 So it's Thursday July 18th Senate government operations committee continuing our conversation about law enforcement and law enforcement reforms And we've had this conversation quite quite a few times over the last couple of weeks and last night we yesterday we had a good conversation with The folks that were with us and we ended up with a list that jenette put together it's been a chair put together 16 ideas of possibilities possible things that could be in a bill or reform bill. I mean, I don't think we should imagine that we're going to be able to foot 16 things into a reform bill. We have a limited time but what I want to do is start talking about narrowing down to what we think might be priorities. So imagine if there were like three or four or five things that you were going to propose we do first what would they be Allison. I hope you got the document that also has the additional items I added last night. Because the document that that Gail put up it has more than 16. That Because it does have the uniform data collection stuff that that, you know, yeah. Okay, I just wanted to make sure people had that. So who would like this who would like to address the question. I mean we've got a handful of people here. We got James Pepper, Robert Appel, Julio's here, Mark Anderson sure Mark Anderson. And we haven't heard from Robert so it would make might be interesting to hear what Robert thinks of the issues we've identified already. Yeah, I think so too I think that he's had a little bit of a detriment in the sense that he just saw the list about 30 seconds ago but about these issues for a long time. The issues are quite familiar to me. All right so I want to talk to us for a bit Robert. Well, eight and nine are very attractive to me. Eight being central point for reporting allegations first tell everybody who you are. Okay, I'm Robert Appel. I'm a retired state employee engaged in a solo law practice outside of Burlington, Vermont. I was formerly both the executive director and legal counsel for the Vermont Human Rights Commission for 10 years. Prior to that I was defender general for eight plus years. Part of that I was the attorney in the civil rights division of the Attorney General's office. And I can go back but that's plenty. So, as I said these issues are very familiar to me. My practices, primarily civil rights enforcement criminal defense so, and I've worked with several people on the call commissioner Shirley when he was chief here and who we own I've worked together over the years and I don't know James Pepper but I know who he is so and I don't know the sheriff. But otherwise, I think and john and I have talked frequently but I'm not sure we ever met. So, with that said, the central point for reporting allegations of officer officer misconduct, and this has been a longstanding concern of persons who feel that they were mistreated by police, particularly fatalities officer involved shootings with and with dead citizens. It's been a long standing theme that the Attorney General is not well empowered to adequately address those investigations because of it. And we've seen where several houses we all know position is the chief law enforcement officer of the state. So, in many ways, institutionally beholden to law enforcement also has to work with police officers, day in and day out and making criminal cases. At the same time it also has a civil rights division and those two duties don't always align. When you're sitting around the country, the investigation of officer involved shootings. When it's done by chief medical examiner you get one result. When you take it to a private consultant you get another result. And I was involved with the taser deaths, except for your senator Clarkson we members have had Mason. The axon which used to be taser international lobby the chief medical examiner in New Hampshire to add causation that I thought was wholly inappropriate so I think it would be and I've said this over and over again over the years, I think it may be time for to fight the bullet and create an office of inspector general that is truly independent. Beholden that one follows the facts where they go and has the authority to bring charges, criminal charges or compel a law enforcement authority being the AG or the state's attorney in the county where the event occurred to bring charges unless until we get there. I think citizen distrust of internal controls over law enforcement will continue to be lacking. So, that one's a big one for me. Possibility of body cams for all. And Commissioner and Shirley and I had quick exchange on this last week or earlier this week. I do a fair number of criminal cases and all of a sudden where it comes to the key component of a search on a motor vehicle stop. And there's a. There's a state police as you know have cruiser cameras, they don't capture what happens at the roadside with the tamed car. And key moments all of a sudden, the audio goes play now. And sometimes the video goes play. It's not the result of a bonafide technical deficiency. To me, if I were the law enforcement executive, I wouldn't want that officer working for me, because something's going on when that goes off. I think you need external controls to make that a meaningful accountability standard 11 is also attractive to me, because, you know, the legislature in the past 20 years has passed lots of provisions regarding data collection. I'm not sure that it's compelled to analyze that data at this point by any particular agency. I know that my friend and colleagues Stephanie Seglino under partner out for now does that. But and the other agency that does that is the CRG crime research group. But again, they're funded by the state and beholden to powers. And the fact that a department collects data, unless it's analyzed and used, why bother collecting. And in my recollection, there's no requirement that law enforcement executives analyze that and put it to its proper use which is to discern whether there are disparities based on race or other immutable characteristics by a particular officer and then go back review the particular cases and discern whether there is a pattern of discrimination. So, I think there's some more work to be done there. I'll just list this very quickly. Those are the ones that pop out to me 16. I would also commend. We don't need a militarized civilian police force we just don't. I think it really drives a wedge between law enforcement and the people that they serve under the Vermont Constitution, all public officers are accountable to the citizens. And you look nationwide, Ferguson and Michael Brown that was sort of the first awful use of military militarization I could go back to Kent State, May of 70. And you see, so it was President Trump on on June 1 using the National Guard and whoever else we don't know who they were your prison folks to clear peaceful protesters in a public spot in front of the White House. And treating American citizens like they're the enemy. We don't want that. That's not for money. I know that state police last I knew had one armored personnel carrier. I don't know when it gets deployed. I don't know criteria for when it would be deployed. We do have a National Guard that's well funded and well trained and answerable to the governor, who's answerable to the people. I think that's one. Very short on time. I've not had a Robert actually I wouldn't ask the question. We're always