that has passed legislation like 422 that we're looking at, do you have any understanding of what's happened to the court system in a situation where they're suddenly told that they have to have a 24-hour hearing within 24 hours? I'm not familiar with any, what is it? Only that I would have been problematic. I know most jurisdictions, when there's an arrest made, will hold what's called a bomb hearing or a bail hearing on this following day. Is that generally a precedent procedure? That's in the situation of a criminal charge. Correct. OK. This particular piece of legislation doesn't necessarily require a criminal charge, as I understand it. It is a special needs doctrine, I guess, proceeding that's going to give some, my words aren't coming together this morning, we just haven't had enough coffee yet. OK, well, if I could just speak to that. From what I read from the proposed legislation, they refer to that as an arrangement. And that is why, to me, it seems like, at least from my understanding of how we use arraignment, that's generally a criminal proceeding, not necessarily leading to a criminal charge, but at least it's an opportunity for that arrested person to be brought before a magistrate or a judge, somebody else, who can at least review the case. So that's kind of where I thought they were going to be. And that seems to be that contemplation process hearing that the court is undergoing that one. Yes, I agree with you. I'm suddenly getting my brain back. In the case of a citation, an individual is not necessarily arraigned immediately. They could be cited here for weeks down the road. But in this situation, if you're given a citation, they have to hold a hearing within 24 hours if weapons have been removed. And that's not necessarily the point of arraignment. So I'm trying to struggle with if the arraignment is not taking place, we now have what could be a full-blown merits hearing on whether or not the weapons should be returned. And I'm trying to get an understanding of any other state that has passed this legislation. What has the impact been on the court system when that has to happen? I am not going to get it. I'm not familiar with any jurisdiction that's pointed that out as problematic as far as congesting the court. Generally, these are summary hearings. In any arraignment, there's always an obligation on the part of the court to review at least what's been filed or cited here as for probable cause, whether or not there's probable cause to continue. And my reading of how this looks is really a formal probable cause standard that's being applied here. Whether or not any of the allegations would lead to the firearm not being returned for any of the reasons that were before in that legislation or in that proposed legislation. Thank God. There's something that prevents him from getting the firearm back. Like, is there a felony conviction in the background, in that Bush's background? Is there an allegation here of domestic abuse? Is there some other reason that the court can identify on the record as why the firearm was used? Thank you. I'm struggling with this bill in a couple of ways. And one is that under current Vermont law, you can arrest somebody who's committing a felony, if not within the presence of the other. They have reasonable reasons. We have what's called law enforcement covers arrest warrant citation to appear. And the officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe. Then the misdemeanor or felony would commit it in the presence of the officer. And in a felony, a law enforcement officer may arrest without a warrant. The person who the officer has probable cause to believe is committed or is committing a felony. And then with the citation section, we have an exception for the person who's committed a misdemeanor, which involves an assault against a family member or against a household member is defined in 15 DSDA 1101. And my problem with this bill is, if the situation is so hot or so tense, why wouldn't the officer remove the person from the scene, then get a warrant to do whatever they want to do in terms of firearms? This process troubles me in that respect, because clearly the officer can, if they have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed of domestic assault, can remove the person from the scene, then get a warrant to do remove firearms or whatever. That's an excellent question. And thank you for asking. I mean, I think that goes right to the very heart of what's being proposed here. Under the scenario, let's take two different scenarios. Let's take the scenario where officers arrive at the scene of what's reported as domestic abuse. And you've got an allegation that the perpetrator here had his gun out. He was pointing the gun. He fired the firearm. He fired the gun. Those kinds of things, firearms directly turn cause to be domestic violence, I think is under that scenario, you would have grounds to get a warrant to seize the firearm as evidence of the crime. On the other hand, in a different scenario where there's no allegation here that the firearm was ever brandished, it was never taken out, it's not part of the crime at all. That's being investigated here. Let's say, for example, the allegation here was strangulation, sexual assault, slapping, punching, whatever else happened here. But the firearm was fitting. There's maybe a firearm in the hole, but it's part of that. Under that scenario, you would arrest that, not responding to the mandatory arrest. Take him to jail. Give him a bond here. He may, he may, he may be involved. He's in jail for a couple of days because he can't respond. But I don't believe you would ever be expectable in obtaining a search warrant for that firearm, because the firearm's not going to be evidence of that offense. What's being proposed here is really connecting the dots between the fact that there's a allegation of domestic abuse and there's a firearm in the hole. I guess that's just more of a community caretaker function, which is taking the firearm out of the hole, at least until there's been a judicial review to determine whether or not this person should be allowed to continue to put that firearm. It doesn't just possess some apportorship of it. It just takes it away sort of. And whatever pool the law period you want to put in there, it's probably a token, but that's the difference between the two scenarios that I see. You wouldn't be able to ever get a search warrant to get that firearm because it's not going to be provable. So you couldn't get a search warrant because it's not part of the crime. So you also couldn't get a search warrant unless the person threatens I'm going to shoot you. Would that then allow that? I believe it would. So there needs to be some nexus between the alleged criminal activity and a firearm in order to get a search warrant. But under this law, we get around the Fourth Amendment, the 11th article, by saying there's a nexus between domestic violence and firearm violence. And that we can do this. And it's constitutional. I'm having a hard time with that. OK. Again, I get you put your right arm into this. Excellent question. So you're not getting around the Fourth Amendment by doing this. The Fourth Amendment, the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment, is always what's reasonable. And so again, I keep coming back to the community caretaker function. And that's because this is really the closest ginship here is the community caretaker list. The example that I would use for community caretakers is officers driving down the highway late at night. You see the car on the side of the road, headlights on, but the car's on the shoulder. Officers drive by and see that there's somebody in the car who's maybe slumped over or maybe who knows what he's looking down. The officer stops that vehicle. What does that mean? Well, that's basically a stop there, not because there's necessarily any criminal behavior going on, but because the officer wants to put up the person maybe having an art attack. They can be injured. So the officer goes there to find out what's going on with the person late at night on the side of the road. If the officer's going to smoke alcohol, then the officer can then pursue a defecation as to whether or not there's drunk driving or not. So you're really not getting around the Fourth Amendment. You're looking at an exception to the Fourth Amendment, which is the community caretaker function. I think that is an important distinction to make here. This is more habit to do with you're not taking the gun out of the home because you want to put it in your evidence locker and use the prosecute. You're taking out a gun just to cool off and preserve the situation when the savings was ample. I think that's another excellent point that you made. You're still a reasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. So basically, we're using the caretaker exemption to the Fourth Amendment. And has that been challenged and successfully challenged in any state or federal court? Do you know? No, I don't. I mean, the Fourth Amendment has now contained so many exceptions. And it's really the exception that's sort of sprawled up in the Fourth Amendment. There are so many exceptions to it. But you're a caretaker. I think it's a generally accepted exception to the Fourth Amendment. I don't know any community that's rejected that. OK, well, I appreciate that. I do have another question. David, if I can follow through on your analogy of the Terry stop, if the officer processes the individual for a suspected DUI and then releases him to a home where there are other automobiles available, would the same theory behind this proposed bill be in play if somebody came along to propose that all automobiles should be seized at that point? Let me think about that. So you're suggesting that if the officer takes separate to the custody and releases them? The presumption here is that firearms in the home and domestic violence are by themselves problematic. And therefore, whether guns were used or not, the theory is in a caretaker exception that all guns should be removed. And my analogy to you is if the officer sees someone, processes them for drunk driving, and then releases them to a home that has more automobiles, if someone were to propose similar legislation that all automobiles there should be removed or keys taken or whatever, isn't that the same theory under your caretaker exception analysis? Well, I think if the person is postponed, and so I can ask the question, because if the person then postponed under the having been arrested for domestic violence and then moved into a home where there are firearms, a French home, for example, with a firearm, I don't believe this would authorize a seizure of those firearms nor would it authorize a seizure of a vehicle to the scenario you gave. So no, I think the answer probably is not. I'm reading the language with section 1048, the law enforcement officer arrests or sets a person for domestic assault. The officer may remove any firearm obtained pursuant to a search warrant. If the person is released into the custody of, say, a parent in a different household and the parent says, you can search my home, does this bill then give the officer permission to remove firearms from that parent's home? Generally, what the general practice in this type of case is that the individual is not permitted to stay in a home where there are firearms. I don't think this would give the court jurisdiction over firearms that are in possession of another individual. So I think the answer is probably not. I think the problem here is that the respondent, the defendant, or whoever you want to call him, he's going to probably not be permitted to stay in a home where there are firearms. He gave the inviolation to respond. He gave the inviolation of the other conditions to himself. I don't think it's going to authorize a seizure or a surrender or a search of other people's premises. I don't see that. Well, I'm scratching my head because here we have a citation possibly demanding his appearance in court some 15 