 So we're taking up S1 19 the house has made several changes and we're probably working from a side by side that's been paired by Bryn and that I believe would be on our committee website. Is that correct. Correct. Representative Lamont representative grad or joining this morning joining us this morning to go over the changes we expect Senator Nick to be arriving shortly as she zooms from the Senate Appropriations Committee to the Senate. Judiciary Committee. So go ahead. All right. Grad representable month. Yeah, I'm sorry. That's all right. Martin LaLonda from the house judiciary South Burlington representative regarding S1 19. Also I didn't get the memo as far as the dress code for Senate judiciary. So I apologize that I rather informal. Yeah, so. So yeah, I just wanted to give you some background on where we are with this particular draft and in the process that where we've arrived at this draft and where to go from here. As, as, you know, you passed out S1 19 we were under a lot of time pressure back in May and June, and we took the advantage of the fact that we had some time during the recess to try to start gathering some more input from affected communities. And to, to, so we had three public hearings in conjunction with government operations, the focus being on S124 and S1 19. Though many people took the took the opportunity to expand the conversation and really pointing to many other things that we should be considering as well. We also had a survey that did seek input on S1 19 use of force issues, and almost 1500 individuals responded to that. And then finally when we came back and started to take testimony we did reach out specifically. Yeah, we know a lot of the law enforcement community who wants to come and testify on these things, but we really made an effort to reach out to members of the BIPOC and disability rights community, and had testimony from seven different individuals who weighed in from more from that perspective. And what that what the off session led to because I did speak with in addition those hearings. I did have conversations I did speak with folks in the BIPOC and disability rights community. So touch base with the AG had conversations with Julio and David share and also had conversations with states attorneys as well. And it led to the draft that we started out with the proposed amendment. We had testimony. I just interrupt you for a second. A lot of the folks who may be watching on YouTube may not be familiar with the term BIPOC. Sure, sure. Red layla sods book me and white supremacy. But for the record, black, indigenous people of color is what Martin is referring to. Sorry to interrupt you. No, no, thank you for that clarification. Absolutely. So we heard from folks from the disability rights community and in the BIPOC community. We had testimony from individuals who felt that we had strengthened the bill from their perspective but also offered some additional ideas. And we, it, we put those into place in the, the version 2.4, which is the last version you all saw, and also tried to address some issues that we understood that you folks raised when you initially saw the amended version, the first amended version that we started out with. So we then had testimony last week from law enforcement, primarily the AG's office, but also some other folks who are endorsing a stronger bill such as from the ACLU. And this draft is my attempt to find compromise between what we heard last week and what we had started with. Unfortunately, I don't think that we've reached compromise rather than reaching compromise my initial discussions and we'll hear more and in actual testimony today is that rather than bringing on the AG and and hopefully addressing some of law enforcement's concerns. We haven't brought them on board and we've lost, I think the BIPOC and disability rights community who are no longer as this is initial I know you haven't heard testimony you'll have to hear it yourself but this is what I've heard. To phrase that as I do want in context and talking about this draft, I want to point out a couple areas that, frankly, I had issues with putting in, and I'll explain that, but did to try to see if I could find compromise. With that, I will, I will hit on those couple points right away because the first one is right up front and that's the section one section one statewide use of force policy. The concept, going in as I was trying to understand from law enforcement particularly but others was to have the statewide standards statutory standards, certain details and implementation and such worked out in policy. Can I just ask you which document you're referring to because your alternative language is very short and then Bryn has to hear a draft and an update. Yeah, the alternative language will get to in a bit I'm, I can be looking at the side by side that's fine. If that's works best for you as opposed to the bill itself. The side by side is probably the best document. Okay, but I would add that as you're still drafting this, and you mentioned testimony, we were shutting down. I don't know how we're going to get any testimony. So this is sort of like having a unicameral legislature. This is this is it we're going to get some testimony tomorrow and because we have two committees and next Friday is the end of the session. I don't know what we're going to do. So, but I have a number of questions. I don't know if you want to, if we can do section by section might be most helpful. Sure. Yep. So, I mean, I'll start with section one I won't go actually in depth, as opposed to just talking to concept behind it and, and Bryn certainly in a walkthrough can go. Yeah, as we go through it with Bryn later on this morning, maybe we can get a better idea but I'd love to have just your concept and where you're trying to, what you're trying to accomplish. Well, that that was specifically to try to address concerns, particularly of the Attorney General to have to direct those policymaking procedure for more of the details and such. And then I had and as I looked at this further and there may be other issues with it is that it that there's a process already started in the executive order that the governor has issued and how would these two converge and there's some confusion about how that would occur. So, my thought has been in part to well let's leave it to that process that's already been kicked off and is already on its way. As opposed to then having this overlay in here, which may cause confusion and hold things up as much as anything so that was kind of one of my issues with this. Initial input that I've received from the from will the white and in the disability rights community is they they don't like putting in place this policy procedure here. They don't want to endorse this kind of policy procedure. You know that but that's where they are coming from my my main point is that we can proceed with leaving this to the executive order in the process that was started there, because by putting this in here I have not necessarily gained any endorsements from anybody. So, representative my lawn. It also is in S 124, but not in such detail but it is in 124 and yesterday we went over 124 with the commissioner of public safety, and to find out what the difference was and how they overlap and there's no no problem at all with 124 and the executive order and they work together really well so I don't think this is necessary at all. Well, I want to I want to ask a question if I might. Is the criminal justice training council, the right place. And by that I've heard from a lot of people that it's. That should be one place that we should be revamping and particularly in light of the fact that we're now changing directors. There is a nationwide, not just in Vermont but nationwide questioning of law enforcement training and how it takes place and I'm not sure that best thing. This authority. As we've done in the past, where the criminal justice training council is the right thing to do I think we should be re examining that. And obviously, that's more of a national issue, but it does hit home right here. I've heard at least another step for example in New York State. And though they banned choke holds following examination of the Eric Garner case, they found that the police got him it was still in New York was still teaching choke holds with a wink and or not. Right. And I will certainly get to that issue as well as one of the other points that I've tried to put in here for compromise, not finding compromise, I'm going to suggest that we no longer have it in here. I'm sorry, Senator. I know that this is that's very confusing because we have so many bills but 124 also revamps the training council. It has it adds many members and from different backgrounds and I think that. So, I realized that all of these kind