short on time but I know that when you talk about a central point for reporting allegations of misconduct and then you said we need an office of Inspector General which of course will be ideal. But let's presume we don't get an office of Inspector General. It is there a place today where those that reporting to take place. Right under present resources. Having been directed to the Human Rights Commission for a decade plus the independent structure of the agency is attractive. Whether the expertise and the resources exists there. You all are familiar with how commissioners are appointed and confirmed by the Senate. They verify your terms and there's no, there's a mix of political parties. And I think that's a fairly independent structure. I mean if you're going to go with something that is presently existing state government. That's where I would leave, but it's going to take additional resources and additional competency within that office. I think about data collection when we had a conversation a couple times we've talked about that and not only is it not using the data problem but the way that is reporting is very not universal. I mean different people are coding things differently, making it that much more difficult to make the use of the information. Right, it's not in an accessible format. It's often posted in PDF which drives analysts crazy. The other, the other component I don't see on this list which we've talked about forever in the building you all used to occupy is data sets that talk to each other. You know between states attorney is what corrections and the courts. There's just no consistency of approach even within law enforcement I know Commissioner Shirley was involved in developing one of two software programs but compatibility is key if we're going to have usable that. And I'm not seeing progress in that area. I think it's a key, a key missing ingredient in trying to get better overall picture as to the various players who are engaged in the criminal justice process to have the same data be able to analyze in order to slice and dice the way they want. It's not my field but it's a constant problem. What about citizen review panels we've talked about that being able to play. Again, something I believe strongly in. In some ways the Commission Human Rights Commission can function in that capacity. When I was there, we took complaints against various police agencies and adjudicated them to the administrative process. That you know there is some degree of citizen. I mean, ultimately, the citizen involvement is 12 to 14 people in a jury box when we used to do that. But that's a very cumbersome process. I'm a firm believer in citizen involvement. I did make a reference to the Vermont Constitution that says internal police are to be beholden to the people, and if we don't have meaningful external review control and accountability. We're not living up to the constitutional requirement. So Clarkson, I didn't get to yours. No, no, they were just it goes to the uniform nature of a number of things. Michael Sherling has has encouraged us to move in uniform policies I mean what some of the policies that that we have are just not uniform so the uniform with the Vermont State police but they're not uniform with police department so let's take something like traffic stops that, you know, Curtis was talking about how inconsistent traffic stops are around the state, and there is a best practice and there's a great model, and yet not everybody uses it. So really create these around a number of things, but just to finish on your compatibility of data, critically important, and then uniform collection and analysis modes that everybody buys into those are, you know, I think there's an overlay and sort of compatibility and uniformity of practice that all the way through this that is important and is missing. It's actually pretty interesting and sort of amazing that we're still in that state of affairs where there's no universal data gathering it's it's really like kind of a no brainer isn't it I mean, come on. One would hope that we have 75 law enforcement agencies we have 14 states attorneys offices. These office we have. You know, courts that don't collect race data. You know, I mean this is 2530 years of conversation that many of you have suffered with us through. So, we were serious about addressing these problems. Those are steps that have to be taken in my humble opinion. Thanks. Thank you for allowing me to speak as you have an I am so appreciate it. Before you depart. I'm going to hang on but I'll set up. Oh, well you don't need to your great resource for us. The one of the issues, you know, again that in some ways goes to uniformity is is is how we train our police officers. Did you have any thoughts about about training and I have plenty of thoughts one thing I'd say about training and I think we've done better in recent decades is go to the Academy and you're trained how you're supposed to do it and then you go in the street and you're trained by people who've done it the way they've done it for forever. So, and again, unless the chief, whoever's the ultimate authority in holding officers to account. You're to maintain an appropriate and uniform practice you need to hold people accountable when they violate policy. And the policies have to be clear. The training has to be clear but the key component to avoid problems is when people don't comply to hold them to account. I think it's been a big debate nationally, the difficulty in the unionized setting and many of our departments are unionized the chiefs Sherling when he was in Broenton certainly contends with that. Contracts are difficult to renegotiate I think that's why folks in many Minneapolis want to disband so they can start from scratch on a collective bargaining agreement. So you don't have to go through 18 steps of progressive discipline to get rid of an officer who should not be an officer. So that's Senator Clarkson. Thank you. Who would like to speak next anybody said. Julio or Mark James. Sarah be happy to talk. I'm happy to wait for others as well, given that I've spoken before this meeting very much. Well everybody who's with us today has been with us before, as far as I can tell. So you don't have to wait. In other words, it's everybody's it's equal opportunity time. Very good. So referencing the list from Senator white. One thing I would like to offer this is actually something we were beginning to work on in my county just based on hearing some of the witness testimony saying, hey we can do that is essentially a civilian review board. I'm calling it my at the sheriff's advisory council, which is something that I was working to do with our community. And put on my department's policies and procedures. Most municipal police permits have a select board who can be that collective elected voice of the people as a sheriff. And that's not a very fun position to be in when you're trying to talk about things you don't necessarily know so we work all up in that. While we do have a review panel as required under our internal investigations policies. I'm looking to actually roll these together. And the combination of the conversation about, well, I think of Senator bray. Going into someone's house to make a complaint about them is difficult so I actually engaged my, my assistant judges to ask them if they would be part of this so that if they're an issue with my agency