 You are with the House government operations and judiciary committees. We are reconvening here this morning to continue our deliberations on S219 and 119. We have heard from a number of witnesses over the last couple of days and I also wanted to draw the both committees attention to the fact that there is there's a set of testimony that is available electronically from people who either weren't able to be here or submitted supplementary testimony. So in an email to both committees we have testimony from Coach Christie and hopefully that has been put up on the committee's pages. There's also an email to both committees from Tofer Woods and there's a bulleted list of suggestions contained in that email. And then Bo Yang made reference to electronic testimony that she was submitting and that is that came via email to yesterday and so hopefully that can be up on the committee pages as well. So it occurs to me that yesterday just as we were finishing and preparing to go back to the floor we we had just finished testimony from James Pepper and we had not given either committee an opportunity to ask him questions. And so since he's with us this morning I guess I wanted to invite him if he had any other any other thoughts to say to to spark conversation or invite committee members to jump in with a raised hand. Well good morning Pepper. Good morning. Thank you for the record James Pepper Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs. You know I made it through the bills both bills rather quickly yesterday. I don't have any additional comments on either of them and you know I guess just to summarize just very broadly we are supportive of S119, S219 with the exception of you know we'd like to see some modification of I believe it's section five of S219 which is the new unlawful law enforcement use of a prohibited restraint crime. So I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. Jim Harrison. Yeah thank you. Can you go back to that last comment you made. I know we talked you talked a little bit about it yesterday but I'm not clear. Are we talking about section five? That's right. I'm looking at section five of S219. I'm looking at draft 3.1 and I believe it begins on page seven. Okay so help me out. What's your recommendation? Is it to take out B to modify B or is it to take out the whole section or modify the whole section? Well I think that this section is both under inclusive in that it really doesn't talk about a lot of police misconduct that is maybe fall short of the kind of aggravated assault intentionality standard. You know someone repeatedly uses a taser on an individual recklessly you know that would might be misconduct but it wouldn't be covered under this crime and it wouldn't be covered under aggravated assault necessarily. If someone repeatedly uses a baton recklessly then that wouldn't be covered. It's also over inclusive in that it it's essentially a strict liability crime where a prosecutor you know sees a use of a chokehold. They're required to charge that and then it's up to a jury to determine whether there's an affirmative defense that's eligible to this officer. You know for an aggravated assault a prosecutor would look at things like is self-defense, is there evidence that this person was defending themselves because that would undercut the intentionality of that crime the strict this specific intent that's required that the prosecutors required to prove. There's no specific intent here so the prosecutor would charge it and then it would be up to the officer to show to prove by a preponderance of evidence that they were acting in self-defense. So to me you know this section just needs a little bit of work and our state's attorneys actually have some recommendations but I think that you know given the time frame that we're talking about I think you would be wise for us to vet it through a broader group of stakeholders before we move forward but I mean our concerns are that first of all you know there are crimes that cover this I mentioned aggravated assaults certainly some of the homicide statutes depending on on the level of intent and what the outcome was but this crime doesn't seem to to really hit at what what doesn't seem to hit at the problem that we have so or the problem that's being tried to be solved. Okay so you're you're possibly have some suggested tweaks to it but you don't have those now. I don't have I don't have them vetted through the proper channels in my own department but we do have some recommendations that I that I could give the committee if they want to look at it in a little bit. That would be great because I believe we may be on a very short timeline. I mean we have three bills I'm not sure what the game plan is whether we can do justice to all three bills all at one time and in a couple days or whether we ponder some of this and make some as some of the folks that have testified to finish this a little bit later when we come back. The other question I had for is several people have suggested that the body cams we should preface that with a policy first before we just give everyone a body cam and say we did it. Do the state's attorneys have any thoughts on that section section six? I absolutely agree with the idea of having a policy and I say that as the public records officer for the department of state's attorneys you know the public records law says that anyone who is the custodian of a record has to comply with the public records laws and you know these body cam footage you know sometimes a local the police department has it sometimes Vermont state police has it sometimes a prosecutor's office have it and we're all trying to coordinate with one another on the redactions and you know it's just when you're going to create a massive amount of public records it would be very wise to think about how are you going to how are you going to give those over to the public in a reasonable and timely manner and so if if you have if you just say everyone tomorrow flip on your body cameras 100% of the time and you know you have a stop where someone's in the midst of a mental health crisis or someone is giving a police officer you know confidential information it's just you know within 10 days you know according to public records law and I know those timelines aren't aren't strictly adhered to always but within 10 days that's a public record so I would very much support the idea of getting kind of a overarching policy in place you know many we're dealing with this now and so I don't want to stand in the way of you know this provision because we are supportive of it and body cameras make prosecutors lives a lot easier very often they help they they they're very helpful and a very helpful tool in building public confidence in our police so we're supportive of the section but I would agree with your point about the overarching policy who should develop that policy I think certainly a group of stakeholders including the ACLU the ACLU as you know was very much involved with the Doyle versus city of Burlington police department decision regarding public access to body camera footage and not just body camera footage but all public records they certainly have an understanding and expertise in the issue I think the secretary of state's office has has a legitimate interest in public records so I mean it would have to be just a broad range of people getting together and deciding you know what's in the public interest and you know of course the Vermont press association has a strong interest it's something that I think that you know as long as we all know what's to be expected um the more clarity we have on the front end the better okay thank you go ahead and honor thank you uh james my my question are you able to tell me if if an officer is found to have committed a misdemeanor or a felony is there a statutory requirement that a prosecutor who doesn't already have a professional relationship with that officer investigate the case like from an adjacent county or anything like that just to avoid any sort of bias there's no a prosecutor doesn't have to conflict out of a case in practice I would say they almost always would but no there's nothing in statute that would require you know if there's a lot if there's an investigation into a Washington County officer where the state's attorney decides to bring charges that that state's attorney would then send it over to an adjacent county there's no requirement thank you I think that martin's next yeah just a couple of follow-up questions to representative Harrison's questions he asked actually most of the ones that I wanted to ask thank you Jim um so the policy with respect to the video recording devices the body cameras there's been a lot of talk about the access to those records under the public records laws and such wouldn't wouldn't that policy and I guess this is sounding like a leading question which I suppose it is but wouldn't that policy also need to address when and where the body cameras can be used by officers and and related to public records it's not just who can access but retention policies how long certain types of of interactions that have been recorded should be retained etc it seems to be more than just an access question is is that correct or do you think that's covered elsewhere the the retent the answer is yes absolutely yes and I think a lot of the record retention you know every department is required to develop a record retention policy with the Secretary of State I'm not sure that every department has I know our I know the State Department of State's attorneys has one it's it's available on the Secretary of State's website but absolutely you know those are the types of questions I know storage is becoming less and less of a financial burden on departments but that it's something that should be worked out on the front end of course but also I guess the when and where for instance we may not want law enforcement to turn on their body cameras at all in certain spaces such as elementary schools such as our schools just generally there's a lot of talk about SROs and not wanting SROs but at a minimum probably don't want them to have their cameras on possibly I mean that's just an issue or surreptitiously recording etc I think there's should be those kind of standards should be part of a policy don't you think yeah and you know there might be an instance where it's required to be at school but maybe you know you can blur out everything but you know the the