 the Senate judiciary Friday June 19th and it's probably particularly appropriate on the Juneteenth that we are meeting which is getting quite a bit of national attention as a holiday to mark the end of slavery in Galveston, Texas. I was watching CBS News this morning and watching some of the history of June 19th. So with that we're taking up S219 for markup and in conversations with the House Chair Maxine Grad I think it would be wise to separate out the use of force legislation. We have in current draft of 219 and put that into S119 which is a bill that deals with use of force. Do a strike all with our language and work from there on that with an effective date of September or October 1st which would give the House extra time to work on the use of force and representative Grad would like us to do that in order to give her committee the early focus on provisions of S219 that we've been debating and hearing about for the last two weeks. Secondly she suggested as had some of the witnesses that it would be a good idea to have findings or intent in the bill and I was thinking that perhaps that could be drafted to go on before 3rd reading to give you a little time to do it. But a starting point would be some of the you sent us a memo early on with a list of and run down some of the bills we've passed in the last three years. So I think that would be a good starting point and then talking about how this is a continuation and not the end. Really a continuation of the discussion in Vermont. Senator Bruce, do you have any comments on any of those ideas that I just wrote it. Well, first I just wanted to clarify is the draft that's up now. Does that incorporate what you just said about separating out use of force not yet. Okay, so are we talking about removing the improper restraint piece from 2019. Okay, no, just the section. I believe it's sections 4th through 6th. Okay, section 4, 4 and 5. I don't remember what the draft that's posted this morning does is it removes just that statewide policy on the use of deadly force section, which was section 4. So that's the section that's gone from today's draft. Okay, I'm sorry, I'm confused. So the draft that's up now, are there pieces that are going to be taken out of that? Sorry, go ahead. So I'm looking at the draft. And it has, so this is draft 2.1. Does that incorporate what Dick was just talking about? In other words, has the separation already been made and this is what's left? So I emailed this draft to the committee yesterday and what this does is it only removes that one section about use of deadly force that has been removed in this draft because it's just the one that's on S119. It is posted. So it's the one on our committee page. Yes. Okay. So it's the same as the first version. It has a few changes in yellow that we'll talk about and it also removes the use of deadly force policy because it was my understanding that that would be moved onto S119. Okay. I realized that I'm asking the same question, but I'm not clear. So is the draft as it's up now, what we're going to mark up in both? Both. Yes, that and S119, which would be a new draft. And I think you've, Bren, has that already been prepared? It has been prepared. It is not posted yet. I didn't get an answer about a couple of questions. One was whether or not you wanted S19 as it exists to stay on the bill or if you only want the use of deadly force policy to stay on the bill. The use of deadly force policy. Okay. We'll deal with the other parts of it after the break. Okay. S19? 119. 119. Okay. All right. This will become clearer as we move. Yeah. I think the easiest way to move, I think it will become, I don't think it's... Oh, the other thing I wanted to say is the part about adding findings at third reading. I just think that would give us sort of a strange message on the floor. Because findings are what you're basing. It's kind of like we're presenting the law and then looking for findings to generate it. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, we can... I know there's a time crunch. Yeah. Is it possible to, would the committee be willing to look at a draft of findings and approve them before Tuesday than they could be added? The draft, whatever we end up, the draft number. Yeah. I would. I think we need to be really careful about findings because I've seen bills in the Senate get more debate about what's in the findings than in the bill itself. So I think we need to be really careful that it's just objective things in the findings. Otherwise... Let's scratch the idea about findings then and just put a provision regarding intent. Okay. That it's a continuation of the effort. And I think we all can agree on the intent is to continue to work on this. This is not the end. It's the beginning. And then looking back at the memo that Bryn prepared for us regarding where we've been, the things we've done. Also, the work of the Senate Government Operations Committee could be, you know, that several committees in the Senate are working on these issues and will continue to. Yeah. That's better. That probably is easier than... And if the House wants to add findings, they could do that. And they will. That was the last thing Representative Grad said to me. I know you don't like finding. They've never met a finding they didn't make. Remember, you're on the... I've said it many times. No, that's carbohydrates. That's... All right. So why don't we start our walk through a draft 2.1? And Bryn, if you would, and Matt and others, whoever else wants to join us, feel free to comment. But why don't we start with section two? You have highlighted August 1st. Can we put it on the screen? Is that easier for you? Then I won't be able to see all. And that's fine with me. So if you wanted to speak, you might have to shout. Okay. It's fine with me if Peggy puts it on the screen, assistant. I won't be able to see you. I may not be. I shouldn't say I won't. I may not. Go ahead. Put it on the screen, Peggy. See how it is. If you can. You still haven't got your iPad up and running? I've got the password now. I found it. I hadn't used the iPad in a year. That one. Okay. All right. I can see some of you. Yeah. Can the print be a little bit bigger? I mean, I can see it, but. Okay. Okay. Are we ready to begin? We're ready to begin. And I think we begin on section two on page two. Okay. So Peggy, if you would scroll to the next page. Again, this is draft 2.1 of S219 for the record Bryn here from Legislative Council. The changes that have been made to this draft are in yellow highlight. The first change you'll see in section two. This is the requirement that the secretary of administration provide notice to all law enforcement agencies about the new requirement that you've created in section one that makes state grant funding to law enforcement agencies contingent on their compliance with the race data reporting requirements set out in statute. So the change here just bumps that date from July to August. I think that had mentioned. Senator White. The is the only when I read this finally last night, it said that it's approved. They are going to approve all of the grants and applications. But is that the only thing that they're going to do? They currently approve all grants applications and will they have the ability to set other requirements around and qualifications for applying for those grants by using this language? This is a new requirement. This is a new duty for the secretary of administration. So they don't currently have this authority. And the language provides that they shall approve the grants only if law enforcement has complied with the race data reporting requirements. So I don't like that. Right. To allow them to impose any additional requirements that would that would that the grant funding would be contingent on. Okay. All right. Okay. As long as that's clear, because I don't want them setting up other qualifications. If you scroll back to page one, you can see that language. Okay. Um, it's on page one. No, I'm on page one. Okay. Lines 14 and 15. Right. So it says they shall approve it only if they, which means they can't approve it if they're not in compliance. But it doesn't say that there are other qualifications. Right. It says shall be subject to the approval. And then it says they can't approve it if if they're if they haven't complied with the reporting requirements, but it doesn't say anything about that's the only reason they can not approve them. I see what you're saying. The first sentence your first sentence could could indicate that they have the authority to hinge that funding on other requirements. Exactly. So we don't don't want that at all. Right. I mean, this is as it came out of Senate appropriations. Well, I think that it allows the Secretary of Administration to put other qualifications in there that have never been approved by anybody except the Secretary of Administration. So I would be, I would want to make sure that it says that the only reason for them to deny is this. They could deny for other reasons, Jeanette. Why could they? Incomplete. I'm sorry. Incomplete would be one. Incomplete application. This is just this is just saying that they can't approve it without this doesn't speak to the pre existing situation under which they don't do it now. So they don't have any. They have no reasons now to turn down an application because they've never they don't do them now. Don't they approve the grants now? No. Okay, I think ultimately they do. I don't think so. I think that a law enforcement agency can apply directly to forced state or federal funds. Because this was drafted. Brinn was this I'm trying to remember who drafted this. This was this was the way it was drafted at the recommendation of JFO. Yeah, so but it went through a couple of iterations where they were fine tuning. Okay, I think we should trust this. It went through JFO was agreed to by the