of are working in parallel. I actually I was referring to the wrong group I'm not referring to the training council the academy is what I'm referring. Well, the training council is over the academy. I realize that but I should have been specific to the academy and not necessarily training. So, I guess the bottom line is even though and I apologize for the way that this, but this is the way it works I suppose an iterative process that even though I'm presenting this as an amendment, I'm not endorsing in this section one, because, again, it didn't solve anything and as I think Senator White is pointing out is only added some confusion which we don't need at this point with this bill, if we want to get it through. So I'll jump ahead to the next section to and that's, that's the standards for law enforcement use of force. And what we've done here relative to the Senate bill is we've expanded it somewhat, though I have cut back a little bit since the last version. To make it, not just really a focused on use of deadly force which which it largely was when it came over from the Senate to kind of bolster the provisions regarding use of force, which also was between policy and standards, by the way. I think the main the main purpose for that change of language was the confusion on law enforcement agency policies and versus a policy and statute we wanted to make it clear that this is somewhat different than the policies that law enforcement may be promulgating themselves. It's not, it's not a critical difference. I think people would understand if we said policy instead of standard because it's a legislative policy. But I also think that when you say standards that is more directive, if I will, you know if I may if that's the way to put it. I think that you need to follow these standards law enforcement policy sometimes seems a little weaker to me. So that's kind of why we went with that language. I can't answer particular questions but I just want to just as a general matter. The idea was, there's a couple main points that I'm trying to do in here I am trying to follow what the current state of case law is, and I really defer to bring on that, even though I'm not trying to follow that case law and other things, but but I'm trying to follow the case law but there are a couple points in here that I think the case law as it's developed is not particularly clear, and I want to make it clear, and you already did in the S1 19 that you sent over as passed by the Senate, but I wanted to make it even clearer and that is the definition of totality of the circumstances. And the way it came over the Senate was it was all facts known to law enforcement, including the conduct of the subject and the law enforcement officer. I wanted to divide that up. I mean it's yes it's the facts known to the law enforcement officer is critical, but separate is that law enforcement officers conduct, and you had that in there but I wanted to make it very clear it's not like what was known to the law enforcement officer as far as that individuals conduct it's kind of a separate issue what was the conduct of law enforcement officer by you know not by his own witnessing of that conduct, but objectively looking at that conduct so we tried to make that very clear the other part is making clear and there's another component in this revised version and it goes to the additional language that I sent Peggy this morning. So just to do with the treatment which of individuals who are suffering from impairment, be it mental health, developmental disability, drugs, etc. That in fact is at this point, although I'm sure others would argue at least at least one of it comes to deadly force. That's the issue that we've had in Vermont with respect to deadly force is is how the situations have handled individuals were suffering a mental health crisis. I'm just saying that there isn't biases other kind of biases and that excessive force may be influenced by other kind of biases but that that really is why that is specifically pointed out in that provision. So we do have the Senate version did have a bit about use of force and talked about it being proportional, and I really felt that we needed to expand that because that's really only one leg of the stool for use of force and whether it's justified and the others are whether it was objectively reasonable and necessary so that standard is now made very clear. But what I did do is I did eliminate looking for this where this is. Well, alright, so I'm not going to say what I eliminated from the previous version I had some additional language about what was necessary and what proportional meant but that's been eliminated from this draft because probably not necessary. So I would move just to this one additional alternative language that I'm proposing. And it would replace. Where are you. Yeah, I'm going to tell you right now it's at the bottom of page 12. It's at subsection five law enforcement officers failure. Yes, the way it starts. Okay. Yes, and in the language that I have proposed. And I need to actually get it in front of me as well. It's on the, it's on the website is it's more it's more directive as opposed to. More deterrence than it is accountability is one way I could put it that the way it is in the version that you are looking at in the side by side is when we're looking at the use of force, we want to have one of the factors is what did the law enforcement do in dealing with somebody who had one of these kind of impairments that affected their conduct. Proposed a different language specifically creates a duty that that when the law enforcement officer knows that the conduct is a result of one of these conditions. That the officer will has to take that information into account and determine what is the appropriate use of force if any. It's, I think it's more it's stronger language it's more directive it's not like after the fact what did you do you need to do this. Yeah, maybe it's a matter of semantics but I think it's important. Is that the way it's actually written in the statute I'm looking at the bottom of page 12 and that it's set in structure just doesn't read properly to me. So, in, in the alternative language that separately sent or looks in paragraph five, this is 1213 paragraph five says a law enforcement officers failure to take into account a subjects known to the law enforcement officer. Oh yeah that that's that would need to be correct. I'm proposing that we go to this completely different language not completely different it's it's similar, but it's I think stronger language that I sent separately, and is not in that document the side by side at this point. And, well, I'm using two documents Peggy can you is brand or Peggy is there a way to look at the document that represent the law on this reference. Represent the law and are you talking about just that paragraph that you said yes, yes, just the paragraph. Yeah, sure. Well, but can you scroll that so we're looking at the same. Sure. Because I'm in the side by side and I don't want to leave the side by side go to find another paragraph. Yeah, got it with limited time available. Hold on one second I can share that. Thank you. Assuming it's relatively similar. Will they have time to make those determinations. Yeah, I think that that. Again, all of this comes under the use of force provision. I'm looking for it right now and the standards for use of force. That I mean it's at the time. It's the circumstances the totality of the circumstances which includes the timing. But I'm looking at, you know, you're going to a domestic disturbance. The perpetrator is holding a hostage and is shooting at the opposite. Right. Or officers. Right. And in that situation you're, you are under the, whether you should be using deadly force and obviously the law enforcement officer at that point to address the situation where there's a threat. There's a threat of death or serious bodily injury is justified in using deadly force. But if the officer confront somebody on church street in Burlington and they are drunk. Then that how does how does the officer deal with that. Under this. Right. I mean, they would have to, they would have to take, I mean, they have various de-escalation techniques. They have different levels of force that can be used. And they have to take into account the individual's impairment when dealing with that. We're just directing. We're not telling them what precisely they should do that is part of their training and part of what a policy would be underlying all this. But we are saying that if you know that there's this impairment, you need to take it into consideration. Yeah, and I would, I would point to the Brennan situation. Yeah, they eventually at the point where they actually had to shoot Mr. Brennan. They were, they had put themselves into