days down the road. This bill gives, as I understand it, the officer permission to seek any firearms. And I'm just wondering what the parameters of that are. Seek any firearms? If the purpose is to remove them for the necessary protection of the officer or any other person, it would seem to me that you would have an argument that if the person was released to a parent's home, this is before an arraignment takes place. They've been cited. This bill would give the officer the ability upon consent of the parent, if it's a different home, to go into the parent's home and remove all the weapons. Am I missing something? Well, I think that, again, I think what you just said is exactly right. It was the consent of the parent. So I think in any time anyone can, are the officer consent given by the person who has control out of those premises? So I think with consent of the parent, I think it's probably, then I think yes. The answer probably is yes. If the parent thinks you can come in and search and take any guns in our home, then I think yes. I don't think that this bill adds anything to that. Well, David, I'm not asking they give consent. They've given consent to search, but not to take. This bill, as I read it, would give the officer authority to take whether they agreed to the taking or not. If they've given consent to search, that's all the bill says. Oh, discover direct essential search. If the officer deems that it may be a threat to the victim in the case, it seems to me wherever the defendant goes prior to an arraignment, wherever he goes, the officer pursuant to this bill would have the right to go to that residence, ask for consent to search, receive that consent to search, and then take whatever weapons are in the building whether the owner agrees to that or not. I don't disagree with that. It sounds like that is, at least from what you're reading to me, it sounds like that is what it's saying. It sounds like you're right about that. I don't have that point of view, but it sounds like a physiological tension of that. Thank you, Matt. Thank you. I have another question. David, thank you so much for taking time out of your busy day. Thank you. We appreciate your help and your knowledge of this country, nationwide issues, and keep up the good work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Cheap flakos from Montpelier and Vermont, the little city they could. That's right. We're at snows every day. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tony Ficus on the Montpelier Police Chief, and I'm here on behalf of the Vermont Chiefs of Police Association and the Vermont Police Association. First of all, I just want to say that Vermont law enforcement is committed to do whatever we can and help where we can in terms of primary goal of reducing domestic homicide in Vermont. We've been working closely with Ms. Watersong for quite some time now on this issue. And from what I've seen, it's come a long way. Early on, the concerns of law enforcement were several. We just like Shal May, for example, on our options, but also the liability concerns too. If we miss a firearm, if we don't take a firearm, or if we take a firearm that appears to be appropriate. So that's all been addressed, and my understanding now is that there was some better direction from the Attorney General. That's one of the- Yeah, there's a- Okay. But actually, Peggy, if you've got more copies of this, all the witnesses should get the proposal yesterday from the Attorney General. Because one of the things I just had was there was a lot- They're commenting on that rather than that as well. Yeah, you want to comment on the copies right now? One of the two points that we had questions, more than I had else when talking with Beth Navotny from the VPA, was that we wanted better clarity, whether that came from the Attorney General or he found its way in the spell. This came from the Attorney General, so. The- David, sure, part of the Attorney General. Okay. And that is the case. I don't know what to think about it. We'll say it's the Attorney General. So overall, we have been supportive of this idea, and like the questions that I'm hearing, you've been asking, again, law enforcement, the police officers in the field, they need to know exactly clearly what they're doing. And one thing I want to point out, in terms of the nexus between a domestic violence response and firearms. In many cases, and more throughout Vermont, but departments are participating in what's called a risk assessment or a lethality assessment protocol. And so in the case of a domestic violence, even for an arrest or a citation is not an issue, the officer provides an opportunity to meet with the victim and also goes as a series of established questions. One of those questions, for example, in the LAP is are there firearms in the home? And what it gives an opportunity though is to have the victim then, through the police officer, make contact with an advocate. But what those questions, those design questions are, determining on people that have, depending on what's called screened in, depending on if they say yes, yes, and yes to a variety of these questions. It shows that statistically that that victim is of a higher, much greater chance of homicide, being a victim of homicide. So that is an area where listening to the question specific to this morning that I can think about because we talk about, it might be there to investigate a domestic assault. A domestic assault might have been an attempted strangulation and we have evidence of that and we've made an arrest. But during the course of the LAP or risk assessment, we find that there's a historical pattern or a course of conduct, a variety of other assaults that have been taking pleasure threats thereof, which include maybe in some case a firearm. He always, for example, he always has a loaded 45, in the vets dam, and two months ago, he's threatening and so forth. I'm just providing a different, maybe lens from which to look at this, where if the officer, the totality of what we're seeing in that investigation, if it would warrant that then again the move of firearms. So with that, I don't have a heck of a lot, except we just want to be clear and I have no chance to go over, the guidance we need from the AG, but that was one of the things we were looking for because again, if it's evidence of a crime that is already established in the preface here, that's a standard protocol, whether it's with a warrant or without, without exception, that's clear to us. But this is a part of our work, so this will be new ground for us as well and warrant for us. Just as generally practice for the monetary police department, if there's a call regarding domestic violence, do you usually send two officers or one? Oh, we always try to send at least two. At least two, yes. Second question, can you help me understand the difference between, I understand the difference between arrest and sight, but can you help me understand why an officer would sight somebody at the scene of a domestic violence and not remove that person from the scene of domestic violence, at least even to just get that person to the police station, even if you're not gonna hold him more than an hour, I'd say him, it couldn't be anyone, but if you're not gonna hold him, even if you're only gonna hold him for an hour, just to get him away from the scene, to calm things down. Our general sponsor, if there's a probable cause that an assault did occur, we are gonna arrest and remove. Where we get into the citation, sometimes it can, it's still technically a criminal act, but maybe the threat is not there. Maybe the victim has already made a turn of plans before we even arrived, which sometimes can be, it's been the case, to even the other time where a citation would appear with the mission to release, somewhere, which is set by the court or judge. Generally though, it's going to be an arrest and remove. And the other case, I don't have the particulars, but all I can just move the news, I'm just thinking about the St. Alvin shooting. I don't know the circumstances there, but I don't know if that is part of the mindset, or how this type of bill could, if that would have been providing a better safe alternative to that situation, that I don't know. So I'm just kind of trying to understand how this would best suit public safety, and most importantly, how do we, is this an appropriate tool to allow us to provide a greater safety margin for a victim of domestic assault or violence? Yeah, and then the nexus between this removal of the firearms and the removal of the firearms under the proposed death of 221 as it passed the Senate, I mean, it would give, actually give alternatives, even where there is no arrest, where you believe that the victim might be under extreme risk, or other people may be in extreme risk, including that perpetrator. So it's kind of interesting. We're dealing with two issues, one of which we believe has, because it's through the civil court that goes through the warrant, and certain protections are still concerned about this, but I'm also concerned on the, you know, when I've been at the police station in Bennington and witnessed an arrest, the police officer always calls the state's attorney. I don't know if that's the practice throughout the state, but if they're going to decide whether to lodge or whether to have bailed, ask the court officer to set bail, or they're released, they generally call the state's attorney. I don't know if that's the policy of Washington County. It is not the policy of Washington County. It's the general practice of Washington County is that there is a full custody of arrest that's made, and then we go and we contact the court clerk or judge. Now, I'm just here, you know, just from, it seems to me it's, I'm looking at Mr. Pepper obviously, but it seems to me that, why do we have 14 different systems? So it's you, I think it's possible for you. I assume he is. The bail bill actually that sits in your possession, attempts to address that issue and you know, changes rule three so that an arresting officer will always call the state's attorney, the on-call state's attorney. But I said, interesting, we do think differently. One of the questions that came up from someone is a, I just got an email from somebody in Reedsboro and you're probably not familiar with Reedsboro Chief, but let me just say it's in Vermont. It's in Vermont, it's about, they said an hour, I would say 45 minutes for, unless the police, unless the state trooper is somewhere in that vicinity, generally 45 minutes to get there. I don't know, assuming it's dry roads and not snow. I think it's not actually somewhere. And I would, they are concerned that under some of these bills, their firearms would be taken, not only the alleged perpetrator, but the victims might be taken. And the victim then would be concerned about being able to protect his or herself. I don't know if there's any thought to that or generally what's happened in. No, there's definitely thought to that as well but also suicide is also another thing that's not directly talked about here, but that does happen, including even victim suicide. I don't see a clear path on this, quite frankly, except that we are supportive of some concepts of this bill to can we reduce domestic homicide and the access to firearms where it's not clear cut or the firearms not directly the evidence of that particular criminal investigation that we're conducting at that time. That's why throughout there, the lethality assessment protocol and risk assessments. Just wondering earlier, there was some testimony that perhaps arrests weren't the best way to go because then it's more likely that both parties that domestic might get arrested. Are you finding that both parties are, I can see two brothers in a fight might get us both, but finding that with domestic violence between two partners or a husband and wife? My understanding of my training several years ago, we had a leadership conference brought here by Tom Trembly on domestic, specific to domestic violence. And quite