 Good morning and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Wednesday, May 5th. Welcome again to House Judiciary Committee and again, sorry for the technical difficulties with with YouTube. However, it's important that we always have our, our meetings live streamed and and we'll stop when when the YouTube isn't working but we are back live and we are now turning our attention to s seven which is a bill regarding expungement. And I've welcome Jay Johnson who is counsel to Governor Phil Scott. Ms Johnson and I have been having an ongoing conversation about s seven. And I do have a number of our correspondence posted and I did hear to hear from Attorney Johnson last night. And with some, with some other concerns and so I'm very glad that that you are here this morning to talk to us directly. So we can really make sure that we understand your can your concerns so so with that welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. Jay Pershing Johnson the governor's council. First, I do appreciate the willingness of the committee to have this conversation and I appreciate the changes that have been proposed to date. And I have appreciated the chairs help in engaging on this issue which I think is important. And you just, I want to say that from my perspective, this is not a political partisan issue, expungements and ceiling, broadly speaking, are not necessarily a good thing or bad thing in certain circumstances they're very good thing. And I think in certain circumstances, they can be a very bad thing. So what really matters is how we do this. And I think that you will probably hear from the commissioner that that we have created a very complex and a very confusing system that most Vermonters probably have no awareness of. And I would imagine probably most defendants have no awareness of. I think that this this bill adds to that confusion. I believe that that's not necessarily. That's not necessarily helpful but I understand that that the committees are anxious to get something past this year and so we are anxious to work with you to help you do that. And I think most people believe in second chances for certain crimes, certain crimes, as the AG recently noted in his recent Vermont digger commentary. In order, I think to assure Vermonters that that expungement broadly speaking is a good thing. He focused on old records, the fact that we are not talking about people who commit additional and offenses in in the intervening process and that a judge decides these petitions at a hearing. I think we all agree that that's the system we can get behind and that is the system we have largely speaking now. But, and the theory behind this is, as time goes on, and you've heard this I'm sure, as time goes on with no subsequent offenses, the risk of re offense goes down. It's clearly supported by data. So communities are safer when and a person has more opportunity when a person who has committed a crime in the past has waited a certain period has not committed any more crimes. And then you, you and seeks an expungement from the court, I think that that's a system that that works but it's always dependent on what crimes and what period of time and what you do with the record. Do you expunge the record when it goes away forever, or do you seal the record when it's available for certain purposes. So, unfortunately, this bill, which does add a certain other layer of complexity. It also enables the expungement of criminal records which are not necessarily old records, we already have various mechanisms in place that that do that we have court diversion, we have juvenile crimes. We have automatic expungements in certain circumstances it's not like we've been sitting on our hands with respect to expungement of records over the last four years every year. It's not like we've been passed, which further opens up opportunities for expungements. So, the, so, so in this bill. Under waiting a law of certain period of time for crime to be expunged. This bill enables the expungement of criminal records that are not necessarily old records under this system, other records are already expunged under other sections of law. The state's attorney has complete discretion to agree to a shorter waiting period or to delegate this discretion to the attorney general or another state's attorney. I understand that there was some additional work done on this question and that that discretion has been limited for the more serious property felony crimes. And I would suggest it's generally a problem for system that relies on length of time between release from their supervision or their incarceration and the, and the time that that runs as required for an expungement. In this bill, the expungement decision is not necessarily a decision made by a judge with an opportunity for hearing or statement by victim. Once the state's attorney agrees, the judge shall grant shall grant the petition for an expungement. You're not, you're no longer considering time period because the state's attorney can waive it for almost any crime that's expungible. And you, and the judge has no discretion in many cases, whether to, to hear the case, he just has to grant the expungement. So those are two of my concerns and then some of the changes allow an intervening crime. So in some cases, you may have no waiting period or very short waiting period, and the potential for an intervening crime. This kind of shoots the whole theory of, if you have a person who was waited a certain amount of time and who has not committed into an intervening crime. This, this, this essentially eviscerates that theory, you, you don't, you have the permission to complete to to commit an intervening crime. You only need to wait. The time served for the second crime until you obtain the expungement for the first crime. That's how I read this. And if I'm incorrect, that would be great to know but I think that that is a structural change that substantially changes our system of expungement right now. Attorney General has cited some compelling studies about the importance of a good job after incarceration, the value of expunge records after a waiting period with no intervening crimes, and the theory that risk of reoffense goes down over time. But with these changes, we have, we would not be honest if we were saying to Vermonters, everybody has to wait, and nobody can commit an intervening crime, and the judge will determine each petition. So, so that's, I think it's a system that with these changes becomes shut full through of holes. So, I don't see any data presented by the Attorney General, or others, and I would be happy to receive it. I hope you can. I'm happy to learn about this and I have spent a lot of time looking at the studies that have been presented by primarily Attorney General, and they don't support programs which incorporate the loopholes incorporated in this bill. If we really are serious about evidence based programs and data, then there are certain things we need to consider about this bill. I mean, for example, you have a Michigan, you have a Harvard Law Review study that's cited that studies Michigan system, and the conclusions are very, very positive. But Michigan system is substantially different from Vermont system with very little eligibility, actual eligibility for expungement. Few receive expungement because it does not permit an intervening crime. And the idea that there's a lower arrest rate among the expunge population is completely believable because people have waited a substantial period of time, they have not committed subsequent crimes and in Michigan, length of record matters. So there can only be one crime in the record. So, so it's a substantially different system, and to say that Michigan system and the outcomes from Michigan system would be the same for Vermont is a very optimistic statement, I think to say the least. So I understand though that the committee wants to pass bill this session, and I proposed certain changes to the chair and some others last night in the draft that I had, which I think reflect my concerns. I would not reflect all of the concerns that you might hear from Commissioner Shirley or Commissioner Baker, and those I would recommend that you listen to the subject matter experts with within that regard. So I, you know, I think that that's where I'm coming from is that we just want a system that works, given the structure that we have now which is not a more global look at how we do expungements, which I appreciate there will be a study on that. I appreciate that you have addressed expungement of crimes of sexual exploitation, which I think was taken out from the from the current version of the law. And so I'm going to take the lead in the section on other qualifying felonies which includes things like domestic terrorism that I don't think anybody would know what happens to the record of a person who commits domestic terrorism with taking that section out, you have effectively made it clear that that person is not entitled to an expungement. I'm hoping is that the correct answer. I