 And then welcome to remind House Judiciary Committee and we are continuing our discussions on S1 19. And we all should have draft 4.1, as well as a side by side. And thank you again Bryn for for getting us to a so yesterday. So I think what I'd like to do, we are going to as we had planned to take a vote today, but I'd like Bryn to to walk us through 4.1. And just briefly tell us what is what's here what you know, for the most part what isn't here and just so we so we're clear on what we'll be voting on. Okay, sure thing. Should I get started. Is it I know, I know you emailed it to us, but just wondering if it's on our page also. It is. Great. Thank you. Sorry, that was for Bryn, but I just pulled it up so I knew that it was there. So good morning committee for the record Bryn here from legislative council. Does the committee have a preference. My plan was to walk through the, the amendment itself as opposed to the side by side. Okay. Yes. Yeah, that's great. Yeah, thank you. So it is a clean version of draft 4.1 of your amendment to S1 19 so I don't doesn't have the typical yellow highlighting in it so I'm just going to draw your attention to the changes that you made based on the last draft that you went through which was 3.5. So, I'll start on page one. Nothing changed here. You remember that you talked about. You did talk about the definition of force but didn't wind up making any changes to that. So the first changes at the top of page two and this is actually a part of the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury definition. So, if you recall there, the, that definition initially ended with the word instantly confronted and addressed. So, if that if a, if a threat was imminent, it can't just be a there can't just be a fear of future harm it has to be a has to be a harm that has to be immediately addressed and confronted that's how the committee changed those words as opposed to instantly confronted and addressed and if you recall that was related to that change was made to more closely align those words with jurisprudence regarding imminent threat so we changed that to immediately and then you just swapped the order of addressed and confronted. So the change is a little lower down on that page, the definition of prohibited restraint draft 3.5 removed the word may from that definition so it read the use of any maneuver that applies pressure to the next throat wind pipe or carotid artery that prevents or hinders breathing that you had some discussion about that and we've reverted back to the original definition there and that's also the definition that pass in S2 19 earlier in the summer. So that's consistent with how it was in S2 19. The next change that you made I'm just going to keep rolling through unless I see people with questions is in the totality of the circumstances definition you added a few words there on line 11. So it means the conduct and decisions of law enforcement officer leading up to the use of force, and then all facts known or reasonably available to the law enforcement officer at the time. So that was based on a conversation. I believe it was the Attorney General's Office about wanting to include some specific directive that it had to include sort of what reasonably should have been known to the officer at the time not just with the officer actually did know. So to make that abundantly clear, we added those words are reasonably available to the law enforcement officer at the time. So now I'm going to, that's it for the definition section. There are some changes in subsection be use of force. The first one I believe is on page three bottom of page three is a subsection five. And that is that language that represents alone substituted for the former language that was there about whether the subjects conduct was the result of some sort of impairment, or language barrier or limitation. And if you recall this language was the version of this language was in 3.5 but this language was the substitute language offered by representative alone. That provides that if a law enforcement officer knew or reasonably should have known that the subjects conduct was the result of one of these factors. The officer has to take that into account in determining whether or not to use force on a subject or the amount of force that's appropriate to use on that subject. That's new language there from the last draft. So that that's it for the changes to subsection be I'm going to move on now to subsection see the use of deadly force. So I'm on page five now. Subsection three under sub subdivision be our C. So this is the language that law enforcement officers have to stop using deadly force once the subject is under the officers control. So the wording here has been changed a little bit in order to make it more closely aligned with the actual standard for law enforcement use of deadly force. So we provide the deadly force has to cease as soon as the subject is under the officers control, or no longer poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer. So that makes that language more closely aligned with the standards set out and see one a and see one B. And then the last change is something that's not there. The last change to the standards for law enforcement use of force. Subdivision eight is no longer there on page five that was that language that provided some some explicit language about law enforcement not using losing the right to self defense or the defense of just fable homicide as long as their use of forces and compliance with this these standards. So instead what you've done is you've made the change that you see in section two. So that subdivision eight is gone, but instead we have some new language in section two, which you'll see on page six. This is the justifiable homicide statute. You remember you made quite a few changes to update this statute, and also you amended subdivision three on page six. So this is a new language that applies to law enforcement. So it provides it of a law enforcement officer who wounds or kills