Secretary of Administration and others. Well, of course, I just want to make sure that they don't start saying you can't you can't apply for this federal grant because your you don't have enough diversity on your force or something like that. All right, Matt would like to speak. Matt Valerio, did you have a comment on that? We've had some we've had grants in the past as well. And oddly enough, they come through the Department of Public Safety and it's federal money and it's federal grants and any of those federal grants have to be approved by the Department by the Secretary of Administration. You know, it's been a number of years since we we got one, but secretary secretary of the news. One of the big things they look at is whether or not you have to continue to fund the program after the grant money goes away. That's okay. One of the criteria, for example. Yeah. So I know that they're they've been that's typical that they sign off on grants. We've also had just before my time, but had grants held by the Secretary of Administration for okay. All right. Okay. If the Government Operations Committee wants to look at this section, I'm more than happy to have you take a look. No, no, we don't. We have enough to do. Okay. I'm happy with this. Can we go back to the section to them? Is everybody okay with August 1st? Yes. That was July 1st before. Section 3 is where other changes are. Right. So this is the section that talks about data collection on the use of force and there was some conversation and committee about whether we wanted to clarify that this force meant physical force and whether you wanted to include data collection on threatened force or other intimidation tactics. So you'll see that I added a couple words here, whether physical force was employed or threatened in effectuating the stop. And if you scroll down a bit more, I also added in brackets, but actually that's not that's not here. It's on the next page. If you scroll down to page 4, this is where we put some parameters on what force means in this context. I added in brackets some language that came from Mark Anderson's testimony about specifically what physical force is described as in law enforcement training. So I put it in brackets. I was not sure if the committee wanted this there or not. I think it's a good idea. I like it. One thing I go back. This reminds me in some ways of what we and it may be better in the statement of intent. But what came up before all the Floyd case in Minneapolis and other cases in the Bennington case and we talked about it with Curtis read a little bit and others is the warrior mentality. And I think in some ways that is a major issue that needs to be dealt with. And so if there's some way to work that warrior mentality into the let the statement of intent. Bryn and if the committee is okay with that because this reminds me of that. You know, before you in some cases what what I before attempts to deescalate there's attempts to escalate. Senator Sears. Yeah. We also are trying to address that in our dealings with the Academy and the training council itself in reviewing their their curriculum and how they deliver it and everything. So if people have an opportunity it's interesting to read the National Chiefs of Police Association. 25 steps to improve Bennington law enforcement and in there they discussed the warrior mentality as seen on their I think it was Facebook page but it details that and I think including these contact controls compliance techniques defensive tactics deadly force. I think that's helpful. I'm for adding. Yes. One thing I wanted to point out is that it does not include what Mr. Anderson's testimony described as cooperative controls and he described that as compliant handcuffing escorts police. He talked about police just police presence being a use of force voice control and equipment display. So I did not include that category of force in this description of physical force. That's OK. Yeah. So I'm sorry to take us back a page. I just wanted to point out that if you scroll back to page 3 there you did hear some testimony from some witnesses that advocated that the executive director of racial equity received this data regardless like even if even if the vendor that's approved by the council is no longer able to receive the data which is how it's set up now. I didn't include that because we did not hear from I don't think that we heard from the executive director herself about whether on that point and I didn't hear anything about the committee. I just wanted to point that out that you did hear it from some people. I wasn't sure if you wanted that change made. So we are considering putting her on the training council. The executive director. Yeah. Isn't that position a limited position. What do you mean limited. It's a five year position. Yeah. That's what I mean. But it'll it'll extend beyond five years. Believe me. Okay. Okay. I like adding it her as well I do too. And I think that's a good catch Brent. So please do. I hope you also look at who is the training. Where is the I think more importantly is who's in control of the training council. Yes we are we have training. I mean excuse me who's in Academy. Academy not training council. We have we have that in ours. Obviously that's another issue that yeah and it's really a good timing because the current director step down I believe. Right and we're changing the makeup of the training council also to add more civilians. All right. Can we keep going. Yeah. So if you Peggy if you will scroll to page five please. That will move us into the new section for which is the improper restraints the unprofessional conduct statute and the change you see on page five and six is what we discussed on the first day that we went through to change under color of authority to under authority of the state and as discussed that has that is a phrase that's been used by the Vermont Supreme Court to mean law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity is law enforcement. So we went ahead and made that change to those two places. Good. We'll have to make them in our bill too. I can send that to Betsy and good thank you. If you so now I'm on page six if you scroll down a bit more Peggy the improper restraint definition. So again we're in this category B conduct what's defined as as an improper restraint which can be held to the category B conduct in the unprofessional conduct statute. We've revised that definition to mean the use of a maneuver that applies pressure to the torso or the spine in addition to the next rotor windpipe or carotid artery and again pressure that may prevent or hinder breathing reduce intake of air or impede the flow of blood or oxygen to the brain. So we added those two areas of the body to expand that definition to include the other types of restraints. I'm a little concerned about how broad torso maybe we'd define that anywhere. I know what you're for. Yeah, but it'd be hard to restrain somebody without touching their torso. Yeah, I see what you're saying. Yeah, we eliminate torso and just go with spine. Yeah, because I think spine gets at what we're talking about. It's the center of the torso. Right. But what happens if you're sitting on somebody's back who's literally flipping out of control? Matt, do you have a comment based upon the Crawford findings? I really don't. I agree, take out torso, but can I go back to just a little discussion on failing to intervene? Um, do we go at any point farther than that and talk about what might happen to the person that fails to intervene and you know, obviously if a person doing it and an underling interferes, but what's the have we talked about that at all? What just saw that with some was just something on the news about a woman who was fired because of inter intervening some years ago. This was yeah, I saw that too. I think it's a is there any kind of are we giving any guidance on that? Well, if you're, if you, if it's a category B, there are sanctions on category B, how they do the investigations and that's in the underlying training council requirements of how they we're adding this as a category B offense. Okay, and the and someone investigates that and decides they're out of line in disobeying their superior officer. If if that's what they find, but if we've made it the failure to intervene a category B offense, then they would be exonerated. I would think for disobeying their superior officer if they intervened because they have to intervene now the way we've written this. Am I right, Brynn? So the way it's the way it's set up here is that it would be category B conduct if there was a failure, if the law enforcement did not intervene if they if they witnessed another officer employing that technique. I'm concerned about the part when they do intervene and then are brought up on a misconduct charge. They do intervene because it's what we require and what's the right thing to do, but then because they're disobeying the superior who might be committing the offense person that does. But Alice, I mean, you look back in history, go back Berg trials where people didn't. Didn't intervene. No, I want to. I think I think Alice is talking about a retaliation. Oh retaliation for intervening. Right. Yeah. All right. I don't I don't know. I think that's probably covered elsewhere, right? If I think so, Brynn, if if somebody's operating according to law, they can't be professionally sanctioned, right? That's correct. I think that I'm wondering if Senator Nick has talking about if there are individual law enforcement policies that provide that a person can't disobey their direct superior. And I would just point out that, you know, the way that category B conduct is described as is a substantial deviation from professional conduct as defined by the agency's policy, or if not defined by the agency's policy, then is defined by counsel policy. So I would just point out