know that DFR and who and I think if you heard my my paycheck yesterday you know that they appreciated the extra time that the committee has given us to to do a more in depth review of the financial crimes that are in their and they've done a risk analysis and they basically have come to the conclusion that an eight year period with no intervening crimes and ceiling so that the record is available for law enforcement purposes is an acceptable solution and level of risk. I think that probably I would agree. So, I just don't think and that was on a subset of very identifiable crimes that a regulatory authority was able to address with their legal staff. So, I think that it's important that we do that kind of analysis when we're talking about expungements generally and unlocking the potential of Vermonters, I think we need to understand the risks to the communities, the perception of the communities. You know, who what what Vermonters understand about whose record is wiped clean after what period of time is also a matter of perception. I would have to argue and whether someone is correct about whether a murderer can be have their record expunged after 10 years because it's very unlikely that they will re offend. I think that that's something we need to consider. That seems to be what the data shows, but I would not support that. And I doubt most Vermonters would support that. So, I would just, and I appreciate that the committee has been thoughtful has taken testimony on this has been working on this for a long time. But I think we have the opportunity to make some changes that are more consistent with the way that the data supports. And I can't, I can't support some of the changes that have that remain in the bill. I'm sorry if that was a little rambly. I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you very much appreciate it. And we do have a looking at our website on my other computer and we do have a number of documents that David did more shared with us. And I know there is somebody with a council state governments that specializes in expungements that that certainly we can be in touch with. I'll just see other hands I do have one question. Can you help me understand when you said that this bill that they're not necessarily old records what what do you mean by that. We've determined over the last four years that 10 years is too long, and that five years is is about right, I guess, generally speaking, most of the crimes that are expungible under this under this law are expungible after five years of intervening offense. That's what the law says now. So, as a policy matter we have agreed that five years is old enough for other crimes more serious crimes like the felony property crimes. The policy that you've incorporated is that eight years is enough. And DFR would agree with that because the fact of when you get the expungement is likely more like after 10 years. So, so so that's the thing as a policy matter generally speaking, five years has been determined to be enough. I'll check the language of the bill. But in the meantime, Selena Barbara and then Kate. I had two questions, if I may. And the first is, I'm wondering if you, and maybe you feel you've done this and I just haven't been able to track it closely enough, but it sounds like, you know, we have a new draft of the bill that I think was drafted largely to address some of the late hour concerns that have come forward from the administration and others. And can you be very specific about what you still don't the administration is still doesn't support in this current draft, because I heard a lot of just doubt about the government in general and a few things but I'm trying to get really clear on where the points of disagreement remain in the, in the draft amendment that that wasn't entirely clear to me from your testimony. Last night provided us a red line. So that may be helpful to you. But I think generally speaking, given the format that we're working in. We do not want to see, we would like to include continue to include no intervening crimes. We would like to make clear that the discretion, even for misdemeanors expungible in five years of the state's attorney is within some boundaries. So what I have proposed is that some any period of rehabilitation has been successfully completed and no intervening crimes. So I have not ruled that out I have just proposed some boundaries for the exercise of that We are not opposing the reduction of any of the waiting periods, but again the discretion is an issue. And we see what else did I put in there. And I would like to see when the stipulation is made by states attorney that when it goes to the court. The judge also determines whether the rehabilitation has been successfully completed. So while the judge shall just grant the expungement now, once a state's attorney exercises that discretion, the court will at least review for successful completion of rehabilitation. And that may or may not work for the committee, but my goal was boundaries on the exercise of that discretion and some judicial input if that's if that's if there are no boundaries. Thank you that's very helpful and maybe if we could get, you know, your red line postered or something that might be helpful as well. And I would say to that I mean Commissioner Baker and Commissioner Shirley in their testimony may have proposed other changes I know. I think I took out at least one crime from the felony property crimes, which is more like a violent crime involving use of force. And I, I made some other miscellaneous changes. So I apologize in advance if I'm omitting to describe something it is not an attempt to obfuscate. I think that the question of the administration's position on which crime should be eligible is actually the second question I wanted to ask you, given some of your testimony. So I heard, I heard you say, you know, with the example of murder, which I understand is a, you know, that's a very emotional example on all sides. But I heard you say that, you know, the evidence that someone is really unlikely to recommit that crime is not a is not really a point of influence for the administration's position. Can you tell us if that, if that kind of data isn't informing the, how the administration is, you know, determining in which, which crimes they support expungement eligibility for what what is, what is how, how is the administration determining you know, like when you say you went through and just omitted a bunch of crimes that that I that I understand to me and the administration wouldn't support a bill that included those crimes from the property crimes. What, what, what data points is informing what the administration will or won't support here. I think generally speaking right now, we are not supporting violent crimes. We have listed offenses exempted. That includes the big 12 and recently, you know, human trafficking was added to listed. I think that we generally throw around listed. We often throw in a couple exceptions here and there depending on the law, but generally speaking, listed offenses or violent offenses. And that's what we have that's what we work with. That's what I would like to see remain. And then other crimes, well, like the violent, you know, the use of force crime in the felony property I think that Commissioner Shirley can give you more information but that would include larceny on the person, which is essentially a person stealing something from your person. That's, you know, a mugging or something like that. The data is important. I think that also varies by crime. So you look at the type of crime and the likelihood of reoffense like domestic violence and sexual violence and exploitation of children, like those crimes, some of those crimes, your offenders are more likely to reoffend. And I think that that's an important consideration. When you look at the laws of other states there are various pick and choose your own adventure on which crimes are expungible and which crimes are not. But like I said, so the data is important. But I do think that I would think representatives would be very sensitive to this. What is important to their constituents. What are the crimes with your constituents, if they understood what expungement means, which ones would they like to see expunged and after what period of time. I think that's something you know you have to be honest with Vermonters about. That seems like a really subjective analysis. So do you have I think that most of you would be subjective. That's about how you would get at that. I would imagine different Vermonters would have very, very different points of view about how to answer that question around the state and even within our own constituencies. I'm just, I'm just, I'm just trying to consider that metric and it seems like a really tricky one compared to actually analyzing, you know, real public safety risks. How would we ascertain that? You know what I mean. Well, you've already ascertained it to a certain extent you said no listed crimes. Yeah, I guess I'm just hearing you say that