that position where, where they that at that point was justified because from what I understand. But there were multiple errors from what I have read leading up to that point. That doesn't mean that the actual that it was justified self defense. Just let me say thank you to representative Brad for joining us. She had to leave to go to her. So, I think throughout here it's all impacted by the totality of the circumstances and whether it was objectively reasonable necessary and proportional. And one of those aspects, but we took out those details is the time frame that we're talking about. And I don't think in any way does this, the standards take away the fact that oftentimes law enforcement is going to have to react in a split second, and it doesn't take away their ability to do so when they have to. But it is laying out some requirements including their conduct leading up to this that should be considered not necessarily in charging, you know, in the state's attorneys charging a law enforcement officer with some crime. Because that's not all this does. It also sets for standards that can be separately sued under in in a civil action in court so. The chair. Yep. I just wanted to point to the word knows. I don't see where representative alone is going with this language. To me the pivot point is the word knows, because I would think unless you're in a very, very small town. I kind of know the people when they roll up to the incident, and they might have reason to suspect, ie, a relative called in the incident and said, this person is going crazy. Is that really, can we fairly say that the officer knows there's a mental condition in that case, or could the officer argue. He said that he was going crazy, but I thought that meant he was acting aggressively not that he had an actual condition. So it seems to me knows is the slippery point there. It could say something if the officer has sufficient reason to suspect or sufficient information. Something like that. But but knows is a pretty high standard I would think I agree should have known would also be something we use frequently. For example, the person naked in the streets and I can't remember what city. When a family called for help and the police. You started spitting and then they put a thing over his head. So specifically on just a flag one case that that certainly influenced my thinking on this as well is a case that is out of the second circuit from May of this year the end of May. Chamberlain versus City of White Plains 960 F third 100. And it was a situation where there were all sorts of opportunities that pretty clear that law enforcement knew that this individual had been suffering from a mental health crisis. And despite that they did everything to escalate it it seemed. And led to this this individual being shot. Similar to the grinning, although much more egregious. So any event that that's that's really the one. Sorry. Yeah, Peggy you can take that down now I think we have that. That's the substitute language for the section. Thank you. So, I don't have much more to say about I mean, I have one more point of place I want to point out. And that is with respect to the use of deadly force and looking for the page. Page 16. Yeah, it's actually is page 16 page 16, the use of deadly force is necessary that that particular language. I do understand that that in particular has been a concern of the attorney general, or at least Julio Thompson. I mean, the bottom line is I think we need to, we need to spell out precisely what we need by necessary and the thing is that the attorney general Donovan testified that with respect to the use of deadly force and I think this is just a general understanding that it has to be the last resort. That is in fact what various policies including the Burlington policy and and I would say Seattle as well. They make it clear and of course I mean of course it should be the last resort but I think this language makes that very clear it's it's again it doesn't affect you know the individual who just has the gun pointed out that law enforcement officer who has the gun pointed at him that they are fully justified in using using that force but it would seem that probably not that often when you get to that point is they're going to be another option but if there is that that needs to be followed. Commissioner testified there's only been 183 state police incidents. Use of force so. Yeah, I've testified that with you in your committee too. I don't think he's, he said that precisely I think we've gotten the message of what is the problem that you're, you're solving my response to that is two fold one is that I certainly think we have some issues in dealing with these situations where there's a mental health crisis, especially since Burlington had a number of policies that they did not follow in the situation with granted. And there are other situations where that kind of thing has happened, including in the Montpelier. I don't have testimony about that but I in talking offline with Rory Tebow. You know there are things that perhaps could have been done differently there. But the other thing is you know I'm not looking just at the past I'm looking you know I'm trying to be proactive I think we're trying to be proactive with this. So, just lost the side by side my computer just shut off. Well I know the feeling. I didn't hit my cord but at least I didn't hit this one and get knocked off here so I think there's one issue that I think we need to. I think I see that, you know the direction other than the section one, your changes. Looking at the side by side are. I understand them I think. I'd like to understand on the Bay on page 20. Of the side by side a law enforcement officer shall not use the right to self to send to this common law or just follow homicide. And then you point to 13 bsa 252 3053. Isn't that the section that we are appealing. Could you tell me this. I apologize since my. 20 top of page 20. You have a law enforcement officer shall not lose the right to self defense pursuant to common law, or a justifiable homicide defense pursuant to 13 bsa 23053 by the use of deadly force. I don't understand the use of subsection C four of this section. I don't understand. I thought that's what we all agreed to repeal and that's 219. Um, so it's a it's it's not a repeal of the justifiable homicide provision that that provision we sun set it. Instead of repealing it here we get rid of the sunset. And we have different language which you would find on if I had the side by side I'll let Bryn point out where that alternative language is. Is that on page 22 were prohibited restraint means the use of any maneuver person. So the updated side by side that I sent 10 minutes before the hearing started on page 24. That was the section that was inadvertently dropped from the first side by side I sent you. So it's section five of the House proposal of amendment. So rewrites that justifiable homicide statute and I think that that language was included in the previous draft you looked at 2.4. So on page 22 starts a law enforcement officer acting in the office capacities law enforcement. May use a prohibited restraint if the use of deadly force is justified. Is that what we're talking? No, so that is the prohibited restraint crime that was established in 219. So there is also additional language in that prohibited restraint crime. But in addition, the justifiable homicide statute is amended rather than repealed and that is in section five. So what did we do with the new law that we passed that's effective October 1. That repealed to it. It's repealed that but it's reinstated in this in this amendment. So it's real. We're we're taking what we passed in this 219 and repealing it and reinstating something else. Is that correct. It's reinstated largely as it passed in 219 with that with the addition of that subsection C on page 22 and a change to the definition of prohibited restraint. I think Senator Baruch has either a comment or a question and Senator White has either a comment or a quote. More comment. I, I believe I understand what this draft is doing with regard to 219. Speaking for myself. I don't like what it does with 219 because it adds again that permissive language that we saw in the first draft. So what I would suggest is a possibility is that we, we hear it repeals the sunset for for that part of 219 I like that. I would, if we struck out the part that modifies 219. Then I, then it works for me, because it seems schizophrenic where in one place in the bill it says a prohibited restraint may not be used for any reason. And then in this section it says it may be used. And I don't see how anybody can expect clarity. It says to diametrically oppose things. So I suggest going back to our language on 219, keeping the repeal of the sunset, I would