frankly, it was cutting edge best practice of how to respond to domestic violence. And generally speaking, most cases where you're arresting both parties. You are now? No, no, it's a, well, if you are doing that, that is, you're not, in many cases, it's not a full investigation, quite frankly, because it's usually an aggressor. And again, that's where the pattern of conduct is so important. What led up to the breaking point, for example, about somebody that's been, that finally defends him or herself. There's a lot to that and it's rare that both are just mutually responsible in a domestic situation. So we do not see a lot of that at all in my killer PD anymore. We never, actually, we did see a lot of it, but I can recall a case that I had years ago on the road where very visible injuries to a female victim and made an arrest, and then I realized that the other gentlemen had been stabbed and this was offensive. So, I mean, they do exist. And, you know, so it's, but generally speaking, there is an aggressor in these cases. And a lot of it has to do with much better training of Vermont law enforcement's receiving and now our challenge is how do we make sure that we're keeping pace with what the prosecutors are getting for training on this, and then the disconnect that we see in law enforcement is are the judges, it's an issue, so I'm getting the same type of awareness and training to what we're doing on the street and in the field. So, somebody got, it was a viral ball, I think they were charged with assault, assault by mutual agreement or something like that. Mutual threat, yeah. Both people were assaulting each other and they both were charged, and it was a mutual agreement that they were both guilty or both charged with. That's a specific charge? Well, it's, what is the name of it? Simple assault by mutual threat. Simple assault by mutual agreement? Usually those end up with disorderly conducts in that type of setting. But there are- I suppose a couple could face something like that. Absolutely, but again, there's such a, but there's a profound difference so to deal with domestic violence versus just two acquaintances in a bar. Go ahead, Chief. The protocols that you were describing and the risk assessment, how long has that been in effect for you? I started with the very city police department about, I want to say, four years ago now. You know what this is, being taught at the Academy of Interest that looks like? It is not that yet that I'm aware of. One of the outcomes of leadership institute that most police chief sheriffs and VFB command staff participated in seven years ago was that, yeah, how do we standardize that statewide? Again, it was a program I started out at Baltimore. I'll put your PD adopted at the next department in Washington County, it's my understanding we adopted it not even within a year from very city's pilot of that. And again, it's an effective tool to a variety of levels. One is it, again, it provides a real awareness for a victim of the kind of danger that he or she may be in. And also it shows that we are leading law enforcement and our advocate partner is that we are in lockstep in supporting the new victim. Any other questions with Pete's hand? I don't have a question, but I just have to say that every day I have a new appreciation for law enforcement officers. And you know, I mean, Joe was sitting here just a little while ago when we were talking through the VLS diet. He said, you know, I'm scratching my head trying to think about this issue and judges and attorneys and everybody else gets to scratch their head and think about it and you have to make split second decisions. So thank you. That's why we like clarity. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you very much. All right. Chloe White, the ACLU for the typical damper law enforcement. I am known as a party pooper. For the record, Chloe White, Vermont ACLU. I want to say for the record that we appreciate the ACLU's constant business. Oh, well, thank you. It was a commitment. We appreciate being appreciated. We disagree with the position, but we appreciate it. Thank you. That's as much appreciated to overuse the word, but we know that at times we can be, you know, help or endurance, but, you know, we try and maintain our devotion to the Constitution and to civil rights. So we appreciate that. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this bill. And as you know, we defend the constitutional rights of all people and that includes second amendment rights, but it also includes the rights of victims of domestic violence. And at the same time, there are many regulations and restrictions that could be adopted to protect the public and that don't violate the second amendment right or the Article 16 right to bear arms. And so the ACLU of Vermont supports reasonable and constitutional regulations of firearms, which is why, again, it's so important that any bills on this subject passed by the legislature are craft with stand constitutional challenges. Because it would be futile, and I think of setting the past laws only have them overturned by the courts. And we think this position is consistent with the 2008 Heller decision. The court found an individual right to possess a firearm, to use that arm for attritionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. But Justice Scalia, who were right over the court, noted that like most rights, the second amendment right is not unlimited. It's not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner, whatsoever, and for whatever purpose. So while reasonable firearms regulations can be fashioned in a manner consistent with legal and constitutional precedent, we at the ACLU of Vermont feel that H-422, as passed last year by the House, is problematic with regard to a constitutional rights, including due process. We think legislation is drafted, is overly broad. It doesn't provide any opportunity for a post-deprivation hearing, and gives law enforcement sweeping authority to remove firearms indefinitely, unless the owner proactively asks for their return. But we think this legislation could be improved in a few manners. By the addition of a swift post-deprivation hearing, which I think is provided for in the AG's draft, removing the burden of requesting the return of the firearm from the owner. Again, this was something that we talked about with 221, where you shifted the burden of asking for the removal of the Extreme Rights Protection Order. You shifted the burden here in committee from the person on whom the order is placed to back to the state's attorneys in the AG's office. Same sort of burden shifting here. And I believe that's also in the AG's draft. And narrowing the reason for removal. So currently, the bill is to protect, I think, the alleged victim of the crime, as well as I think probably those most at risk, so really joining family members. But removal right now is allowing the bill for the protection of officer or any other person. So it's not simply those who are involved in or immediately adjacent to the alleged instant or danger. So it goes beyond domestic violence to any act or person they attempt to harm, to inflict harm to any other person. So we think narrowing that to ensure that we are, that it meets the purpose of the bill, which is to protect those alleged victim and the adjacent family would improve the bill. So, while due process principles generally favor pre-deprivation hearing or the requirement of a judicial warrant, we do understand that this bill is meant to address emergency circumstances wherein those options may not be available. So, the swift and thorough post-deprivation hearing as proposed by the EG's office may be constitutionally permissible. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to testify today and we support your efforts to enact firearms regulations that enhance public safety while respecting everyone's constitutional rights. Thank you. Question. Oh. Senator White. No, I just was gonna say, how would you word that, where it says for any other person, we just say or the victims and the extended family or how would you? I think I would be happy to work with the victims' advocates and others on this. I think that there could be, I think that those perhaps in, I think we'd have to work out precisely about the legal language of it, those in immediate danger. Just because, I think, because the purpose of the bill states, even in the beginning of the bill states there is this nexus between domestic violence and firearms and it's supposed to be protecting the alleged victims of and the family of domestic violence, but then it goes on to say any person. I think there could be a constitutional issue there. Thanks. But yes, that's a great question. Eliminate concepts like domestic violence or suicide. Do you see any difference in the mechanical structure between 221 and it's passed by the Senate? By, well, I think it's the time difference. I think it's the main difference I see here is that there is, as you know, a very robust process within 221. In the meantime, while that process is going on, the person may still have access to firearms and they may still pose, looks at the alleged perpetrator, may still pose a danger to the alleged victim. I think that's where this, where that's wide with what this is trying to do is trying to ensure that in the emergency situation that is something that they can do something. However, you do provide into 221, of course, for an ex parte hearing. I think that, again, though, it's how much time is that ex parte hearing going to take? And in the meantime, it does that pose a danger. Is the risk still very high for the alleged victim? So you know, of course, that you've provided this robust ex parte hearing into 221, I think this would also, so that's you do the ex parte, and then afterwards you do the post-deferration. This here just kind of eliminates the time lag, I think, where there is still that danger. 221 has judicial oversight throughout the whole process. This is not the night that's true, okay? Right. You've said that the burden in 221 does, I think you said it this way, in your opinion, properly shifted to remain on the state at all times. Are you reading this language as suggesting that the burden is on the state because I don't see any language here that specifically says that, although the A, B, and C provisions under small B would imply that I'm not sure if you agree with that implication. I think that right now, I mean, so in the draft passed by the, in the, sorry, not the draft, in the bill passed by the House without looking at the AGs, I think the burden right now rests on the defendant because they have to go and ask for, you know, they will return the bill if the person asks within five days. That is problematic. So taking that out, I think I suggested by the AGs draft would seem to me, and basically saying that the court shall issue a written order releasing any firearms with presumption of release unless it does seem to me that he's shifting the burden to the state to prove that the firearm needs to be kept. Reading from 2.21, that the current imminent can be released. The imminent allows us to get around HIPAA, basically, as I understand that, used to that term. So if in wine aid of the Attorney General's redraft, if the removal is necessary, the protection of the officer or any other person, if we were to put in some of the language from 2.21, imminent risk of causing harm to another person, so that it would be imminent risk of harm with it. Right, I still think, though, it's the any other person because if the bill is meant to be for, to protect victims of domestic violence and the immediate family. That should be, go back to rule three then. The person that involves assault against a family member or against any household member is defined as a team BSA or a child of such a family house member. Right, that would restrict that. Right, or I think you've talked about suicide, I think also, perhaps putting in the defendant themselves. I think that that could be visible. I think that would, just to