that if you have it in statute that this this type of behavior is required that there be an intervention, then that would take precedence over the over an individual agency's policy. Okay. Okay. Going back to spine and torso, if we could, I've just been rereading it myself. And to Joe's question about sitting on somebody's back or spine, it is only illegal or improper when that may prevent or hinder breathing, reduce intake of air or feed the flow of blood or oxygen to the brain. I understand that distinction, Dick. And for that very reason, I'm thinking we ought to strike the list because in this situation, if I have you by the nose and the mouth, I am cutting off your airflow and the intent is to not let that happen. But that doesn't appear in this list. And I'm somewhat concerned that if you've got somebody in the converse situation that is literally flipping out and the only way to properly restrain them is to sit on top of them. You're not intending to prevent or hinder their breathing. You're only intending to keep them under control. So having the list has me a little nervous that we've got. So you would you would just take out. I would take outline 16 after the word to or actually from the word to but that's the definition. That's that's where we're defining what improper restraint is. Well, your improper restraint though is what the end result is. You're cutting off their their windpipe and that's the part that we don't want to have happen. I'm concerned that if you have a list, it's limited to the list. So if I've got you by the nose and the mouth and that doesn't appear in the list, that becomes perfectly acceptable for me to cut off your oxygen supply. And then conversely, if somebody is flipping out, you've restricted the ability of the officer to maintain control in that situation. Well, we could add mouth and nose, but otherwise I think it's a pretty comprehensive list. And if we if we eliminate it, then people might not understand that pressure to the spine is also included. I like this definition very much. I think it's the heart of this whole improper restraint push in the bill. So if an officer is literally keeping someone from causing harm to other people in a situation where they may be flipping out from drug use or whatever the case may be and they're doing so by keeping them on the ground and keeping them on the ground means they're sitting on them. Would you find that officer guilty of this improper restraint? I don't think so. That's why I want to get rid of torso. If you leave spine, it seems to me what that's targeting is the technique we've seen in a lot of these videos where they put the knee at a specific pressure point, the neck, the spine, etc. Torso, I agree with Senator Sears. It's just too vague and it opens itself to the sitting on them idea, but the others, I think are very specific. And I think that's a strength. If we eliminate that, I think the danger is that people don't understand the sorts of things that are actually covered. Then we fall into that vagueness problem that some of the witnesses talked about. I agree. I guess I'm going to ask Matt what his opinion on this is because if you or I are defending an officer under these circumstances and literally the individual being restrained is face down and the officer is sitting on their back, it seems to me they could be charged with this and yet the officer was not intending to prevent or hinder either breathing or oxygen flow to the brain in some fashion. And I'm a little nervous about leaving that scenario in place because it's a common occurrence with police officers and I know where Philip wants to go with this, but I'm really concerned that we're roping in things that were not intended. Add Philip and Dick together. Well, Dick, I don't know. If in your situation 204 Depot, did you ever have a situation where somebody was literally flipping out to the point where the only way to restrain them was to have them on the ground and sit on top of them? No, I had we had to have three people arms behind the back legs until the person person was absolutely totally intoxicated had gone out to work for a lady in her garage and the lady had a fifth of wild turkey. I'll never forget it. And he drank the entire fifth and by the time he got back to 204, he was heavily intoxicated out of control, but we did not sit on him. We just took three of us to restrain him until we could get him under control and then get him so that he wouldn't vomit and choke in his own vomit. Then we got medical care. I guess if Joe's objection can be solved by not making the change in yellow, in other words, eliminating torso spine, I would rather have that and keep the rest because I would really object to getting rid of this whole definition because it's, as I say, it's the heart of three of the sections really. May I comment? Let me be clear, Philip. I don't want to get rid of the whole. This is something that goes to the heart of the conversation that we are having today. Yep. I don't want to get rid of the concept, but I'm nervous about where you don't have things that are obvious attempts to cut off wind like holding both the nose and the mouth at the same time. And yet you're roping in something that might be completely unrelated to that actually happening. I would suggest, yes, but I was going to make suggestions to solve it. I would suggest we take out torso and spine and thank Bryn very much for adding it in. I'm happy to do that. Okay, I'm happy doing that. I do see Joe's point though about that. Whenever you have a list that's very specific, anything outside of that list is okay to do. So if you just put applies pressure that may prevent or hinder breathing and leave out the list, you've included everything that could possibly prevent breathing. But then I think we run into that vagueness problem where somebody could say, someone threw their arms around me and squeezed me and I couldn't breathe. That goes under the definition. I like this because it's very specific. Let me just make a suggestion. If you remove torso and spine and you reverse the two phrases to say that anyone who applies pressure that may prevent or hinder breathing, reduce intake of air or impede the flow of blood or oxygen to the brain, including but not limited to neck, throat, windpipe, carotid artery. Does that solve it? Yeah. I think it's the six of one half dozen of another, but if you if you prefer switching those pieces. Actually, I think it broadens it. Yeah, that's good. I think it broadens it enough that I think that's good. So it answers the question of it's not limited to, but if somebody said, okay, I can put my hand over their mouth and put my other hand on their nose and inhibit them from breathing and that's okay. So I think that's actually an improvement. Does that include then the guy that gives a bear hug and the defendant says he was squeezing me and I couldn't breathe? Does is that improper restraint? I would get those. It might be. Yeah, yeah, I I'd be worried a little worried about that, but. Okay. I'm fine with either of those ways. I think we're still taking out torso and spine, correct? Yes. Okay. All right. I would just leave it like this then and take out torso and spine. Okay. The next is probably even more controversial. And that's the C on section on page, I guess I'm on page eight. Nothing in next section shall be construed to limit a restrictive availability of the just file on on the side defense pursuant to 13 BSA 2305. Remind me what that means. Yeah. Brian, could you? Sure. So I did want to point out. So now we're in section six or section five now, which is that new crime that's created. For law enforcement using the improper restraint that causes serious bodily injury or death. And so I'm going to take out torso and the spine in that in that section as well. Is that right? Yes. So on page eight section C, this sort of incorporates by reference the justifyable homicide statute. And so if and that statute, I don't know if you all looked at that yesterday. It provides that person is guiltless. If they kill or wound another under certain circumstances and those circumstances include self-defense. Would you like to talk about the other circumstances in that in that statute? Yeah. Go ahead. Oh, the first is that again, it's sort of the self defense provision in the just and necessary defense of his or her own life or the life of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, sister, master, mistress, servant or war. Oh, God, that's that language again. That's weird. Also a person is guiltless if they wound or kill another in the suppression of a person attempting to commit a violent felony, including murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, burglary, robbery, with force and violence. Or the last circumstance is in the case of a civil officer or a military officer or private soldier when lawfully called out to suppress riot or rebellion or to prevent or suppress invasion or to assist in serving legal process and suppressing opposition against him or her in the just and necessary discharge of his or her duty. I think if we get into that law, one of the requests that I had from Mark Hughes when I talked with him last was to deal with that if the riot piece that you just listed. So we're going to deal with that law. We need to update the language. Obviously me defending my mistress. I don't have one. Record and if you did, you wouldn't defend her if I wouldn't. I wouldn't defend her and also the term master is obviously and Ward and Ward all of the still. I need word is so I think that we either decide to put in an affirmative defense because I think one of the bills, one of the things we should look at in the future is that particular law regarding justifiable homicide and at least update it and also look at that piece regarding riots. So I really appreciated this from Bryn. I this