specifically, I have no, no authority over my assistant judges. I would be able to be an impartial thing. And I also think it adds to the mission of what do assistant judges do in Vermont. I think that the important mission that when we talk about regions, and where does the sheriff and where do the assistant judges fit in so we begin building that already and I'd like to offer that my agency. Can you hear me. Yeah, for a second. Fortunately, someone hasn't muted themselves and I can hear conversation going to the background. We'll try again get Marcus stuck. Okay, I'm going to stop my video as well because I'm not sure if that's hot being a problem but did you hear me offering my agency. Yes, we, yes, we heard that. Okay, so I would like to offer that and see if we could develop a best practice that could be applied across the state. I think it's well received that we need to offer things that aren't law enforcement agencies and I think an elected official such as an assistant judge who is also represented within the judiciary. I think it's a very interesting and unique perspective to be able to provide some of that impartiality. I would love to hear from others. Some of the other witnesses but obviously this is kind of short notice. Not going to speak to all the points. But the one thing I would like to to reinforce is the, the value of the racial equity coordinator on the training council. As a council member I am wholly in favor of that. Commissioner Sherwin and I are also chairing the executive director hiring committee, of which the current director is one of the key members of that. And she has provided some valuable insight already for that. And I just think it's, it's time to do that. Another piece that I want to speak to is the uniform policies for agencies. This has been an area I think Senator White and I agree that it becomes problematic as these are mandated but also for many reasons you've spoken to reasons for having a desirable model policy. One of the two things about policy one is is that training is developed by policy but then training also drives the creation and change of policy. And in Vermont we've had a very unique ability to have standardized training, especially in areas of use of force but in their other areas, because we all use the same academy. If it is the committee's position to establish uniform policies and try and standardize across the state. I, my request would be that we establish policies that are a low enough level to make the, the necessary components while understanding that Essex County and Wyndham County operate entirely differently than Chittman County because I don't have, I have four deputies who patrol 798 square miles or thereabouts. I don't have 95 or 105 officers such as broken PD. So, we necessarily have to adjust because of the rural nature so many areas that we are patrolling. So, I will hold the remainder of my comments for others. And if there's time I'd be happy to jump in on more. Can I go with me just not I can see your head. No, yes, sorry about that. Thank you. So, Mark, I just had a question and I, I fully understand what you're saying about the diversity in terms of, you know, where people are in the state, more rural areas versus the urban areas in Chittman County and how you sort of have to do it differently. But aren't there at least some aspects of policy that could be offered statewide. I mean, we're talking about how people get treated and how professional people are not necessarily how many miles they patrol or how long they are in their rural vehicles. You know what I'm saying I can appreciate that and I understand that every sheriff's department and every local agency and the state police have to have certain differences because of the different things that they're doing but I think what we're looking for is some commonality of the way that people get treated. I don't know how else to say it. I think I do understand what you're saying Senator and I appreciate your perspective there. The, so, going back to training and policy being kind of a chicken and an egg. The Vermont Police Academy does standardize how we do traffic stops the level three Academy in the level three Academy I want to be clear that there's a difference with the level two Academy. Level three Academy. Not only is there the education where they are taught in patrol procedures this is how we stop cars and this is why we tell people the purpose for their stop not ask them the question but tell them the reason. The reason we approach the cars in certain ways are all based on science it's based on their fatalities and motor vehicle crashes are happening when a police officer has stopped a car. The actions about the danger of stuff so that is standardized. And when I heard Curtis mentioned about being asked if he knew why he was stopped. We, my agency specific training that we tell everyone for probably about at least a decade and the purpose for that I'll tell you are recently Timothy McVeigh was stopped for having no license plate he didn't have a real license plate. The officer who stopped Timothy McVeigh he walked up and said do you know I stopped you right. blew up the the federal building. Well, I think you would have a different reason for being stopped and that's fatal for the officer so it's actually an officer safety issue from the Academy's perspective it's an officer safety issue from our perspective. But to the end that you're speaking the differences with the agencies also result in how certain things are conducted. For example, my agency doesn't issue tasers and not for the reason that you might think we don't issue tasers because our feeling was that tasers were a tool that while. It's possible that they could be a lawfully used to deescalate initial incident. We found that deputies rarely ever reached that level, because they used a lot of verbal deescalation techniques, and ultimately we gain compliance, even if it took 45 minutes. Now why is 45 minutes of time important to us. It's about the amount of time my backup might be coming. Knowing that I have backup two minutes down the road versus backup 45 minutes 30 minutes an hour. I'm going to be looking at time as a resource and responding to the. I asked that if a legislative policy were established that they'd be low level and broad enough to get the consistency you're looking for, but broad enough that allows the agencies to deal with the the intricacies and the uniqueness of our areas. Similar to we do with mental health issues. Is there any way you can talk about what you mean by low level I mean I know it's a mean by low level but is there an example or something that you could provide us. Can I think about it for a moment and then try to give you a good example instead of making something up on the spot. Sure. Can I follow up with just another question. So Mark, is there a standardized way to conduct the traffic stop statewide right now, you know, I can speak to the extent of what's trained with the Academy, which is that you stop a car. For whatever reason, we approach the vehicle there's a preferred approach which is what we call a passenger sign approach approach the vehicle you identify yourself you identify your agency, and you would advise the operator the purpose for the stop. That's not a question but it's a statement. There might be follow up questions and those are where we can talk about more advanced trainings that