we should be going further in your testimony. The only thing I testified to was the larceny on the person. Thank you. And I would say, I mean, I'm sorry to interrupt, just to add that length of time also matters. So it's not just what crime, it's what crime and for how long. And you are looking of course at what the data supports but again I do believe it's important to be honest with Vermonters when we make these decisions that, you know, while you may believe that some of your constituents think expunging murder would be fine, because the likelihood of murder after 10 years is very, very low. I would, I would imagine most Vermonters would beg to differ. Thank you. Barbara, Kate and Ken. Thank you. So, Jay, to two things I just feel compelled to say before I ask you questions. One is, I think it's always important for us to be honest with our constituents and I can't imagine that we would any of us and I don't think you're saying that that's why I want to sort of clear the record, think that we would keep things from our constituents or try to bamboozle them. So, I mean, I, across all three parties, integrity is really important. And so I just want to say that and I'm sure you would agree. I mean, I assume you weren't making a character judgment on any of us. Absolutely not. I just, I just did want to make the point that expungement is very, and maybe I didn't make it well. Obviously, I just, I think expungement is not easily understood, or on the minds of many Vermonters. I think it's complex. I don't know that anybody or very few people could tell you what is the difference between expungement and ceiling which crimes are expungible and which aren't. And that's, I think that when, when Vermonters are led to believe that we're talking about old records with a period of time with no intervening crime with a judge deciding on the petition that gives people a certain amount of comfort. But when we change those rules, it just makes it even harder for Vermonters to understand. So, the other pieces, just to sort of name it, we're not eager to get a bill passed. We're eager to improve outcomes for Vermonters who have been part of our criminal justice system. I get that the second bill is very sort of patchwork and, and my sense is, if we looked to do something that sort of held together philosophically, like most other states have done, like Michigan or Illinois or even that, I'm not sure the government would have supported that so I have a feeling sometimes in the name of compromise, it ends up getting more hard to explain what the rationale is. And sort of, I know you talked a lot about ceiling and having law enforcement have access, but having law enforcement have access is exactly one of the things we're trying to address. If you look at any of the states and I was just reading a Houston Law School article that was about expungement down in Texas, and they were talking about an armed robber who ended up being expunged and as a security guard and is very successful. So, one of the things I'm worried about is, you know, we've gotten a little better at our rates of incarceration, but we have so many people in Vermont that have criminal records, and are in general, we're weak on rehabilitation compared to other states. So, when someone's serving a 10 year term they're getting services for the most part, their last six months, they're serving a 20 year term so if we really care about rehabilitation, we need to put more money into that because I've talked to prisoners and other states who are getting a college degree and they get help getting housing getting out and they're not set up for failure. I'm worried about people getting jobs with criminal records. I mean, even if it's, we just need to make it possible that people can get on with their lives or decide, sorry, you're all getting life sentences because we're never going to forgive you. Our current system is really expensive and our recidivism rates are super high. So, I'd love to see us try to break away from that and get better outcomes. I agree that I think five years is great, the research looks like that's a really good time frame. And I wanted to make sure when you talk about further crimes that you're not talking about furlough violations or probation violations, because that has become a way that people keep getting looped in and it's like they missed their appointment and they get sent back in, and they really didn't break the law, they took the bus and their car broke down or I mean so, so that seems really important to me. And I guess I just want to also say when you talked about, you know, let's make sure about the rehabilitation. That's a lot of for us to put on a prisoner who's not getting the kind of rehabilitation that I believe we have and have better outcomes. So, I mean I think everyone's worry is we're going to give someone an expungement and then they're going to do something awful, and we're all going to feel like it was our fault. We end up getting desperate because they can't do anything and they're breaking the law and in some ways all the lives that we're not helping to be successful feels crummy and so I'd love to see us make some changes and see how the research in our own state plays out, but every time we sort of cherry pick or move stuff around I just worry that we further, as you say move away from what the evidence based researchers showing. And, you know, so I guess those are my thoughts and I don't know if you have. I do my thoughts. Okay, sure. I completely agree that we need to be focusing on rehabilitation. And I believe that that is the direction that doc is going in connection with justice reinvestment efforts. We need to appropriately identify the services necessary for the people coming out of the system which is not always done and I think Commissioner Baker may have testified or is testifying to the extent that that some of this effort may actually interfere with that effort, but but the committee is willing to make a change that as long as a person is not as is under the supervision of doc there will be no expungement, which is helpful. So, your concern that furlough violations or probation violations would be involved wouldn't be happening because they would be out of the supervision of the doc. What is it concern. With respect to intervening offenses. I mean, you would, you would, the state would have to be accepting a policy of expungement upon release because you and which is not supported by the data but would give people the clean slate they need to start over without necessarily having the appropriate rehabilitation resources. So, so we've picked five years. And I think we're talking about five years with no intervening offenses to sort of allow intervening offenses really runs counter to the concept of a person who is successfully eligible for expungement doesn't matter which crime it is because again if it's if it's possessing drugs and they have an addiction problem I would say, what the heck do we have them in our criminal justice system rather than in our treatment system because it goes counter to successful treatment. I completely agree that that that people with issues with drug misuse issues should be receiving appropriate treatment and that should be in our facilities and when they get out of the facilities. You know, that's why we're focusing on appropriate supervision in order to respond to those needs. I think that a lot that work is being done. And it's important that that work is able to be done effectively. So, so I think you're absolutely right there that that people with with mental health issues and with substance misuse issues are receiving appropriate services for their needs. But once you're out of the system, arguably successfully treated or continuing treatment, you are your, your expungement is is an option for you after five years if you know and that's, I mean, I would also argue and Commissioner Baker could testify to the efforts they're making with respect to internships and job training while a person is incarcerated or on supervision so the length of time absolutely matters. So if you're a drug possession crime is a whole, you know, possession of meth is a whole lot different than selling meth. And those crimes should be, oh, I did make that change. That's another change I made. I would take out the possession crime, I mean, the sale crimes. So possession, I completely understand that people with misuse need with substance misuse are often the victims as well as the perpetrators, people who are selling. I have less sympathy for. I mean, again, this is my personal view and like, I think rep Colburn said a lot of this is his personal subjective is. But that's, that's where I would say there's a lot of damage in our communities because of people dealing. I don't believe that if they committed a crime that's. I mean, I just, I just feel, feel like that, that level of crime connect in and you have acknowledged you've drawn the line at trafficking. Right. Yeah, when does trafficking crime get pled down to a sale crime. I