go back to, oh, I just want to make clear to both represent LeLonde and this committee. My intent is to do one of three things. Assuming the house passes the bill. We would either concur. We would concur with proposal of amendment, which would be amendments. If this passes the house, which would be amendments that we would agree upon in here in Senate judiciary, or we would ask for a committee of comments. Those are three choices. Obviously, as late a date as we're talking about and with expected adjournment on the 25th requesting a committee conference could be problematic. But the preference would be, if there are sections that we just can't agree with, would be incur with further proposal. So, so, yes. And then Senator, but Senator White has, did you want to comment on Senator Bruce represent LeLonde? I did if, if unless Senator White is going to comment, I'd like to comment on what Senator Bruce just said. I was going to throw in yet another option, a fourth option here, which is not to do this bill at all right now. I have to admit, and maybe, maybe I just don't understand what's going on, but I don't even have a clear understanding of what it is the house proposal is because it, it was in a side by side but then we heard this morning that all of section one is out and section the other section has been somewhat changed now so I don't have a clear understanding, and I don't know if this has actually passed the house judiciary, or if there will be additional changes potentially. I don't think we have time to address this bill properly this year at all and so I'm offering a fourth alternative which is not to do this bill at all to have to 19 as we passed it and take this up next year. That's my, I am very that is another alternative but fortunately we don't have to make that decision next week. No, we don't but I'm, because I don't even have a clear understanding of what it is the house is proposing because they haven't actually proposed it yet. Sure. And that's why this is a very strange way of doing business and you're correct maybe that the fourth choice would be to recommit the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee, if it makes it over. To Senator, Senator Bruce point that this is another provision that was my apparently futile attempt at trying to find compromise but the language that we have in there, modifying section that 219 s 219 crime prohibited restraint crime. That language just makes explicit what is already available to law enforcement that may have used a choke hold and in a situation where they're grappling in there it is a life and death situation and deadly force would otherwise be justified. I tried to make that explicit in here to hopefully bring along more of law enforcement but taking it out doesn't really change anything, frankly, they have, they still would have the justifiable homicide statute, which we are amending would would amend in this if it gets all the way through to Senator whites point I and and and the common law defenses are there as well. So, I'm, I'm going to be suggesting when we when the house is discussing this and hopefully we'll have a vote and I believe we will have a vote that that section is going to be taken out the modification to 219. Again, that's what I'm going to propose but of course I'm only one of 11 members there but I do feel that we're going to have support. I know, because this in part also goes approaches from what I understand what the Senate has done and it approaches what the BIPOC and disability rights community has weighed in, and it's going back in that direction and I do know that. I think I'm pretty sure there's a majority in our committee that would endorse that approach so. So, the bottom line as far as this draft and where I, I perceive it may end up at the end of the day with with House judiciary but but I'm not the master of ceremonies over there and can't force this issue of course but but I would say that that we're going to at least where I'm going to be is going to be eliminating section one, having that alternative language that I showed you for that subsection be five and eliminating what is section three. And then the rest of the bill would be as it is revised here at least that's certainly what I hope that at the end of the day is, or the end of this week is something that we would vote on but of course there is still testimony to be taken this morning. And there is a suggestions of some language that the Department of Corrections is wanting to have somewhere and this seems to be the right bill to put it. I don't have any details of what that is right now because I think that's being presented to our committee right now. Okay. I appreciate taking the time with us and that I would say this is still as far as the House judiciary goes. I think it'd be correct to say this is still a work in progress and we don't know what it'll look like. The end of this week as it gets voted on, hopefully by the House rather quickly. I'm worried about, we've been trying to work away to respond to this just as you were trying to find a way to respond to H2S219 earlier this session while we were taking our time working on it. And that's why we split the two bills. We started as one bill and then split them in half. I'm. I appreciate you taking the time with us. I think I don't know what we will do. I'm really. I'm from a national perspective, what I can learn. The police academies are one of the areas in need of rehabilitation. That's the way I can put it. And secondarily, I think that in many cases, what frustrates the communities is when a police officer acts inappropriately, the ability when it's clear, the ability to remove that police officer is difficult. But what we saw are in so many cases recently is police officers actually fired or misconduct. Do we have that ability in Vermont? Those are two areas where I see the public really being concerned. Obviously, you know, you all know more about what's going on in Burlington than I do. But I do know it's frustrating to, for example, in the Woodside case, we have 11 staff members on paid administrative leave while we figure out what they did out of 30 that we're working there. So when people say, well, why did you, why did you support temporarily closing Woodside? My answer is that they had 11 people. I, you know, and that I think the general public gets frustrated with when it's clear. And so, you know, in the Minneapolis case, they were immediately fired. I don't know if you can do that in Vermont. So those are two areas where I see the public calling for rapid change. I think there's a lot of work to be done next biennium. Hopefully we can get this small piece of the work done before we leave. And I understand. You know, if there are, as you look at this, and as you're talking to folks today, if there are other areas that jump out that, you know, you just won't be able to concur with just please through Brynn or directly let us know. I think Senator Ruth expressed, Mike, the concerns of the majority of this. In terms of that section. At least this member of house judiciary is on on board with with with those items that we've talked about today. So, I appreciate your time. I'll jump over to the other room. I know what it's like going from one zoom to the next. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mark. Um, Brynn, why don't, can we take a Peggy, can we take a three or four minute break and then come back to Brynn walking us through these and more detail for getting the sections that he's already said are going to drop. Sure. Why don't we take a three minute pause. So, um, I saw there was, um, maybe, Brynn, this may be premature to even be looking at the house version side by side since the side by side is changing as we speak. I don't know if this is the appropriate place to put in a plug for Jeanette's suggestion here. I'm really concerned about this attempt to try to get something out on this before we break. To me, this is probably the most important piece of legislation I could imagine this session when you're dealing directly with life and death issues. Trying to balance those life and death decisions without us taking the appropriate testimony. I know we've done piecemeal testimony on this, but I really don't feel comfortable, especially given this is a work in progress on the house side to believe we're going to have the opportunity to take all the testimony we need prior to adjournment. I know I may be speaking due to the pressure I'm feeling from the court system right now and if I panned around my office you'd see stacks of files waiting for attention. But the bottom line is I this is such an important piece of legislation. I thought about one third of the testimony from the house watching YouTube versions. And the last person that was speaking that