officers across the state receive including criminal drug interdiction, but questions, or as well as DUI detection. What we'll ask to for identifying documents such as a driver's license to registration and the insurance. The officers are encouraged to return to their vehicles though in some some cases, for example, a lot of their officers will just step to the rear of the vehicle, and they'll use a portable radio. My portable radio doesn't work. I have to go get into my car because it's a higher power radio. We return back to the car we process the documents generated or taken or a warning or any other appropriate action from that point, we return to them, we issue the documents return their personal information and personally identifying and send them on their way. I think that that's a generalized version of it but car stops are also a place where there can be a single reason for getting into it and 10 different avenues coming out of it. And you'll have to excuse me but it's not something that I look forward to. I don't think most citizens look forward to getting pulled over because you probably did something wrong or you might have done something wrong but what seemed to sense from Curtis when he was testifying a couple days ago was that the state police seemed if I understood him correctly to have a little bit different approach than a local agency might have. I'm not saying that's true or false but that's what I took him to be saying. So it's it's heartening for me to say or to hear that you say that there is sort of a standard thing to me the first thing you should say is hi my name is and and go from there rather than you know why I stopped you or can I see your license please or something. It seems like if it was standardized. It would be better but maybe it isn't and I don't know that. To follow up on that. This is where I will say that the level to training, not knowing the level to curriculum, because it's only a two week class followed by hands on training. Some of the learning of an officer is in the field. And so the one of the things that is discussed especially in the level to training but also in the level three training. So at the very beginning of the classes, the students are asked how much law enforcement experience do you have and and people are previously certified the length of one but explain the limited nature, and then the instructor followed up with how many cops for live PD. The problem is that there's been some visual enforcement through just watching everybody including watching CSI that might not adequately show true police standard, but we are being educated on that so there's now a need to retrain and reinforce those things, which certainly is the nature of the society we live in and the access to information we have. I mean there's the requirement to read Miranda warnings to custody and when that is required. Some people believe that it's required at the very second that handcuffs are applied which is not true. But we also have to untrain or retrain. You can't untrain it, but we have to retrain, especially people who have the belief from watching shows like that that know this when you do it this is the legal requirement this are the expectations. This is how Miranda is provided and go. So the level two training is. Well I think the financial objectives of getting police officers onto the streets. It also takes a different approach which requires the field training officer to tune those issues. And we're talking about a standard that probably was set within the last 10 years in my agency, and when that was set with the Academy for training, I would say probably relatively in that same timeframe but it might have been lesser time. But it's everybody's if they're getting training in the field and everybody in the field is doing things different ways. It's not a very good fit. The training is going to result in a bunch of people doing things all different ways because the people they're learning from don't necessarily have uniform procedures. Alison did you have your hand up. I did because I'd love to follow up because Brian's question is my question and it Curtis. I mean basically we've heard from other people that actually it may be trained but there isn't uniform policy and how everybody is doing things and it's not just how and if level two isn't trained, they shouldn't be allowed to stop cars and if they're not trained with a uniform policy with the public like they shouldn't be allowed to enact interact with the public. I mean, that it to me the uniform policies are uniform values with which you administer police, a professional police. You're, you're, you're policing duties. So, it is, it's shocking to me that the level two people are able to do that if they haven't actually been taught the uniform policy and uniform policies and everything it strikes you to me is their uniform and who reviews what uniform policies we have and what which ones we don't. So are there uniform policies on search and seizure are there uniform policies on on on so cold are there uniform policies of all these things. And if so, who's responsible for changing them. I mean obviously the legislature isn't going to be involved in every one of those it strikes me the training council overseas setting on uniform policy. Senator waiters of unit or self. Well, I think that the there's uniform policy, and then there's individuals and there are individuals who, regardless of how they're trained to abide by the best practices, and really training around best practices is what's I don't know that there's such a thing as a uniform policy on stops, but there's trained uniform training on it and then I think that that was one of the things that we talked about is that people who are going to go into supervisory positions would be a higher standard there of the characteristics that you're looking for and how you do that because as Anthony pointed out if if you have people train training people in the field on that are doing it in a different way than in the proper in the best practices that and I can tell you that the. I know the Curtis said that the state police always the way they do it is they always say, Hello, my name is so officer so and so and I stopped you because well I want to tell you that that isn't always the case either because I got stopped by the stupid thing I went through one of those things that says don't do this, you know, the, the U turn, and when I would, and he was sitting right there, and I turned right in front of him, and he just walked up and he kind of grinned and said, Do you know why I stopped you. So, and of course I knew why he stopped me, but he. So, in that situation that was okay for him to say that because it was pretty obvious that. So I think that if we get too hung up on. We want to take into account individual situations, and we want people to be trained properly and to do them, but we don't want to make robots out of people. So, I think we need to train them in best practices and they need to actually use their training I actually don't think that they should be allowed to practice it as they want. Robert. Thank you. When we're talking about uniform practices. I talked about earlier, there's policy there's training and then there's accountability. I'm not one to advise officers to have a robotic response when they stop a car. Circumstances very number of occupants in the car time of day weather