mean, I don't know if we have that data, or if you've heard that data. I think that those are the kinds of questions we should be asking. Because frequently, people who are addicted are selling enough to cover their expenses. And so it really, it's more about their addiction than it is about trafficking. I mean, like there's a slippery slow, but it's addictions that it's tough. I mean, it's tough and I'm convinced as long as it stays as mixed messages and it's in the criminal justice system, we're going to be less successful. The question is, are the crimes expungible and not how should they be treated. And again, expungible, and when those are really the issues we're talking about in connection with this bill. True. Thank you. Before I get to other committee members I do want to ask attorney bring here to to join us because and then remind us of the different timeframes. Because Jay, I believe I hear you saying, you know, five years and and in fact it's different years we have, depending upon the crime, their ceiling and then after that expungement after another time. So I think it's important to not to generalize but to really look at the specific crimes and also, Jay, I think I heard you refer to murder and murder is not expungible under this bill. So first of all, let's take crimes which include the big 12 are not expungible. So separate and thank you. If you could point us to the different sections of the bill and help us understand ceiling and by intervening crimes and expungement but I think that'd be helpful, and then we can continue the conversation. Thank you. So for the record bring here from Legislative Council. So, as, as you know, there are several different categories of crimes that are eligible for ceiling or expungement under the bill. And each different category is subject to a different waiting period so essentially a period of time where a person is is not involved with the justice system before they're eligible for a ceiling or expungement. So, and those, those waiting periods are key to the satisfaction of the judgment. So, I have heard some testimony this morning about keying the timeframes to the completion of a subsequent offense, but I just want to point out that throughout the process that you've keyed the time frame to the satisfaction of the judgment either for the underlying offense or for the subsequent offense, but the time frame still applies so if you take a look for example on page 11. Just looking at user possession of a controlled substance offenses these are offenses that are currently eligible for expungement possession of a controlled substance is currently eligible for expungement under existing law. The eligible for expungement. If you look at line 15, five years from the date on which the person satisfied the judgment for the offense, or if there is, if the person committed a subsequent offense. You have to wait five years from the date that the person satisfied the judgment for the subsequent offense. So you have to kind of read the whole thing together. That would be be one, a two, and you have to key back to that subdivision a that says at least five years have elapsed since. So, I just wanted to make it clear that when you're keying the time frame, you've got to keep looking at what the time frame is based on when the person completed the sentence for either the original offense or the subsequent offense. I, and I'm sorry to interrupt I would just suggest that that be clarified because that is not how I read it. So, so I'll carry on so subsection be that's the qualifying product non predicates and then the possession of a controlled substance that is the five year waiting period. And there. And then, if you scroll down to page 13 subsection see is qualifying predicate misdemeanors. So that is a, again, a five year waiting period for the petition to seal to be granted. And then there is an additional waiting period for the expungement if a person wants to have a sealed record expunged. They are eligible five years after the ceiling order. So, essentially that would be it, that would be a 10 year waiting period, if all, if there was no intervening offense. And they couldn't they would not be eligible for expungement, if they did commit a subsequent offense under that category of offenses. So CY offenses are subject to a 10 year waiting period and ceiling only burglary offenses are subject to a 15 year waiting period. And then the qualifying felony property offenses and under this amendment the sale dispensation and transport of regulated substances are subject to an eight year waiting period for ceiling. And are eligible for expungement eight years after eight years after the record has been sealed if there is no intervening or subsequent offense. So, and I'll just point out that although you're not, you're not amending it in the bill there's also the provision that allows a person to have a criminal history record. And there's no expunge if that underlying conduct is no longer considered criminal and there is no waiting period for that. So essentially you have a you have a range of waiting periods that start from no waiting period for conduct is no longer criminal to 15 year waiting period for certain types of burglary offenses. But the. Yep, so I'll leave it, I'll leave it at that and let you carry on. Yeah, I think that's it's very helpful. Where was I. Okay, so I think Kate, Ken and Selena. Thanks. Just waiting to unmute. So, I appreciate your initial attention to research and I'm curious. I have a rhetorical question and genuinely curious. Do you have any evidence or data, you know, for talking about potential concerns about the public safety impact of expungement. Do you have any data or evidence to suggest that expungements as we're discussing them in this bill are a threat to public safety in Vermont. I mean, the evidence says you're discussing them in this bill, except for limited cases don't necessarily pose a public safety threat to Vermonters. That's why that's the policy now. I do object to, I mean, and that's why I would like clarified if you're proposing that intervening crimes are not counted essentially until you serve your term or you've satisfied your judgment for the intervening crime. If what Bryn is saying is that five years must pass after the intervening crime, I'm assuming with no intervening crime, then I would, I would say that nothing has changed. So I'm sorry, but I guess my specific question was related to data do you have any data to suggest that expungement is a threat to public safety and in Vermont. I'm not saying that expungement is a threat to public safety in Vermont. I'm saying that the data that we have shows that the longer you wait, and with no intervening crimes, the lower the rate of recidivism. So that would suggest that there is a higher rate of risk to Vermonters in the early years, and the lower rate of risk in the later years. I think that aligns with what we've heard in other testimony. I mean, in terms of this discussion of what Vermonters believe or don't believe, again, I'm just curious if you have any data or research on Vermonters perspective on expungement in general that you're referring to, or if this is just sort of your, your perspective on the belief of Vermonters are on the issue of expungement. I don't believe there is any data on expungement in Vermont. So my, I don't have data on perceptions of Vermonters, you all know your community is better than I do. I would just say that, like, I think representative Rachelsen said, or representative Colburn, this is absolutely subjective, and a lot of it is perception. So you would know better, you know, how the feeling in your community is, if you explain to them what expungement is, what it does, and what the crimes eligible are. And I think that, I mean, that's just my sense. Right now, we're talking about expanding to a certain number of crimes and I haven't objected to those crimes. The, I mean, I have objected to the sale crimes, but I haven't objected to all of the other property crimes. But time will tell. I mean, but the period is long, the period is eight years, and it's, it's sealed. So that it's the crime and the length of time. So what happens to the record and the risk analysis has been done by at least one agency with those crimes in their bailiwick, and they feel that it adequately addresses the risk. Thank you. You're asking, do I have data on perceptions of Vermonters about expungement. No, I don't think that exists. I don't know that most Vermonters know what expungement is. I have one other question, but just before I move on to that, I think my, my, if I heard correctly in your testimony, I heard you making some statements about what you believe most Vermonters would think about expungements and I do feel compelled to say the more and raise Vermonter who's queer. I become concerned when we talk about Vermonters monolithically and what Vermonters do or don't believe and so I'm just hopeful that as we have these conversations we can acknowledge that Vermonters as a term does not encompass