isn't my favorite piece of this draft, but I can live with this. I couldn't live with an affirmative defense where the law was putting forward in effect something new. This is a reference to an existing statute and that works for me. So assuming it can work for other people, I'd be I'd be all right with having this be our solution to that. It could work for me as long as we change some of the terms that are in in that law and get a riot, get a riot and I'm fine with that. If we can do that and then update the language about this comes from the castle doctrine, by the way. Um, I know, but do we really have time to start looking at the language in that law? I mean, I think that if we do there, just just that section. Yeah, if it's if it's limited to what Bryn just read, that would be a pretty easy change. No. Okay. Would it not be? Um, I'm not sure it would be. What do you think? Can I just make an observation? Yep. We have heard from four persons of color who have suggested to us that we need to do this right. And we are under the crunch of having virtually no time to do it right in the way that we're now talking about. I agree that this language here is a great compromise and it leaves me feeling like I can live with what is written here without any problem because this is over 40 years worth of jurisprudence that this language has been in our books. The statute does need to be updated, but if we hold up this bill to update that statute, I'm concerned that a, you're not going to have a bill come out at all. Um, and the other side of that is we may possibly do something wrong because we don't have time to properly flesh that out. I think it should be corrected and updated, but that should be on our list of things to do next year, assuming we're all reelected as opposed to trying to do it in a hurry when even the folks who are most impacted by what we're trying to do here are telling us, please do it right. Well, maybe if it's a commitment to deal with that next week, we can deal with this next week in committee in the miscellaneous sunset bill. Okay. Okay. Okay, I'm good with some of the bill. Maybe I don't know. Maybe it could be part of the deeds bill. Um, so there's as long as there's an agreement to work on justifiable homicide as soon as possible. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so as I said, not my favorite part, but I, I appreciated it as a, as a compromise that I could live with. I'm wondering how others would feel about changing the word improper to prohibit it. In other words, we keep using the phrase improper restraint, but improper is a very, very light word for what we're talking about where we have actual serious penalties of jail time and, and big fines. We are prohibiting the use of this technique. And I don't think we should be shy about saying that. So we've gotten rid of the phrase ban on choke holds, but if we change improper restraint to prohibited restraint, I think that's more a description of what we're actually doing. Okay. You're the English teacher. Um, the vernacular is it commonly used by law enforcement in their training? Uh, which? Well, either improper, improper. I mean, I'm not sure myself. I'm asking in ignorance because I don't know. Well, I mean, both, both have very clear meanings. It's just that prohibited means you can't use it improper means. Well, it wasn't exactly the right thing to use. And, and for that reason, I think, you know, what we're doing is prohibiting it. Yeah, you're right. So category B, the way it's. Who, who said, yeah, I think that was Matt. Was that you, Matt? No, no. Who said you're right? I did. I said, yeah, you're right. Okay. I'm sorry. I hate agreeing with you so often. It makes me look bad. So category B conduct is defined as gross professional misconduct. So if their training in that category B description, they are told about improper forms of restraint as opposed to illegal. So they're, they're told about things that are prohibited as well. Brent, Brent, some help here. Do you know what other states are doing? With what they're calling it? Yeah. New York just passed a law on this. So I, and Congress is dealing with it. Yeah, that's a good question. I would need to check. I can't remember off the top of my head, but I'll check. I guess what I'm saying is I don't, I think it's very clear to say it's a prohibited restraint and improper just makes it sound slap on the wristy. Well, except that it's it because it's in a category B. But there they, but there they're saying gross misconduct, which is much stricter than improper. A gross, but improper restraint is a gross. No, I understand Jeanette, but we're, we're, we're developing the phrase here that will go under gross misconduct. I think prohibited sits more with gross misconduct than improper, which is a very, it's a very light way of saying. I wish we had had this suggestion before so that we could have found out how they, the let's, let's come back to that. Can we ask Bren is checking to see what some other jurisdictions have used as a term, I think, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel. Okay. I was looking at that as a broader umbrella of activity than prohibited is to me, that's a more narrow series of conduct. But what we're describing is all prohibited. The goal of this section is to ban a chokehold. Correct. And and like ban on chokeholds. So I'm trying to get the similar anyway. So it would be prohibited. Yeah. The New York, the New York law defines chokehold and prohibits chokehold. Um, but let me, let me check about the, about the other one. Okay. I generally don't like New York sports teams. In this case, I think their legislature may have it right and prohibited. I'm not going to follow my sword for this, but my thought is that if you have a prohibited restraint, that is a specifically defined prohibition, but there may be other conduct used by the officer that's improper and they train for that event. And so switching the words in my mind would narrow what it is you're attacking here. Again, I'm not going to follow my sword over and I'm just pointing out that to me. Well, what is prohibited, but an improper restraint means the use of any maneuver on a person that applies pressure to the neck, throat, windpipe or carotid artery, and it may be a little reverse that may prevent or him to breathing doosin take a bear and feed the flow. Right. So an improper restraint is then prohibited. And so the language would be certainly appropriate. If it says prohibited restraint, would it not? I think so. Again, I'm not going to follow my sword over and I'm making the observation that from an English reading of it, it looks to me like we're narrowing down the conduct. But I'm not going to have a battle over. Okay. So the Democratic police reform bill defines chokeholds and carotid holds and bansom as prohibited. Yes. I'll go with the English man. Excuse me, professor, English professor. Different. So we're going to change improper restraint to prohibited restraint. Yes. I have a question for Jeanette. Yeah. Jeanette, that witness yesterday said that the ground defense instructor school does teach things. Are you looking at that? I mean, I'm confused here. What you're asking me. He said that they are teaching things that he called them vascular restraints and he said not basic training was teaching them, but the ground defense instructor school. The advanced Jimmy. Yeah, the ground defense instructor school. He said was was teaching techniques that he called them something vascular techniques. And I was wondering if gov ops was, I know you're looking at the training school. That hadn't come up at all until yesterday. So we have not, but we'll, we will look at that. Okay. And see what that, see what that means. And I just, I wanted to point out here that there was some confusion about Drew's testimony. That he was not speaking for the VSEA just he is a member of the VSEA, but he was not speaking for them at all, nor was he speaking for the training council or the academy. He was speaking as a use of force specialist and section going back to the bill in section five line 11 on page seven, we need to change the heading law enforcement use of prohibited restraint from improper. And then I think in the previous sections, we use it too. Okay. And in the intent section, brand, if you could jot something down about the escalation as being the primary tool that should be used in all cases. Yeah. That should be the first thing. Yeah. And force should, and we could, I think it's better to have that somewhere in the intent language. Okay. In determining whether or not an in a prohibited restraint has been used the escalation should be the first act. I don't know how you're good at that. So that brings us to the final section of what's left of this is body cameras. Senator Sears. Yes. I'm sorry to interrupt. I'd tried to use my little hand, but I'm not. I'm not seeing little hands. Yeah, I'm just jumping in. There was something that was bugging me about this last section that I, I couldn't put my finger on and now I just put my finger on it. The justifiable homicide defense availability. Makes some sense, except for the fact that the crime that you commit that is being committed doesn't require that somebody being dead. So I don't know if you want to scroll back to that little, that prior section for a sec. Yeah. The under the up. Now you can go down all crime is law enforcement officer acting in his capacity. The law employs an improper restraint on a person that causes serious bodily injury or death to a person. The justifiable homicide offenses only arise when someone's dead. And they don't arise. When you have a serious bodily injury situation. Can I interrupt for a moment? Because the language of that justifiable homicide statute, although it's named justifiable homicide provides that a person is guiltless for killing or wounding