I saw was Will DeWight who was saying, please don't rush this do it right. And if she's telling them that we haven't had that same discussion. And I'm really nervous. I think I'm happy that the house is taking testimony trying to flesh this out. It probably will be a much better piece of legislation to look at at the end of the day when they're done with it. But I'm nervous about whether we are going to have the time to try to properly respond. I just want to plug Jeanette again and say I would prefer that we just simply have it recommitted to the Senate and call it a day. Well, just add something. Yeah, but yes, okay. I think that one of the things that I've seen in this committee is that when there is an issue like this, we have very thoughtful and serious discussions among the, the five of us with witnesses and legislative council. I don't think it's possible to have that same depth of conversation and discussion and thoughtfulness in this, in this format and this is one of those issues that I really think needs to have us be sitting across each other and talking. Right. Well, I guess it depends on we obviously don't have the time to get the testimony from everybody that's going to testify. But I think that we at least should wait before we make a decision to see what they've done to our bill. I agree, Dick, to waiting. I, I feel some of the concerns that Joe and Jeanette are expressing. I do see a path, given what Martin said that the committee was his committee was prepared to, to throw out of the bill. I do see a path to a bill that I could support. What it comes down to is how quickly does house judiciary work. So, if, if we don't get the bill until 24 hours from the end, I think that speaks for itself. So, but if we have, you know, sufficient time at the end to deal intelligently with it, then, then I would be for proceeding. I will send a message to Tim. There are, I believe they're planning on voting it out today or tomorrow. Is that correct, Brent? I have not heard that. So I can't, I don't know. I did, I did hear that from Martin that his goal was today with a fallback of tomorrow. So looking at the side by side, you know, and we'll get an updated side by side once they make a final decision. We could do that and determine whether or not we're how close we are. Do we have, I still don't, I mean, I'm going to now ignore section one since he said he's taken it out. So going directly to page six, where there's the first. We use, we just did deadly force and they use any force. Is that correct? Can you say the section, Dick, because I have a, I don't have 12 pages. I have it. Okay, are condensed. Section one, it's our section one, their section two. You are right. Okay. It starts on it says statewide policy ours was law enforcement use of deadly force. And it's for law enforcement use of force. And then they added that force means physical coercion employed by law enforcement officer to compel a person's compliance with the officers. So the two changes there. One is they define force. Then define then they agree with us on deadly force and what that means. It's the same as our version. So that the differences are. They use standards for law enforcement. We use policy. We've restricted the deadly they go to all. Right. That's a good characterization of the differences on the first couple pages there. So Joe or questions or comments. Yeah, Brian, the, the difference simply being that they've defined force. Expanding the title, if you will, beyond what we had limited to deadly. Is there any place else in this bill that something less than deadly force has actually been changed as a result of that definition change. If I'm not sure I understand the question, they do expand subsection B, which is all about the use of force, not necessarily about the use of deadly force. Okay. I guess that that answers my question. Then later on, if you can expanded that particular portion of the standards. Later on on number item. For prohibited restraint means. And we use the term may prevent and they struck out the may prevent. I don't think I like that. I think that in several places in this amendment, because for consistency's sake, you remember as to 19 created that definition of prohibited restraint entitled 20 and then the new crime. Okay. They've changed it in three places, including here. Okay. They've changed it to align with what we passed in 2019. They've changed it. So it doesn't include the word may. So it's any maneuver that prevents or hinders breathing, rather than may prevent or hinder breathing. What did to 19 say. 19 may prevent, may prevent hinder breathing that it was the same as what you've got in your, in your version of 119. Okay. That. What does that do, practically. I think it limits the, it limits the definition of what a prohibited restraint is. So it's, it's, it's that prevents the hinders the breathing, not may prevent. So I could argue that what I just did. When I grabbed somebody by the neck. I didn't intend to. Yeah, I think it makes as a part of the analysis whether or not the maneuver actually did hinder their breathing or blood flow. So even though we know that grabbing by the neck may hinder. Let me just finish so I understand. We know that, that may hinder under our version, grabbing the neck would be not okay. Under their version that might be okay if it didn't hinder. Is that correct. Correct. Thank you, Jenna. So, I guess my question is more procedural. If in 219, it says that may prevent. And then if the house version passed on 119, wouldn't we have two conflicting statutes here. Ultimately, because what the house does in their amendment is to change that definition everywhere where it passed in 219. So, for example, in section three, we amend the restricted restraint crime section for we amend the definition entitled 20. Okay, thank you. We're using the fact that the, the effective date was October 1 and they're planning to get this passed before the effective day. Dick, if, if we work back from backwards from what Martin said he was willing to do. He said he was willing to get rid of section three, which deals with 219. That implies directly that he'd be willing to get rid of these changes to the definition. Because otherwise, as Jeanette said, we would have conflicting definition so I read him as saying that they would be willing to get rid of all the changes including these definitional changes. But I guess those would be things that we should communicate through Bryn with, if you could keep track of the Bryn so that we can communicate with us. You do fairy. This committee doesn't agree with the change to the definition of prohibited restraint. Yes. And then they go on to all of that regarding the physical, the language barrier, alcohol impairment, et cetera. Correct the totality of the circumstances definition. Right. So specifically includes those factors that may interfere with persons and ability to comply with law enforcement commands. Any comments on that I don't have a problem. Okay. So then we're now going to, we're still in the same section Alice. Okay, yes, I'm following. There's a change on the bottom of page 10, or to achieve any other lawful law enforcement objective. So that's language B2. This is where the house version uses the language that the Senate version had in B5. And that was sort of the one sub subdivision in the Senate version that addressed use of force generally not just use of deadly force. So they've sort of adapted your language and moved it up to B2. So the language in yellow does the new clause there at the end is added to the standard for law enforcement use of force and essentially it expands the circumstances under which law enforcement may use reasonable necessary and proportional force. So the Senate version provided that law enforcement can use force. If they have reasonable cause to believe a person to be arrested has committed a crime. Because it says law enforcement may use force if it, if it complies with these standards. If to achieve any other lawful law enforcement objective not just to arrest a person or detain a person who the law enforcement officer has reasonable believe reason to believe that committed a crime. That makes sense. Okay. So if now we're no longer talking about deadly force. So if there's a protest, peaceful protest. And the people are in the street and they're instructed to leave the street. Would this allow them to use force in order to remove them from the street. And then arguably yes it would that language any other lawful law enforcement objective is, I think pretty broad it essentially is, is drafted to include any purpose that law enforcement have that is lawful. So clearing people from the street to me it would probably be a lawful objective of law enforcement. Star that with a problematic. Referring to