someone shall be guiltless in the case of law enforcement, using force and compliance with the standards as set forth in 20 vs a 2368 B to four and five, or the use of deadly force and compliance with 20 vs a 2368 C one through four. And we went through those specific subdivisions yesterday. I don't think we talked about. We talked about see the use of deadly force, what those provisions refer to exactly. I don't think we talked about be so much because we've added these this is a little different than what we talked about. So we're cross referencing the use of four standard in B to that's the standard, and then be four and five. And five are just to remind you that substitute language that we just talked about law imposing that burden on law enforcement to consider whether or not a subject's conduct is due to those factors outside the subjects control. And four is that language that talks about when law enforcement officer, a decision by a law enforcement officer to use force is objectively reasonable. And it has to be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation based on the totality of the circumstances so it kind of puts some parameters on that objectively reasonable analysis. I know I'm going pretty quickly but does that does that make sense. And I'll move on from that justifiable homicide, unless I see some questions. Okay, so no changes to section three. This is just a reminder section three repeals the repeals that to 19 put into place. So if you remember to 19 repealed the new crime of law enforcement use of prohibited restraint in July of next year. We've repealed that repeal. So it will essentially the that new crime will no longer sunset next July. And then to 19 also repealed that subdivision three of justifiable homicide on the same date. And we've repealed that repeal since this bill as well 19 amends that language in justifiable homicide statute. Sorry about my phone ring. I'm on page seven now. This is the next change to the draft is on page seven. This is the new section that provides the directive to DPS. This report to the standing committees. Honor before February 2 of next year about their development of that uniform statewide law enforcement use of force policy as directed by the executive order. And it specifically says that that report has to include both information about the process that was undertaken by DPS and the executive director of racial equity, including a list of the community representatives and stakeholders that were included in the process. The number of times that the stakeholders all met, and any opportunities given for public comment or participation and the outcome of that process. And then finally, the actual final proposed policy. So I think that you went over I don't think I was with the committee when you went over that language initially yesterday but that's the same language that you looked at yesterday that was posted to your committee webpage. Section five is the effective date section and you've changed the effective date for the standards set out in section one to July 1 of 2021 and you talked about that, giving some time to law enforcement to adjust their, their training to the new standards set out for their use of force. Excuse me Barbara. I just want to make sure I understand so nothing in this bill will take effect before July 1. So if somebody used deadly force before July 1 but after this bill passed. They wouldn't be subject to anything in this. Right so the standards, the standards don't take effect until July. That's right so that wouldn't be impact. The outcome of that wouldn't be impacted until July when those standards take effect. Okay thanks I kind of thought so but just wanted to add that. Thank you for that question because it made me realize I do think that we should also include section two in this effective date this I think section two should also take effect. July 1 because if you remember that's the section that amends justifyable homicide to line up with the new standards. So I think it might make sense to make delay that effective date as well to July when the standards take effect. Sorry about that. Just noticing that and it isn't it isn't appropriate to say, while this doesn't take effect until then. This is what the legislature expects like I just would hate to mean, I don't know. I hate to see deadly force use between now and end July 1 in some way, and not have been able to impact that. Can I respond to that real quickly. Well Selena had her hand up. Yeah, she's going to respond to that. I'm actually my question program is a little different. So I think it might make more sense. So, so the main thing is that there are standards that are to be in place they're there in the case law, the second circuit and Vermont. And again, our standards are not that different from what is currently in case law is my understanding the brain can confirm that it's not like we're doing radical changes we are codifying that. And I think we're clarifying some parts, but it's not like they're standard list until until July 1. I would agree with that I would say that there, I do think there's an incremental shift away from the from the established case law about use of force by adding the word necessary. But, you know, I agree that there's many parts of, of these standards that do codify existing existing case law about law enforcement use of force. Selena. And just aspirant if you could remind us which of the, because I think there are a number of provisions in S2 19 that go into fact, some next month right with the October 1 effective date. So, I guess I'm sort of seeing that we are making it's not like we're not making any progress until July 1 we're allowing officers to train, you know, giving them a fair shot at training to these standards but there, there is, there are some big shifts coming in the interim so can you just remind us what those are. So that the new crime regarding law enforcement use of a prohibited restraint. And also the, if you remember that language that was