non-confidential information if you look at the if you look at the tape that was the subject matter of the Doyle versus Burlington case you can see that you know the vast majority the background is blurred out because there are a lot of juveniles involved in that body cam footage so you also you mentioned the different stakeholders that should be involved as far as putting the policy together but who should we tell to put this policy together what overarching organization or group should run this show you know the secretary state's office is though has the has the you know Vermont archivist and they're the ones that are ultimately they're the ones that we work our record retention policy we negotiate with them what that is and seems to me that they're the right ones I hate to volunteer them but I just but if we're if we're we're going to ask for not just the record issue but the when and how the body cameras should be used that seems to be much broader and I'm just wondering if there's a which organization should oversee the development of the policy maybe you don't have an answer but that's I think it's broader than just the records issue yeah I don't have a good answer for that off the top of my head I'm sorry all right I appreciate it thanks Marsha Gardner thank you could you tell me what your group thinks about qualified immunity so I'm the wrong person to ask that you know I represent the state's attorneys and qualified immunity is really a civil issue and so I would I would defer to the attorney general's office the civil division there I think they would probably the best witness to talk about qualified immunity thank you all right um John Ganon so following up on Martin's question about who's should be in charge of this um do you think it perhaps there should be a report back to the legislature with respect to a policy around body cams um just so that we make sure that all constituencies have had input into the process um I I think ultimately getting the legislative approval stamp of approval or just development with legislators is is ultimately going to be the best way to get this done so a legislative maybe putting together a stakeholder group and then having uh submit recommendations um you know other states I'm sure have these I'm sure the ACLU could list a number of states off the top of their head that have these policies in place so I don't think it would take an incredible amount of time for a stakeholder group to put together a solid recommendation for the for this committee and your counterparts in the senate to approve yeah no I don't I don't think we take that line I've been taking a look at um ACLU's model policy um and it addresses many of the issues that that Martin's raised like record retention so I think it's a very good starting point I just want to make sure that if there that every constituency that has input is listened to um because I think that's one of the criticisms that we have if if we handed this off to the Department of Public Safety um that they may not take into account or address all the concerns that are everyone yeah that's a great point yeah thank you Bob Hooper uh thank you Madam Chair I don't think I have a question for this witness I think I'll probably direct something to Brynn when everybody is finished okay um I think that that's all the hands that I see at the moment if other folks um want to jump in with a question uh now is the time I just want to say thank you James thank you really helpful thank you yeah we appreciate you spending some time with us um very much uh just for both committees to know I um I have asked our committee assistant to see if the Secretary of State's office could send someone at noon to talk with us about body cam policy um I think since the bill contemplates moving forward uh fairly directly with body cams I think it's worthwhile making sure that we understand how to launch a process to uh to create the data storage policy that needs to go along with that um so I think at this point um we have about 30 minutes left and it would be um a good time for us to I think narrow our focus a bit and look at bill language um since we have uh we have heard more um peaceful feelings about 219 I think we're going to concentrate on that one at the moment and um you know this is a lot to a lot to bite off uh in a short period of time but um but narrowing our focus to the different components of 219 um might make the most sense bob hooper thank you madam chair jim I put my hand down myself um Bryn on 219 2407 sub a um who who represents the council that they have assigned council themselves are they an entity are they under the attorney general's office who advances any legal action that they take you know I don't know the answer to that I'd have to confirm the answer with Betsy Ann I my guess is that they have their own council but I would need to confirm so in that section which of course I just lost because I clicked on something um it looks like if a law enforcement officer commits a category b first defense they can be dealt with on the local level whether that's uh deemed acceptable or not they can have uh everything dismissed but then the council then has the ability to take up the person who observed it but did nothing on that level say for the excessive use of force that seems a bit incongruous um yes you you have identified a incongruity there that a person who um commits a category b offensive excessive force would essentially not be um the the council wouldn't be able to sanction them until a second offense um but somebody who failed to intervene would be sanctionable on their first offense well if the only I probably am wrong here but the council could take up a dismissal of charge uh that a local police agency did if they found the process to be ineffective could that yes they could uh how did they get to that point um again I'm sorry this is really this is a an area of law that is not my area of expertise I'd have to check with that sian about that I know that um the senate gov ops committee is working in particular with this with this sub chapter um making quite a few changes to it and I'm I have not seen the latest of the um floor amendments coming out on s124 but I believe that they do deal with this section in particular and that's bet sands bill so she has more uh up-to-date information about that so I'd be happy to reach out to her today and get some more clarity about that and get back to the committee okay thank you uh secondly this type of situation where you have two people uh either cooperating or not each other seems to be ripe for what we seem to be seeing more and more which is filing of a false report how is that type of action covered in any of these um situations we repeat the question filing a false report yeah a person filing a fault a false report an officer an officer filing a false report it's like you know you you did something I saw you do something g you can't say anything about it okay we'll file a false report um seems to be happening a lot in a lot of the news situations that we find like the guy that fell down after being pushed by two officers um that's not really addressed so it'd be a sworn statement wouldn't it it would I I don't see it addressed in the statute either um but again I can I can check with Betsy Ann about that okay thank you very much thank you Madam Chair thank you Brynn um so I think um I think at this point if we can start uh start at the beginning of 2019 and uh and go through it sort of line by line and uh give the committees an opportunity to um either ask questions or um or make suggestions um you know I think for instance we've already decided that the word effectuating should be changed to during um and other things like that so if we can start in um at the beginning of 2019 and see if we can get through the majority of this bill um in the time that we have remaining sure so for the record Brynn here from legislative council so um section one is actually the legislative intent section that appears in that other document um I don't believe you have the bill yet as it is in one form the 1a is in that draft 2.1 of s219 the instances of amendment from the senate judiciary committee that's the legislative intent section um and if you recall section subsection a refers to the um the prior work that the legislature has done on issues of systemic racism and disproportionate use of force by law enforcement um and it ends with that statement that um this act represents one step in the legislature legislature's ongoing effort to combat racial bias and increase accountability and policing um I believe you heard some testimony from the executive director of racial equity that it might make sense to press on that point a little bit more and put in another sentence about um the general assembly being committed to this issue and continuing work on it and this is not the this bill doesn't represent the end of that work so I will wait for the committee to let me know if if you would like more um in the legislative intent section um thank you for tonight I I for one would um yeah and I I have some other things as well but thank you Derek go ahead yeah I've got some people with hands up Mike Marwicky has a question I just wanted to agree with the the last thing that grin said about adding that sentence to the end as suggested uh yesterday I think by Zuzana uh that this is not the alpha and the omega this is a part of a process that will continue thanks Mike uh Salina thanks Sarah um so I uh it's this is not exactly a question but just as we're looking at that legislative intent section getting fleshed out and I know Maxine you've um been thinking a lot about this and I'm sure others have as well I mean it seems to me like we need to go further in this language um or somewhere in the bill about really we have heard again and again from impacted communities that they're concerned that we're rushing forward and that they want more to have more leadership and guidance on our work on police reform and I I just really think we need to make meaningful and serious commitments in this legislation if we are going to move something forward um that really commits us to a clear clear um process that we can realize in the coming months and years to make that be the case thank you I can definitely appreciate that and Maxine and I have talked a lot about what what that would look like and certainly want to welcome uh members of the committee who are here with