one one perspective or form of thought. In terms of data collection, you know, data has been a big point of discussion in our committee. And, you know, we've been told repeatedly, sort of the just how difficult it is to gather data and I think there's a lot of legislative efforts that are focused right now on trying to track and gather data within, you know, the criminal justice system and as it pertains to racial justice and it's clear to me that there's strong commitment to this but that it's going to take time it's going to take resources. And so, you know, in terms of talking about sort of dismissing data from other states because it's not specific to Vermont, with this, you know, coupled with this awareness of just how challenging it's ultimately going to be to eventually get Vermont's data in order. I guess I'm just curious like how local do you need data to be on this issue in order to be sort of compelled to to respect what the data is reading and and I guess you know how long, how long do we wait exactly. So are you suggesting we don't need data. I mean, I would say that it should at least be roughly analogous. I know that the, that the opportunities are very limited across the 50 states because expungement and ceiling is designed to make information go away. So there is nothing built into our law that would allow say research of D identified data, or under some kind of data use agreement to permit research. I'm pretty sure that our law doesn't do that and it could do that. I know that the Michigan study that that group that is cited in the ages. A particular group was granted access to Michigan's data under a confidentiality agreement, and they were. And the system hadn't changed for roughly 10 years or something so they were able to have apples to apples comparisons that would be virtually impossible in Vermont because our law has changed four times in four years at the very least. So I think that it's very difficult to when is again it's going to be a policy decision, and that's going to be up to the legislature. I can say that from our perspective, it, we're unlikely or I am unlikely to recommend that violent crimes be expungible. And again, expungement is a large concept. If what we're talking about again is giving Vermonters who have old records and who have not committed a crime in many years, the opportunity to expunge the record, we're all in. That's not what this bill is doing. So it also depends on the principles that you're working with. So you're just just to clarify that last comment regarding violence. Are you suggesting that even if the research were to bear out that it was not a threat to public safety to expunge someone's past violent crime you would still oppose it. I guess we've been around this. I think that it is a matter of perception in your communities. And from, say, my personal perspective, I would not want to know that there is, well, I mean, I guess rep Lalonde I had heard that he had raised the issue of how expungements work with the sex offender registry say for example. I don't know how that works. I would say that that is worth further study. I think different people are going to have different ideas about what crimes are important and who's committing them. So do you want a police officer with a history of use of force to become a police officer after expungement. Well, you might think that if you've got a philosophy that's completely consistent and based on the data that you would. It's not an area where you can start to pick and choose. If you're going to be strictly focused on data that doesn't exist. So it's going to be a policy decision. I just have one more comment and then I and then I'll just put other. I think one of the discussions that's come up in the course of a few different bills is I've voiced a concern that people want data but that often when the data is born out. There's still resistance. And I think that resistance is often ideological in nature and I think, you know, this is what's coming to mind for me as we're having this conversation. So thank you for your responses. Great. And I would like to say that, again, listed crimes. I think cross ideologies. Okay, so a lot of hands up so Ken Selena, Tom and then Martin. I was, I was just going to, before I started I appreciate it but I see commissioner shirlings hands up I don't know if he asked to run quick if, if you want me to wait and go after him or what his time is. So thank you. I did not see his, his hand so commissioner. Thank you. I'm well past my 11 o'clock deadline so I think I'll just deal with the rest of the schedules differently. And my hand was up to help to respond to a couple of questions that just emerged I can try to hold that so that the committee members can go ahead and answer that. And I apologize for taking the commissioner's time. It's really up to the chair. Yeah, it's, it's fine. And he should probably testify to some of the areas where I'm not a subject matter expert and he clearly is. Thank you. I don't get to the everything we need to with the commissioner today we certainly will continue the conversation so again. Ken Selena, Tom, and then Martin. So good morning or good afternoon whatever it is, Jay, and thanks for showing up. I think what I'm clearly hearing and, and this is my big concern with this is, I'm looking for accountability or I probably I'm not supposed to ask you it like that but I think what you're looking for is accountability for what's happened, happened. Is keeping Vermont safe when we do this expungement or ceiling. Am I correct with that. Yes, I would say accountability, keeping Vermont or safe as of course should always be top of mind. And again I think how we do that, generally speaking, without getting into the violent crimes or the sexual offenses which are also listed. We're looking at crime time period, and ideally the opportunity for hearing before judge. I think that gives you the accountability that you need and it's supported by the data. Do you think we've expunged at this point, any crimes that we shouldn't have. If I speak to anecdote, I know that there are some states attorneys who are getting waivers. Now, I guess you'd have to get more information about that. But I do believe and I think Mike can maybe speak to this I may be speaking out of turn is that there have been some questions about how certain waivers interact with the sex offense registry. So just clarifying in my mind so in most cases that we've done and what we're looking at the five year time period is okay. And if it's more of the serious crimes it goes to the 10 year. And if, if, if, if somebody that commits a crime messes up again that it all goes out the window and we start back at scratch correct. Yeah, I mean 10 years is no longer. I mean it's eight years for the serious crimes you've identified in your bill. Yes, five years for the last serious crimes and I would argue that that is what you want if you commit an intervening crime it all goes out the window, but it sounds like from what Brynn is saying, if that's clear. That's what would happen. You know, another thing that that crosses my mind is, we have all kinds of jobs out there available right now, and we don't have people that are filling them. There's, there's a lot of this this this talk with the expungement and the ceilings and everything that I have to wonder why people aren't maybe taking a chance on some of this or whatever, which leads me into my next question is, do we have any idea how much is all this is really cost in the state. I would say that the better question is. First of all, do people know about expungements, do people know if it's affecting their lives. If their record is affecting their lives if it's not. We don't I don't know that we know that. It would be reflected in the uptake rate of expungements which I and see David sure just joined maybe they have more information about the uptake rate in Vermont. The other thing would be, I would say that there is a lot of other, there may be a lot of other reasons why those jobs aren't being filled and why many of our former offenders are not doing jobs. I mean, that's all I can speak to like, like I think rep, Rachelson said, you know, there are people with addiction issues and there are people with mental health issues and there are people who lack training and I, we've got the Department of Labor set up to address the training issues. So it's kind of a, you know, I think it's a multifaceted question and I think that expungement may be a piece of it for some people. It's about the cost. Others would have to testify about how effective our program is or the uptake rate or what we know about the people whose records have been expunged and what their, their in improved opportunities have been I don't have that data. I heard you say public perception of expungement. And, and, and I agree with you on that I don't think most people I know people that have asked me about what's going on with what what is expungement what is the ceiling stuff and all this stuff. They have no idea and then