any use of force right now. Yeah, not. I mean deadly force. We restricted ourselves to deadly force if we were to agree with them at some point that any use of force. This is allowing them to determine what is a lawful enforcement objective. Well, you saw that you saw what happened in Washington DC at Lafayette Park. When the president is removed. And so allegedly he would have his photo op in front of the church. I just am thinking that if we're talking about any force at all that. There are times when law enforcement uses force because force can mean just compliant handcuffing that that is a use of force. So, if, if you have a DV situation for example. They, they haven't determined yet whether a crime has been committed but you have a couple violent people here, and they need to cuff them in order to restrain them that. That could be another law enforcement objective that to stop the, the fighting that's going on. But so if you're talking about any force at all, as opposed to deadly force. Okay. Next is. This is the section kind of subsection. Whether the decision by the law enforcement officer to use force was objectively reasonable, shall be evaluated from the perspective of reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances. And we had language they have language, and maybe you could help us understand what the difference is. This is that on pages 11 and 12. Sure. So bottom of page 11 top of page 12, the house added an additional sentence to the subsection that adds that the officers failure to use feasible and reasonable alternatives to force is a factor to be considered in determining whether or not the that use of force was objectively reasonable. So essentially as representative alone was saying earlier, as a burden on law enforcement to consider other feasible, reasonable, I mean other reasonable alternatives to the use of force if feasible, because that will be a factor to consider when considering whether or not their use of force was reasonable. I actually like that addition. Because it, you remember in one of their earlier drafts they had a whole thing about, you must use de escalation policies. Yep. And that was too, too specific, and it seemed like it produced a lot of confusion. This is a way at getting at the same thing that that retroactively a decision will be made based on whether they availed themselves of other options. So, now you have a note here that says the Senate version of B five is the house version of B two. Yeah, I just, yeah, just place that note there because you see on the Senate side the left side subdivision five isn't highlight. And you don't see anything next to it. I'm just making a note that the house did use that language they just moved it up to be to, and that's the language we talked about about when law enforcement is authorized to use force. So they expanded it in their version to include any lawful law enforcement objective. And then they add in language in five is all new language is that correct. Yeah, that's correct. And this is also the area where representative alone presented some substitute language that he was going to write committee this morning. Bryn, is there a word or two or a line missing there. There's I'm, I think that Senator Benning pointed this out earlier. It looks like the word conduct was dropped that happens sometimes with these tables unfortunately at the page break sometimes we lose a couple words. But I did want to point out that you may not want to talk about where specifically because representative alone indicated he wanted to replace it with something else. So we can talk about his replacement language, which you looked at on the screen Peggy put it on the screen. And that was the language that created a duty when law enforcement knows that conduct that subjects conduct is due to some impairment or other factor outside the subjects control. So it's that duty on using that information law enforcement has to use that information that they knew in deciding whether or not to use force. And again, Senator Bruce appointed out that that word no is a key word because law enforcement had to have known that those facts in order to have the burden of using that information and deciding whether or not to use force. Yeah, I just think it's very tough to prove that somebody should have known something, which has Dick pointed out is why we go with should have known, because you just can't get inside somebody's head that way. Would you add that comment known should have been, or should have known. So, do you want me to keep going. Yeah, on now we're at section, I'm trying to see we're at see you should deadly force and see one on page 15 and I don't know if Alice is able to follow. I'm following you. Okay, they took out the words, the officer reasonably believes that correct. Yep, they did take that out. There was some conversation that that was just redundant language because we're also referring to the totality of the circumstances which also refers to the officer's reasonable belief. So I don't think it necessarily fundamentally changes this language to take out those words. Other than that that see one that is the standard for use of deadly force and that language hasn't changed at all. You turn to page 16 you have some new language in subdivision to. Yep. And that's the explanation of what the word necessary means in the context of the use of deadly force standard. Subdivision three is also new language that says that law enforcement has to stop using deadly force as soon as surrenders, or no longer poses an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. I'm thinking there about. So you see videos of people being tased. And when they tased them, they spasm. And, and, you know, for obvious reasons they, they throw their arms and they yell, and sometimes officers will retroactively claim that that's why they continued to tase them is because they. They didn't remain motionless. In order to be cuffed but, but they're being, you know, electricity is being shot through their body. So when I look at that definition I see when the subject surrenders, or no longer poses an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. I have some doubt about, you know, in, in, in an earlier version I think they also included prohibited restraints, which seemed to me to indicate that you could choke somebody until they went unconscious which in the case of the Minneapolis officer. That's what he was actually attempting to do via his training. I, I think it's probably okay here but I just, I wonder if there's, you know, as soon as the subject surrenders or no longer poses an imminent danger. I just wonder if there's a more specific or clear. Okay, well you're trying to bring the person under control. Once the person's under control then it should be over. Yeah, I mean that's, this is kind of one of those areas I'd like to get some more testimony on though when you're actually in the process of pulling out a gun to stop some use of deadly forced by the suspect. And you pull the trigger. Lots of times you pull that trigger more than once somewhere in that series of trigger pulls, there could be an argument made that the person was no longer in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. I mean the officer was no longer subject to that. Right. Do we now enter into an area that splits hairs. For some reasons I'd like to have some more testimony from the other side to talk about it. What's the other side. Well, certainly law enforcement. I don't know about you guys but I'm getting emails from Beth Novotny about their concerns and the inability to have had testimony yet. So I'm somewhat. I have not heard from Beth, I suppose by saying that I will, but I don't, I don't believe I have. I know that right now she's watching the House Judiciary Committee. And their conversations about this entire bill. So I'm believing that we'll all be hearing from her eventually but it just tells me that there's more information out there that we ought to be thinking about. Okay, do you want to contact Beth and see if she's available for tomorrow morning at some point. Yes, I can. I my screen froze so I missed some of that but that's the botany. I heard. Yeah she represents the Vermont Police Association. And on S1 19 should I send her as well as Marshall and Terrence all the documents from today. Yes. Well, the hard part is they keep changing so. I think for Marshall and Terry they're going to be basically talking about the national effort and what's going on and also they have more knowledge of Seattle than Marshall lives in Seattle and I believe he's been talking with folks from that area police department. In large part, some of these changes have been based upon Seattle's policies, but they are policies and I want to point out that they are as I understand