a person under those circumstances. To share. The thing is what what happened is our statutes don't match up with the justifiable homicide comes out of old common law. So it doesn't doesn't match up with what that's why it still has the defense of the mistress. Yeah. Well, you know, all of those those languages are true. But my understanding is is I guess the issue is is wounding the same as bodily serious bodily injury. I don't know. You know, this is why just is that there might be the availability of other. Are you suggesting that we should have an affirmative defense? No, all I'm suggesting is that perhaps you should say it doesn't restrict or limit the availability of justifiable homicide or other defenses that common law because well, if if they're a common law, they're already available, right? You know, because like in a self defense situation, the this is the thing about affirmative defenses. The ones that are some of the ones that are defined in statute shift the burden of proof to the defense to prove others like self defense. If there are facts that are in the case that allow self defense, it puts the burden on the state to prove that it wasn't in stuff. You see it's burdenship. Matt, if I can if I could just say I think your objection Bryn answered to my satisfaction, I don't know about others on the committee, but I feel like we're we're moving into a much broader philosophical discussion. That's what when I originally talked about an affirmative defense, I had in mind an affirmative defense that is up to the defendant to prove that the behavior was justified and I'm willing to settle for this and hope and with the idea that we're going to revise the statute anyway in the near future. So that's fair try to while while still on the statute, I just would like to point out that you did hear some testimony from some witnesses about objecting to the fact that this is essentially a strict liability crime because there's not a mens rea elements attached to it. So I just wanted to I didn't add an element a mental state element, but I wanted to point that out for the committee and and that's why I say that I could go along with this. I can't go along with it if we get into an intention or state of mind because it seems to me now that you know, the person who uses this to protect their own life is protected, but if we get into offering, you know, the I feared for my life defense, that's what's preventing conviction nationwide. Okay, can we move on? Sure. So the next section is the use. There's one more change and that's on page eight in section six about body cameras and and I've just changed some of the phrasing there rather than the device has to be turned on whenever the law enforcement officer is conducting law enforcement activities, which it was pointed out that could be anything including paperwork. We just changed that to whenever the officer has contact with the public. That's good for a minute. Much better better and that that is it. Those are all the changes. Is there is there a penalty for not turning on the body camera is that's that would be I was thinking about that. It's a good point, Senator. I'm not saying put it in. Well, I think the model we should ask or require in this legislation, the model policies to be that are in whatever act it was that we passed on body cameras should wire to review that to make sure that the ACLU and other groups concerns are addressed regarding the turning them off and turning them on. Okay. But we have cases where actual cases where officers and other states that I don't know about from other states were offices and turned off the body camera and then prevented people from the transparency. So also, I think there was discussion about having the this might be national and not yesterday because I'm, you know, flipping between stories about the national news and what's going on and yesterday's hearing which you did a great job by the way, Senator, but yesterday's hearing listening to people. I can't remember who said it, but there should be a way to make these body camera videos available to the public within 30 days. I we're we're looking at how footage how the public records law affects footage from cameras and I think it's more complicated than that. And I think that I know that Miss White did testify that they should be made available to the public completely unredacted. I completely disagree with with that because there are times when you really really want to redact certain things like confidential informants and innocent people at places and domestic violence cases. I think that so we are requesting that there the press association and the Training Council and DPS and other law enforcement look at when is the appropriate when and how is the appropriate release of cam footage. Well, my my biggest concern right now in this bill is to make clear that we expect an update of the law regarding when it can be turned off and when it can't and that being a whatever you call category B or whatever that is. That should be a disciplinary action if they failed to turn it on, but we're not putting it up. I was going to suggest that we have, you know, sort of session law that directs. Is it the Training Council that updates the camera law? No, no, we would it has to be I think it has to be synced with our public records law and that that's more complicated. I think we're talking about two separate things though, Senator, we are talking. Yeah, you're talking about the transparency and I'm talking about when a police officer turns it off in order to have a interaction between that police officer and the public not recorded for whatever reason. Yeah, yeah, and that's okay to say that they have to have that's what this says. It has to be on at all times. Well, but yeah, that's what I'm trying to get at. You can't just turn it off because you're going to be kicking somebody. No, no, I was I was just turning it off because you're arresting the auditor of accounts. Right. I was responding to your but that was the case. Yeah, if you remember, I know. With Tom Salmon, Tom Salmon Jr. Yes, right. And that was the DUI arrest and there was a lot of discussion about cruiser cams and I think the same issue should the police officer. Well, I know Pawn and good guy, which I agree he was a good guy. So I'm going to turn it off during this arrest, but when I arrest Bill Baruth, I'm going to turn it on because I certainly want that to be public. No, I agree with you. I was responding to your suggestion that they need to be made available to the public within 30 days. Okay. Does this need to be in the bill Senator White or are you taking this up the model policy? We are taking it up. Okay. We don't need it then. Well, it can be an intense session intent section. Right. I would not go. I would not put anything in there about making them available to the public at all in this in this because I think Dick just means that we would reference the fact that it's being worked on. Okay. That it's our intent that the updated model policies are part of the ongoing effort. That's good. Yeah. Okay. But I understood you, Dick, to wonder whether or not there should be some penalty. Embodied in this bill in a courtroom situation. If the officer turned it off. Yes. I think that's a very large conversation. It's very long. I agree, but something we need to deal with whether it's government ops or this committee. We need to deal with it. They go with this bill. Is that what you're saying? I wouldn't see that as a gov ops question. I would see it as a judiciary question because you're either leaving in or taking out evidence from the court process. I think that's part of the issue for us to have available as we look at it in the August session. Okay. But I will. Yes, it's an issue. I think it cuts it's ways though. Oh, yeah. I think it's sort of like DNA. DNA eliminates as many suspects as it. In many cases suspects are eliminated because the DNA evidence doesn't match. So another and in this case, an officer may be exonerated because they have the video footage. Absolutely. Or the person who's been charged might decide when they see the footage. They say, oh my gosh, I did all of that. I know in talking with some DUI lawyers. That's true of the cruiser cam on DUI cases that many times once the suspect sees the video of their DUI arrest, they decide that it's. There may be a better course of action to see if they can work something out because they've seen the footage in its course. Can I throw out a comment related to something we were talking about before? Yep. So I sent a note to Sheriff Anderson because he's on the training council about the changing from improper conduct to our restrained to prohibited restraints and here's his answer. The renewed concern is that prohibiting the restraint in a deadly force situation, recognizing it as an action that can generate serious bodily harm or death brings a host of extremely serious crimes that apply also to law enforcement, just like law enforcement are facing criminal charges for homicide in Minnesota. So I gather from that that he thinks that by using the phrase prohibited means it can't be used in any situation whatsoever. Even if even if you are in the situation where you are defending yourself. But what we're well, we have an existing statute that says you can use it to defend yourself. Which we're incorporating here. Right, so and everybody else's laws are using prohibition and ban. So I understand he might prefer it to say him proper, but I think that's partially what we're talking about. If we mean ban or prohibition, that's what we should say. Does he know that justifiable homicide is incorporated by reference in this now? I don't know. I think he might be listening now. He wasn't before. Okay, well, I will send him. Well, I'm going to say that we're I hope it's okay. Yeah, have we got agreement on this new version