added to the unprofessional conduct chapter of title 20 that provided that the use of a prohibited restraint was considered unprofessional conduct. So, failure to intervene and report if an officer observes another officer placing a person in a prohibited restraint or using excessive force. All of those provisions take effect on October. I'm just confirming that that's true. It takes effect on October 1 or September 1 so part, either they're already in effect or they will take effect on October 1. And also the requirement about equipping officers with body cameras takes effect on October 1. And can you remind me, because in S2-19 I think we had a repeal of the right, a portion of the justifiable homicide statute that we're actually here amending to point back to these use of force and use of deadly force standards so can you remind me where, when and how that is slated for repeal in our, in the loss that we've already passed. Yeah, so 219 sort of put a sunset on both the new crime of prohibited restraint law enforcement use of prohibited restraint, and also that subsection three of the justifiable homicide statute. Both of those were scheduled to sunset in July of next year in 219. But this bill, one, your amendment here in section three repeals both of those sunsets. So, yeah, okay. I appreciate that. That's very helpful. Just keep track of all that. So, so Brandon, in terms of adding the effective date, would it be something like section one standards for law enforcement use of force and section to exactly I would just add that and section to justifiable homicide. She'll take effect on July 1. And if it's helpful and I know the committee's on a timeline if it's helpful I can just make that change, save it as a new draft and send it to Lori and the committee now. Sure. Great. Tom your hand is up I'm sorry. See it. That's right. It just went up. Section two right at the end of section two on page six lines 10 through 13. Is that what we passed earlier in the year and put the sunset on for anyone. I'm sorry here here I am section two lines. Tell me again the lines you're talking about. The end of page the end of section two on page six lines 10 through 13. Is that what we passed earlier in the year and put the sense sunset on for further discussion. So you didn't you're making that amendment to subsection three in this bill. So you to 19 didn't amend this language it just put a sunset on the original language the struck through language. And then you put the sunset on that. So we're taking a word repealing that sunset, because instead of sunset in this section, you've changed it. So it's no longer potentially unconstitutional language and instead divides that law enforcement provides a defense for law enforcement as long as their use of force and deadly forces and compliance with the new standard that you've created in this. Okay. So I can try to understand it a little more. So this is what we passed earlier in the year for the new, the new crime around police officers has been I guess eliminated more or less and we amended it to this new language. So the new crime is is still there in 2019. Okay. So what 2019 did is, you put a sunset on that new crime, and you put a sunset on this defense. Yeah, with the idea that you would return to it. Think more about it. In either this session or the next session. So what you've done in this bill is you've, if you remember you've had, you, you had the new crime in this bill a few times. Think about how to handle the defense. And what you've settled on here is in the justifiable homicide statute, amending that language rather than sunsetting it to provide a defense for law enforcement if they use deadly force or or force as long as it's in compliance with those standards that you've created in section one, and specifically those standards for deadly force see one through four. So it doesn't include the provision in subdivision see about the prohibited restraint. So as long as a law enforcement officer is using force and compliance with C one through C one through four, then they can use the justifiable homicide defense as a defense. Okay, great. Thank you. And so the struck languages is what was potentially unconstitutional. And that's, that's taken out here and so that's why that's part of the reason why we don't need to repeal it because we took it out here. That's right. Exactly. Thank you. Right. Martin. So, I didn't really have a question I'll know if we're at the point that there's just one point that I wanted to make and it's a broader point as opposed to any kind of specific language. And I'll know if we're ready for that kind of discussion now or if I should hold off, make sure that nobody else has other questions about the bill itself. Yeah, why don't we see if there are any questions pertaining to, to this traffic. You're suggesting an amendment. Is that where No, it's, it's, it's a timing issue and it's almost an issue for for us of why we should pass this now. And hopefully the message will get to the Senate of why we should pass this now. Let me before we do that, let me see. See any other questions and Okay, and then bring let us know when, when you're ready with the next draft. Go ahead, Martin. It's a relatively straightforward point. The policy making process is kicked off already with the governor's executive order and even before that I know that DPS has been working on a policy. So if we postpone putting these standards into place, the policy is going to be getting developed without the guidance of the standards that we want it for use of force and use of deadly force. So I think it's critical just timing wise that we get these standards out so that this policy development process that's already kicked off has these standards to guide it. And hopefully that message definitely gets to the Senate for why we shouldn't be postponing action on this bill. Coach. I would support that. It's, it is a technical concern, as far as process. And without those guardrails for them to frame their work, we could end up