it. This is one of the questions that I'll have for them is the difference between Washington state law and the policies that have been implemented in Seattle and so you may have a different you have might have different policies and Tacoma than you have in Seattle, but there's a state law that I believe is the minimum. That's what one of the things I wanted to hear from them and understand so they want to look at what is Washington. I zoom, kick me off for like five minutes but what I'll do is I'll go back and listen to the YouTube so I can hear what you wanted I don't want to take it. Well, it's just basically to have Beth Novotny testify regarding the house changes. Okay. Regarding house changes. Okay, and if there's anything else you want me to let Marshall and Terrence know just send me no. I think you're fine. I think they're fine with what we've given them so far. Okay. It literally just, I just, it kicked me off. I got kicked off, been kicked off. A couple it was a actually get kicked out of a session of the Senate, and it was a Comcast problem. Yeah, five of us actually got kicked out of the Senate session. Luckily, the voting was all done except for adjournment. Nobody missed much but I'd hate to have that happen during a meeting. I don't know if a vote on S54, for example, roll call. Okay. So we are now at page 17. And there's just a I did not actually page 20. And I didn't understand eight in section two. That's at the top of page 20. So not use the right of self-defense to pure. I, I saw that as a statement, an explicit statement of what our understanding was when we passed 219. In other words, that even though we had a prohibited restraint, they would still have two means of defense under common law and justifiable homicide statute. And now as amended later in this draft. I don't know. Yes, so they, they did hear some testimony that some witnesses wanted an explicit statement that an officer's use of deadly force in self-defense would be they would still have the right to use the right of self-defense under the common law or the justifiable homicide defense. If they used that deadly force in compliance with the standards, but you'll note that it's specifically provides that that deadly force has to be in compliance with C1 through four. And so those are the standards that out in C1 through four. So it's that standard for use of deadly force and C1. So that's the standard for use of deadly force. And so it has to be in compliance with that description of what necessary is. And also they have to be in compliance with that provision that says that law enforcement can't use deadly force on a person who's just posing a danger to themselves and not posing a danger to somebody else. And also that requirement that law enforcement has to stop using deadly force as soon as the subject surrenders or this is no matter what. So those provisions and subdivision C are not explicitly included in this language. And, you know, that was, that was a decision based on the members of the committee that were working on this draft based on some testimony or actually some conversations that they had with various stakeholders. That raised the concern that if a law enforcement officer, for example, didn't intervene, if an officer was using a prohibited restraint or didn't follow another one of the explicit requirements under subdivision C, whether or not that person would, would lose their ability to raise the self-defense, defense or justifiable homicide. Thank you. Okay, now we're at page 22. This is where. I think we just opposed to this. Section is it. It's the one where it says they can use a prohibited restraint if they feel it's justified. Okay. We ban the prohibited restraint. Let me say it's okay to use it. I think Senator. It's been the long-term spokesperson. Yeah. I was glad to hear representative. I don't think they would say that they would hold this. No. Section three. Okay. So I'll play devil's advocate. If a law enforcement is authorized to use deadly force. What difference does it make? What type of deadly force is implemented? Well, they, they still have the defenses that we just went over. So what we're saying is. These are prohibited restraints. And elsewhere in the draft, it says they should, they won't be used for any reason. So. It seems like. If it says they shouldn't be used for any reason. It's. Schizophrenic to then say, you may use them under these circumstances. With that said. If somebody is acting in preservation of their own life, they should have a legal defense. So if you pull three, it goes back to what we did in two 19, which is allow them a defense, but not create. Permissive language that seems to encourage that use. It seems like a schizophrenic double-edged sword to me. If you say they have the ability to use deadly force. At the same time you're saying they may not under any circumstances use a prohibited restraint. To me, that's diametrically opposed. And I don't know what a prosecutor would do with that information. If the officer has no other available way of protecting himself and has to use something that cuts off the air supply. And yet you have a statute that says specifically they can't use anything that would cut off the air supply. How would the prosecutorial side of the equation. Come in on that picture. That's one of the reasons I'd love to be able to hear testimony from the Attorney General's office and from the state's attorney's office and the defender general about what that particular language does. When an officer is subsequently looking at a potential criminal charge. Well, I think it's a question of what, in essence, what we're highlighting and what we're not highlighting as our, as our intent. And in terms of the prohibited restraint, I think we're making it very clear that we don't want to taught in the House bill and we don't want it used, but we're being realistic and in allowing these defenses, which are now explicit in the House bill. So, you know, you're right. Definitionally, it is a use of deadly force. But we're not saying that they don't have a defense if they use it, but we're making it very clear that our intent is that it not be used in the normal course of law enforcement. The ultimate question is, can they use it as a defense if there's a statute that prohibits it? Well, I don't really answer to that question. That's why I'm nervous about doing this without testimony from all sides. But it gives them, you know, that there's that explicit section that says they have, you know, those two defenses top of page 20. I understand what you're saying, Phillip, but the language specifically an indifferent statute removes that element, at least in my mind initially looking at this, it removes the ability to use a prohibited restraint. If in fact they're trying to raise justifiable homicide as a defense. Well, let's, let's ask, if I could ask, if I could ask Bryn to, if she's willing and able to summarize testimony. That may have been provided on this section. So, um, I would, they heard a lot of testimony on this section from various witnesses. Some witnesses were in support of the bill as it came over from the Senate. And some witnesses requested that there be explicit language in here about the defenses for just the reason that Senator Benning is raising that it was law enforcement was concerned that with this, with the explicit language and the standards that provides that a prohibited restraint shall not be used for any reason that law enforcement may, may feel the need to resort to using their firearm or some other sort of deadly force as opposed to using a, using a maneuver that would be a prohibited restraint. And so I believe that the intent of the house was to add that language that specifically refers to the defenses that are available for law enforcement to make it clear that if a law enforcement officer was grappling or in a struggle and the only, the only thing they could do to, to save their own life was to use a prohibited restraint that that those were circumstances where it would be allowed. I think we did hear testimony on that from Mr. was it blown from the criminal justice training from the police academy. I believe I was on the road when he testified, but I do remember that. Yeah. Senator White and Senator anybody. So it is very interesting that we are prohibiting this, this maneuver. We are not allowing any training to be you held around it. And yet, if that's the only thing available to an officer, they can do it, but they have to do it without training, because so they won't know the way to do it. And I don't want to say safely, but the way to do it with the least consequences. So it is, we deadly forces the use of the gun, but we do training on that. And so it's just, I, I am not comfortable with whether we've come to some kind of a