ensure that we're following the intent of the bill. We're to further clarify the person using the language of rule three, but certainly limit the other person to a family member or against a household member, blah, blah, blah. Right, I think. That would be satisfied your concern. I believe so. And there may be, you know, I guess I think so. Other questions? Thank you very much. Oh, yes, I sent it to you. I'm sorry, Matt, where are we? That's the next one on our list, and hopefully we get the care of it, because we have to break it 10, 15. Sorry, you're late, you're late. We're breaking it 10, 15, so instead of 10 today, because we have this wonderful thank you digital retention, where we're actually going to retain somebody we just confirmed. Thank goodness we got him confirmed before we retained him. It's okay, you can split my testimony into two half-dollars seconds, if you like. Oh, God. Are we really that? For the record, Matt Valeria, because of General, I've avoided these bills, like the plague, because the people on both sides are, you know, they have their positions and then they fit the facts to support their positions, whatever they may be. And to me, and I've read both versions, the House version and this, I honestly don't see that this changes anything the law enforcement in the courts can't do already. Literally not a thing. And I don't think that's going to happen, and the interesting thing is, let's assume that it does change something, just for sake of argument. Any of these, whether they're the constitutional appropriateness of the search or the seizure in any individual case is going to be done on a fact-specific basis, case-by-case, reviewed by the court, no matter what you do, because these involve Chapter 11 and Second Amendment issues that you can't legislate around. So whether or not there's probable cause to seize something, or whether or not there's a right to arrest or detain or what you're going to do with conditions of release is all going to be reviewed by the court, even if we assume that this does something different than what the courts already did. The one thing that I, and I didn't come and testify on the last bill that was in here, and I didn't testify on the bill that came out of the house, in the house, and I didn't do it on purpose. The civil sort of side of these things, there seems to be some confusion, which I don't understand why, but maybe it's for lack of probably some testimony. The search and seizure provisions of the Vermont Constitution do favor warrants, okay? I'm very explicit. And it is warrant based upon state action. It doesn't matter if it's a civil case or a criminal case, but when government acts to seize the property of a person, that search and seizure provision kicks in, whether it's criminal or not criminal. And then the process that you have after the fact that you process hearing, and whether you get it back or the state can forfeit it or seize it, is ultimately the issue. But the bottom line is that I don't know as much that I'm going to say here that's gonna change anybody's mind about anything. And as a practical matter, reading through it, I don't see anything here that is not already available to law enforcement in the courts under current law. I think, Senator, you may have been the one through Gabe's Senator, Knitka's note. You may be responsible for that, even though you didn't testify. Me? Yeah. Well, she has a note saying that it's just fluff. I didn't, I wouldn't use the word fluff. Just because that's not a word I would use. I don't, I don't get it. I'm trying to find the source of the term. No, I mean, I don't know that I disagree with the Senate. Appreciate that. Senator Benning. This bill would have a hearing within 24 hours for the term of whether or not the individual should have their weapons returned. Do you envision the Defender General System coming into that hearing? Only to the extent that it involved an arraignment or a flash site of some variety. If we were appointed, yes, but if it were, is effectively a civil forfeiture? No. Very similar to in relief from abuse hearings while they are kind of predicate to violation of abuse prevention orders. We are not involved in those because there is no crime at the time. Interest. We'll have 55 minutes left. Thank you. Well, I mean, we're meeting the barrage of questions. I think you're pretty clear of your view of the bill. Yeah, I mean, I really don't have anything more to add. I think it's a logical sentiment, 17. Don't ever remember coming in for this testimony. Don't they do it all the time? No, I don't usually. No, no, there was something else that I remember it was doing on. That it doesn't do anything. I don't remember you come by. How can you say this doesn't do anything? Well, that's basically what I'm saying. Yeah. I understand that. I think you were made very pleasant about saying it. I'm trying to be pleasant. Just in the case of a citation, do you have any statistical information that would demonstrate what the longest period of time was between the incident and the citation date? No, we don't have any statistical information on that. I have, you know, my 15 years of practice before I was Defender General, where you could literally have a citation and then come in three months later. You could have a citation come in three weeks later or you could be flash sighted and be there the same day. It just depends upon what urgency, law enforcement and the state's attorney place on whatever the incident was. You know, I've had times where an incident occurred and then you have absolutely, you think it's all gone and then literally a year later you get a citation. So in the case of this regular citation, not a flash citation, how would there be any way for a defendant in that situation to get counsel if you don't yet know about the charge of domestic assault? And I'm talking about the hearing that's supposed to take place within 24 hours. So you have a citation or no citation? I assume that there's a telling in the facts. I'm gonna walk through it in an hour. There's a pushing and shoving match that results in one person getting a citation for domestic assault. There's supposed to be a hearing within 24 hours about whether the person's weapons can be returned. The person's going to go in and make statements at that point in time about what happened during the event, effectively giving information against themselves at that point in time. Just like a really frumpy story. Exactly. The individual has no attorney at that point if you're not participating in the process. Or there's no private counsel. I mean, private counsel is what ends up filling that gap. Assuming you can locate one within 24 hours. I mean, that's, there are private counsel, I would imagine, who still do relief from abuse hearings and the like. I know a lot of them are pro se on one side or the better women's group has the complaining witness and then the defendant has either nobody or hire somebody. But again, that's not really the defender general's concern. I can see how it'd be a concern of those who are involved in the process. But it doesn't strike me as being any different than what goes on with relief from abuse hearings and in fact that probably what this does is give, if anything, by requiring a hearing within a short amount of time, gives the person who's had their guns seized a quicker remedy than they would have under current law. But the seizure itself, I don't see law enforcement being precluded from doing that. They do it all the time. What? Other questions for Matt? Matt, thank you very much for joining us. I know you were reluctant with us. Well, I was hoping not to have to be subpoenaed, so. Kara Cook. Good morning. I'm a little bit of a cold, so part of my voice. Sorry. So my name is Kara Cookson for the record. I'm with the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services and I'm very grateful to the committee for your willingness to take testimony on this legislation. Again, for the record, by statute, the Senate's responsible for promoting the rights and needs of Vermont's crime victims and preventing homicide and promoting effective prosecution are fundamental to this charge and that's why I'm here today. I need to go back in history a little bit because I think it helps to explain why we're all here talking about this subject. 25 years ago in 1993, so in my lifetime, domestic assault first became a crime in Vermont before that time that wasn't actually a tone-severate crime. And Vermont joined other states in enacting these statutes in order to dispel any doubt because there was doubt. That physically harming and intimate partner or household member is a crime against the state. And also to address the insidious nature of this conduct with tougher penalties. Nationally, I wasn't here so I don't know if there was testimony here as well, but nationally, surviving families also shed light on the alarming trend of domestic violence homicide. In theory, the purpose of these statutes was to encourage law enforcement to intervene before homicide could occur. And that intervention was also presumed to be enough to stop the abuse from happening again. I also, there's a lot of conversation about the Constitution here. And I think it's important to say that there is constitutional authority in Vermont to have a domestic assault statute and for laws like age 422. And that's from the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, which says that the power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states or reserved to the states respectively or to the people. And in this instance, the power to remove firearms is inherent in the state's so-called police power. And in fact, when Congress attempted to enact its own legislation to address domestic violence with the Violence Against Women Act in 1994, the United States Supreme Court struck down its civil remedy provision reasoning in part. And I like to read this aloud for the record. Indeed, we can think of no better example of the police power which the founders denied the national government and reposed to the states than the suppression of violent crime and the vindication of its victims. And that's from US B. Morrison, 529 US 598. That case was decided in the year 2000. So the Constitution has entrusted almost solely to the states the power to enact laws and exercise its police powers in order to keep the public safe. And that public includes all people, including most vulnerable, including victims of domestic violence. So in that time, frame in my lifetime, Vermont has made tremendous progress in prosecuting domestic violence crimes. According to Vermont Judiciary's FY17 statistics, the domestic violence felony filings have increased by 47% in the last decade. And when I talked about statistics like this, I don't believe that there's a spike in domestic violence conduct. I think that what's happened is that there's better training and collaboration and resources for advocates for law enforcement, for prosecutors, social workers, judges. This committee and this legislature can take a lot of credit for that, for supporting that work. I also should note in the statistics, just last year there were almost 500 felony domestic violence cases and there were 700 misdemeanor cases, meaning it comprises a big chunk of the docket. I think the other thing that's changed is public awareness and attitudes that support survivors in coming forward. The reason why these cases, so many of them are prosecuted successfully is only because of the courage of witnesses who are willing to come forward and participate. And I think when a witness doesn't participate, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. In a lot of situations, it means that they're too afraid. A common misperception that I think has been raised here in the testimony you've already heard is that charging a perpetrator with domestic violence is all that it takes to keep survivors safe. As you have heard, many domestic violence defendants are released on commissions free trial. And that's in large part