in a situation that none of us are happy with. So I would support. Martin suggestion. Yes, Tom. Yeah, I'm just wondering if we're going to go over the side by side. Would you like to we can. Yeah. Yeah, I would. Yeah. And we are, we are stopping at 915. But yes, okay, so I did just send the committee the draft 5.1. The only change about draft is the fix and the effective dates to make section to the justifiable homicide statute effective. And we're going to do the same time as the standards take effect, which is July 1 and next year. Great. Thank you. And Lori, if you could post it as well, that'd be great. Okay, so, yes, Bren, if you could walk us through the side by side. Sure. So the side by side. So that's the version we just made. So that's the version we just made. So that's the version of the draft. So it compares the Senate passed version to house judiciary draft 4.1. So that's the version we just walked through, again, the only change from draft 5.1. Is the change in the effective date. So I tried to highlight every all of the differences between the drafts. There are a couple of places where it's tricky and there's not highlight because essentially the language was just rearranged. So section one, you can see that you've changed the. You've changed the title of this new section of law to be standards for law enforcement use of force, rather than a statewide policy about law enforcement use of deadly force since you've expanded it to include use of force as well. You added the definition of force to mean the physical coercion employed by law enforcement to compel a person's compliance with the officer's instructions. The imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury is largely the same, except for the change that you made in the last sentence which you see on the next page. That's page two. It's a threat that must be immediately addressed and confronted as opposed to instantly confronted and addressed. The definition of law enforcement officer and prohibited restraint remains the same definition on page four of totality of the circumstances we've got some changes here. The, the significant changes to include that clause about whether a medical condition or some other type of impairment. Or other factor beyond the subject's control is interfering with the subject's ability to understand or comply with law enforcement commands has to be explicitly a part of the analysis of what the totality of the circumstances is. And then I'm on page five now you can see use of force. You've changed that subdivision heading to use of force as opposed to statewide policy, because you get into some more specifics about the standard for law enforcement use of force generally. I'm sorry, I can looks like you have a question. Yeah, way back at the beginning I'm sorry but right at the very beginning section one where the Senate has, I thought that word policy is a big deal when we're talking about different things like policy is in on the Senate side but it's not. We have standards for law enforcement. Why don't we have standard policy. Why is it that word in there. So, if you remember you change that wording to make it clear that what you were what you were doing in the statute wasn't setting forth a comprehensive policy policy is typically a much more comprehensive set of directives. And what you're doing here is instead creating sort of a floor of standards for law enforcement use of force set out in statute so you're not. You're not creating that that a long more fleshed out policy that law enforcement is going to do for themselves in section four. Thank you. Yeah right and again that's because with the governor's executive order that is already in play and started out and also as 124 addresses that as well. So, thank you. So, if I'm now on page five. This is subdivision be to this is the language that sets out the standard for law enforcement use of force. The language looks different from the Senate version but it's much of it comes from the Senate version be five. We've also added some language on page six. So law enforcement may use this force to achieve any other lawful law enforcement objective. So the this that language sort of provides for an expanded set of circumstances under which law enforcement may use force as long as it's in compliance with the standard so as long as it's objectively reasonable and necessary and proportional. So page seven subsection four. This talks about the decision by law enforcement to use force whether it's objectively reasonable has to be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer. And then we've added a sentence the House version adds a sentence that law enforcement's failure to use feasible and reasonable alternatives to force. And then we've added a sentence for whether it's used with it was objectively reasonable, adding some more parameters there. Just real quickly just to have help folks remember and remind me if tell me if I'm wrong about that this is language that and Donahue had suggested right. Is this that language. It's very similar to the language she suggested. Yes. So now I'm moving down to page eight and you'll see the Senate version on the left hand column five is highlighted. It doesn't appear in the same place but again, you've moved it to subsection b2, which is the law enforcement standard for use of force. Your subdivision subsection five middle column is new language. And that's what we just went through in draft 4.1 that language about imposing a duty on law enforcement to take into consideration. The information regarding whether or not a subject's conduct is due to a factor outside of this outside of his or her control. That's new from the Senate version. I'm on page nine now. So subsection six in the middle column. This is language that provides that a law enforcement need not retreat or desist from their efforts. And she'll not be deemed an aggressor or lose their right to self defense by the use of proportional force if it's necessary in compliance with the standards. So that