us today or anyone who's watching on YouTube um to reach out if they have thoughts on on the the process that we should undertake in order to move forward with with some of the many other issues that we have identified through uh through these conversations so thank you Selena um Tom Burt it has a question um kind of question thank you Madam Chair um I guess I think that's I like the idea around the legislative intent about changing it a little bit and um but I I guess you know and a piece of it would be you know that we will continue and and to me when I hear that it means from from here forward and and I don't know what the language would be or even if we end up putting it in but I would certainly like to see something uh or if we again if we can of what we've done in the past um I've been on judiciary now for six years and we have passed a number of bills uh through the years and I'm going to say it's probably sliding toward 10 bills through in the last six years on racial bias in that type of thing and and trying to do the right thing um you know and and moving forward on it um I believe the first one that we passed uh was the uh collecting data um you know the police uh forces collecting data you know um was the the initial bill and but anyway I would I would just like to see possibly see something about um the work we've already done so and I know it's not enough um in in whatever we do this year that you know um I think it's going to be a continuing thing but um I think it's worth noting thanks Tom Maxine yeah thank thank you Tom and um and it might be helpful Bryn if you could review um section uh or sort of the A of the intent that I I think might help answer um Tom your your question and uh make sure that that everything is covered in here but I believe that was part of the um part of the where the Senate was going to recognize some of that work that's so so Bryn could could you just maybe do a very quick walk through of of um A and the various acts that are in here and um to see if that responds to uh yeah thank you so you can take a look at um subsection A it lists uh this actually comes from a memo um that was worked on by legislative council uh about a month ago uh that summarized the the work that the legislature has done over the past several years with respect to these issues um it may several of these bills became um bigger acts than they started out as uh many of many of these are representative of uh bills that a lot of different bills got tacked on to at the end so it only subsection A only describes the bill by its title it doesn't talk about everything that the bill does um if if if you wanted we could go into some more detail there it might get very long um if you wanted to talk about what each one of these bills actually does because several of them including um act 54 from 2017 actually the the act summary is probably four pages long it does a whole lot of things um so I'm happy to talk more about that if if you'd like but um but this is a pretty representative list of of what the legislature has done since 2013 with respect to racial bias great thank you great so let's uh let's all take um take a few moments maybe while we're listening to announcements on the floor to do some review of of that intent and know that we will come back with a a fuller set of intent language to look at before we're done with this bill um martin along so yeah just on the intent this is fairly narrow it's something I raised before that I think in subsection A we should strike the the line about uh 2016 act number 163 regarding body cameras because you know that's that's a horn we shouldn't toot because nothing really resulted from that except for perhaps a policy that ACLU tore apart as being completely inadequate uh yesterday so I would strike that one phrase on that seems very logical all right so Bryn back back to the bill okay um so I'll talk about subsection B here of legislative intent if you'd like uh this is reflective of um the senate's wish to set out the intent of the general assembly that law enforcement not begin with use of force but begin with de-escalation tactics and in setting out that intent um the first sentence really reflects many of the policies that exist in the 21st century policing report um without specifically naming that that um that report um I I did hear some testimony from some witnesses that it may make sense to to um reference that report directly I'm not sure if that's something that the committee wanted to do um right there using my hand go by the vaccine thank you um I um I think it I personally think would be important to um to name it um as well as the um certification I'm forgetting CREO or some of the things that I sent you and that coach also um suggested is as well um so thank you so um would it be the intent so I just to get some more clarity here about about what the committees want to do would it be the intent of the general assembly that um law enforcement adopt these the the pillars of 21st century policing or that the legislature may begin is sort of committing to begin work on requiring law enforcement to adopt those policies Selena we need buttons to press to be able to talk um I I feel like this is a really good example of where um those voices that we heard saying nothing with us nothing about us without us is really important and I don't feel ready personally to direct the um to to say that just as an individual that my legislative intent is that people will wholesale adopt those pillars because I know there have been some meaningful critiques of those pillars and that the some of the approaches they represent for really investing heavily in additional tools and resources for policing at some points in in some ways that um I have some reservations about I definitely think like so I don't know it wouldn't I think that's a good example of um I wouldn't want us to rush forward with just a wholesale endorsement of those pillars without meaningful conversation with um with impacted communities although I think we could point to them I I just I mean I guess I'm just speaking personally here but I would be really wary of saying like this is this is going to be our approach to police reform moving forward for vaccine thank you so Selena what about something like um exploring or consider or just naming naming it uh without um without any commitment I mean I think that's that's what I was thinking with that would that work for you yes I'm far more comfortable with that okay all right Bryn you got that yeah uh Barbara thanks um I actually was going to suggest something like what Maxine suggested where we're not committing to a particular methodology but perhaps we are strongly saying um our view about how people are treated and the use of force as a methodology without talking about community policing um the other piece that just seems really important is again making sure people don't feel like we're asking for their recommendations and do something with them the the testimony um about the of just like why are you having us make recommendations just I keep hearing that and I don't want this to sort of perpetuate people feeling like we're going to do what we want you know and I think Selena was saying that with nothing about us without us um so those two points seem really important to me thank you um so committee we've got about 15 minutes before we need to scoot and uh and get to the floor it was our hope that we would have um an opportunity to to get through the bill language in in order to maybe give Bryn a couple hours to to do some redrafting and bring us um bring us something more to look at at noon so I'm wondering if we have um if we can sort of shift gears knowing that we need to come back to the intent and get both the tone and the content of that right um can we can we at least jog through the various sections of the bill and um and see if people are feeling uh feeling like they have recommendations to make kind of in a section by section as opposed to line by line would it be helpful if I did it quick some synopsis of the of the sections yes promise people okay thank you so um I'll move to the 3.1 draft of s2 19 so the first two sections um are making state grant funding of law enforcement agencies contingent on the approval of the secretary of administration um ensuring that that law enforcement agency has complied with race data reporting requirements and section two is uh refers to that first section requires the secretary to notify all law enforcement agencies about that new contingency that's effective on January 1st all right John Gannon I believe we heard testimony that not many local law enforcement received grants so I'm not sure how much of a stick um this is um and we may want to consider something besides just grants as a stick um however I will say we have not received any testimony about compliance with the collection of data so I don't know how large of a problem this is um I think that we have heard testimony that uh that it's a bit of a patchwork and um and so while the stick might not be uh as effective um you know at least it it does it does drive a finer point to it and and we do probably need to come back to the data collection um uh with some refinements to what we expect to be collected right well another potential stick that every law local law enforcement agency needs is um to get training to get a level three law enforcement officers um so that might be a stick that would impact every single local law enforcement department around the state okay thanks John uh Rob Lecler good morning Madam Chair um in this particular section I think I'd rather rather than use a stick talk about the carrot here and that we did hear testimony that there is wide disparities between this collection of data um and it's almost like a chicken or the egg you've got to have the process in place you have to have the training in place in order to do this correctly and a lot of communities are out there maybe can't afford to make this investment initially up front um I would prefer to see that we would get the resources available make sure that law enforcement is availing themselves of that resource and then hold them accountable to use it and use it correctly and make sure that we have the consistency and continuity that we need so that this data does what we want it to do yeah make sense all right shall we keep jogging through the sections oh Ken has a hand up go ahead Ken you're gonna want to