because the Vermont Constitution requires that misdemeanor domestic violence defendants are released unless they pose a fragged play risk. And in the case of a felony domestic violence defendant, they can't be held without bail unless the prosecutor can meet several threshold burdens. There are plenty of defendants who are held free trial, but there are many who are not. I've also heard and talked a lot about rule three, which would at least allow law enforcement to arrest and would bring them into the station to process them. Again, what we know and what we hear is that that's not always what happened, especially in places where there isn't ample access to law enforcement resources. Our understanding at least anecdotally, and we've been looking at ways to study this more directly, actually, I just had a conversation with the crime research group, is that in rural areas where you may only have one or two people on duty and there are other calls to take, you might just cite the person and leave it happening. And so on this issue, by way of example, the individual who murdered Mom and the Clayton and Maidstone last summer, that individual was on pretrial release for a misdemeanor domestic violence incident. Again, whether it's a misdemeanor or a felony is actually no indication of a felony arrest, as a matter of what the specific conduct was in that instance that led to the charge. And I would posit that a keen perpetrator, is actually going to do what they can, and they know what the lines are, and they will exploit that. On the other end, in the post-conviction phase, non-incarcerative sentences are not uncommon, and if nothing else, that's because a defendant can then continue to work and provide support to the family. Overall, vermincerative incarceration is among the lowest, if not the lowest in the United States. Notably, the man who was suspected of the recent domestic violence homicide in South Burlton had a history of domestic violence convictions, and he was released on furlough at the time that homicide was alleged to have occurred. So, where does that get us? We've done a really good job of prosecuting domestic violence. And meanwhile, since 1993, when we started tracking these things, the percentage of domestic violence homicides relative to the overall number of adult homicides in Vermont has not appreciably changed. So, year after year, the rate reported by the Vermont Domestic Fatality Review Commission fluctuates anywhere from a low of 10% in 2002, to a high of 73% in 2008. The reason why the Vermont Network first did the work to bring this whole bill forward, the reason why 18 states held bills like this is because it's another tool for law enforcement to tackle the issue of domestic violence homicide, which we still have not made great progress in. There's been some conversation here about why we would, why we would need this legislation if you could seize guns as evidence. And that's, again, because a keen perpetrator is probably not going to verbally say, I'm going to kill you, especially in the presence of law enforcement if that were the case, maybe probably you're not going to say it to somebody else. In fact, as far as everybody else is concerned, if that's the way to retain control of a situation is to look like you have control and to be very presentable. And in fact, they don't have to tell the victim who maybe they've lived with for a long time that they're going to kill them because they have a lot of other ways to do that to don't require actual words. All of these cases are complicated because they've been hidden in the home for so long. And that's in part why it's really hard for law enforcement officers to assess risk on the scene is because they require further development and investigation, talking not just to the victim but also to other family members who may have witnessed things. They're complicated. And again, that's why giving law enforcement tools to at least remove firearms from the scene helps to provide the time it's necessary to adequately assess the case, help the victim understand his or her own safety risks and make better safety plans. After taking testimony at the public meeting, members of the committee are well-versed in the economic and social impacts of domestic violence and domestic violence homicide, including the generational consequences when children witness these acts. But beyond the material consequences, failing to offer better tools to prevent domestic violence homicide and support survivors who cooperate with law enforcement also threatens the rule of law. If we want the positive trend of domestic violence prosecution to continue in this state, if we want survivors to feel safe coming forward and participating in the criminal process as witnesses, the criminal justice system can and must do more to keep them safe. When the system prosecutes domestic violence without taking corresponding safety measures, it can actually do more harm than good. I want to address a few other points before I conclude that we're raised and mindful of your time today. The ACLU has recommended removing the any other personal language from the authorization, from the scope of that authorization. And I think the rationale for why that's there again is that it's difficult to discern we've been using this term hot scene, who exactly could be under threat. The person who could be under threat is the neighbor who called law enforcement. The person who could be under threat could be a victim's family who that individual knows might support them in trying to get safe and break the coercion. You know, I also would be remiss if I didn't point to the Essex School shooting over a decade ago. You know, these issues are all connected. Domestic violence, in that case, it was a domestic violence case that leaked over into a school and it led to the mother of the woman who was involved in that relationship being murdered. And that's our most violent school shooting in Vermont and there is that nexus and that connection. I think the bill itself is discretionary. It's in May on the part of law enforcement and I think we do a lot of work in this state to train law enforcement, both on the Fourth Amendment and in domestic violence situations. You heard Chief Faco's talk about the training that his department is undertaken and the policies that they've enacted and I would trust them to use that language and use their discretion appropriately. I don't think that the scope is too broad. The other thing I think that it's just really important to make clear here is that I think it has led to some confusion. Is the difference between searches and seizures? As the Fourth Amendment addresses both issues. So as far as searching of premises, regardless of what you do in statute, there's gonna be Fourth Amendment considerations. Sitting here today, I haven't been charged with a crime. I could call BSP right now and say, come to my home and walk through my house and look through it if you'd like. And if they felt like doing that, they could. I could authorize the state at any time to come and search my home, to search my person. I can fully consent to that. The actual seizure of things is a separate issue. And what this bill is getting at is the scope of what can be seized. And it's authorizing the seizure of weapons. And I respect the Defender General by the way for preserving his record here to appeal this. But the intention is to seize weapons beyond weapons that may have been used in the actual commission of a crime. Because as you've heard in testimony, these situations, domestic violence situations are different. And we know statistically that where there is ready access to firearms, there is a greater likelihood of homicide, not just because this is a domestic violence situation, because law enforcement has intervened in that situation and they've broken the power and control that perpetrator has spent time creating over that victim. That's the reason why in other states, legislators have found that there is a compelling state interest in acknowledging that nexus. There is an example about automobiles when the director at the Battle Women's Justice Project was testifying. You actually could, I think, statutorily against setting aside the search issue, but as a matter of seizure on a DUI case, you probably could grant authority to seize the vehicle. I think we don't for a lot of other practical reasons. There's a lot of policy reasons why we don't do that. Animal cruelty cases. You're charged with animal cruelty. Not only can you not have the animal that you were abusing in your home, probably can't have any animals in your home and all those animals would be seized. I mean, that's the surety, yeah, child cruelty, you could, right, that you're not gonna have any kids in your home while the matter's pending. It's a similar issue, but I just wanna clarify that I don't think what this legislation is getting at is authorizing search, rather, that aren't allowed beyond the Fourth Amendment. What it is allowing is a civil seizure process attended to the criminal process. I think lawyers on both sides probably would argue you're necessarily gonna get a conclusion here when you have to use your own judgment as a legislator as to what the right thing to do is. But I am, I am, I think I would disagree with you on any other person. I do have some agreement with the ACLU that is so broad, and I understand what you're saying. And maybe the rule three definition doesn't fit everything you'd like it to, but any other person is very broad that, so I think we have to narrow that to some extent. I appreciate that. But otherwise, thank you for the history lesson, because I remember 1993, I didn't remember this, it's 1993, I don't remember, it's 1995, but that's the history lesson. Sure. I remember when that happened, that started a sea change and the laws began to change progressively over those years, but not in the last few months, you know. Care reviews two examples from history, one is the Maidstone case, you know, the South World case, and the Maidstone situation. Do you know how the victim died in that case? My understanding from reading the press reports is that the victim was both stabbed and shot. South World, in the case? My understanding is that the victim was shot in the back. Both of those situations, if my memory is correct, involved people who had previously been convicted of domestic assault, am I safe in saying that? You know, I think you may be right in both of those instances, and you're right, would otherwise not be entitled to own a firearm if they were convicted of a felony. So my question would be, if we passed this piece of legislation, how would this piece of legislation have helped in either one of those cases? I didn't testify that this legislation would have helped in either one of those cases, necessarily, and I did that thoughtfully, because what this is about is about access, about eliminating access to the most ready firearms. I don't think anyone is under any illusion that despite what the legislature does or doesn't do here, that people can always find access to illegal firearms and can try to get access to firearms from other sources. Nonetheless, though, this legislation is trying to get at the low hanging fruit, if you will, the firearms that are in the home. I just wanted to clarify. Sure. The other question I had is the attorney general has given us a proposed amendment. Do you have a favor of that or not? Yes, thank you. That brings up another question, because I've spent some time with both you and Auburn, and my understanding has been all along that an average five-day waiting period is a proper cooling off time period. And the attorney general's amendment calls for a 24-hour period. Is there some reason why you would support that and move away from where you were before? I'm really glad you asked, because what this is doing in the initial legislation was requiring that hearing with respect to the weapon, but not necessarily the criminal arraignment happened within five days, whereas what the attorney general's