language is also in the Senate version, but they had it under subsection C. You moved it here to be to make it clear that this applies to all law enforcement use of force and not just their use of deadly force. So I'm scrolling down here to page 10. Now we're in the use of deadly force section subsection section C. So you see some highlighted words there in the left hand column about what the officer reasonably believed. And that was removed in your version of C one. Just because that is really redundant language, because it's that reasonable belief languages within the definition section which governs this whole this whole section of the policy. And apart from that, that's the only difference between C one Senate version and house version. So I'm scrolling down to page 11 now. Subsection to on page 11 the use of deadly force is necessary. This is that language that describes what the word necessary means in context of law enforcement use of deadly force standard. So if you remember this language was in the California bill as it was introduced it was taken out. It was passed. But, again, I believe you heard from several witnesses including will to wait that this definition or explanation of the word necessary was a was a critical piece scrolling down now to page 12. You see that new language in subsection three that we just talked about when law enforcement officer has to cease the use of deadly force. That language is also not found in the Senate version. And then top of your bottom of page 12 middle of page 13 you see those subdivisions four and five are highlighted. Those are the sections that say that law enforcement can't use deadly force on a person based on the danger that that person poses to themselves. And when feasible law enforcement has to identify themselves prior to using force, those sections both exist in the Senate version they're just swapped in order. There's a section number there. And then page 14 you see on the left hand column subdivision for again that language has just been rearranged and put moved up to section be six in the house version. And then now I'm on page 15. Here's the provision about prohibited restraint. The only change to the that you made in the house version is to split that subsection five into two separate subdivisions. Does that make sense. I'm going to keep going if everybody is okay. So section to here's the justifiable homicide statute. Senate version didn't include this, the justifiable homicide statute. So what you've done in this bill you've done that work to update the statute and modernize it and also provide the enforcement use of force that's in compliance with those standards that you've created in section one. And then I'm scrolling down to page 18 section three. Again, here's the repeal of those sunsets of the prohibited restraint crime as it applies to law enforcement and the justifiable homicide statute from us to 19. Senate version didn't deal with that. So your version does. And then lastly section form on page 19 now. This is that directive to DPS and the executive director of racial equity to report to the standing committees on their work to create a uniform statewide use of force policy. That's directed by the executive order. And again the Senate bill doesn't, you know the executive order hadn't been released yet at the, at the time the Senate worked on the bill. So that is also different from the Senate version. And then lastly the effective dates are on page 21 last page. Let's remind you that the one change here is that your effective dates will read section one and section to justifiable homicide statute and the standards for law enforcement use of force both will take effect on July 1. So that's a little different than the October date set out in the Senate version. And again, you have moved back that date to give some time for the DPS to create and the executive director of racial equity to work on that uniform policy. So, as you can see there, there are the changes are well I won't comment. Great. But, well, thank you. That's helpful and thank you time for asking to go to go through that. So. Okay, any questions. Tom, there you go. No questions but I didn't know if it was time for comments or not. We can do we can do questions first which is fine. Any last question. So Brent started to say something and then she decided not to say it, like me not being a lawyer like, and she is like, can I ask why. I just didn't want to comment on the on whether or not they were substantial changes or insubstantial changes. And I ask you if they are is that unethical value your opinion, believe it or not. You want me to chime in or UK answering that. No, no, it's fine. I think that you, the work that you've done, I add some additional parameters. I think you've, you've, as I mentioned in the beginning you've, you've expanded that those standards to include law and use of force, as opposed to just deadly force. So I think that you've provided some additional guide rails here. And also you dealt with the justifiable homicide statute and those repeals that you that were in place in 2019 so I think that's also substantial differences from the Senate version. But I'm not making any comment on on how the Senate will feel about those changes. That's good. I appreciate that. I also appreciate in all the work that you did in the extra time and everything I really do. Thank you. Thank you. So, so, Tom, I know you want discussion. I would also, I'd entertain a motion and then your discussion could be could be part of the discussion how we. Yeah, yeah, that's, that's fine. I don't know why I say I don't think they're going to change at this point, but, but I just have. Yeah. So I'd move to approve draft for point one or five, I mean, oh, 4.5. I'm sorry, 5.1. 