conclusion on this, because I think that there are circumstances where they would want to use it, but yet it is specifically as Joe pointed out prohibited. So we're saying this is something you can't ever use and you can't ever be trained on, but if circumstances warrant it, you can use it. No, we're not saying you can use it. That's, that's what this draft is saying. And, and I, I think that that's, that that's extremely confusing. So, so if we pull out section three, what it's saying is you, it's a prohibited restraint as passed in two 19. You're, you're not to use it. If a situation occurs that is it's, it's life or death. You do have a defense, but we don't have language where we're saying go ahead and use it. And, and that's what I like least about the house version is that permissive language because they have the defense anyway, but you know, I thought what we did in two 19 was the right thing, which is don't teach it. Don't teach police that it's okay to use it. Don't think of it as a tool in the toolbox, all of the ways that they've now been taught to look at it. The idea that you're going to put your arm around somebody's throat and choke them till they're unconscious should not be part of what they're thinking of doing. If it winds up being a, you know, a last ditch self protective maneuver to avoid death for themselves, then they have here in the house version and explicit defense, but I don't think we should be in the business of essentially promoting it. I don't see it as being an explicit defense, and this is the way I see it arising in a criminal trial. Officer is charged with homicide in one version or another. And in the defensive argument, the council for the defendant tries to elicit questions about what was happening. Was there any other way to avoid this without a prohibited restraint? And the prosecutor stands up and enters an objection and says to the judge, it's not relevant. There is a statute. I don't know what the statute number would be at the time, but there's a statute. That prohibits this. Maneuver specifically. So it's not authorized to be available for a justifiable homicide. The judge has to make a ruling. And I don't know what the judge would rule in that particular situation. No, but the defense, you know, as, as you well know, the defense would go immediately to. Page 20 section eight. Where it says explicitly, law enforcement officers shall not lose the right to self-defense pursuant. If they've acted within those. Standards. So, so, Bryn, if I could just ask quickly. When it says you shall not use, lose the defense. In, in practical terms, it's not withstanding the prohibition. On using it. If. If it comes under that. Shall not lose defense section. Yeah. Yeah. That is how I read that as well. Right. So, so a judge is, is not going to. Stick with the line because it's prohibited. And for any reason. The judge is going to look at that. Next to. The segment in this draft that gives the specific defense anyway. I guess I'm coming back to their language sounding better and clearer to me, because it cannot be used unless the triggering device of being able to use deadly force. Is there. Okay. Maybe we're under misunderstanding each other. I, I support. Page 20. Section eight of the house bill. Which is the, the. And I tried to say that when I said. It seems to me to put an express terms. Our understanding and agreement when we did 219. Yeah. So I support that. Is that what we're arguing over is that you think I'm not. Let me go, let me go back to the. I want it to be very clear for somebody who is in that situation. To not have to fight. I want it to be very clear for somebody who is in that situation. To not have to find themselves. In front of a jury making the argument. That I'm now looking for. So deadly force means any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury. So that's what I'm saying. And you're saying that your reading of that means they could make an argument. That the use of a choke hold is acceptable. Is that what I hear you're saying. Yeah, I, if it falls within the standards set out and see one through four, which are those standards for the use of deadly force, it's not only under those circumstances that are listed. See, I looked at the house languages as being. Very clear and explaining. That that maneuver. Was only acceptable if they were first authorized to use deadly force. If you strike that language from what we're trying to do. It seems to me you're still subjecting the. To a legal argument that a statute existed specifically prohibits this maneuver. It prohibits it in any case. Joe. Except. Page 20. Section eight. Specifically gives them the right to use it in self-defense. And then it cites the justifiable homicide statute. So if it, if it is judged after the fact to have been. Reasonable proportional, et cetera. And. In self-defense. Then they're fine. Which is why it doesn't refer to see eight. It refers to see one through four. So it doesn't. It, it means that that doesn't, they don't have to be in compliance with the requirements. That I'm sorry. I see six that a law enforcement shell officer shall not use a prohibited restraint. Okay. I get it. Yeah, I get it now. It's a torturous way of getting there, but I get it. I did. Yeah. I do have a, another suggestion. I don't know if now is the time to, to, to float it. I don't know if it's the time to, to float it. But one way that may be easier to reach this, the same place that you're at now is by amending the language and the justifiable homicide statute subdivision three. To refer explicitly to those two sections of the new standards that set out the standard for use of force and use of deadly force. So it would be, it would refer instead of to the whole statute, which is the standard for use of deadly force, which is the standard for use of deadly force. And that way you would be excluding all of those additional factors in the standards, including the prohibitive restraint. Yeah. I'd agree with that. I'd have to see that. It's a little. Confusing to try to. Figure out the interaction. So you, you are suggesting Bryn to do that and then. To take out. Other pieces. I think, you know, I'm just hearing the committee kind of grapple with that subdivision C. Eight is being confusing. And so I'm, I'm floating another idea, which may be incentive, including that language and C eight. You change. The language. In the justifiable homicide statute. So it provides that. Law enforcement can raise that justifiable homicide defense. If. They use force or deadly force in compliance with those specific sections of the standards on law enforcement, use of force. Meaning C one and B two. So you would be excluding. The other requirements, including the language about prohibited restraint. Do you see what I'm saying? So it wouldn't. I do. Essentially be able to raise that defense, even if they weren't in compliance with the prohibited restraint language. Yeah. Oh, by understanding, you're having the same problem. I am, I am from the other side. And that is the. The design of this language is still problematic. And if we ourselves can't understand it. That has me really concerned. The other part of this is we're dealing with this discussion in a vacuum because the house is still working on changes. Yeah. No idea what they'll end up with. Yeah. No, I, I, I think from this walk through, it's clear to me that we could. Get to a bill. I believe we could get to a bill that we agree on. It's dependent on. Does the house stick with what they've got here? Or do they. Hand us a new fourth draft. Two days from now. Right. Okay. Let's. Since we've got about five minutes left. 10 minutes at the most. I think we're. We're getting to a place where I'm comfortable with parts of the bill, but not all of it. And so I think we need to. Move on. They make an effective date of September. September 1st, 2021. For the section on the use of force. Is that correct? That's correct. But I would say that that's positive. That's probably due to the section one that it sounds like might be coming out because. Okay. It gives law enforcement time to come up with their own policy. Okay. All right. In. In preparation for tomorrow's meeting. Can you look up what Washington state law is? Certainly. I can send that to Peggy. They've got several statues relating to the use of force. I can just include. All of the ones that seem most relevant. Okay. It's all very confusing. But it's really. Not as confusing as it seems. Does that make sense? I. We're doing our best to. Apply it may fail. May not work. I haven't thrown thrown it out yet. So we'll look forward to tomorrow's meeting. And. We'll be there. Whether we look forward to it or not. Is a different West. Better way to put it, I guess. We'll see you all at one. We'll see you all at one.