proposal is actually doing is it's requiring that the crime that the citation be answered within 24 hours. So what can happen then, well, the next business day, rather, what can happen then at the next business day when the case is arraigned, is that conditions of release can be issued, saying that that individual can't have a firearm during the pendency of pretrial. And so that actually, if that were the case, if that did happen, then we've addressed that five-day waiting period concern. So it's really a win-win. It means that the issue of the taking can be adjusted expediently, and likewise, the assurance on the part of the victim one way or another, as to whether or not the firearm is going to be seized is also addressed. Okay, thank you. I don't know how I get all the way. The other thing I wanted to address, and there was just, well, if you have time, I'm sorry. Actually, we are supposed to go up to judicial attention, but if you could be brief, we'll come back tomorrow or whatever. I think this is pretty brief. You've asked all your other witnesses today, why do we need 422, if we've already done some really great work on 221? And in addition to the time frames, the other thing that I think is really important to raise is that in 422, law enforcement has already found that that individual is committed to crime. I mean, whether or not we, they have probable cause in a crime. They have, based on their investigation and their training, probable cause that a crime has occurred and they're willing to refer that matter to a prosecutor. Whereas in 221, am I understanding a big part of what that legislation is getting out of situations where a crime is yet to occur? And based on that, the further standard that law enforcement and the hearing individuals going to have to kind of look at long ranges. Okay, where no crime has occurred, is there an imminent risk of extreme danger? Which is a high threshold versus in 422. Is it reasonably necessary to remove fire protection? The reason why states have 422 on the cases where a domestic violence crime has occurred is because we already know that there's a risk of extreme danger in these cases statistically. And so we're not requiring the higher standard. And the other reason is, as an evidentiary matter, like I said, where there is this domestic relationship and where these parties communicate through the wink of an eye, through the belt left on the table. It's not likely like it might be likely in the other type of scenario you're looking at in 221 that the alleged perpetrator is going to say, I'm going to kill you and I'm going to kill you tomorrow. I don't disagree that there are differences. There are similarities in terms of when it might be used and it could be used. The problem that I've had all along for 222 is not when somebody's arrested. It's when somebody is cited. And I think the Attorney General's proposal approves that a great deal. Because generally, I think when somebody is cited for domestic violence, it usually indicates that the officer views it somewhat differently than when that officer believes that there is actual assault put in place, et cetera. And that's many times when somebody is cited and I know that the network works with victims who frequently change their mind or for whatever reason decide. They don't want to provide evidence to the state's attorney. In those cases, it goes away and may come back again or not. But generally speaking, that's the problem I had with the bill in the citing. So that's, I don't know if that makes sense, but it's a little different, I think, when you have the proof, and particularly if it's a arrest and you believe that the felony committed, et cetera. I think that not all domestic violence cases are similar. In fact, I would agree that the Attorney General, that they're all facts of the specific fact. It's hard to make generalizations. Well, the thing is, when the law enforcement officer responds to the scene, what they're seeing is the tip of whatever iceberg might be below. Right. I appreciate that, and we're gonna end. Thank you. We'll get to it. Judicial retention operated by Senator Emerson. That's right. To the conquest today. I guess, Chip? No, I'm saying something too, but he's the... Thank you for the Attorney General's Office, which I'm happy to hear any testimony you want to provide. But I think we're particularly interested in the 24-hour trial. Okay. For the record, Brian Greerson, Chief Superior Judge, thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I really have in front of me the Attorney General's amendment. I have the original 4-2-2, and 4-2-2 as it came out of age 675. That one, we're not paying attention to. All right. Then I won't pay attention to any of that. At this point, I think our focus is on that by the House and... All right. Because I know that Senator Benning... And the Attorney General's proposal, none way that I have a few, leave your ask. Okay. Because I know Senator Benning was referring to a five-day hearing, and so I have both those bills in front of me. And I would say, and I think probably this committee knows probably better than almost any other committee, that the Defender General and myself for the Maguilera don't always see eye to eye on issues that come before the committee. But I will say that to some extent I agree with his comments earlier this morning. I will say this, that I think the addition of paragraph, sub-paragraph B, beginning at line 14, the idea of bringing the domestic violence cases into court the day following the incident is, would be a significant step in the right direction. These cases are going to come into the court in any event, so all we're really doing is speeding up the process of that initial appearance. And so I do not see that as having an impact on the court, and I think that because of the nature of these offenses, that that would be an appropriate step and one that would, I think, address a lot of the concerns that bring folks here and will address those issues in a time of fashion. I do think, and I know there's been a testimony, I haven't obviously sat through all the testimony. There's discussions of the relationship of this bill in either form with S-221 as passed by this committee, and I view them as really two separate situations, two different sets of circumstances. And I say that because as you read the first sentence in either of these versions of the current bill under A-1 or A, it says when a law enforcement officer arrests sites or obtains an arrest warrant for a person for domestic assault, that changes the issues from a non-criminal defense under 221 to a criminal offense, and it triggers a whole different set of circumstances. And I see this clearly separate in part and distinct from 221 or the types of situations that 221 is designed to address. And because, as I said, of the nature of the offense, bringing them in the next day is something that I do not believe would have a mad verse impact on the court, and I think it's appropriate. Can I just say something? Nope. And I just want to clarify this because people are hearing this and listening to this. It's always, is it not always the next business day? Yes, it is. Okay, I think really people here on this keep thinking it'll be the next day. Many people, not people in this room necessarily, but other people around. No, but it will be the next business day in the language on Y-15. I mean, I think for the late person reading this on the outside, they think it's the next day. And the reality is, so at least what we're saying here, it would be the next business day. And the reality is, as I look at, for instance, the language on my 14th, you could even simplify it more by saying arrested for domestic assault shall be arraigned. That would cover both those that are arrested and flash cited for those that are arrested and lodged and would come in on a lodging. So you would describe the word cited? I don't think it's necessary. Citing is just a way to bring someone before the court. The issue is, if they're arrested, if they're taken into custody, then they will either subsequently be lodged if a monetary bail is warranted, or they could still be cited either before or after contact with a judicial officer. What if they're cited for two weeks from Monday? Well, obviously that would, that if we take out the term cited in some cases, Mr. Meter cases, the law enforcement officer may choose to cite two weeks from now. I'm wondering if do we mess that up in any way? You know, in my opinion, no, because the key language for me is shall be arraigned on the next business day. You could say after the... Sometimes they go to a situation where my understanding has never been to one. Sometimes my understanding is they go to a situation where they believe a crime has been committed and they want to cite that person and then the state's attorney looks at the charge and whatever, or the victim may choose not to even want to testify against the perpetrator. So he's got all, and frequently that site might be two weeks later, something of that nature and I just want to make sure that we don't force those into, in this language, that we don't force those cases into court the next business day when the state's attorney may not even have developed the case, or lack thereof. Well, if you leave it in as cited, you're going to... I would be much more comfortable checking the word site out. But it will still say arraigned on the next business day. That's the offer. If they're arrested. But arrested can mean they're at the scene, they're taken into custody, taken down to the station. That is the formal arrest. Then the question is, are they logged or are they cited? And if you leave the language in arraigned on the next business day, they will be brought in the next day. But people who are cited for two weeks today wouldn't have to come in the next business day. Right now it says, shall we arraigned on the next business day after citation? Right. My sense is that if you, to address the issues that I understand are motivating... I'd ask the attorney general and the state's attorney and perhaps any other groups to work on this because I think you get a point where I, I think you're right in taking out the word site. If as long as it's covered, anybody who's arrested on that day, whether it's misdemeanor or felony domestic violence, under rule three. It still would not prevent someone from being, if they are arrested and they're cited in the next day, it would still be the state's attorney. But you could still cite somebody 14 days after the case. You could, it certainly could be. Unless you mandate it's part of this. That's the thing I don't wanna do is where a police officer, there are many cases where they cite more time to gather up and talk to other people. So they're not ready to arrest and have somebody arraigned. Now I understand what you're saying. I think it ultimately comes in policy to suit on part of this committee. Do we want to say that domestic violence cases should be arraigned the day after the incident? And that's something the committee would have to consider. But I understand you're- I'm not sure that I want to have a cart launch. I want to give some flexibility for the cases that may need to be built. In other words, you go to court and the judge says, I don't think there's probable cause here in this misdemeanor. Certainly that can happen, but the domestic violence cases, certainly in my experience, are usually not complicated fact patterns that preclude somebody from making the decision the night before, whether or not there's probable cause. But well, it certainly can happen. But then the issue becomes, if it says arraigned on the next business day, then the hearing that's called for under section C would not occur. It would occur at arraigned, but it would occur under your scenario perhaps two weeks later. And I, again, that's- Well, I believe the law enforcement is the case that's a fact to the suit. They are. And that reasons why the court could go away. I mean, the law enforcement has to go away. And