unmute I'm not sure we've heard a lot of testimony I'm not sure we need to or want to run uh rush through this I think we've heard a lot of testimony uh that a lot of changes are already being done by law enforcement I have certain big concerns about local municipalities being able to do this and doing this right and also uh like what was brought up I'm not sure you could get proper training I think there's only so many um law enforcement that you can run through at a certain time to get done I'm not sure you're gonna be close to meeting those requirements that's it for now thank you thanks all right let's see if we can keep jogging through the bill any okay sorry go ahead so section three is that uh race data reporting requirement as the um expands the required data that um law enforcement is required to collect to use the force data um and I understand that we're going to strike effectuating and use the word during instead on bottom of bottom of page two there okay um page three this is the requirement that law enforcement work with the executive director of racial equity um and the council and the vendor chosen by the council and um and how it collects data and organizes it subdivision three requires that the executive director is tasked with receiving that data in addition to the vendor chosen by the council page four um requires that the agency receiving the data reports it annually to the general assembly and then it puts some parameters on what physical force means I don't think that there were any changes that were raised with respect to this section that um marcia gardener has a question so in section three uh I've made some notes that people had talked about should uh the reason for the search be included in the data probable probable cause why the search yeah yeah I had um other thoughts um we talked about the reason and grounds for the stop and search possibly that's kind of my flashpoint it seems like a significant point to potential escalation and even though the commissioner says that the data might not be easy to encode uh that does not mean that if it's not I mean if it's not collected it's not available um the scenario is a co you or somebody sends a student intern out to compile it then it's available to be done otherwise it doesn't exist and I think it's a significant issue and sorry also um uh user friendly we wanted to change that to uh I think hal suggested understandable and I know will had some I know well if you had any thoughts but you had you had raised that initially yes thank you yeah um and I agree that understandable uh would would work I mean my concern was user friendly with such loose definition and I know from um events that that I've attended we've taken place I know the racial justice alliance for example had a demonstration where they showed just how difficult it was to sort through the data as it's currently being presented so user friendly you know was questionable to me because user friendly to who understandable I think it's still on the big side but I think it's a preferential word to what's in there now thanks great uh John Ganon so going back to the beginning of section three um this is I think we heard testimony about the that there was some concerns about just limiting this to roadside stops um should this be expanded beyond roadside stops um because you know there are other police stops beyond just pulling over cars so we are missing a huge chunk of data Maxine yeah thank you I I heard that too I I'm not sure if if we can if we can do that right um here in the bill but perhaps um in the intent section it might be might be something that that we could list as things to um to explore just consideration um my list is growing of things that we that we have intent to come back to yeah absolutely but I think I think that's testimony that we heard very clearly um Tom has his hand up yes I do thank you um going back to the stop and search that Maxine was talking about a couple minutes ago um and collecting more more data I have no no issue at all with collecting more data I mean at at some point um and I don't know for there but you know maybe it be it becomes cumbersome and and difficult to do but um I think we're sadly lacking um you know some of the things we've discussed but with would uh would it be separate uh Maxine the way that you had the way that I heard it maybe not the way you worded it um you said data for stop and search now would it would it be would they be separate because the stop uh is one thing and if the if something comes up as seen as said and then the search would potentially happen um so would that uh I guess somehow that would need to be a different column I guess you could say as far as collecting the the data goes right I think what I was saying um I talked about grounds for this stop right now it says reason so um so just somehow bringing in search and and instead of using reason using grounds is what I thought I heard in in um in the testimony okay um I don't that's that's clear but right yeah yeah just the way that I heard it it was stop and search and that makes it sound like it's it's uh it's one thing yeah one planned thing and and I just want to make sure that it's that they're somehow separate right thank you that may only be a stop um right now I appreciate that yeah thank you thanks Rob LeClaire um thank you madam chair a couple things I I have to find myself an agreement with the representative from Burlington Mr Hooper as far as that if you know if there is a search conducted during a stop that there should be some reason why that search had to happen and then to address uh the representative from Rutland's concern about searching the data um who's the target audience that we're looking to have this data be searchable by if it's the general public then it would seem to me that we would want to state that and have it in a form in a way that the general public could search it and that it would be accessible to them and I know user friendly isn't the word that where you can look into use but that it was searchable by the general public so that again they could extrapolate the data from that that we're looking for I think will has his hand up to answer that thought yes thank you you know that's that's a very good point um I had actually written down after I finished uh speaking was thinking about it more um understand about changing language something like understandable by a lay person or something to that degree that isn't is awkward because I do think you know what we want is for you know community action groups to be able to look at this data and have a clear understanding and be able to clearly compare law enforcement agencies throughout the state and and how they're handling this issue so I do think that if the language could be tweaked to make it clear we are talking about not law enforcement professionals but the data is clear and understandable to citizens at large and that would be ideal thank you great uh Barbara thanks so one thing is I'm wondering if on the data question if asking I don't know if we've heard from Stephanie or any of the CRG folks have had thoughts about the questions that should be asked it definitely seems like it's important that it be open to the public and on stops I just wanted to say some of the most troubling cases in Burlington were not about traffic stops they were about um people either on the street or leaving the hospital or um so I really think we've got to look at bigger than just traffic stops we're going to get a skewed view of when it's happening yeah let's all collectively flag that because um I think there's much more work we need to do with respect to the uh to the data part of this um Bob Hooper thank you Madam Chair Barbara just basically took the words right out of my mouth except for saying stop and frisk it's it's a big thing that we need to keep an eye on yeah uh Selena I agree with everyone who's saying that we need to go beyond traffic stop data I think you know these provisions of this bill are focused on compliance with traffic stop data because we actually require it to be collected and reported and that's that's not true for a lot of other kinds of data so I agree that that's an important um larger conversation to have I was just going to say uh on the question of the user friendly um and finding the right language there there's a quite a quite a bit of provisions we've passed in recent years on kind of economic um bills coming out of our commerce committee where we've included those kinds of provisions like around contract language um uh and there may there just may maybe there's some language there in other parts of statute we can pull on without having to reinvent the wheel around just um readability and understandability to like people who aren't professional law enforcement folks yeah is that something that you could could check with um commerce council please yeah okay thanks how oh thank you madam chair I just wanted to say in response to what Barbara shared it's called walking while black and brown and I have too many stories that express that phenomenon thank you thank you for that uh marcia we had one witness who suggested that the data should be searchable by county town and officer do we know if that data is included currently good question I don't see anybody raising their hand to answer that question John Gannon Alexa I know I know it's searchable by town because I've looked at my own town's stop data I do not know if it's searchable by officer I don't believe that it is searchable by officer okay so that's another uh another data detail that we want to explore for the future anything else on the data collection sections so we're we're going to make a few a few changes to clarify but also recognizing that there's much iron or grained work that needs to be done here um so um I think that uh I think that the floor is convening right now and I think that Martin and Kelly both have a bill that's up for third reading if I'm remembering correctly um yeah actually um excuse me the speaker is going to do 232 early and um would like Kelly and backup so Martin if you could you could be her backup and then um and then come back and then it looks like we can we can we all have um leave of the floor um until 10 30 and so as we get closer to 10 30 I can check in with the speaker again um assuming brineer okay to be with us past 10 all right um so great Kelly and Martin come back um as soon as you are able um and all