I mean all that are very. However, there are some fundamental standard procedures dictated by case law, which I'm not sure have been discussed before the committee. There's a relatively recent US Supreme Court case came out in 2015 that said, once the reason for seizing the vehicle blue lighting the vehicle pulling the vehicle over and Senator whites case for making a lawful on the interstate once that situation is cleared. Just to issue the paperwork in connection with that and let the citizen go on his or her her way. I did hear the sheriff talk about 45 minutes for backup and it runs a foul. Some of it, in my view is our draconian approach to possession of drugs and no not warrants and you know. So if you want a dog sniff. I don't know how many canines are in the state they're never there when you need them. You have to detain somebody for extended periods of time. Last I knew an exterior dog sniff doesn't require a warrant. So there are, you know, we are somewhat unique that certainly the geography and practice of our 75 agencies are dramatically different. But I think when you're talking about standardized practices, you have to be familiar with case law. And I know it's a challenge for some departments, but the law to me is clear once the reason for the stop is cleared somebody didn't stop at a stop sign or use a turn signal you write the citation. Once you uncover something independent and objective evidence of additional criminal activity, write the ticket and be gone. Unfortunately, that's not standard practice in what I see in reviewing these cases. So, you know, may I respond to yours and Mr apples comments. Yes, for sure. So to yours and Sarah Clarkson's comments with regards to level two I think it's incumbent to explain some of the process. The, it's a three phase process to get the certification, the first phase being the two week Academy and so while we discuss a patrol procedures instructor will discuss the standard practice. As we all know if you see, you see something 100 times and then you're told something different once that might not be enough reinforcement which is why there's the level two or phase two and phase three portions which are in service training continued to get the certification, as well as one on one supervision by trained field training officer, who's also certified by the council, the FTO, as they're referred to. They go through regular refresher trainings, I believe it's every two years they go through that regular refresher training to maintain their certification, talking about subjects such as updated policies and trainings of the council are covered. So the process of that, it's actually a heavily evaluated program. It uses what's called the San Jose training model, where there's very specific standards that are explained to the trainee there's guidelines I'd be happy to share those with the committee, and they're on a daily basis and the design of the field training program is to go from an unprepared officer to a prepared officer and we use what we call a crawl walk run method. So crawling is usually where the new, the new officer, they are just watching they're observing a veteran officer work. The walking stage is where they have seen enough they're using the radio, they're going to screw up on the radio and that's part of learning is making a mistake. The goal is is that we limit where they can make their mistakes to issues that aren't around, around safety. So saying potato, instead of papa or Paul for the letter on the radio isn't going to, isn't going to cause an issue whereas person deploying a weapon, there's a very different scenario there so the, the level three, the, or I'm sorry the phase three process of field training. We're going to see people make mistakes just as we're going to see level three officers come out and make mistakes, just as we see level three officers make mistakes inside the, the confines of the Academy. It's the mistakes that help us learn. So I can't say that you're even with a standard, a model policy that's uniform throughout the state that you're never going to have an experience like Senator White had, where it's pretty obvious why you got pulled over. It's also not best practice for to deviate from those practices because while I might walk up and say, hey, you have your pilot's license today for somebody who's going so fast or where's the fire. Well, there might actually be something else going on where that that humorous response is is going to cause other issues so to those points. I don't, I can't say that even with a law that we're always going to have it in fact I know that people are going to break laws because that's the reason we have law enforcement is to say people will break the law and we need to do something with that. And why we have a criminal justice system so to acknowledge that standards are there and their best practices I think the training councils and the best place to set those standards. I believe that we have been set, I believe that refreshing that training is currently accomplished. And we are going to see over time people progress that's the purpose of training and continuing education that's why the continued education for all law enforcement officers is now 30 hours each year and that continues on a regular basis. To Mr apples comments that I wanted to be clear that we're, I'm not conflating waiting for backup on a car stop with an unnecessary or unreasonable detention, the 45 minute conversation is if I'm responding to say, report of a fight or domestic assault, knowing that my, my backup maybe 3045 minutes away they're on the way, but I'm going to enter into that in a more cautious way that ensures the protection of my life as well as theirs. On a car stop we're effectuating a car stop in like five to 10 minutes without reasonable cause for a longer detention such as an impaired driver or a bloody chainsaw in the back seat with a black trash bag. So there's certainly different things and that's where we can diverge into a far more cumbersome process on a motor vehicle stop that turns into a criminal investigation. I just want to be clear. We're not detaining people for 45 minutes on a car stop for no reason whatsoever or to even wait for a dog we don't do that. You recognize. Robert. I don't want to debate it with the sheriff but I, I, and digress into, you know, specific events but I have repeatedly videos and red affidavits, where an officer says I detect the minor odor of alcohol. In one case to a closed window. And citizen is detained for extensive periods of time until a, you know, backup or dog or a threat of a seizure if you don't consent vehicles going to be seized. So is that really consent when you consent, because your car is going to be impounded, and you're going to have to walk home like more Zolo. I appreciate professionalism explain to you here today. I'm glad I'm on this conversation because maybe I just see the outliers but I see them. And you talk to other people do the work that I do. They're there. So, I appreciate the work that you're doing. I think it's critical work. I support good law enforcement. Any good officers and unfortunately there are some officers who should be, who should not be doing not exercising the power that we all trust them in. And I think until we promote accountability, we've talked about policy and training, but I'm not hearing the third leg of that store, which is