 Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. So we're going to switch hats to S-254. Oh, boy, she said. Yeah. Well, it's fun. I'll be in back at the same room. It is. It is. It is. So what I'm going to do is. Oh my God. Take the. Easy way out. And. What was that? You should have in your file. The EP draft. Yes. They did 310. Nice. Okay. This one's an 830. So there's 3.1, which I've just submitted this morning. But there's also. I'm sorry. Yep. All right. I'm going to have to work. Then switch this up. I'd like to explain what I'm trying to do. Become clear to me. That with the amount of time that we have. And give the efforts. The last few years to improve fair and partial. Policies. Use of force and guidelines. Proof police officer. Training. I still support the idea of the elimination. But. It's clear to me. That. To try to do that this year. Given the. Length of time. Committee. Even though we've had extensive discussion. Some say that we're, you know, what I've heard is the way we do it now has. Worked well. Settled by the. Various departments in this state. We don't have all good information about those. But we do know that. There have been a lot of. It's a controversial topic. I believe we need to get it right. And as a citizen. Legislation. We deal with a lot of different issues. Just like the one just previously. I think we need to get on the back and forth with the lawyers from each side by commissioning an independent report. On the state of Vermont. And I was working now. I don't think we have to have a study. But what I really am lacking is when I hear from one side. Oh, no, they do, they do have it. It's like my argument with my town manager at Bennington. Well, they already have access to suit. Look at all of a sudden. Well, yeah, but what, you know, what about the other case. And so I hear from the other side. So I've been working with that. Try to craft something. The other thing I heard was there is some doubt about Zulu. And whether it covers ministry. Municipal police and covers. Sheriff's. We know it covers state troopers. That was clear. So it just attempts to do a draft, three point one attempts to do. Is. Say it's our intent. Zulu covers all. And it also contains. Not a study, but a report. And then go over. The reports that he and I have clicked out. And it also contains. Not a study, but a report. And then go over. The reports that he and I have clicked out. That's a report on the access to justice. And. And we're hopeful that he would get assistance from. Various groups that have been here. On both sides. As well as. It looks like. Project that might be rightfully. Center for justice. So this, I think. I mean, I realized that. The proponents of the bill. Will not be happy. I realize that the opponents may not be completely happy that the. Issue is still out there. But for me, anyway. We need to understand is, does Ramon have a problem? You know, we looked at no, not one. No. Not. And this committee determined that it was not necessary to change that law based upon the testimony. It was clear from both sides. This one hasn't been that way. And I'm like to get some clarity. And if we don't have a problem. Then we should. Then we don't need to change it. But if we do have a problem, as I suspect we do. Then I'd like a little bit of a better basis. I really want to thank that. Then over back. With me on this issue. And done some tremendous work. I don't know where we'd be without them. You know, listening to both sides. But this is what we've come up with. So I'll let Ben. Read it over them. We'll take a break at 10. Come back and talk a little bit about it for about a half an hour. See if there's something that. Why are you bringing it up? Can I make a suggestion? On lines. 14 and 15. Or it's against any Vermont state. County. Law enforcement officer. I think it should be all certified law enforcement officers. Because they're like UBM has a. It's on agency. And so this wouldn't cover. It should be all certified law enforcement officers in the state. Regardless of who they are. Are you being a monster? Sure. Oh, yes. Absolutely. You should see what they have in their trunks. I walked by one of the UBM police cars. The trunk open. It was like an arsenal. A lot of riot. Yeah. Anyway, just so that it makes sure that, and there might be one or two other. Kind of quasi. Well, yeah. And any certified law enforcement officer. Just a suggestion. Good idea. No, no, they can't. So this is a, so Ben overgrossed me for the opposite legislative council. We're looking at draft 3.1 of a strike on that. It has two 54. This is almost completely new compared to the last version. It still creates under section one, a new chapter 190 under title 12. This is now a term though violations of article 11 of the Vermont constitution by law enforcement. It creates a new section 5607 entitled standard to recover that damages. And some section eight is essentially intended to codify it as a low standard. And as Senator White said, to make sure it applies to all Vermont law certified law enforcement officers for violations of article 11 of the constitution of the state of Vermont. And that is the search and seizure provisions. So this would cover roadside stops. Anything sees during those stops trying to, you know, arrest of individuals. So any potential violations that would come out of those types of actions. And again, this is just to make it clear that this is the standard. And it was a thousand Zulu and to make it uniform across the board for all law enforcement officers for article 11 violations, which again is what the Zulu, the holding in Zulu concern was an article and violation. It does say that the common law under subsection B, that the common law defense qualified and you shall not be a bar to any action seeking damages brought against a law enforcement officer for violation of article 11. And that's because under Zulu, it's a burden that the plaintiff must prove to obtain damages and a limiting analysis that the court undertakes. So it's just to make sure that it's being concerted and that qualified against not bar to that new burden that the plaintiff has to prove under Zulu. Can I just stop that line? Correct me if I'm wrong. The memory says that line is taken exactly from the Zulu case. I don't, I can't recall the moment it's a direct quote. And you're talking about subsection B. Yeah. Okay. But my intent was to capture it as closely as possible. And really just. I just want to, this is a good place to say this. When the bill began. It was creating. Right. Expanding what Zulu had already put in place to cover all certified law enforcement officers. As opposed to just state police troopers. Correct. That