right so we have we have uh made note that we want to come back to this data section in much more detail um at a future date uh any other questions on section three of the bill all right so brin let's keep moving forward okay so section four deals I'm sorry and I just noticed a hand up marcia go ahead um I made a note that uh physical force might need a better definition what's some sub five oh right somebody was saying that it should be any force used that's beyond compliant handcuffing that's what I have for notes or other folks remembering that yeah that was the commissioner and that's what he uses to phrase right right uh tom yeah uh what you just said sarah I don't I don't I guess I don't understand what what you said um as far as the definite the meaning of what it so the notes that I have um say that that um any force beyond compliant handcuffing uh ought to be ought to be what we're referring to here um it is as opposed to I guess um listing a bunch of different uh techniques right so so uh if somebody is compliant and and they let you know they let themselves be handcuffed um so what this will say is that you can't use force after that um if that what we're leaning toward well I think I I think this the sense that I got when we were taking this testimony was if it's compliant handcuffing then it is not force and it and if it's uh and if it's non-compliant um then that then that should be in the category of a use of force and maybe maxine remembers better but marsha marsha must be talking about the same uh the same testimony that I'm recalling I think it did come from commissioner shirling some language that he was looking for you mean he he said that the physical force needed a better definition okay that's right um so I was wondering if we could go back to to bring so first of all sorry I'm helping Kelly at the same time so I um so we're talking about seven is that correct or or somewhere else I want to make sure I'm in the right place I think we're on page four subdivision five okay so um okay right um I can tell the committee where this language came from if that's okay yeah yeah so this came from mark anderson who I believe is the sheriff um and he gave some testimony to senate judiciary committee that there were um four or five different categories of force and the sort of lowest level being compliance controls which it would include compliant handcuffing and um that category would also include just presence of the officer because law enforcement is trained that their very presence is a use of force um and so anything so this list is intended to cover anything beyond compliance control so the next level would be um contact controls that's when the officer actually uses their hands on a person to to direct their compliance um so there are uh sort of definitions of these phrases that law enforcement uses in training so it may be helpful if um if if these are sort of defined here the the committee may want to see what each of these categories actually encompasses and I can do that in the next draft um so we do have commissioner shirling with us and uh so I guess I'm going to invite him to uh to to clarify maybe what he was talking about before yeah I'd like to know a little bit more about compliant handcuffing yes go ahead something thank you madam chair uh I think I can make this brief uh the reason that we're suggesting removing the technical language and just going to uh language that says um force beyond compliant handcuffing is because that would capture everything that involves some level of force beyond presence or compliant handcuffing and those definitions uh and the frameworks we use are an area that constantly involves so if you memorialize the specific phrases and statute every time there's an evolution in uh training and the way we describe things which happens quite frequently um then the statute will have to be updated versus just saying everything beyond compliant handcuffing which will capture everything compliant handcuffing is a phrase that hasn't changed in uh a couple of decades at least um it just simplifies and creates a very broad array of things that uh that need to be reported so it's it's just a more simplistic and longer lasting way to phrase it Rob does that help um like not really I guess maybe it's because I've never had the opportunity to be compliantly handcuffed um but it seems to me that everything up to that would be okay but when we're talking about handcuffing somebody aren't we putting hands on them and isn't that I don't know the officer exerting authority really formally then uh well you can count compliant handcuffing uh by simply counting the number of arrests where people were not just issued a citation so in turn this is around data collection so if you're looking to count that it's easy to count using something else what we're trying to count is when force is used and um handcuffs are not considered I mean they fall in this in the force continuum but it's what when it's done in a compliant fashion it's not something that we weave into our use of force reports because then you'd be doing a use of force report on every single arrest okay I'm gonna have to digest that just a little bit so I won't hold things up thank you we're uh flagging this as a question mark um Tom Burdett yeah thank you um commissioner I'm still a little confused around the compliant thing so a person being compliant isn't necessarily I'm guessing at this point uh letting you handcuff them or they are no they are uh compliant handcuffing is the overwhelming majority of physical arrests that happen you say to somebody listen uh maybe to place you under arrest you've got to go back to the station for some processing uh please put your hands behind you I'm gonna put handcuffs on you that's the way it happens in the overwhelming majority of cases if you go back to my earlier testimony uh the state police do about 118,000 respond 118,000 events a year um force beyond compliant handcuffing was used in 223 of those 117,000 events okay yeah I think I would like to see this simplified because the way I read this myself is that there could actually be some some force used in in compliant handcuffing but that's that's just me the way I understand the language as it's written maybe if it helps madam chair what I'm suggesting is a more broad the language I'm suggesting is more broad than what you've written and will not get stale over time I can appreciate that um Barbara rachelson thank you um madam chair so I was looking at the campaign zero model plan um for model policy and they say which I really liked um officers shall not um use up up a level of force higher than the level of threat um so I'm just wondering if because handcuffing does seem like it's in that physical category and um earlier in it they just say officer shall strive to use the minimum amount of force necessary to accomplish a lawful purpose including levels of force lower than the level of threat so I just wonder I like the commissioner's idea about simplifying it I just think handcuffing might be the wrong spot um nadir hasheem thank you I wanted to jump in on this conversation and the the commissioner was able to basically settle the majority of what I was thinking uh I mean compliant handcuffing is in a way when the other person essentially consents to being detained without resisting you know you you tell the person turn around and put your hands behind your back because you're under arrest and the other person will say okay I guess I'm coming with you and then you move on from there when it escalates is when the person says no I'm not going with you and you're gonna have to fight me if you want me to go that's when real force starts being used so I think it would be um it would be peculiar to have a use of force report for every single compliant handcuffing um instance yeah I think one thing that is important is making sure that handcuffs are checked for tightness and double locked because I know that there have been instances across the country where you know cops have intentionally tightened handcuffs to the point where they would restrict blood flow to the hands and people actually suffered nerve damage to their hands so I think that's one small piece that should be looked at but having a use of force report done for every compliant handcuffing case would would be a little strange and yeah that I wanted to share that with you thank you Rob Leclerc I guess the thing that I'm struggling with is if I'm being compliant why do I have to be handcuffed it it just doesn't seem to make sense to me if I'm not being compliant or the officer has a reason to be concerned about me or my behavior then I guess I get it but it just seems like kind of an oxymoron here it's a policy policy sounds all right I mean if you know it's there's rule three to consider which is that you know if there are certain crimes where a person can be where a person is either arrested or they are issued a citation and also there are times where you don't know if a person is going to change their behavior after being detained you know sometimes people will become compliant they'll say yeah sure that's fine I messed up and I'll come with you willingly and then five minutes later it starts to dawn on them that they're in big trouble and their attitude starts to change and also for the sake of performing searches concurrent with arresting someone because when you arrest somebody for a crime you search them incident to that and so it you know there's also the officer safety element that's involved as well okay thank you I hope it does thank you any other questions comments on this section all right Bryn do you have what you need on that a recommendation of language to use so are you wanting to go with the commissioner's suggestion about anything beyond compliant handcuffing because I did have one other suggestion which is the way that the house of ops committee amended this definition in your work on 464 the way you changed it was as using the subsection physical force shall refer to the force employed by a law enforcement officer to compel a person's compliance with the officer's instructions period and you didn't leave and you didn't have any specific language after that so I wonder if you wanted to leave it that broad and in your intent section put in some language about studying what use of force data should actually be collected that's one other option I am open to input from either committee on that