there may be, all I'm saying is that the way it is structured now to come in after, that would not impose any impact that I can see on the court. And I think the nature of these proceedings lends themselves to being brought in as sooner rather than later. So, okay. But I would also tell you that whether they come in the next day or at arraignment two weeks later, because one of the conditions that were released no doubt would be no possession of firearms. And therefore, the hearing that you've talked about, Senator Benning, I don't think would ever be a true hearing if they're at an arraignment. If someone, if the incident involves firearms, I hesitate to use the word guarantee, but I will tell you that I cannot imagine a court not imposing a condition of release that they not possess firearms. That's the extent of the hearing. We're not going to ask whether the firearms that may be in possession of police were taken legally or beyond the scope of any legal search. That would not be an issue for us at that stage. It would simply be this person cannot possess firearms. And in fact, I'm sure there are some judges who just by the very nature of a domestic violence case, even if firearms are not referred to in the affidavit, that some judges because of the nature of the offense wouldn't have a standard condition that says you cannot possess firearms while this case is pending. So. What you're saying is you've got that power now already. We have that power now. And I wouldn't want this committee or anyone to think there's going to be this hearing on returning the firearms. If it's at an arraignment proceeding, that will be the nature of the hearing. And it's not an issue for us how these guns were acquired at that. That leads, originally this bill was designed for a five day cooling off period. Now we have, under this scenario, as I understand it, a, there is no time period. It could be years. Am I reading something into this? That's not there. What I see is the triggering event as opposed to the five day cooling off period is the arraignment proceeding. And then. There is no cooling off period. I mean, there's no return of the firearms once the court orders that the person does not possess. That's right. Until the court no longer orders the person not to possess. As long as the case is. And who's the burden? As long as the kid, unless the person's found not guilty. Right. So there is no five days anymore. There is no five days, there is no hearing. And I'm not convinced that under the bill as originally drafted is that five day hearing, if I read it correctly, under, looks like the copy I have with page two. I don't have a line numbers, but under section B1, law enforcement agency in possession of firearm shall return. So essentially it's up to the law enforcement to return the firearm. There was no hearing in the person. No. There was no hearing in the person. Right. Unless the person. There was no 422, right? Says if the person requests the firearm returned and then if it's, it gives the. But there is no, but can you envision a case of domestic violence where the judge would return the firearms? No, I cannot. No, I cannot. Even, that's what I'm saying. Even if the affidavit doesn't refer to firearms, you're going to have cases and judges that will make the decision to impose a condition of you cannot possess firearms while this case is pending. Even if it's not in the affidavit because of the nature of the offense and the issues that surround domestic violence. And so clearly if there is a firearm referred to in an affidavit, you can expect that there will be that condition of release imposed. The house side added that as a. So if we adopt the attorney general proposal, basically. There is no opportunity to return the firearms until the case is disposed. And the person's either found guilty or not guilty. And if they're found guilty, they can't possess it anyway. That's correct. Found not guilty that they would have. So that could be a year, could be six months, could be three months, could be whatever period it takes to resolve the case. Okay, so we've gone from five days to forever. You've gone to the pendency of the matters before the court, which could either be the criminal proceeding or there could be a relief from abuse proceeding where the conditions mirror each other. There's obviously different standards. So the only cases where somebody would not have firearm for one person would be when they're sighted down the road. I'm sorry. The police officer goes to the home. It's two 18-year-olds fighting. They are brothers. Brothers fight sometimes, as I understand it. Yes, I have problems with brothers myself. So the police officer, in order to get the situation under control says, I'm sighting you, Big Brother John, in the court. And your visit is two weeks from now. You wouldn't have any relinquishment of firearms in that case until they go to court. And that might trigger it. I mean, the officer doesn't see any need to take firearms. There's two brothers fighting, blah, blah, blah. Goes to the state's attorney. I'm trying to point a scene here where risk is imminent, brothers get into a fight. I don't know why Mama called the police, but she did. So if they're sighted and the police and the state's attorney decide not to contact the court to set conditions of release, to answer your question, yes. They could be sighted in two weeks down the road and there would be no conditions. OK. I was just trying to make sure there's a scenario where it's really fact specific. You could have scenarios where firearms won't be released. And that's where I again echo the comments of the Defender General, that these cases are very fact specific. So basically, this bill does nothing you couldn't do now. With the exception of the concept of bringing the case in, this type of case, and within 24 hours. Within one business day. That's my sense of this bill, yes. So other than that, it does nothing that you couldn't do now. That's my sense of it. The police can confiscate firearms at the scene if appropriate. And if they come in the next day, that's why I say that to me is the most effective provision in this. Very interesting. Senator Nitka had a note that it was fluff. We've been trying to figure out who called it fluff. I wouldn't call it fluff. No, not the bill, just the process. The process. So that was in the original House passport. And that's why that original bill, I think, was approaching this a different way. I look at it strictly as you start with the idea that someone is being arrested or cited. They're going to be charged whatever way, form it takes, charged with the crime of domestic violence. And once that case comes before the court, either at that 2 o'clock in the morning, phone call because they're seeking monetary bail, you can expect at that point in time, even if the judge makes a decision not to impose monetary bail, they will impose conditions appropriate to whatever information they get. But even if they are lodged, the judge will impose conditions of release that if the person makes bail during the night, these are the conditions that apply. If we're not called to answer your earlier question. But that is what I was trying to get at. So the situation where police might cite for domestic domestic violence. As opposed to coming into the next thing. So probably the best way to think of it is either they're lodged for under bail and conditions to set, or there is a citation for some period out, or there's a flash site is the common term we use for citing the next day. And that's, I think, the way for the committee to look at the different scenarios. Thank you, that's just helpful, Judge. Joe, flash site, alleged victim is covered, they're protected. Because you can immediately give conditions of release. If they call us. In other words, the initial decisions made by the police and the state's attorney in that, are we just going to flash site for tomorrow? We're going to call the court and ask for a condition. Let me rephrase. The person is in front of you in a ring, whether it's the next day or the next week down the road. At the regular time, you get to the issue of the issues of release that was moved to weapons. If as 221 is passed by the Senate, there's actually a law that would fill in the gap, would it not? Whether they are cited for a week down the road or two months down the road. Assuming the facts were proper, and the court issued a 221 order, I'll call it for life, but as I wish. The protection is now there. It is, but I don't see that scenario happening. Because the key to 221 is imminency. That if you don't take this for our own, and if it's a rising out of a domestic violence incident, then I don't see that person, if you're on one hand, saying it's okay to let this person go for two weeks, but we need to take these firearms. I just don't see that scenario. The police are calling me, they're calling me because they want conditions of release. And I'm going to bother with 221, they're going to say, Judge, we're going to cite this person. We're not looking for bail, but we're looking for conditions of release. And if there's a firearm involved, if that person is in possession of a firearm, you can almost be assured that there will be a condition of release. But there will be no condition. There will be a condition of release. Why would they cite him for down the road if they felt there was a continuum in danger? My point exactly, that's why I don't think they would under that circumstance. If you couple the domestic violence incident with the imminency call for into 221, that to me is a cite the next day or a request to lodge. And I think the firearm will be taken not because the police officer or the state attorney says, well, what about 221, Judge? I'm going to say, here's a condition of release. That person cannot possess firearm, period. And if they make the decision after they've hung up, they didn't ask for monetary bail. And if they decide that for whatever reason, maybe some of the reasons that Senator Sears referred to, they want to take a longer look at this case. If they're not asking me for cite the next day, they can make that decision independent of the court. But I would be issuing a condition of release, no possession of firearms as opposed to the 221 procedure. That's why there are really two different scenarios. And as soon as you start talking about domestic violence, you might as well just remove 221 from your thinking because the domestic violence issues will drive the timing of the request, both by the police, the state attorney, the nature of the request, and the decision by the court. I don't know if you're waiting. I'm sorry, Joe, I was just rolling around in my head. I mean, if you cite them for two weeks down the road, the information comes to the attention of the police that there's a growing threat in the internal time period. It seems to me 221 gives you an avenue to get some relief there. I'm not saying it doesn't. If you're telling me that the night of the domestic violence incident, they don't ask, they don't involve the court. So there are no conditions. They just say, we're going to cite this case two weeks down the road. I agree with you that that doesn't stop them from proceeding under 221 in the interim. But again, you are talking about a domestic violence incident, describing that, that is now two weeks down the road. And if that activity is continuing, I think you're going to be coming in on something other than a 221 request. Because of the, again, Senator, because of the underlying issues. That's helpful because I, when I said 221 was limited, I didn't mean that it was limited in terms of, in terms of it needed vast improvement. I meant it was limited to certain cases where extreme risk is occurring. And the extreme risk, what you're saying is that the extreme risk is associated with the case of domestic violence. Then you would go the route of arrest or sight or whatever in order to not only remove the firearm and probably remove the individual from the scene. Right. Particularly if with