accountability. So, you know, citizen training are good, but unless you show people that you mean it, and you're able to move people out for don't comply with policy practice and law, we're going to continue to have outliers. And let me just say when I've gone through this list when I was not talking there's three more things I would recommend to you, which is 11. You know, data collection required policies prevent people from going to the Academy so you don't have agencies getting additional officers I mean as you know the Academy is the only way you get full times or part time certification so an agency doesn't comply there's some leverage that's in terms of accountability. Yes, adding the executive director of racial equity, the training council makes sense. The training council has since its inception been overloaded with criminal justice professionals and 15 is key I don't know how I read by it. I spent a lot of my last 40 years trying to get dispatch and police agencies, not respond to mental health crisis with a uniformed officer, who is equipped with various tools of force. So, thank you again for your tolerance and letting me. Thank you. Commissioner Shirley are you still with us do you want to make any comments. Hey good afternoon. I am not exactly sure where to start. I agree with the, the vast majority of points have been made by everybody who's testified today. Robert and I have talked about this for years. In terms of prioritizing the notes that are here. I think these are all areas where we should be working to make progress which ones are best in legislative purview. I think I again go back to the concept that if the legislature is able to provide us with a directive construct to, to create uniform policy procedure and capacity to do the top, whatever three five seven things that you identify. Without being specifically prescriptive on exactly how to do it. We are poised to engage the community statewide and come back to you with significant progress I think before the end of this year with many things being fully deployed. I think the important point for allegations certainly should not be difficult to stand up difficulty of course becomes where they go from there. This committee has started to explore various models on, on oversight and accountability, potentially regionally. I think that's an area that's going to take a little bit longer but it's important not to lose the momentum there. And you know beyond that I don't know how much time to take going line by line here through through all of these. I think most of them are addressed in our draft 10 point plan which of course as I've mentioned and I want to reiterate requires additional community engagement before it is fully vetted. Sure. Okay. I want to check in with the committee a little bit in terms of timing. I know Brian had talked earlier about needing to move on after a bit. I'm just wondering, give me a minute. I had a caucus scheduled actually with the governor but I blow it up. I chose to stay here because this was more important to me today and I'm certainly grateful that his office understood that. I just, maybe I could ask Senator White a question who sits in judiciary and there's a bill there or at least they're working on similar kinds of legislation. And get her guidance on how much of this are we going to try to put in one of our bills. Is it going to be three items is going to be for is it going to be a lot of studies. I'm still trying to get my arms around, you know the work that we're trying to get accomplished in a in essence in a week. Oh, and you can't talk to us. Okay. That's okay. You know, anyway, that's where I am. You know, you're muted. Am I the only one talking to yourself Brian. Brian, you ask a good question, which is, sort of, I'm unclear on what our charges here. And I think there are things we could ask the department to go forth and work on we could ask, you know, we can ask for some very specific things. I think we need to be sort of clear on what we're putting in on and what our charges. Yeah, I agree. I'm sorry, John flowers. You're muted. John you're muted. Okay, hopefully I'm there now. Thank you. Thank you so much for this additional opportunity. You should have received a letter from Senator white from the New England First Amendment Coalition we just wanted to note our support of that document. In terms of the points that are laid out. We have a couple. We would really like it if the officers going through the police academy, could be to take a minimum of two to three hours of First Amendment and media relations training. There are such issues as the right to free speech the right to assemble free press right to redress to events that those types of things. And that could even tie into a couple hours on how to address or talk to the public, especially those of color, or from an international setting. So, are not crazy about the notion of being able to redact any any of the footage from police body cams we think that, you know, what what is laid bare should be laid bare for everyone. And when an officer portrays a public trust. And those allegations are substantiated we'd like to see those be made public. And I know there have been perhaps occasions where someone has been allowed to resign without the issues coming to the for we would prefer that that, you know, any proven claims be sub that are that are substantiated be be brought into public view. Those are some of the points we'd like to mention. About uniformity and and accountability seems. Who did you say you're talking on behalf of those. I'm sorry the Vermont Press Association. Okay, that's what I thought I just wasn't sure. Allison. Yeah, I'm just curious. The training. When you talk john about about the officers. Also, training training. I mean, do we. Do we make recommendations to the training council, or do we charge the training council with creating best practices and uniform policy and who whose job is it in some ways to do all the things that we're asking the allegations and the accountability. I think clearly we've got to figure out what the best place before we have an inspector general. What's our best interim step on that, because that's critically important. But the rest, you know, we make recommendations but there is the body that is responsible for constructing the curriculum for training. And so should we be making legislation recommendations or we should be sending a letter, one of our gov ops letters to the training council and saying, you know, after much discussion these are our suggestions for you to, to, to move on and not. I'm sort of a loss here where does in some of these cases where to direct, because some people are already responsible for doing some of this stuff. And that actually comes with the certification. Right, Senator white. So, I'm sorry I was out of formation there for a little while and I might be again but we do mandate certain training. And the problem is is that, as Chris Bray has pointed out we have a box of time. And they knew training, something has to move out. So I think that what we are looking at is, and one of the lists, one of the things on that list was asking the training council, along with other people to review what it is that's in their training. And, and what needs to be there and what needs to be there for everyone. For example, marks, Sheriff Anderson's comment about, does he really need search and rescue