question could you say that one more time Bryn so the way that the house of ops committee did some work on this language in a house bill was to end the the definition of physical force after the officer instructions on line five so just referred to force employed by law enforcement in compelling a person's compliance with their instructions so I'm I'm just it was not sensing from the committee if you were all coalescing around the commissioner's recommendation about any force beyond compliant handcuffing or if there was still some concern about that so that there was a one recommended a one suggested way to handle this and then putting some more language in the intent section about specifically looking at use of force data and what that physical force should encompass I like that I like that approach of the say is one person okay thank you uh Jim Harrison yeah I I guess I don't it's been so wild out such a while I don't remember the 464 conversation because I think that bill's still in our committee right um I kind of like what the commissioner suggested but I don't know the legal differences between those two approaches yep we will get to him in just a moment how thank you madam chair what I would like to see is following the commissioner's recommendation because for me it creates the border between force and excessive force so if you're not compliant then it escalates in terms of the force issue so that's how I see it and I like the commissioner's recommendation commissioner Shirley I think Representative Colston said it in a way that may be more understandable than than how I described it I would caution against the language that was in 464 if I understood it correctly and I don't have it in front of me because in operationalizing that it would create confusion I think we would end up essentially writing collecting statistics on every time an officer was present because as someone else testified to the presence of officers is a technical use of force harken back to the this constitutional overlay the presence of a police officer under certain circumstances can constitute a seizure in and of itself so again that line of demarcation that Representative Colston articulated is you know when compliance is lost and now some level of force beyond presence is exerted is really what we are striving to measure here that makes sense thank you so Bryn let's go back to you okay so we'll change that to provide uh any force that's used something along the lines of beyond uh compliant handcuffing thank you okay so I'll move on to the next uh the next section section four so this is the unprofessional conduct sub chapter and in chapter 151 on the criminal justice training council and the changes here add the two additional types of category b professional misconduct which are placing a person in a prohibited restraint or failing to intervene and one thing I wanted to point out that I don't think I spoke about earlier is on page six subdivision c there's a change made here that it was also made in s124 that provides the excessive use of force first defense would be subject to sanctioning by the council so I believe that there was a question earlier about whether or not there was an incongruity between an officer being sanctioned by the council for failing to intervene on a first offense and I just wanted to point out that under this language a person who uses an officer who uses excessive force would be sanctionable under a first offense that is not current law but that is what that's what um not or has his hand up thank you I just wanted to mention that I think and if Bryn or anyone else has any suggestions here that would be great but I think we need to define what intervention looks like you know is it stopping an excessive use of force at that exact moment or is it reporting to a supervisor after the fact or is it both of those things I think that's a really important necessity right there I was wondering if there might be any language suggestions for that possibly uh tom bird it just jumped in yeah I don't have any language suggestions at this point but just kind of a question in a situation where there's a potential uh intervention uh you know from a you know somebody's being restrained I mean I look at police forces as being kind of quasi military and and having a a pecking order and uh how easy is it or for a um somebody with a lower rank to be intervening um on somebody with a higher rank um you know if they intervene and it's deemed to say the person doing the restraint wasn't doing anything wrong what would happen to the person that intervene would they be reprimanded you know at that point so it's just something that goes through my mind with the when I guess when there's a pecking order I agree with that tom there is I mean you know when if you're a brand new cop and you're working with your sergeant you know generally everything that sergeant says is it's quasi military as you said and you know that newer cop is you know I if they see that sergeant using excessive force what will probably go through their head is well the sergeant's doing it so it this must be the right thing um and so yeah yeah so I I agree and see where you're coming from Tom and the next thing is you know how do we how do we work around it you know yeah any thoughts folks all right well let's flag that and um come back to it okay so the next language at the bottom of page six is the definition of prohibited restraints I'm not sure if there if you were satisfied with that definition so anybody have notes or concerns on that okay so I'll move on to 2407 this is the limitation on council's ability to sanction and this carves out those two new category B misconducts from the limitation on the council's ability to sanction officers so they can be sanctioned for a first offense for those two new um categories of conducts um vaccine thank you I uh I heard testimony that the online six that the may uh should be changed to shell you know what just wanted to remind folks of that I agree I would agree with that okay and then um and then also I know that Martin had some questions uh that this was too limited uh but then I also have notes that the sentencing commission is or will be addressing this and that also uh that the um senate is addressing this and maybe you could help us I don't know if that's part of s124 it is I um it is the part of 124 I haven't seen the latest um I know that there have been some floor amendments that are being worked on so I'm just not sure what the latest iteration is so Bryn when you say floor amendments um did it look at the may versus shall or expanding the the breath or yes both of those things I believe are being looked at but I'm I I just don't know what is uh I don't know what's happening because it's happening as we speak maxine where exactly is that may versus shall on uh page seven line six line okay that's what I thought it was great thank you well maybe uh so Bryn they uh if they are working on it as we as we speak um sarah I wonder if we should maybe you know kind of flag this book market see if we can get um indication of what the senate is doing yeah okay so shall I move on for now to section five the new crime then yes okay so um section five is the crime of law enforcement use of prohibited restraints it makes it a crime for a law enforcement officer acting in their capacity in law as law enforcement to use a prohibited restraint that causes serious bodily injury or death makes it a 20-year felony $50,000 fine you know you've heard quite a bit of testimony about this section so I wasn't sure where the committee was uh was going with this happy to answer any questions yes uh John Gannon so so Bryn I mean we've heard several people testify that this is basically already a crime would you concur with that that testimony yeah this is um an action that could be charged absolutely under aggravated assault I would point out that this and as other people have have pointed out this is um essentially a strict liability crime there is not an intent element meaning a law enforcement officer who put person in a prohibited restraint under these circumstances and that restraint caused serious bodily injury or death to another person would be culpable regardless of the officer's intent or mental state when committing that act so in that sense it is different from aggravated assaults it doesn't mean that a person couldn't be charged under the aggravated assault statute for that exact conduct but the the elements that the prosecutor would be required to prove are different that's an important distinction thank you um Tom Burdett yeah I'm not real crazy about this section but um you know I mean I've heard some stories you know uh around this you know actual you know stories in the field but and I'm just wondering if uh if Chief Fakos is still going to be testifying um and and if he is I would certainly like to hear the the story that he told in the Senate you know regarding restraints in a situation that he had um where um yes I mean that that's that's the max restraint as far as being physical goes but um sometimes max um a max restraint needs to be used to dealing with a um in a situation but anyway I didn't know if he was still going to be testifying it because it it zeroes right in on this yeah it does um so the um the chief is not available to to be with us today um it certainly wasn't at nine o'clock and I believe that the email I saw said that he wasn't available at noon either um there is testimony in senate judiciary that we could um certainly share a link around on but but um Maxine you had some thoughts on this right I guess I guess some of two minds I I think it's important to have a separate crime uh I also think it's important to get it right and uh um hearing the state's attorneys may have some suggestions uh so one possibility would be to take it out but make it very very clear in the intent that we are going to continue to work on it um unless we were able to get for instance the language from the state's attorneys you know in the next few hours or you know um but uh so so if if if no folks feel like they don't want it in here I could live with that but with very clear intent that we do need to um to look into creating another crime uh recognizing uh that that is not already covered and that is so yeah in in the interest of time is there consensus that we um that we take this out for now and put it into the parking lot of issues that we need to come back