is what I understand now is the intent of the bill. Correct. Brilliant. Thank you. It is. Anyway. And moving on to what would now be in session 5608. This is a record of the case. This position. This was the old section 56 and version 2.1. And this is the one where. All judgments and settlements that an agency would pay. Must be maintained. Which would include a copy of the underlying complaint. And it would be subject to public disclosure. Unless an exception under the public records act applied. But any record that would be disclosed would include the name of the law enforcement agency and any monetary amount paid under the judgment or settlement. And then there's language that would ensure that all person identified with information contained in judgment. Or settlement. Shall be reacted prior to. Disclosure. And it would be subject to public disclosure. Unless an exception under the public records act applied. But. Any record that would be disclosed would include the name of the law enforcement agency. And it would be subject to public disclosure. And this is an effort to make sure. To really track what's going on in Vermont. With law enforcement agencies and these claims. And also to ensure that. You know, people that are included in the. In the, in the cases. You know, their information is not necessarily disclosed. So. So. Does the officer's name. Is the officer's name disclosed. It would be all personality information. I would be so. The officer's name would be included within that. So it would not be disclosed. That's some type of us. The officer's name. It's just as well as the person. You read in the paper that there was a settlement reached. For example. More center family. And it tells us the amount. But most of. Many of these settlements. Privately. And we don't know they exist. And people are saying, well, yes. They. They are already getting. They already have access to justice. Well, how many of them are there? What's. This will just give. People the ability. Without. The name of the. Or. Or the. The name of the person. In the case. In the case. In the case. In the case. In the case. The name of the person. In the case of. The representative or the center family. That was made public like that. And. Even though everything is redacted. If your chief will. Nose there is a suit against the. Brow� police department. You know. But, but I think this is good. Yeah. For you to deal. And then. And then- What we're interested, what I'm interested in, and hopefully the committee is, what is the current status of how many of them are there? We got such conflicting information on both sides of this. Counties. We move on to section two. This is the report that Senator Sears discussed in the news. The report on access to civil justice remedies and law enforcement qualified community in Vermont. What this does is essentially, the office of legislative counsel by November 15th this year would produce a report to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, the House Committee on Judiciary and the Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee concerning the impact of the doctrine of qualified immunity on access to civil justice remedies for people wrongfully harmed by bad faith policing and violations of civil rights in the state of Vermont. In report or in particular, the report shall identify, one, the origins of the doctrine of qualified immunity if it's present in interpretation by the state courts of Vermont. Two, the existing constitutional statutory and common law causes of action for addressing the alleged misconduct of Vermont law enforcement under Vermont law. Three, existing immunities from suit concerning allegations of Vermont law enforcement misconduct under Vermont law. Existing defenses to liability concerning allegations of Vermont law enforcement was conduct under Vermont law. Existing statutory and common law limitations on damages and the applicability of the doctrine of qualified immunity to Vermont state-level law enforcement officers, county-level law enforcement officers and municipal law enforcement officers. Just on that last number six. So on page one, or I'm sorry, on page two, page one at the bottom, subsection B, we're removing qualified immunity in violation of article 11. So is number six in the report meant to talk about what remains for applicability? Essentially, yes, because I would just be for in the previous section for article 11 violations, but it can apply in other situations. And I think the intent behind this is to give the committee, all the committees that we've received in the report the fullest picture possible of what the state of the law is in Vermont, just to analyze and see if there's any action to be had going forward. Because it could be clarified to say the applicability of the doctrine exclusive of violations of article 11. I understand that's what you mean. And to your point, Senator White, from before I can change this just say all certified law enforcement officers. Yes, sir. And then subsection B with the Office of Legislative Council should have the administrative technical and legal assistance of the Attorney General's Office, the Defender General's Office, the Center of Justice Reform at ELS and any other stakeholders interested in assisting with the report. There's something to be said about compromise that everybody hates and everybody loves. Well, it's been one of the most difficult bills I was explaining to a reporter yesterday. Well, I think of the three that are some of the more difficult bills that I've dealt with, one was civil unions and the chair of this committee. And the Supreme Court has said we had to act. So we didn't have a choice really. The other was Act 60, which was the big decision. I can't remember a little girl from a town in Madison County. But anyway, that was another, the Supreme Court said you had to act. In this case, nobody said you had to act. And it's been difficult because of the very emotional and honest disagreements on both sides. I remain an arm and deep perspective, the folks from ACLU, the JDS, the folks from the White Park community have spoken out clearly in favor. I also have a great deal of respect for Commissioner Shirling and other members of the Department of Public Safety, Matt Bernanke and State Troopers. So I hope that this will at least allow Vermont to look at this in a different way, but also make sure that it's clear. I'm suspect that Supreme Court would, if there's a statement, but to make it clear that Zulu applies to all law enforcement. So I'm happy to hear from folks in a few minutes but are not to be briefed because we basically have a half an hour to deal with it. We'll get back here at 10.15.