training, because he doesn't do search and rescue. We, we need to have the training council, along with others, review what it is that there is necessary for them, and what can be done in the field and what can be done in continuing education units. That was one of the recommended one of the things on the list here but yes we mandate training we mandated domestic violence training we mandated fair and impartial policing training we mandated. And every time we do. We bump something else out of out of there. Right now I realize. I thought you were asking who. Well, no, I, but with all the things that we're talking about now. I mean, do we begin as broadly as asking the training council to review what they're doing and to take in into consideration incorporating these other high priority issues. Well, I think did everybody get the list of, yeah, I think it was. Yep. Okay. We've been talking about it. Okay, and I apologize. Okay, we hope you did brilliantly on 124 and approach. Oh, I didn't, but Betsy did. So, um, I was hoping that, and I realized that this, these invites went out late today, but we are under some time constraints, and this was going to be our topic for the last week and a half so people were surprised by an invite that seemed to be late. I apologize. We are and and Senator column or to your what what judiciary is doing is looking at a ban on the on chokehold, which we're having a great deal of discussion about because it's already and not an accepted practice. So we're banning something that's already not accepted. We're looking at data collection. And so I think we don't need to look at data collection because that's in the in that bill, and then the use of force is what they're looking at there and training around use of force and what is use of force and there's a great deal of discussion about different types of use of force. And as Mark likes to point out, the mere presence of a uniform can be considered force. So need to look at that but that's what judiciary is doing. And it makes some sense for us to focus on Wait, Brian had a question yet is I'll yield to Senator break because he hasn't had a chance to say much today. I'm not raising my hand. I'm listening mode. Okay. Well, I just wanted to point out one of the bills that we did pass today I don't remember whether it was second or third reading had to do with the mental health piece that we've been talking about as well. I don't think we need to talk about that because I think that's already going to get taken care of. Right. We still could we can make recommendations about training. I think that would be appropriate. You know that could be integrated into the judiciary bill. I think that we can take a look at some of the issues that we're concerned about. And here was here I think is the, the, the, the in talking with the, with Senator Ash, the way anything we come up with will not go into the judiciary bill, it will be an amendment to 124 from our from this committee. So it'll be a floor amendment from this committee to 124. And that is the, the most reasonable way to do this right now. And I think there are some specific things that we can put in there and then asking for a lot of, you know, Susanna Davis was with us the other day and what she said was, don't make final decisions about something that is about issues that are really complex and need a lot of community input. It's more important to get to set up the, the pathway forward for them and let them come back with specific recommendations and get it right rather than rush into something so I think that's what we're thinking about here is there may be specific things, but there may be other other things that we're just setting up a pathway and telling people go do this just like we did when we asked them to come up with alternative methods of moving from level two to level three and alternative methods of the CAD of the training itself so I think that's what we're doing mainly Anthony. I have a question for Senator White as membership won't judiciary. I've been following from a distance. H 808 I think it is which is regarding use of force and whether it should be in accord with US Supreme Court policy that the only thing that's in general use of deadly force is the last few seconds before an officer is deadly force. I see that our AG has come around and is now advocating for a reasonableness standard. Is that in the judiciary bill is the Senate working on that issue I think it's a very critical issue in connection with what we're not dealing with the with those bills it's all in is to 19, which is a set of bill. Yeah, everything is kind of being put in there. Okay, the reason I raise it and digger did a series on this in the last decade we've had a plethora of officer involved fatal shootings and it's awfully hard to put smoke back in the bottle on that but in order to prevent further harm. I think it makes sense to hate and personal responsibility when an officer overreacts to particular set of stimuli. I would bring it to the Senate's attention to speaking to gov ops and you to share I just hope it doesn't get lost in the work you're all the good work you're doing. Thank you. Yeah, I, we're talking about a reasonable standard and necessary standard. And it's, and it is, it is quite complicated. And I just, and I know we have some bad actors out there but I think that for the most part, we had a long, long, long discussion this morning on use of force, and drew broom, who's the one of the use of force instructors who talked about what what they teach and, and how to use it and when to use it and, and so you, it's hard to know how anybody's going to react when they're in a situation where they feel threatened and somebody's coming at them with a knife or whatever it is. So I think we need to make a perceived weapon as we see nationwide. No, no, I'm not talking about just a perceived weapon. I'm talking about a real weapon and or a perceived weapon, I guess, but so I, I think that what we need to do is make sure that we continue the kinds of training that we are doing and improve. That's why it says review the, the, the training council, along with others should review what's actually in the training and what, and I think that I think that the commissioner was very clear that that's, they're looking at alternative methods of doing it how do you do it do we do some training and then an internship and then training and then so I think that we need to just ask them to look at that I don't see. You know, we're asking about what we're going to focus on. I think we really, I think it's, it's increasing. We should focus on train on accountability and figure out what how what we want to do around accountability. And I think we need to focus on training. It's our area, it's, it's where it's our jurisdiction, how we improve officer training and the racial equity director on the training council, we can do that and anything around uniformity. It sounds like the data collection uniform issues are being dealt with in judiciary but we have the issue of uniform policies and encouraging uniform best practices being taught. So I don't know where that that may go into the training of and the training council bucket but I think those are the kind of the three things we could do right now is figure out what we want to do around accountability we've had some good questions and I think we have some interim measures before