to? I just ask a really quick question of of bren yeah absolutely because I think that might help me discern my own answer to that and I'm sorry I keep taking my jacket off it's just really hot where I am um bren is the I I cannot recall off the top of my head what the penalty for aggravated assaults is how do the penalties track between the way someone could be charged under existing what's proposed here um if I remember correctly aggravated assault is a maximum 15 year felony okay so this is a this is a 20 year maximum okay um tom that must have been up from before sorry okay uh jim harrison yeah I I concur with what maxine just said I uh when bren said strict liability I kind of gave it a new light um and I I think there may be cases where uh the officer was justified and I don't know all the nuances so I that's why I was trying to press um the state's attorneys to you know come back with something if we needed to fix it here or if we need to come back to it later so I just I'm not comfortable with it as worded here and I'd like to see it modified a little bit thank you hi Barbara uh so I think if we took it out I have some discomfort and I think it all depends on how strongly it's stated in the intent section but I'm leaning towards it voting for to stay in it in some modified form okay so um if I may Sarah to respond to Barbara so um so Barbara if you could be thinking if it were to come out um if you could help with intent language you know to make sure that um if if you're comfortable with that but also if you feel like you just need to vote no right yeah okay yeah thank you Selena um I I agree with a lot of what Barbara said and would be happy Barbara to um work with you on intent language around that if you want to help her I just want to I feel like on the record that uh I am totally fine with leaving this in the bill but I if the um majority of the group feels it needs to come out it wouldn't like that wouldn't prevent me from um supporting passage of the provisions of this bill that have more clear and unilateral support behind them thank you uh Tom I did have my hand up that time thank you um I agree with taking it out I mean this is this is the most important part of this bill um it is certainly the one uh generating the most interest and I don't think we need to have any uh any questions that we may be rushing on this um and it is to me it is the most important part of the bill this is this is uh in a lot of instances of life and death and um and we don't need to be fooling with that we need to do it and do it right and and it's not just life and death for uh you know the uh the person that's being um detained or or restrained it's life and death for um our uh our police officers also and um so I I'm in full uh support of pulling this out and you know in doing the work and doing the work on it that needs to be done in taking the time that needs to be taken it just needs to be right all right uh Will thank you I certainly agree with my colleague from West Rall and that this is life or death um but I would be uh very hesitant in fact I'm all right against the idea of removing this from the bill um it is life or death and as we've seen repeatedly if not in Vermont nationwide there are many situations where it is not life or death for the law enforcement officer but it causes the depth of the person they are interacting with um I think removing this waters this bill down that includes if we add something to the intent I understand we've got to do this we've got to do it right but I think there are a lot of people looking to the legislature to properly address this and um removing this is not addressing it it's just kicking the can down the road and I think a lot of people are frustrated that that is what we continue to do thank you Bob Hooper uh I agree with Will at all I think a decision point here is whether we're creating a new crime I mean we have a already established there's a different process for the level to get to conviction and there's a different penalty phase and the question in my mind is whether you are holding these people who are charged with enforcing the law to a higher level of compliance with the law so this may very well be assault by a police officer you may be creating a new crime and I don't know that that's not appropriate uh don't know that intent language carries as much weight as I'd like to see in the expectation field thank you Martin uh yeah I I I understand where Will and and other folks are coming from but I really think that this isn't ready for prime time as well and and I'll give a separate reason than what we've heard is there really is um a conflict between what we're doing with this and with uh title 13 section 2305 uh justifiable homicide uh which essentially excuses well provides pretty broad justification for law enforcement's use of force uh and that's something that I know that uh the senate was uh took a long time looking at that and essentially said well we'll we'll take the chance that what we're doing here might actually uh repeal this other provision that I just mentioned uh but we'll try to work on it in the interim and sort that out I'd rather have that sorted out uh before we put this new crime out there uh I think these two things need to be worked out together I also want to hear uh what uh the state's attorneys come through with uh I I'm very committed to continuing to work on this but I really don't think it's ready at this point thanks Martin uh Maxine are you able to give us an update in terms of justifiable homicide is that in August um completion or is that a next session um I I'm not sure actually my understanding was that they were going to the senate judiciary was going committee was going to take it up today but um that's that is not on their agenda for today so I haven't I haven't I probably haven't heard the latest so I'm sorry I can't update you on that so folks let's see if we can um take a look at the subgroups uh who who offered to work on intent language around this um because I I take Martin's um observations and critiques um very very carefully that we shouldn't move forward with something that uh that may have unintended consequences um Barbara Rachelson uh okay so I'm wondering if if it would work as a compromise to have the crime stay in there and the intense section talk about the work that needs to be done and will be happening related to the repeal of the older law and I don't know if that's a question for Martin or the group I mean yeah Maxine yeah anybody want to jump in I'll jump in I think this I mean this is a this is a process issue uh for for me and and I think that we're not by putting it out there uh and yes it's important I absolutely think this is important I am comforted by the fact that that these chokeholds are are already effectively banned by law enforcement and that there's another way that somebody using one of these that results in death or seriously body bodily injury will be held accountable I still think we should have this but but I think we really need to do the right process uh and and I think we haven't had sufficient consideration of this particular crime so I think we intend to proceed with it rather than throwing it out there and and making the existing crime um I'm forgetting the word that we call it because but um saying if this occur if it's committed by a police officer there's a factor that an enhanced penalty that may be something we want to look at but it's just not something that's ready to put a crime in right now that that carries a 20 year sentence um I just don't think it's right for prime time uh Rep Seymour uh thank you Madam Chair I'm I'm just going to agree with some of the other members I think that pulling that section for now might be the uh the best thing to do but that's all thank you uh Commissioner Shirling has a hand up thank you Madam Chair uh I would also point out there's a critical missing element from this draft among a variety of other problems I think that this section has um it does not have any carve out or instances where lethal force would be justified uh so you could potentially be looking at prosecuting a police officer with penalties well beyond what the current aggravated assault statute is in a case where it was a more a justifiable uh use of force um where their firearm could have been used but they were unable to get to it and had to have someone in one of these unfortunate restraints these are incredibly rare circumstances I'm I don't want anyone to think that you know that's something that has the uh is likely to happen in the next week or month or even year but it's not something we can take off the table given the nature of of policing operations uh it's really important to keep in mind that we're trying to solve problems with a cross-section of operations that is not reflective of the totality of the over 1500 events that law enforcement's responding to on a daily basis in Vermont so to it's just I'll stop talking at this point but a lot more thought has to go into this before it is ready for prime time in my opinion um heard it oh yeah um bring go ahead to that I was just going to point out that um the justifiable homicide statute still stands and um any defense that could be raised under the justifiable homicide statute could still be raised and it's true of common law self-defense defenses as well I think I mentioned that earlier just wanted to point that out for the committees thank you tom yeah a question I guess for the commissioner or maybe uh anyone else so say the situation uh you know you're in a wrestling you know basically a wrestling match with somebody for whatever reason uh taser is inaccessible firearm isn't accessible um and say you've got a 270 pound uh man and 160 pound uh officer that's wrestling him and so at that point there's no way that the officer is going to be able to out wrestle this guy just because of sheer size and and uh and these restraints are illegal and uh so I mean you're on the ground he's on top of you uh you know and is potentially uh you know uh gonna kill you you know kill the officer so the officer looks to his right and there's a about a a six inch boulder there and so if we're making this illegal you know the restraint illegal would would you consider it to be legal to take that to take that rock and hit the uh hit the subject in the head to protect yourself and potentially killing him with the rock would would if we make the restraint illegal