I'll explaining explain it a little bit and probably I'd say eight or nine out of 10 people go and say, Well, don't you think it's fair that I know the person that I'm dealing with that I'm looking to hire that comes to work in my company. I mean, you're kind of putting me at risk that who I'm putting out there to possibly go in somebody's home or something like that on, you're kind of setting me up for failure. And I've heard that as a, as a, as a serious issue. And, and I think, you know, public and how the public looks upon this, I think what we've done we've come a long ways by my by not my numbers I think, I think we've expunged like 23 or 24,000 people already. I mean, in a, in a state that has a population of what 640,000 people now or something like that. I'd say we've done I do diligence on that but for right now, I'll just, I'll just wait and ask some, some more questions later thank you. Thank you. So, I'm going to lean I'm going to ask you because you have spoken before. So I'll go to Tiff, Tom and Martin first to have not spoken yet. Thank you. Great, thank you. Welcome Jay. I don't really have a question for you just something you touched on. And I think I know how it works that somebody can petition a prosecutor I think it is for an early moment the way it works. And you brought up the concern of possibly having a judge involved in it. And I think I think I don't think I agree with that. And the main reason is is through the years we've done a lot of work around more geographical justice in this committee. And I think we would be throwing ourselves right back into more geographical justice. And by having, you know, whether it's a judge or somebody else involved in that process, I think it lessens that that opportunity for geographical justice and I, and I hope as a committee we can discuss that and having it, you know, a two fold or maybe a three fold or three people even deciding whether or not somebody is eligible. Again, to me it just makes sense for the work that we've done in the past so thank you. Thank you. Martin, and then, then Celia. So a dumb question really quickly is, do I say counselor Johnson because I don't want to be calling you Jay and then go and say Commissioner Shirley that just doesn't seem right. Oh, I call him then call him Mike. Well I don't know I can't I can't get myself to do that so. Yes yes yes. I have, I have just a concern from one thing you raised that if you could comment on and it's something that I heard the other day from Dale crooked as well. And that's this concept of looking, not at what the charge was that led to the conviction or the actual plea. So looking at what the behavior may have been so that one can see that oh they pled down from trafficking and specifically you were mentioning this in the concept of why you don't like to see the sales of various illegal drugs as part of the and you mentioned that well a sale could be something that's pled down from trafficking and and that concerns me that it also just yesterday what we heard was in looking at the risk assessments in the Department of Corrections. They'll look at the affidavit to try to determine really what under was underlined the the charge and not actually at what ultimately was part of a plea agreement. I'm just very concerned that we're looking at it for these two different instances now the concept of looking at the affidavits or whatever is underlying the charge as opposed to what the conviction was be it through actually a trial or through the plea agreement. I wonder if you could comment on that. I think that's an excellent point that, but but the issue there is doing risk assessments that adequately address the needs of our client population, the people in supervision or the people who are incarcerated. So if you're really concerned about being able to do adequate risk assessments to provide the services those people need, you will want them to be looking at the underlying behavior so that they could address that if those records are gone. That's impossible. The behavior, I mean, 99% of our cases are settled without a trial. So that's what the Council of State Governments realize that 99% of our cases. So we know that they are probably most of those are pled down from something. And I think there's even data on that that the Council of State Governments gave us which I could, I'm happy to share if I can find it. But so so so you know that most of those are not so what they eventually plead to is not necessarily reflective of the behavior I would completely agree with you. So I guess, but then turning on to the expungement part as far as if that's one of the basis for not agreeing with expunging sales of drugs that that concerns me so if you could further explain what the basis for wanting to exclude those expungible offenses. Again, the drug sale and transport offenses that is. Well, I think as one of the representatives explained I mean there's two sides to every issue one is, you know, many of the people who are selling are also victims, but there is the flip side which is the trafficking. And again, make surely is way more qualified talk about this than I am. But, you know, it's possible that somebody who's who's convicted who's charged with trafficking pleads down to sale. You don't. You expunge those sale crimes and you are not looking back at the behavior and you're actually expunging much more serious crimes. Yeah, and I guess that that part, you know, the your your explanation certainly for risk assessments and doc. I understand that a little bit more than this is a basis for not having sales, expungible. So any event. Yeah, I'll hear from we'll hear from commissioner surely none that as well I appreciate it. Thank you. Selena and then we'll, and then we'll turn to the commissioner. So I was actually going to ask about the sales and dispensing crime to our earlier conversation. So is is that the I heard you say you don't support it and my to understand that that administration also doesn't support expungement. That's not. Is that just a personal opinion of yours or is that the administration's position that they do not support expungement eligibility for sales and dispensing of regulated drug crimes. I would defer to the commissioner on that. Okay. It would be good to get clarity on that. And I guess I would just because that's certainly I heard earlier the criteria for the administration's sort of rubric on which crimes they would support expungement eligibility for what I heard from you and maybe I misunderstood it was that it really came down to a question of violent crimes, which largely where it's not. So my, my personal view is not any different than I think what the administration's view would be, and I that's not helpful. But I, and again I defer to the commissioner but I think that again I express my concern that in five years, and I guess it's eight years, you could seal records of sales. And that's, you know, I mean, again, it's a policy call. It's not ideal, because of, as rep elant pointed out what we don't know about sale convictions. So I think that we would, we would have to be listening to both sides on this. I'll share one side. Just as someone who's spoken to a lot of folks who are in recovery from substance use disorder and opioid use disorder specifically. It's often not the possession offenses because those aren't actually charged that often for as it's often folks who have sales. They have convictions hanging over them, because they sold in small amounts by coercion or just by, or just, or just by out of sheer need to support their own dependence. And I can tell you, you know, a story of meeting a young man a few years ago, who told me his story, which is that he was arrested for selling small amount of heroin to support his own dependence. And he was able to succeed in recovery by driving over three hours roundtrip daily to the only available treatment center at the time there was a two plus year wait for treatment access in Shenton County at that point so he drove all the way down to like Lebanon New every single day to the methadone clinic went into recovery. I met him in the context of a community college class that he was taking where I was a guest visitor. And he told me about the struggles that he had had finding employment, finding housing, accessing education because of this record he couldn't supervise a field trip for his child or coach little league, because of this record. And it's easy to I mean, we can say, and it's probably true that a lot of remunters don't aren't aware of expungement or don't have a perspective on it, but I can guarantee you that remunners like that are well aware of expungement and its benefits and are waiting for this body to act in ways that support their long term recovery, you know folks who have essentially done everything we've asked of them to pay their dues for their crime, and have worked tremendously hard to turn their lives around and I guess I'm just still struggling with trying to understand and maybe the commissioners testimony will clarify