of 219 which would be I suppose draft 2.2 or draft 3.1. I don't know which I'm I'm good with it. I'm good with it. Okay, so my suggestion would be that we take a five minute break. Give Brent that we can go over then we go over the new S119 is that possible? How much time do you need, Brent? I think I think five minutes will do it just to fix that. I would just point out that there's not you didn't make changes to that to that to the use of four sections. So there's not going to be a lot to go over, but just see the language and talk about it. I want time for you to be able to do a new draft of S219 to update the we didn't make that many changes actually. You just the intense section that I think will take me a little bit more time to get that rate and and I thought what what we could actually do is if we're okay with the body of the bill. You could send out later today or whenever you can get it done and we can agree to it on Monday. Perhaps just was I don't know if we need to meet to agree on it or you send it out. People send in suggestions for change and then we can get there through email. If we have to we could meet for a few minutes Monday. If everybody's okay. I think we should meet because I should not correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think we're allowed to do the bill over email because because it would be a quorum of the committee in an unwarranted setting. Yeah, yeah, if we're making any changes are correcting we need to meet to actually alright finalize it and yeah. Well, let's let's put the cart before the horse and and take a brand on the intent section. If we were to meet Monday morning at some time that all of us can agree to would you be able to have it ready? Yes, but that would that mean I can still get it out to have it voted on Tuesday. You mean on the floor? Yeah. Yeah. Because Tim can pull it off before it gets to the notice count. Okay. So as long as we've got it ready by Tuesday morning Tim can bring it to the floor. Okay. Fine. And what time would we meet on Monday? I don't know. Tell me what time's good for all of you. Well, I have an 11 o'clock dentist appointment. Well, I'd rather not. I'd rather meet before that then. Yeah. Me too. I'm fine anytime. How about 9am? Yep. Yep. Yep. Okay. Peggy could you set up an AM for Monday morning? Yeah, how much time do you think an hour? No, I don't even think I would say half an hour. Okay. Yeah, presumably Bryn will have sent out copies so that we're aware of what's in it. And then and then I would suggest that we probably I need to meet with the rules committee to get this all done. So I'll have to ask today to meet with the rules committee. Send send or ask a text right now. Yes, because I need to meet with them too. I have two charters. Well, we really are concerned about your charters. Well, the towns are. Well, I'm going to add stuff to your charters. But we banned GovOps from producing any other legislation this year. If you want to if you want to tell if you want to tell St. Albans City and Elmore that they can't have their charter changes, you go ahead and do it. I'm fine with that. I'm not in your district. Yeah, and we let's take a five minute break and come back and then see where we're at. Okay, we will meet Monday morning at nine. And I will in the break period. I'll send Senator Asher text about needing to meet with the rules committee and it will finalize the intense sections on Monday morning. Okay, bills will be finalized. Okay. Very good. Thanks. Draft one point one, Bryn. Well, now I said that, but what draft of two one nine are we looking at? Oh, we're looking at draft one point one of one one night. I see. Okay. Oh, so we're not we're not going back yet to two one nine. No, we're going to do a final vote. Oh, I presume as soon as Bryn has it ready, we're going to do a final vote. Okay. Okay. So it's riff one point one of what one one nine one one nine ten twenty a.m. Would you like Peggy to post this? Yes. Share her screen. Okay, there are the changes in yellow or are there any changes? So they're the only changes that I made from the this language is as it differs from the way you saw it in s two nineteen or the under color of law has been changed under authority of the state and there's also a new section that requires training on this policy. So those are really the only changes from the from the language as you saw it in s two nineteen. So Peggy, if you want to look at that training requirement, you can scroll down to the next section. I just want to point out this does use improper restraint. Right. And so I'm I will change that as well. Okay. Okay. So the new section is on page. Sorry, it's looks weird, but that's the way it's showing up on what we'll do. Do you want me on bill? I mean, we've got an hour left. So just let's let's try to make this happen. Okay, so let's worry about it. We'll do it the way it looks on the screen. Okay. So if you want to see that new section, keep scrolling Peggy. And Bryn, I'm not on the screen. I'm on a separate one because so if you could give the page number. Yeah, sure. Let me let me exit my full screen so I can look at my document. Peggy, are you able to increase the size of that? I think that'll make it one page. It doesn't seem like it. Let me just try one other thing guys. I don't like the way this all done. Let me see. So it's page five for those of you looking at your own. Starts at section two minimum training standards. That's right. Shall I go ahead or should we wait? Yeah, please go ahead and then we'll get it. Okay. So the what this does is it just puts a requirement into the minimum training standards section of law that they that law enforcement officers receive a minimum of four hours of training on the use of deadly force policy as it's set forth in section one. And it makes that requirement that they receive that training on or before January 1st. May I ask a question about that? Yeah. So they already receive a lot of training on use of deadly use of force in the academy and we're saying they have to have four hours of training on the policy itself as opposed to on the use of force. Is that what this says? Yes. I don't know why we would have them get four hours of training on a policy as opposed to on the practice itself. That's just a question because every time every time we require another block of training, the it pushes something else out that they receive because there's just it's like this. Chris Bray describes it as this box and every time you put something in you have to take something out. So I don't know why we would require use of training on the policy as opposed to use to training on the use of force. Could you say on the policy and practice? Well, they already receive it. So they already get use of force training and I don't know how many hours it is, but if they're already receiving four or 10. What would you like it to read? Well, we're we're asking the Academy along with different stakeholders to look at all of their training and if it's appropriate and what is absolutely needed and what isn't needed so that they can focus their training on some things like this and on cultural awareness and some of those other issues that we've talked about and and get rid of some of the training that may may not be as necessary. And so we're asking them to do a complete overhaul of all of their training a review of it. But I'm just concerned that we're asking them to spend four hours looking at the policy as opposed to the actual use of force training, which they already do. That's so you think this whole section is unnecessary. Well, it I mean, how are they going to spend four hours talking about this seven page bill or the policy? No, I will ask the question again. You think the section regarding training is unnecessary. Yes. Okay. What about the anti-bias training that same? That's existing. That's that word anti-bias is just underlying there to make it clear that that first sentence is refined. Okay. So that's just sort of a technical crux and then there. That's already there. No. Well, you would feel better if we took out section two. Well, I yeah, but that's up to the whole committee, but I understand your senator White has moved that we take out section two because she believes it's already there. Okay. I'm okay with that. Okay. You're the expert senator White. Well, yeah, isn't an expert an unknown big grip? So, okay. Other than the change of the term. Under collar of law. Under collar of law and the effective date. And the change and the improper. Oh, right in a proper restraint. So, are there any other changes to that section? I did not make any other changes to to that language from the way you saw it in 2019. I'm going to try to look at my. Sherling said there should be a single statewide policy. Is that we've asked them to yeah, we've asked them to look at all of their policies and model policies. The most as I got it from yesterday and previous testimony, the term necessary seems to be very important to many folks, whereas there was a lot of concern about the term necessary. I think we need to discuss that. Yeah, I think this it was necessary and reasonable, which was best, right? Which was the better of the two. That they felt that that taking that that was that taking out necessary waters down the bill. I remember. I think that's right. I think I think Tabitha Moore had a quite a discussion on that. She mentioned that she understands the necessary standard. I I think given the world we live in and the situation we're confronting. Necessary is what what I would prefer go in there because I I feel as though reasonable is a way of saying what's the cultural standard in your department or in your state. And I and I I do feel as though there's a there's a sense that you know a lot of things that we're now seeing on video strike us as incredibly unreasonable but to the people in the