5.1 because yeah, okay. 5.1. So I think that's a amendment to us one, thank you. Second, second. No. Not as the second. Okay. Discussion time. Go ahead. I heard there is some discussion. First, I want to start out by saying that I know there was a lot of work done in this bill. There was a lot of people involved, whether it's, you know, states attorneys and prosecutors and stakeholders. You know, there was a lot of work done in this bill. You know, there was a lot of work done in this bill. A ledge council legislators. You know, that we're all involved in, in, in building this bill. And one thing I. That I want to say first two is that it wasn't that long ago that I would have voted for this bill. And I, I have a different view of policing than I used to have. Because because of my son. And, and, and what he in a different job than he has now certainly but At least I hope. And just the things that he goes through or went through and that we've discussed about bills like this. I was going to say policy, but it's, I don't look at this as policy, but. So anyway, again, I do appreciate all the work that's been done. But what I would have liked to have seen while this was, you know, the, the original draft was formed. It would have been great if, you know, public safety, you know, law enforcement was involved at that time. I think a lot of issues could have been dealt with then. Again, I don't know how many hours were put in on this. There was, I'm going to guess, you know, 5060 hours just just a wild guess, you know that I've thought about. And it's, it's unfortunate though that from what I've seen public safety has had two and a half hours. And it might be three. The commissioner twice for a half hour each drew bloom twice for a half hour each and I'm drawn a blank on who the third person was. But anyway, it's just that they didn't have a lot of say and I know they still have a lot of concerns. And one entity that I don't remember coming in was the VPA. And they've always weighed in on stuff like this I don't this point I don't know if they were asked or not but they certainly didn't testify in front of us. And they have some, some real concerns. And I'm going to read from an email that I got with some of their concerns. The VPA is not arguing that use of force standard is likely to run afoul of the constitutional standard the concern relates to the uncertainty created by new language and a disruption to the expense of developing new training and retraining all law enforcement. And most importantly the VPA anticipates litigation as to what these new words mean when applied to an actual fact pattern. And another concern is that statutes are inflexible and we've heard that time and time again, and they can't be changed without legislation policymakers can easily change a statewide model policy to conform to controlling case law. And I'm not going to read the whole thing that goes into California need to change its statue because I had policing problems and that type of thing but in another concern believes there's value in giving law enforcement agencies or representatives to co create the policy with stakeholders. And again that's a very abbreviated version of what I have in front of me. And I'm, I don't know the word to use here but in the past, our judiciary committee I believe has been very diligent, as far as vetting. We've been very diligent as far as not passing new laws. And I look at that as, as changed now. And I hope from here forward we go that that I can feel confident that we're back to the way we used to be. And I mean, the number of times I've heard terms like tight timeframe, time constraints, timelines, deadlines, the end of the session is coming. That tells me things are rushed. And it's not like I heard it once I've heard it over and over and over again and there's. I mean January is not that far away to set this aside. And, and do what I believe that I know I know other people feel differently, and that's, that's fine, but do what I believe is I do diligence to give all the stakeholders, including DPS. And the time that they deserve. And since this is affecting them the most. And my last comment is around, when the, when the commissioner was testifying at one time, he had mentioned other experts that to speak and I had, I remember saying that I would like to hear them. What they had to say. Unfortunately, I'm going to guess we didn't have time to hear them. But these, these people did testify in, in Senate, and there was a deputy director of policy for strategic planning a deputy division director of law enforcement, both from the Council of State governments, and they had what turns out some very compelling testimony that the Senate heard in which made some people and send a judiciary from what I hear. I don't want to put words anybody's mouth but they, they have a new thought process over this whole thing. And I just think we're rushing it. The new, the new laws really irk me, I guess you could say, and I really look at this as something that should be in policy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. I appreciate that I just want to respond to some of the things that you said my understanding is that Chief Pete testified on behalf of the Vermont. Yes, yes, we did. Who we usually see reached out to us. Gosh, I think even before the session this last session started, and, and I did invite her to testify. And, and she, she chose to have Chief Pete testify in instead. But Martin spoke quite a bit with, with best. And Chief Burke, also I think both of them were on behalf of the police association. Yeah, so and I think they're also so the police association, the chiefs, they, they often do where, you know, different, different hats at the same time. That's, I apologize, that's where my mistake. No, that's okay. Yeah, and then I think was back in July. I met with the administration DPS. Governor's attorney to go over the concerns of the letter when the governor signed 219 and looking at moving forward, and have certainly been in touch with the commissioners called me so. So, you know, no, no surprises here, I think, you know, in terms of what we've been doing. And the other thing is I think in terms of the effective date. No, I'd be great to hear from Council of State governments, you