the administration's position on expungement eligibility for these crimes but I'm really concerned to hear that that they're that these are being questioned the expungement eligibility are being questioned and I'm still I'm still trying to understand what is the criteria for what the administration is supportive of and not it's not and representative I appreciate your story which is very compelling. But I guess as we've discussed, it would be great to see the data, generally speaking. Can you just clarify what the data that you're looking for with respect to your speaking to anecdote and and I think that and I applaud you for your work in that area and for doing the listening that you've done, but again, we don't know what we don't know about the crimes of sales so do we know that possessions. So, do we know do we know the possessions are really charged that sales are charged more often that those charges are simply because people are selling to maintain their habits. Do we know that what do we know I don't know and I'm happy to learn if I can get any, you know, more information or data on on that particular thesis. Well I like finding data because I'm a research librarian and my other job so I'll see what I can do. Great. Okay, thank you so commissioner thank you for for your for your patients and welcome you. Thanks for having me. Are we time limited. I'd say about 1015 minutes. Okay, it is very unlikely. I'm going to get through all of the points and in particular responses to some of the discussion in 10 minutes. I'm a Maryland commissioner of public safety thanks for having me back again on this issue I will not reiterate, other than to flag that I spent quite a bit of time with the committee the last time I was here, outlining what I think is a better approach to expungement and ceiling. And I'll actually start there and work backwards. I have a variety of notes and no particular order here are responding to some of the things that have been discussed so far, and starting there. The concept that I presented of ceiling rather than expungement would actually allow you to measure the impact of expungement one of the questions that's been posed is, do we have any data. The answer is no and the answer also is we will never have data, because the concept of expunging means you're eradicating a record and there is no way to know in the future, whether someone whose record was expunged has committed another offense, the records been deleted. So, it's not something that can be studied. Because I believe that expungement in general is not the correct balance to public policy that a ceiling version of this is the right way to go. Starting, but so now back at the top and then I'll try to work through as much this as possible. Again, you know we do appreciate the focus as I testified previously we're supportive of the general policy goals here. The policy goals that have been outlined in questions from various representatives, the need for many offenders to be able to get historic offenses in the rearview mirror, but the system is incredibly complex and confusing, and multiple lawyers reading the current draft of the bill will give you different interpretations on what exactly it means and how to follow it. So, when you have to describe B1 A2 in terms of the sequence of interpretation. It's just too complicated. So that my primary piece of feedback continues to be simplify this systems that it can be understood not only by a folks operating in the justice system, but equally important by Vermonters who there are no studies on what Vermonters do expungement what they think of sentencing. But I can say with confidence that they, and most people who work in the justice system, don't understand the way we sentence and the way we do expungement because the systems are so incredibly complicated. And CSG's core pieces of feedback was to simplify the probation and parole system and it's just too complicated to navigate even for people who are working in that system on a day to day basis and I think the same argument can be extended to this. The, in terms of specific feedback. Much of this is evolved to be a little more fragmentary that are fragmented than I originally had intended but there's so many things, so many threads that have been pulled on in the last hour and a half. The risk of reoffence for the majority of things does go down as time passes, and the risk of reoffence goes down as people age, because of a variety of different both physiological and maturity factors, but that is not universal. There are some types of offenses where there is extensive data that indicates that a predisposition to offend does not go away. There are offenses, some types of domestic violence offenders, and some kinds of crimes and I'll get into a little bit more detail in just a minute. It is also important to note that while there are plenty of accurate anecdotes about people who are trying and are being very successful at rehabilitating themselves there are also those that you may run into from time to time who are misrepresented in the nature of relative to drug dealing or a violent crime or something of that nature and without reading the actual court record the affidavit and the evidence, you don't know that what they're representing to you is an accurate account of what actually occurred. But drug dealing in particular, I think in the vast majority of places in Vermont that I have been. I have touched the justice system. It is accurate to say that low level possession of drugs is often not charged and sent some alternative program. At the same time low level dealing is often dealt with as a possessory charge. That kind of ratchets down one notch or more in the outcomes that are achieved within the justice system, largely in deference to the kinds of circumstances that have been discussed at length over the last hour and a half that for those sale offenses that are to support an addiction. That's recognized by prosecutors and courts and adjustments are made on the fly and the conviction reflects that in the overwhelming majority of circumstances. The, the next note I have is, again, Judith as Jay indicated judicial oversight is missing here and it is essential if we're going to continue to move. I've heard that everyone in the justice system and in every branch of government indicate that one of the goals is to reduce the disparity of outcomes across our 14 different systems of justice. Doing this without judicial oversight and I would suggest unified oversight of some sort and expungement judge someone assigned to specifically look at these cases to ensure ensure uniformity. And I think that all of the petitions for this is a better way of operating than doing it by default. There are just too many variables in relationships and in the way that our various systems operate the outcomes will become more disparate, not less disparate without that level of uniformity. So I think offenses, I think, and asked Jay to correct me if I'm wrong, she was testifying that the sale of methamphetamine was the thing that there was a specific concern about. I do have some concerns about sale, not that they should have all drugs not that they should all be excluded by default, but that an extra level of diligence on the review of those may be necessary to ensure that they're not a trafficking case or a high level case that's been pled down because a witness died. The 99% of plea bargains, I would submit are overwhelmingly the result of system capacity coupled with impacts and availability of victims and witnesses. And the most important piece of that puzzle being to minimize the ongoing trauma to victims of crime by not putting them in a position where they have to testify to the greatest extent possible. And that's a very well known operating tenant within the justice system and that is one of the things and that array of things that I just described drive the high level of plea bargains that exist in Vermont and as a result, it's not uncommon for the conviction to be a step down, in some cases multiple steps down from what the original fact pattern indicates, which brings me to another side point which is. There was a question about whether, whether it's in these circumstances or others that you're looking at or pre sentence investigations for example that you look at the conviction versus the facts in the affidavit. In the affidavit are the only account that exists the facts and the case itself so conviction is often not reflective of the fact pattern itself so in order to get a sense of what happened it's the only way to do it based on the evidence and the facts in the case not just what's written in a final conviction record which may not match the fact pattern in many ways. So go back a step to the things that give me pause and in terms of what's eligible for expungement and again I would be having probably a different conversation on some of these if they were sealed versus expunged. So four things stood out higher than anything else in my review of what's in this particular