we create yet another new office, which maybe at this point, you know, even though all of us would like to have an inspector general I don't think it's about to happen immediately. But I think anyway I think we can do things in those three areas. Right now. Could I ask a question. Sure. Where did the idea for an inspector general come from. Rob Appel mentioned that we were talking about a need for an independent place to report right on accountability and our discussion on accountability. The regional citizen review boards that the human rights commission in between but really the ideal would be to have an inspector general but Roberts here and he can tell you. But we also, we also followed up by saying suppose we couldn't have an inspector general what would be the next best thing given current resources. Right. And what is that human right. I'll find out later. Human rights. Human rights commission was mentioned, although they're not sure they have the resources but they're presented to do to do what to be a place where there are allegations allegations reports of this possible misconduct to be reported. It's not coming up for third reading or anything yet don't worry. No. Chris, Chris pray. Yeah, so, you know, I, we all search for chatting via email a little bit over the last 24 hours. I still have that concern center white just brought it up again and way, you know, about making sure that the right people are included in the conversation at the right time, which I would say is from the outset, you know that there's that saying, which I'm not going to be able to quote quite right which is, you know, nothing, nothing about us without us and right. So I know we're, we're treading this fine line of feeling a desire and pressure to respond in a timely way. And then we know what we're talking about is long term reform with a lot of subtlety to it so yeah, I appreciate that we're struggling with that and I just want to make sure we don't sort of fall into the trap of getting a little too fast and getting off in the wrong foot. I don't know about anybody else but I'm running out of gas if we fast. Yeah, to say it's 20 to five. I think we could call it a day soon. Yeah. So we have 20 minutes to we're back on the floor for the next three hours so it's a snack. It's a joke. Good. Nobody thought it was missed something. But what we need is another three hours of floor. So, yeah, that is hand up. Yeah, I, I was just going to echo the point that's been made in different contexts I was hearing two different things so on the issue of accountability like what do we do now. This is a bit of a repeat of my testimony the other day about different models of oversight but there are a lot of different ones, even an inspector general model there are at least three different types of inspector generals. And you have to decide what sort of complaints get there. If someone says, I, you know, I'm innocent. Is that an allegation of police misconduct or is that a defense so. And the way that, you know, none of them are perfect but the more successful models involve a lot of research and looking at what other boards or models do and asking them what works for them and what doesn't. And working with the community management, labor, everybody who's involved and picking the model or as is is increasingly common overlapping models where you have an inspector general or an auditor and something else. So I had on raised my hand because I just heard someone talking about not about us without us which was, I'm hearing a fair amount of that and I understand it's the last few days of the session and I'm hearing concerns for people who aren't here today, who couldn't be here today that they're worried that something's going to be etched in legislation and cut off those choices so. Right. Good point. Yes. So when in these notes that I sent out when it said review the policies and stuff it didn't mean for us to review them, but it meant was to require a review of all of those policies and all of those guidelines by whether it's whether we ask it be done by the training council along with the Human Rights Commission, along with whoever, but that's so it wasn't us doing a review and coming up with suggestions. I don't think there was consensus about how that was read so I'm happy to pass that on. Thank you. Right. I mean that was my question to Jeanette last night which is who is reviewing it I assume that in the training council would be reviewing the things we ask them to review and the other body. Yeah I think that it would be reviewed along with stakeholders and can and the communities that are affected. Right. I also think it's important what was just said about getting a lot of input I mean we've been working on this and we tend to hear from the same voices. There are people who continue to show up which is a good voices and I'm glad they're showing up but there's other people are clearly not showing up for whatever reason and we just have to be aware of that. Holy hell. Who would you, how would you conduct a review an appropriate review on accountability statewide. I mean, where would you charge. Who would you charge with that work. I think I've talked enough to enough people to have a view. I mean, sometimes that there are different ways it's done sometimes. There are outside auditors who conduct what's called a gap analysis so they identify what the existing goals or standards are and then they measure where practices are and see how big the gaps are and what it would take. There are options there are to fill them. Sometimes that's done by community based task forces or pay task forces working in parallel. I don't, I didn't come here today with an eye with a particular idea of mine because what I've learned from other places is that you have to talk to a lot of people and hear their ideas about what they think works because some places are is a solution that works in an urban area and maybe not places like Vermont so right. I'm sorry I don't have the answer off right now. I think it's just because I we I and I think we need to talk to a lot more people and a broader range of people that was just noted right and Robert may have ideas on this too but I think that's one of our questions is who do we charge with reviewing what the appropriate accountability is for Vermont. We can, we can, I'm sorry. I don't have the answer to that one, but I do want to take the opportunity to thank you all for allowing me to participate today thank you, Senator white for sending out the invite I'm a member of the BSPs fit committee and that's how I got it and I appreciated the opportunity to share my thoughts with you today and so you could hear and consider them before you act and yes it's important to get stakeholder, but you have to balance that with the need to act, as you all know, so just in your work, and if I could be of any further help you know how to find will be intense. Thank you, Robert. And, and just for your information this morning in judiciary we heard very distinct at now do something it's really important. It's better to get it right. So don't act in haste. So there isn't, there really isn't. There's a single voice on what we should do right now and what we should put off and how we should do it so we just have to use our best judgment. You know that's why they pay you the big bucks. Thanks for reminding us of that. My pleasure. Okay. I'm ready to turn over your turn.