a... Because there's reason to believe that crime was committed, however, in Connecticut. And where I'm coming from here is they ended up after the extreme risk in roughly 20% of the cases, if I remember correctly, making an arrest. I don't know if their arrest was for domestic violence or some other crime, but after they investigated the extreme risk, they did make a arrest in a very, in a small amount of them. About five, about 20% of the cases. So I think that's possible. Maybe unlikely, but possible. It's possible. I think the 221 population... But they are different bills. They are different. The 221 population, I view it as a very narrow population that doesn't involve mental illness on this hand. It does not involve the point where it contacted domestic violence, either in the nature of relief from abuse or the crime. And the person hasn't shot that gun off in such a way that it becomes a disorderly conduct or reckless endangering. Then you're left with a true... That could be some of the crimes in Connecticut made of the reckless endangering or whatever else after they investigated. Just changing focus for one second. On line nine of the Attorney General's proposal, there's no turn or any other person. The ACLU is recommending that we move closer to the rule three definition of household member. Have you any thoughts on that? Well, I wasn't here early enough this morning to hear their testimony, so I wasn't sure what their rationale was, but I think they filed something with the committee. Yes, they did. And if they did, I'll read that and... Which basically said that removal is allowed for the protection of the officer or any other person, not simply those who were involved in or are immediately adjacent to the allegiance and are in danger, i.e. the alleged perpetrator's family and alleged victim that goes beyond domestic violence, to any act where a person may attempt to inflict harm on any other person. Well, so they believe that you can read it and maybe if you want to comment later on it, that's fine. It's obviously very broad. By any other person, I mean, I was thinking Tiger Woods, I'm really upset with the way he played the other day. I have to say that's one that did not occur to me. Well, I... But I understand. And no, it is very broad. What was it to me the other day when he was... I was upset that he didn't win. It is extremely broad. And again, I think that was really a policy decision for the committee, but no question. It expands the population. It is broad, yeah. It's very broad. So those are my thoughts. It's not that the bill is not, I think that it does serve a purpose. I think, as I said, the bringing the domestic violence case into the court sooner rather than later, I think is appropriate. And since we're going to be seeing the case, there's no impact. But I... That's... Well, I plan to have about an hour on this next Tuesday to try to go over some of the ideas, hopefully, we'll get through the witnesses tomorrow, and I'll have to, you know, I think that's a good... But if so, if you have further comments, we'd love to hear from you. All right. Thank you very much, Joe. Thank you. It's been really helpful. It's nice to see you agreeing with that, Larry. Well, there's no word of the road so straight it doesn't have a curve in it, so... Thank you very much. Thank you. Just don't tell them I agree. I will have... They will keep that between us. We've only got about seven minutes left, so if David or Auburn or anyone wants to comment on something, well, Auburn doesn't, she's leaving. If I can make a quick comment. Sure. What do you do? I'm the one who's talking. I don't know for all this time. I believe I was scheduled. You were scheduled, but I didn't think... Did you do seven minutes? I can do three. All right, you do three, and then we'll hear from David. It's all that's said as far as I can tell. Bill Moore, I'm a Martian Missions Coalition. I just have been able to be upstairs on a metal bill, but I've also been able to be informed of the defender general's comments to some detail and also spoke with Chloe White, and I just want to reinforce that I believe those comments generally would be similar to what I would have said here today, not that the attorney technical level that I'm sure was given. I'm certainly not an attorney, and I don't even play one on TV. I agree with what Chloe's point is. I think it's cloudy, although Senator Paul Rand Paul's neighbor. Yeah. Yeah, so maybe not a golf player. Right. Yeah, I think they had a fence. So I simply want to say that again, it is S-221 as passed by the Senate that we worked hard on and we feel addresses a lot of this, and not to forget that that bill, despite some of the comments just a few minutes ago by the judge, is still going to have a profound effect in areas such as suicide. So we shouldn't forget that the mission there is a broad one. I also just, again, in what I said upstairs, S-221 is passed by the Senate, clearly points out the limitations and deficiencies of the bill that you're considering today. And I only want to end by entering a couple of pieces of this into the record if I could. Thank you. And I think it points out that the right is something that shouldn't be messed with in any low or lacking a due process method. So article I in the state constitutions that all persons are born equally free and independent and have certain natural inherent and unalienable rights amongst which are the enjoying and defending of life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. So it clearly raises the bar pretty high for law enforcement. Article the 10th, little portion there. This is referring to rights of persons accused of crime and waiver of jury trial. And there's a section in here that says, nor can any person be justly deprived of liberty except by the laws of the land or the judgment of the person's peers. I think that indicates that a field process that lacks a due process and the court's interaction is certainly suspect. Article 11 that the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers and possessions free from search or seizure, and therefore warrants without oath or affirmation first made, affording sufficient foundation for them and whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places or to seize any person or persons, his, her, or their property, not particularly described or contrary to that right and not to be granted. And I will not repeat article the 16, the right to bear arms because we all know it's an individual right and we agree in that regard with the ACLU that it's an individual right. And I would end with article 71 of the second chapter of the constitution. The declaration of the political rights and privileges of the inhabitants of this state is hereby declared to be part of the constitution of this commonwealth and ought not to be violated on any pretense whatsoever. So I'll have for you. Joe, I have a question. The right to safety is not limited to the commonwealth. That's correct. Much victim in a domestic case also has that right. That's correct. Had a bill come in here that called for a five-day turnaround time for due process kicked in, which is what I would read. Now we have the Attorney General proposing a 24-hour turnaround time. Do you have any reaction to that? I'm perceiving that as an attempt to try to balance due process rights on the one hand and the right to safety on the other. I think the judge answered that and I'm not an attorney, but I will say five days, 14 days or 60 days is suspect. But once you put enough due process upfront and early, we're willing to walk along with that. So again, I'm not an attorney. 24 hours is an eternity for some people, but if you've been cited and remanded and had to wait till morning and go into be arraigned and released on a $50 bail or whatever it is for something semi-dangerous, I don't think there's a problem there. We have a right to intersect. I can't expect the court to wait 24 hours a day on every incident, so I defer the judge. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry, I missed you, I lost my job. No, I'm sorry, I didn't have much and it's all the time. The agenda's somewhere, I'm glad you reminded me of my agenda. David, you're not only in the agenda. I'm just very briefly, David Schneider of the Attorney General's office. I will respectfully disagree with the Chief Judge and the Defender General and state plainly what this bill does. This bill allows for police to take guns that are not evidence of crime. Right now, there is no lawful authority to do that. For the reasons I stated at length yesterday, we think it's essential that there be lawful authority to do that and that's what this bill does. I can expand on other thoughts, but that's the key message I want to give to this committee. This bill is doing important work, work that is not being done by any other law presently and that's why we feel that it is important for this committee to pass and as you know, we put forth a version that we feel addresses many of the due process and constitutional concerns that have been raised. I appreciate what you've clarified and clear to me who to testimony this week is that the House passed bill was deficient in that regard of the due process, right? I don't want to test for it. You don't have to comment on that. I just, you know, I said that a couple of months ago and got into trouble. I think that your rewrite is an improvement, that's an improvement, but I do think I would love to hear your comments next week on the other person narrowing that and the judge's comments on line 14 of the person cited or arrested in dropping the word cited. And I need a little more time to look at the site. No, I'm just saying, yeah, we seem to be two key areas where the committee may wish to make changes to your original version of the bill. And I'm happy to work with folks to make a deal with us. The Attorney General's proposal of amendment right to the bill, those two, and there's one or two others? Yeah. You're talking about the site, can you move over to the word site? Move in the word site. Other person. Changing of the person the more closely resemble the rule three definition of household member and date. You want to add from imminent harm? From imminent harm. So it's immediate action from imminent harm. The reason for that is to make sure that there's an ability for the law enforcement officer to talk to any counselor or any other person who might be working with this person to know that what we might be dealing with may be significant. And that helps you to deal with that. Law enforcement have testified on other matters that it's awfully difficult to talk with a counselor who never is dealing with this person unless you can. What was the reason? I think those are the main steps. We started by adding exigent circumstances to the list of exceptions to the warrant. Okay. And I'm happy we're varying the other folks who have testified. But those are the ideas from your draft. I'm happy to hear from our victims, community, and state attorneys and anyone out about firearm, the groups supporting firearms rights. Do want to make clear or make sure that whatever we do, we can talk as constitutional muster limits. And I'm happy if it would be useful for the committee. I'm happy to reduce the written form of the constitutional discussion that we had. What makes you helpful? Because I read over the special needs document. See, I read it actually while we were on the floor today. In that article? I mean, with all the respect. Yeah, that article did that really long. It went to firearms and smoke. That's exactly right. I think because of that, it's not. So hard to understand how that fits with the constitutional exception. Yeah, I think you're right to, I think I can provide the written explanation of what I gave yesterday where the firearm, this particular firearms bill fits in with it. And I'm happy to do that. Okay. That would be helpful. That's good. I've got another meeting at noon time, so I need to put the BFOA in my favorite subject. Thank you. Thank you.