videos. They're seeing the stuff all the time it does seem reasonable. So I think starting people thinking along the lines of what's necessary is a better a better path for us. I think it is too. I think there's another term also is proportional. That needs to be somewhere in here. Yeah, proportional. I'll take takes us back to I think comments from that Valerio and some others. But I think proportional to me is we had a person who was alleged to have passed a 20 foot $20 bill in a store in Minneapolis and the whole the whole arrest restraint everything ends in that man's death is that proportional to the crime. Yeah. And I think that's another piece that needs to be here in terms of the use of. I'm reminded of talking with many police officers about changes in pursuit of individuals where they decide to no longer pursue them because of the danger to the public. And I just saw on the news today when the police officer in Georgia shot Brooks. He shot three times to them. That ended up killing Brooks, but one of them to a car that was stuck in the drive-through lane at the Wendy's. So it could have killed another person and this is over DUI stop. Yeah, that's that's the charge that they've got the other officer on is endangering the people in that car, not the Brooks. But at any rate, I think proportional needs to be there as well. There were three terms one was necessary one was proportional and there was one other term and I'm trying to find it. I think it was reasonable. Yeah, which is already there reasonable is already there. Okay. I'm sorry and the aunt has invaded my office. And an aunt. Yes. Have you got that, Brun? I do. Yep. I think that where I'm going to put that proportional language is in C one, which is on page. It's on page three. And the committee had taught CC one is that language that is not about deadly force. It's about the use of force generally. And I think that the committee had talked about moving that paragraph to subsection B because it makes sense in the use of deadly force. So since I think that the when you're talking about proportionate use of force, you're talking about use of force more generally. I thought I would put it there that paragraph up to subsection B, which is the statewide policy. Does that make sense to everyone? Nope. There anything else that we've missed in this section? Good. I can talk a little bit about some of the testimony that you heard about some requested changes to the language. I'm not sure if you want to get into that or not. Um, briefly. Yes. Okay. So, um, you did hear from the defender general. I'm going to go back to the just the beginning. Um, I'm going to go back to subsection a page one. Definitions definition of deadly force. Um, you'd heard from the defender general that, um, pop it including the discharge of a firearm should be struck since it could include lots of other things as well. Nope. Um, you'll remember that our statutes, the way that we are statutory construction works is that whenever we use the word including, it means including, but not limited to, but, um, I, I still think that it was a fair point that having it there may, um, exclude some other forms of deadly force. So would you like that to come out? Any objection to taking it out? Taking out one totally. No. No, no, just, uh, discharge of a firearm. Just put a period after serious bodily injury and strike, including the discharge of a firearm. That's fine with me. Fine. Fine with me. In two, you would change that to prohibited restraint. Right. Uh, next change. Um, there was a question that came up in that your first review of two 19 about whether that imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury definition was the same as, um, the as past version of the California statute. And the answer is yes, it is. I do not recall any testimony requesting changes to that definition. Right. Is that a reasonable officer? A reasonable officer in the same. Is that where you would add, um, and necessary? No, because that's just a definition. So that, um, language appears later in the actual policy section. Okay. I'll let you keep going then. So no change there. Okay. Or law enforcement officer has the same meaning as 20 VSA, blah, blah, blah. Right. Um, the next place that you did hear some testimony about, um, requesting a change is the human rights commission testified that there should be some words added to subsection five totality of the circumstances on line 12. So it would say it would read means all facts known to the law enforcement officer at the time, including the conduct of the officer and the words and the conduct of the subject leading up to the use of deadly force. I believe it. I'm sorry, Bryn, which page are you on? I'm on page five. Okay. Oh, it's also on page two, the totality of the circumstances. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, but I'm, I'm looking at a different draft. Sorry. Okay. I'm going to be looking at my screen and on my paper. So I am looking at page two totality. One seven. No, right. Okay. Sorry about that. Um, so the, there was a request by the human rights commission to add the words and conduct. Yep. That's fine. Yeah. Opposed to that. Nope. Nope. All right. Next. Okay. Um, you also heard testimony from the Human Rights Commission about subsection four on page three, the decision by a law enforcement officer to use force that section. Um, she testified that, um, to, that it was her position to strike that, that, um, second phrase of the sentence starting with rather than. Yes. I agree. Anybody disagree with striking with board suggestion to strike rather than with the benefit of hindsight, et cetera. Okay. Okay. Okay. Um, I don't want to. I'm sorry. I would like to make it clear that I'm not. I don't, I don't, um, have everybody's request. No, I understand. Okay. Um, I have some of them written down. I do not have the ones from yesterday because obviously I was unable to write. Take notes while I was driving. They frown on that. Unless you're happening to be eating your sandwich, then you can write. Right. Um, I think that the other request from the Human Rights Commission. All force, follow that necessary standard, um, was to just the use of deadly force. So that may, um, that, that would require a change to that paragraph C one that we were just talking about. Yep. To add the word necessary there. Yeah. Is are those recommendations on a separate, um, something separate that we receive not from the testimony yesterday? Yes. You received that document from bore. I believe last week. Okay. Yeah. Do 12. Yes. Thank you. Uh, so Bryn, you're on page three C one. Yes. I'm bad. I went back to that because I realized I had neglected to mention, um, whores first recommendation. And what, what is the recommendation that it should say? I think that it was her testimony that, um, all use of force should be based on that necessary standard as opposed to a reasonable standard. Yeah. Cause I really don't like objectively reasonable. That's kind of an oxymoron. Um, if, if something's objective, it, it doesn't get subjected to a subjective reasonability standard. You know what I mean? Right. So the objective, objectively reasonable standard is really a term of art that's used in jurisprudence about the, uh, a person's fourth amendment, right? To be free of unreasonable search and seizure. Okay. Seems. Yeah. Cause otherwise it's, uh, it's, uh, it's weird because if something is reasonable, you're talking about a, a subjective perception of reasonability. And if something is objective, you're talking about a factual set of circumstances. So, but anyways, I understand that it's a term of art. Can I go back, Brent? Where, what are you suggesting on page three? So I'm reading this, uh, C one paragraph about, um, the objectively reasonable force to, um, be the place that the human rights commission was suggesting a change to necessary because it was their testimony that all use of force should be based on the necessary standard as opposed to having a objectively reasonable standard for use of force generally and a necessary standard for the use of deadly force. Okay. And we would put in also proportional there. Correct. Okay. I'm good with that. Where would proportional go? Would be necessary and proportion. Only when necessary in line 15 and 16. Okay. Necessary and proportional. Alice, I think Brynn is talking about the paragraph before that one. Right. C one. Law enforcement officer, you want to read what it would read to us, Brynn, please. Yeah. I haven't, I haven't written it yet, but let me, um, okay. Okay. I think that it would, it would read something like any law enforcement officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. And then it would may use force if necessary. Like it would, I think that the proportional has to, and has to be, um, connected to the force. Yes. We use proportional force if necessary to affect the arrest, prevent escape or to overcome resistance, something like that. Okay. Yep. All right. I think that sounds reasonable. Or objective or necessary. Um, so the next area that we wanted to review. So I don't have any other specific change requests noted. Uh, that is not, there was not any, um, there may have just, there may have been other specific requests, but I believe that that summarizes the request from the human rights commission. Okay. Um, since it came up by the couple of, there was some comments, if I'm looking at page four, line three, three, when feasible law enforcement officers will prior to the use of force make reasonable efforts to identify himself or her office, a law enforcement officer and to warn that deadly force may be used unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts. I have that case somewhere. I believe it was North Carolina or a Georgia where a woman who was hard of hearing, uh, was doing something in her backyard and they, they heard her