bill. Embezzlement is one, often a crime that is repeated, one in which offenders will tell you that their, their second and subsequent offenses when they do occur were opportunistic they were. They were put in a position where it was another opportunity and they were unable to control their underlying predisposition to embezzle. And it's one that you hear from employers with some frequency that those are the kinds of offenders that that concerned them the most folks folks that may have a predisposition for violence in the workplace to be number one but those are going to steal from the company being number two and obfuscating that from view, even with a delay in time is a questionable public policy identity theft. I'm going to spend too much time there but something that's growing and in its impact of a wide array of people I just I don't know that that's a good idea for a host of reasons. There's methamphetamine and dealing methamphetamine for the reasons I mentioned relative to drug dealing but also specific to methamphetamine for two additional reasons one method a little different than most other drugs, because it is something that is can be constructed on site. The cases of methamphetamine that we deal with in Vermont or what are called one pot operations, they can be math can be made in a one liter Coca Cola Pepsi pick your whichever, whichever camp you're in there to to cook math. So dealing it is something that's quite a different equation, you don't need a trafficker in the background to begin cooking and dealing methamphetamine so that is the first significant differentiator here, and a reason that we would object to having the sale. It can be expungible under these circumstances but most importantly the top reason among the three is the level of destruction to communities if we lose control of methamphetamine right now knock on wood, it has not been a high prevalence crime in Vermont. If you're near like some states in the Midwest, it is more destructive than anything you've ever seen before in terms of its impact on people its impact on families and the collateral violent crime that goes with it. It makes our opiate epidemic look like a walk in the park. So any lane of travel that we give to people, whether it's writing this simply down saying you can have your record expunged in the future. So any other lane of travel we give to people to experiment with methamphetamine is something to bring to our communities is a hard no from the Department of Public Safety, it is simply too dangerous and too destructive. And finally larceny from the person was Jay also mentioned. It's a violent crime it's not. It's written as a larceny. It's a mugging, it's a strong arm robbery. It's a someone comes up to you at the ATM machine tells you to get all your money out and give it to them or they're going to beat you up or they do beat you up and and take your ATM card. That is a larceny from the person. It should not be confused with stealing from a car or stealing from someone's shed. And it does not in our opinion belong on this list. Also have no larceny from the person is is sometimes I would submit probably frequently used as that step down plea bargain from an assault and robbery. Where someone is injured in a robbery and then this is used as the, the step down plea bargain for conviction. I have a number of other responses to ancillary questions that were asked but they're not on the core topic so I'm going to stop there because I think we're out of initial time and questions are probably more illuminating than my testimony to begin with. Well, I want to say that your testimony is very is very helpful for us to understand. So, I'm going to call on Bob first Kate because Bob hasn't spoken yet this morning. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioner. How you doing. Good morning to Attorney Johnson's testimony. I might say that when I was reviewing it yesterday, the sales portion to keep my interest also and I inquired about that. I do agree with the shell as far as knowing that we have 14 different counties throughout the state who have 14 different ways of looking at whether this should be law or not. I'm not going to get into the judicial review portion of it, but I wanted to get into ceiling versus expungement somewhat and I don't know which one of you would like to answer this expungement. For my benefit along with those who may be watching is something that just the record just goes away correct. An expungement the record is eradicated. Ceiling the record is only accessible to those that the legislature has allowed a statute once you pass it allows access and under certain circumstances. And ceiling a record commissioner means they could stay out there and forever forever land shall we say. Yes, though I would observe that it could stay out there forever, but be inaccessible to anyone but for example a court and only under circumstances where there was a reoffense, or as I testified to earlier in the session. The defendant needs a copy of that record for some reason to illuminate the history of something that's being misrepresented. Let me ask the questions in reference to the expungement and the records going away, we have VCIC the Vermont criminal information center along with NCIC the National Crime Information Center. Do these records are when they're exposed to they disappear from Vermont records and also from the federal records or is it just for most records only they were looking to expose. They disappear from both because VCIC pulls the record out of the NCIC system. Everything up to and including any fingerprints that were taken in concert with that arrest are eradicated from the record. So everything is going there. That's correct. So, being in law enforcement yourself, how would, if we were if you were looking at possibly hiring more individuals within law enforcement. If in fact someone's record was sealed and or expunged we all know that we asked this question of the day, we all know that there's as a main date now that everyone must must take a polygraph. And I'm not quite sure how they get through their polygraph asking or answering the question as to if you've been involved in a criminal act. And if in fact, the polygraph start setting off stars here or whatever else. How would that affect because the whole purpose or some of the purpose behind open up jobs for individuals but if in fact, someone is not doing well on the polygraph and you don't have access or a waiver from that individual to access a seal How do you think that's going to work in a world of law enforcement per se. I hadn't contemplated that's an excellent question that would disqualify them from employment. You can't pass a polygraph and we can't determine what it is that needs to be cleared up as a result of your, your answers. You're not eligible for hire, especially as it relates to criminal conduct. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, you get the last question. I just had a clarifying question about your comments that with expungements we would never learn the data, because the expungement record is cleared and I guess my understanding and researching the issue is that index data points are captured on the evidence specifically for the purposes of maintaining information for research. Am I understanding that correctly. I don't believe so, ma'am. The, there's no way to connect a person to a record once the records been expunged. Actually, there is no in Vermont there is no record the record is gone. There would be no way to know if John Smith's record was expunged, whether John Smith ever reoffends and had a prior expungement because the prior expungement is a record that doesn't exist. Chair grad is it possible to can I check in with Brandon around that quickly I saw her. Sure. So the effective expungement statute provides that the court has to keep a special index of these cases. And there's only limited data points that can be tracked on the special index and it includes the name of the person, their date of birth, the docket number and the criminal offense. That, so that special index can only be accessed by very limited entities. So, the person themselves a person who's subject to the record can access it, and also for research purposes, the chief superior judge can permit special access to those to the special index for research purposes. So thanks for the clarification and goes to my thesis that this is so complicated that that was not a fragment of information that was provided to me. The underlying issue is less concerning but still remains that the details of the prior offense don't exist so you only know that the person had a disorderly conduct whether that was pled down from an aggravated assault or a simple assault or a criminal offense. You're still flying blind. Okay, thank you. Well, thank you, Commissioner and attorney Johnson for for being here this morning and providing your testimony. And we will keep talking. So, thank you. Thank you so much for for staying late into the noon hour. So with that we will put your.