know, certainly we can go back and watch it but given that we do have this effective date pushed out. In January, we can have the Council of State governments we can have those folks in we can have the constitutional expert that the commissioner refers to so I don't I don't think that. I don't think, you know, we're prohibited from still doing that and and revisiting. You know what we've done getting the update from the report so I do very much see this as a ongoing process of this work because certainly we cannot address this very important work in just this one bill. Anyway, thank you, Maxine. Yeah, sure. Thank you, Selena. Yeah, I think you said some of the things I was going to say representative grad I just I, you know, appreciate your concerns, Tom and also the that this is personal for you. Thank you, family. I appreciate that. I, I do think we heard a lot from law enforcement throughout this process though I think starting back in June when we looked at as 119 as 219, which really I see is kind of companion bills and enforcement in the public forums that we conducted between sessions we I know that our committee leadership was in a lot of consultation with as representative grad just shared with with police but also with states attorneys the attorney general, who are other arms of our law enforcement process and I so and you know speaking frankly there was a point in our committee process this week where I was, I was worried that I wasn't going to be able to support the bill based on based on what I was hoping we would move forward because of the amount of input that we were hearing from last law enforcement and and some of my concerns about their perspectives and how we might act on those. And then, yeah, so I just I think my perception is that this was actually a pretty even handed process and that that hearing from stakeholders, maybe is a little different at times than agreeing with stakeholders and representative Morris is words keep coming back to me from earlier in this week. Where she talked about just the challenges for police whether at the state or municipal level in kind of enacting these parameters for themselves and I really see moving this bill forward as actually beneficial to law enforcement as an opportunity to restore trust. And I understand that many law enforcement officers aren't seeing this bill that way now and I, and I understand why that might be but I actually feel like this bill is and should be really helpful to law enforcement to restoring trust with communities. That is lost for a lot of people in this moment. Great. Appreciate your comments okay well. Thank you. So yeah I'm still in my, my first term, although it doesn't feel that way sitting here in September, but you know in the two years I have been on the judiciary committee. You know, I have reached back to my local law enforcement quite often on bills and it's really shaped my votes on numerous occasions, you know, I served in local government as the chair of my board of alderman's public safety committee I've been at numerous meetings in the city police station. I respect, and you know, I greatly honored the hard work that people in law enforcement do, and I have no desire to make their job unnecessarily harder. But, you know, this isn't about, and I think we're making mistake if we look at the law enforcement in our backyard. You know, I greatly respect the Royal City Police Department I think they're doing, you know, an excellent job, but I can't make this about them. This is about the need for consistent standards. I mean, where I am in my home in Rutland City. I am a 15 minute walk away from the Rutland City Police Department headquarters from the Rutland County Sheriff's headquarters. Someone in this area looking for they're looking for job and law enforcement. Those are options at 10 minutes in the other direction is the state police headquarters, and there's at least three local law enforcement agencies within a within a 1520 minute from here. I'm someone in this area who is looking to start a career in law enforcement and is trying to, you know, get their foot in the door one of these agencies. It doesn't matter where they go as they're doing their training. That training should be consistent and there should be an understanding of what is acceptable and what is excessive that they can bring with them wherever they go. This is about having a set definition and set understanding throughout our state and that's the advantage of law enforcement I think it's the advantage of everyone that they deal with. And I know there's some concern about rushing the process I know there's some concern about well why why not push it back why not wait until until the next next biennium. When you look at everything that's going on nationally. When you look at incidents that have occurred in our state. There is a real sense of unease and there is a real sense of discontent among some people and nervousness among others that is making the job of law enforcement easy, that is casting a shadow on our local law enforcement that doesn't have to be there. So, I think when you look at everything going on nationally, when you look at what's going on in our state, the time is now. And the time is now for the people of Vermont the time is now for law enforcement of Vermont. I really think this bill will move things forward in a positive way. For every Vermont regular citizens people in law enforcement. This is a good step. It's not the final step, but this is a good step towards aiding law enforcement and establishing consistent practices that can make every member of our state every resident here feel more comfortable in their interactions on a day to day basis with law enforcement. This is an easy yes vote for me. Thank you. Okay, coach. So you get the last word I think. Okay. Thank you very much. Tom, you know, we've been friends a long time. And, you know, I understand, you know, your connection, you know, I share a similar connection. I have a brother who was a sergeant in the East