would that be legal to protect yourself it would represent a verdict in a case where uh death or serious bodily injury is a possibility whether it's the officer or or another person the use of um that's the use of lethal force which is where you're not it's not an intent to kill someone it's not a I can't remember which committee I testified to that it's you know what you see on tv it's not a shoot to kill scenario it's a you're you're taking whatever action is possible to include rocks flashlights chairs pick a thing cars whatever action is necessary to stop the action of the subject that poses that imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury and the way that I would see it is uh I mean if you did smack somebody in the head with a rock like that to me the the chances of killing them or or maiming them or you know traumatic brain injury is going to be a higher um more of a chance to do more damage than than a restraint would be but it would be totally acceptable um and I guess you could say legal to do that and and that that just makes no sense at all to me uh you know when a restraint in in those situations would be the the less uh lack of a better term the less violent way of of getting somebody under control I concur and you know I want to reiterate that we are on the road to reform that we need to be on but we cannot completely discount the fact that we live in a world that unfortunately has violence and has people that do not have regard for human life uh and there is only one line of defense for those folks and that is the roughly million police officers in the United States and you cannot completely neuter their ability to function thank you Rob LeClaire um thank you Madam Chair I guess I would have to agree with uh the member from Rutland here that if uh if an officer needs to use deadly force and I'm sure that they're training they would hopefully recognize that that we shouldn't be taking any means away from them that they need to use to address that issue um it just it seems to me that like the commissioner said that we would be neutering them I'm not sure that's the intent here thank you okay so with this is uh this is a section of the bill that's giving us a lot to think about a lot to talk about um so I'm going to suggest that we hold on to that for a moment it we're very close to getting through the end of the bill um and uh and we can certainly come back and decide uh once and for all what to do with this section of the bill but let's take a peek at the last few sections of the bill here okay um so last two sections of the bill are about body cameras and section six requires the department to outfit um the Vermont state police with body cameras um and the last section seven second to last section has that um sort of funding language about any ongoing costs of those devices that can't be accommodated within DPS's budget should be included in their budget proposal in August so I know that you've heard quite a bit of testimony about um about the associated policy that should um that should be adopted and I would just point out that in S-124 there is one of the amendments there is a requirement that um law enforcement adopted the LAB model policy um that was developed after um that that act was passed in 2016 so that's that's where that issue stands on the Senate side vaccine thank you so uh I think this is what we're talking about earlier I know I heard concerns about the um LAB model policy and looking more towards um ACLU and others and um this is what we're talking about earlier somehow getting a policy first and um so maybe you know looking at the language maybe in section seven doing A and a B maybe something like in on section seven A could be the Department of Public Safety shall initiate so maybe take out immediately the acquisition um maybe change you know FY 21 to 22 and then B somehow come up with a process to um you know to get a get a policy with folks you know who we think should be part of it or you know I don't know what but um but somehow lay it out in here um so I'm throwing that out I think that makes a lot of sense um Tom Burdett yeah I was gonna say a lot of the same thing as far as um I mean with uh section six we're handing out the equipment in section seven we're doing the funding but we have no policy and and I think some place in here we need to uh the way this is written we got the car before the horse um to me the policy I guess you know get the equipment we've got if we've got the money for the equipment this is just my personal opinion get the equipment get it ready to go get some training on how to use it and uh but before it's implemented um we need a policy and and and then in the commissioner's 10-point plan he he talks about uh putting a policy together and if I remember right it also mentions uh you know getting the community members involved in and writing that policy but uh yeah uh the policy needs getting a policy in place to me needs to be in the bill and and it certainly needs to be um uh written before the the cameras are handed out to the to the officers um I think that's just common sense John Gannon thank you um I agree that there needs to be a policy in here I think the question is who should be in charge of that policy we did hear testimony from the ACLU um that their comments with respect to the LEAB policy were were rejected and so putting the department of public safety in in charge of this process I think would not be appropriate unless there's legislative oversight um to approve that policy thank you Selena I strongly agree representative Gannon that's the exact same point I was going to make and raise and um um so I think the who we put um in the um both the creation role and the oversight role of that policy is really critical and um yes I would argue against uh that being DPS or uh even maybe the criminal um just a streaming council and looking to a broader authority and I think there um that there is potentially a really important role for the racial disparities in criminal and juvenile justice panel here um and others but I I strongly agree with representative Gannon's comments um so let's uh let's give some thought between now and our noon session about who we want to be a part of that process because I've asked Tanya Marshall who is the um who is with the Secretary of State's office to come and uh and talk with us about uh body cam data policy um and I guess I would ask the question of the two committees does it make sense to you to direct the Secretary of State's office to to be the convener um of of this group and anyone want to jump in on that Selena what do you think um I I think they have really important input to um into the parts of this policy that would intersect with um public records and as a as a librarian and former archivist um I think they would bring a a lot of objectivity to the practice but I worry that there's a whole other part of this policy in this work where we need to really hear from um impacted communities from marginalized folks from folks who have been historically disproportionately impacted by policies like these because yes this is a policy that will provide more transparency about what police are doing but it also is another tool for policing um and so uh the process to my mind really really needs to um include a lot of a lot of people who can bring different perspectives um beyond just the question of how we're going to access this as a public record and so I think that would be maybe that's a question for um Tanya when she joins us as to what extent they would feel comfortable facilitating a process that's really broader than public records simply yep absolutely Barbara okay takes me a minute on mute so lots of states have body cam laws so it might be important for us to see who what bodies did those I do think we need to um set the parameters for it and agree that if we don't give a um a chance for people to really give meaningful input we're gonna have problems the one issue that is I don't think has come up at all unless it came up the day when here we already have police that are using body cameras so they're totally being unregulated right now and that's concerning so it's not all hypothetical about let's get the cameras ready they're being used now and I just want to remind both committees of that thanks Barbara Jim Harrison yeah hi i'm madam chair i'm sorry to be the party pooper here but um we just missed uh explanation and vote on the yield bill coming back from the senate in the capital bill coming back from the senate both of which are important pieces of legislation and i'm feeling like i'm a member of appropriations now who often miss these things so i would just encourage us to if i don't know what else is being taken up on the floor um i just would hate to miss important legislation as we just have i do agree with some of the conversation about convening some kind of stakeholder group um it would be hard for us to establish a policy and stick it into this bill right now um but i do think that conversation needs to continue from various stakeholders good point uh how colston thank you madam chair um i'd like to explore a public private partnership possibly including the secretary of state but a non-governmental um social justice organization that statewide with capacity to convene a process for getting input into development policy all right um so let's uh let's take a pause here at this point um i know that we've gone over into the floor time and many of us would like to be able to participate in that um so let's uh let's go ahead and and call that enough for now recognizing that we need to come back to this issue around development of a body cam policy and we will have time for input on that and committee discussion on that in the in the the noon to two time frame so maxine anything else you want to give people for an assignment to chew on between now and one week reconvene well i i think thinking about an intent for sure um and uh i think some folks have offered to um to think about that so i think that's important and uh right i'm not sure where if you need to get back to the senate or of other um but at some point be great to touch base with you yep i can let me know when is good okay all right email you and um and i um jim um i just want to thank you for bringing us back to uh where we should be on the floor and and um making us mindful of that so i appreciate that so okay on the floor and we'll be back here later