and spoke a different language spoke. I thought it was hearing, but that doesn't matter. Um, the unless the officer objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person's aware of those facts. I'm wondering if that really shouldn't we just require yeah, this that, that little, the sentence unless I guess it's not after the comma, after the word used, which is a comma place a period and strike unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts. Yeah, I agree. It does provide when feasible so that it already is modified there, right? I think that if I mean, I, I think it could go either way here because it seems to me that if, if you are in the position where you're yelling put down the knife or put down the gun or whatever that to then say, I am identify yourself again. And I mean, the person knows your police officer. They know that you're in that situation and and this is saying that prior to the use of force, you need to re-identify yourself and make them aware that you could use force, but it says yeah, feasible. Right. I can give a an example. I don't know if and this supports what Dick is suggesting. I don't know if you guys all watched the the bell events video that I sent to you. But what it involves is there's a Congolese man who's outside a bar and there's been some difference of opinion about who started a fight inside the bar or a scuffle or a shouting match inside the bar, but the person isn't doing anything except explaining himself to a bouncer and the officer comes from his blind side behind him. And without introducing himself without announcing his presence, he shoves him into the wall and knocks him unconscious. So if we get rid of unless and following because I think the officer could use that last clause to say, I saw him glance in my direction and he knew I was a police officer from my uniform. That's why I didn't announce myself. So I actually like it much better if we get rid of unless and following because I think they should always be introducing themselves and they should always be warning before they use force. And it also allows when feasible. So if there's a situation when it's not feasible. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yes. Keep. All right. And for is this where we modify that too to the necessary. No, I don't think so. Okay. Bryn. Yes. At the bottom of page four and subsection five. It uses the objectively reasonable language there. In the second sentence. Right. I see that. So we'll change that. Yes. Okay. Okay. Um, anything else on this looks good to me. I think I'm going to ask Bryn how much time you need to do to make the changes to both of these bills. I think 10 minutes. Why don't we get back together at, um, why don't you go ahead and make the changes you need? And, um, unless there's other committee discussion, we could take a break till 1115. Would that give us enough time to vote on these two? Yeah, I should. We'd give about 10 minutes to vote. Yep. Are there any other? I mean, understanding that the intent language will be put in on Monday morning. And can I just clarify the effective date of this bill is October 1st or 1st? Okay. Which, which will allow the house time to continue to work on this. The 1st and 2 19. That's going over to the house too. Yes, but that would be an effective date. I believe some of it's July 1, some of it's on passage. And is that, that's a bill that, um, house judiciary agrees that they like or where are we at with that? Well, I don't know that they never say they like something. They've agreed. I believe that the leadership in the house and the Senate have agreed that they will work on that as the first priority. That representative grad was concerned about the use of force, um, being able to do that along with the other sections. Okay. And, um, obviously one of the concerns in the, in the use of force bill is we've heard so much testimony on and they want to continue to work on that their priority would be to get out. Their priority is to get, um, S 2 19 out. Um, before we adjourn for the July recess, I'm going to call it July recess and, um, obviously getting as one night, what will be now S 1 19 out for the final adjournment. So back at 11 15. Yeah, that worked for everybody. Yep. See you shortly. If we could just quickly go through the changes. I don't think there's that many. No, that was the first one. There are not that many. Um, the next one is, I believe just the changing, um, improper restraint to prohibited restraint. So you'll see that on page six in a couple of places, we took out the language about prohibited restraint, including, including a pressure on the torso or spine. Yep. Um, prohibited restraint is changed throughout. And I think those are the only, those are the only things that you changed in this draft. Right. Um, is there a motion to report S 2 19 favorably as amended? Senator Bruce report S 2 19 favorably as amended. Is there an excuse me that we report draft 3.1 of S 2 19. Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay. Um, now should we, the motion would be to report S 2 19 as amended favorably. Senator Baruth has moved that we do that. Um, any further discussion? Peggy, could you please call the roll? Senator White. Yes. Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator Benning. Yes. Senator Nica. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes. Um, who would like to report this? Senator Baruth will report this one. Seeing as how he sponsored the bill. So, Bryn, you'll send a clean copy to myself and Senator Baruth so he can get it to Dr. Kluhmer. I will. Thank you. And Bryn, anything you could send me by way of a prep document? Sure thing. Much appreciated. Thank you. I'll get your witness list too. Thank you. Now, if we could quickly go to draft 2.1 of S 1 19. Sure. So the change is made here. The first change you'll see on page one, the definition of deadly force, we removed that language including the discharge of a firearm. We've changed in subdivision to improper restraint to prohibited restraint. The next change is if you scroll down to page two, totality of the circumstances. We've added some words here and the words and conduct of the subject leading up to the use of deadly force. That's on page, sorry, on lines eight and nine. That was a request from the Human Rights Commission. Next change. If you, if you scroll down statewide policy page three subdivision or the decision by a law enforcement officer, we struck the second clause of that provision, the rather than with the benefit of hindsight language that's out at the request of the Human Rights Commission. Next change is subdivision five there. That's that used to be C one. We've moved it up to the statewide policy section and we've changed it so that it's, it provides that an officer who has reasonable cause to believe a person to be arrested has committed a crime may use proportional force if necessary to affect the arrest prevent escape or overcome resistance. The next change is in subdivision three, which is on page four. I'm sorry. It's now subdivision four. No, sorry to top of page four when feasible. Sorry. I had to remember all these and I'm confused when feasible law enforcement officers shall make reasonable efforts to identify themselves. We struck that language unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is already aware of those facts. Next is in subdivision for starting with a law enforcement officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest. We change the executive objectively reasonable force language to proportional force if necessary in compliance with subdivision five. So that references that change language about use of force more generally that has to be proportional and has to be only if necessary. And lastly, subdivision six, same page, the bottom of page four. We've changed improper restraint to prohibited restraint. We took out the required training and effective date of October 1st. That's it. Is there a motion to report favorably as 119 as amended? No, to amend that's 119 as in draft 2.1. Yes, Senator White has moved that we do that. Thank you, Senator White. Is there any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Carries. Now is there a motion to report favorably as 219 as amended? That's 119 excuse me. Senator Baruth has moved a report. That's 119 favor. Dick before you call the roll, Bryn, can I just ask you to scroll down to the bottom of page four on the top of page five. We've got an effective date of October 1 with a period after it and then there's kind of flying language on one Yes, I'm sorry. I should have pointed that out. I retitled the bill. Oh, okay. To it since it's no longer an act relating to that other policy. So we've changed it to an act relating to statewide use of deadly force policy for law enforcement and that is where that language floats. But again, this will all be edited and clean copy will be sent to the reporter. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion? Peggy, could you please call the roll? Senator White. Yes. Senator Baruth. Yes. Senator Benning. Yes. Senator Nica. Yes. Senator Sears. Yes, and I'd like to report this bill. And I would like to thank Bryn and Peggy particularly as well as all the witnesses and the committee for the hard work and getting us through these two bills in a short amount of time. I think I hope they will make a difference and we will meet on Monday morning at 9 to try to finalize. The intent language goes into 2019 not 119. Is that correct? Yes, isn't that correct? So we will finalize the intent language for 119 on Monday morning. Oh, I thought it went into 219. 219. I'm 219. It would have been helpful if one of them was 220 and the other was 219. Yeah, the intent language goes into 219. The and the bill we just voted on is 119. So that thanks again for everybody for the hard work on this. And we'll see you Monday morning.