Hartford. You know, the Connecticut police force. And just some of the conversations that we've been having. And, and they're almost daily about, you know, his concern, you know, for the climate, not not so much the, the direction, because you know they're working on just like Seattle, the 21st century policing methodology, you know, which technically is transformative. But like Ken was saying, you know, there's this, this air of distrust right now. And when we have those situations, it's really critical to have clear, understandable guidelines that as people look to them they go, Okay, that makes sense now. And I think intrinsically, law enforcement over its history has had control of the narrative. And when that power structure is such that people lose faith, you know, in it, which is the condition. You know, right, right now, a paradigm has to shift. You know, and I firmly believe, because I've been a supporter, you know, of positive work, you know, in my testimony to Senate judiciary, you know, it was pretty clear. You know, our standards kind of stink right now. We don't have those clear guidelines in place. If you look at the law enforcement agencies that are trying very hard to re constitute themselves. We're seeing it within the parameters of agencies that have been successful, you know, at it. But again, that there's no clear guardrails, you know, like Bryn, you know, talked about in some of our language changes that we're doing now. I mean, there's that other piece at the end of the day, when you look at the data, and you look at what we got back from our survey. And that was part of the reason for sharing that with, you know, all members is even today, I feel nervous. Driving black in our own state. You know, I have a tendency to drive with a full tank of gas, because there are certain places I don't really want to, you know, get lost in. And I've been here, the majority of my adult life. That should not be the case. And so just imagine some of our are Vermonters who might not have any confidence whatsoever, and how they feel driving in our own state. And then that, that, that title, you know, driving while black in Vermont. It is not a happy time sometimes, you know, but you know that we're trying to shift that, you know, because this is our home. We're proud of it. And we want to be proud of it. And the way that we can help that happen is by changing the way we do business to a degree. And I think that establishing these new parameters and being clear with the public that we're being intentional about it. We can help build a more welcoming Vermont, and that's what we want at the end of the day. Thank you. Thank you coach. Okay, Barbara. I will be supporting this bill. It's a time that we move beyond policy. We have seen a lot of local tension in Burlington, which again is just one spot but the number of deaths in Vermont that have happened in the city of Burlington is pretty telling and it's increased over the last decade. This bill is a great combination of not being reactive, but also us not sitting idly by and being complicit. And for those law enforcement to believe in these principles, this wouldn't impact their work at all. It provides teeth to those that don't. And the number of deaths nationally since we started working on this bill back in July even at the hands of law enforcement is chilling and so it doesn't take a fact right away I feel like it is a good compromise of giving law enforcement a lot of time to come back with a policy. I have said a couple of times like if we leave this session and do nothing that will be so unacceptable to me and again, it's a good balance of not just being a knee jerk reactive law, the number of people who had the chance to give input so far even is impressive and we're not just complicitly sitting by here and allowing this to happen without doing something. So, thank you for everyone's work. Thank you. Okay, so don't see any other hands we have motion second discussion. Not her, the clerk commenced to call the roll roll please. Christie. Yes. Goulburn. Yes. Go slant. Wait for a second. There he is. Where we're doing. Your vote. Hashim. Yes. Not. Yes. Rachel some. Yes. Seymour. No. Tully. Yes. Well loaned. Yes. Bird it. No. Grad. Yes. Thank you. Thank you everybody. So I did ask. Not or if you wanted to report this. But I think you prefer to speak to the bill correct. And I think that with all the work and hours that Martin has put into this I think, and given the knowledge that he has on the different iterations and the evolution of the bill. Over the last several weeks I think he has a greater understanding of all the legal and technical issues. I think that may arise during conversation on the floor. But I am happy to speak on the floor in support of it when that time comes. Okay. I appreciate it. Well I, as I said in my texts, you, you got first dibs. Thank you. So. So. Martin you're with Martin, however, you know, in whatever ways can be most helpful for you. Thank you. And what I need you to do is to please. As soon as you can email the clerk's office with the, with 5.1. Or actually do we need to wait. I don't know if we need to wait for it's edited but if you, if you could at least let them know that 5.1. Right. Past and what the vote was and that you'll be the reporter. And bring it here. I just want you to know that it has been edited. So that's right. Yes. Okay. Wonderful. So then, yeah, so that's great. So Martin. You should be all set. So that's, that's the version, Brent, that you emailed at 856. Yeah. Okay, thanks. All right. Great. Well, thank you everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to get to. To a meeting if it's still happening and really, I appreciate all your. Your work. And honest. And we do have a great committee. So. Yes, we do. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. I do appreciate you. And I won't see you on the floor. So, okay. All right. We'll take care. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks Brent. Thanks, Lori. Thanks everyone.