 anything else on this before we move to S 140. Senator Bruce do you want to kind of kick it off as the lead sponsor of the bill. Sure actually the only sponsor you're all by yourself on this one. Yeah proudly proudly. So this was a bill that started with discussions with migrant justice who will testify in a minute. They're a group that has been doing great work in terms of trying to improve conditions for our migrant workers. Just wanted to say going back to my first term in the Senate I was on agriculture and it seemed to me that there were two things as as we got into it. Two things that were saving Vermont farms and I would say they were organic farming which was paying a higher price for the goods that the farmers had and migrant workers who were all over the state and they were performing jobs that were very very difficult to fill but were dangerous in some cases and they were isolated on farms and so that was when we passed drivers privilege cards and to allow them to move around and get health care and groceries but this is a different problem for these workers in that sometimes as the chair said their documentation issues put them at risk of arrest or detention or deportation and what this bill says is I hesitate to call it simple because there are complicated interrelations between federal and state law but what it attempts to do is prevent someone from being arrested when they go to a courthouse in good faith as a party to a proceeding or witness or someone who is there to support our judicial system but that opportunity is used instead to arrest them and perhaps jail them or send them out of the state. So what this does is it provides a series of tools to allow them to be free of that fear of arrest but if someone violates and does arrest or detain them it gives them options and it gives the attorney general of Vermont options for how to deal with that. So with that I'll turn it over to Eric who drafted and thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you. Eric if you want to walk us through the short bill. Yeah I actually had walked the committee through it already last week. Oh that's right. Yeah you did I'm sorry. It's okay. Happy to refresh your recollection. I don't have anything to add to what Senator Farooz said or what my walkthrough was last week. You may recall we had an interesting discussion last week about how this bill is based on common law privilege against civil arrest that's been around since the 16th century. It grew out of English common law. It was incorporated into the common law of the United States at Independence. There's an interesting opinion from the Southern District of New York that I had Peggy helpfully posted on the website that the committee wants to learn any more about that interesting history but it's based on that as well as a New York statute that passed already doing something very similar. I rework the language obviously but the concept is exactly the same. That says Senator Baruch described which is that it creates or you know in some ways one might say puts in statute this common law privilege this privilege against civil arrest and it's important to remember that it's civil arrest. It's only an arrest for purposes of someone's appearance at a civil proceeding. There's nothing to do with a criminal proceeding. It's not to do and none of that would be affected by this bill. The ability of the state or law enforcement agency to arrest somebody because of a criminal matter is not something that's addressed in this bill. It's only to do with an arrest for purposes of civil proceedings and one of the main civil proceedings in which that could occur these days used to be different long ago but these days is an immigration proceeding. Immigration proceedings are civil in nature and I think the committee also got some materials I sent around that indicated that these arrests had happened over the last couple of years sometimes that for my courthouses and I think that idea of the bill is to create a prohibition on that practice provided that so if someone or a person's either themselves or their family or household member is attending a court proceeding as a juror witness, etc. Then they cannot be arrested there at the courthouse while they're coming and going essentially from that court proceeding and the the enforcement mechanism so to speak is that if someone does violate that and arrest them in that situation they could be held in civil contempt as well as be the subject of a lawsuit for damages. So a person who was arrested in violation of the statutory prohibition if it passed would be able to sue that the person who arrested them for monetary damages in the civil division. So that's essentially in a nutshell and happy to answer any questions or whatever else the committee might find helpful at this point. No, thank you, Senator Benning. Eric, I'm reading thirty seven and one a prohibition and I understand the intent of the person who is a party, a juror, attorney or witness. Am I reading this wrong, though, that if their brother or their household member of whatever relation is attending and is not a party, juror, attorney or witness is also extended this umbrella, if you will. I read it as that that person would also have to be I see what you mean, a person or a family member of the person. My first reading of it was that the household member or family member would also be a party juror or attorney, but you may be right. It might be the language needs to be tightened up there, depending on what the intent is. My assumption is that the intent is to try to protect an individual who is participating in a court proceeding, not simply observing one. And as I read that, I thought, you know, that doesn't quite fit at least the way I'm reading it. I if I can just jump in, I read it as once it gets to who is attending a court proceeding in good faith as a party juror, attorney or witness. So everything that comes before who, it seems to me, is controlled by the fact that they have to be a party, a witness, et cetera. So I take Joe's point that there might be confusion in reading it, but it seems to me as though I read it the way Eric reads it, which is that the only people who are going to be roped in are people who ultimately are in that category of party juror, attorney or witness. Phillip, I'm not the English major here, but when you say or family or household member of the person, you are muddying the water. If your intent is that any person who is a party juror, attorney or witness, you should just say that and not have the phrase family or household member of the person because that's very easily as a defense attorney. As a defense attorney, I would use that language to say, hey, you can't bust this person. Yeah, and even though they're not a party in the proceeding. Yeah, never, but never hurts to clarify. Well, let me ask is since this was taken from a New York law, Eric, is this the way New York has done it? I'm not sure of the top of my head. Senator, let me just look that up and I'll mind when we look that up and hear from the witnesses because I can think of some good reasons why you may want to include that. Supposing that it's a child, the minor and the parent brings them. They're not a subject. Obviously, the child wouldn't be a juror, but could be a witness or whatever that we've just heard about and has been harmed by someone. And they're a witness to that and they were at court. Should you be able to arrest the mother who brought them? So that's how I was it's a policy decision, but I want to make sure I understand. Yeah, no, I'm just I appreciate you raising it. But I I think I could read it differently, too, though, in that way. I just explain if I might. So I actually will look into that. But I think it'd be good to to move on to some witnesses. Our first one, I think Will Limbeck, who's been here before and welcome back. Well, nice to see you. I think you have a couple of witnesses you want to introduce. Yeah, if you have say you're not on the agenda, but I know you're here in your role with migrant justice. So if you want to introduce yourself and any of the other witnesses, feel free to do so. Yeah, thank you very much, Senator Sears. My name is Will Limbeck with the Organization Migrant Justice. And I'm going to be introducing Olga, who is a member and leader in the organization, she'll provide some testimony and then I'll be interpreting that testimony from Spanish to English, and then I'll follow up with some comments of my own if it pleases the committee. So Olga, is that safe? Yeah, I guess I OK. When the patient is there. Hola, todos. Mi nombre es Olga Cruz. Soy una trabajadora en una granja de barca. Si también soy una leader de la la inclusión Justicia Migrante. Hi, everyone. My name is Olga Cruz. I'm a dairy worker and also a leader in the organization like a justice. Creo que todos sabemos el motivo por el que estamos aquí ahora. Y pues uno de los que me motiva a estar aquí a mí es la lucha todavía por nuestros derechos que nuestros derechos sean respetados de una otra manera. So I think you all know why we're here today. The bill that we're here to discuss and I was motivated to come here because I see this as part of a fight for my rights to be respected in one way or another. Primero que nada este pues a nosotros bueno a nuestra comunidad Migrante nos preocupa pues la situación de un poco de ir a las cortes este por el mismo temor de ser arrestado. Ni siquiera uno piensa quizás a lo que vaya a decir el juez allá adentro es más el temor que haya de que pues la migra esté afuera esperando. So I want to say that our immigrant community is afraid of going to courts in this state because of the fear of being arrested. In fact, when you have to go to court, you aren't even thinking about what the judge might say to you or what might happen inside the courthouse. All you're thinking about is if an immigration agent is going to arrest you when you leave. Lo que estamos pidiendo como comunidades que se prohiban estos arrestos porque eso si eso sigue pasando hace que la comunidad es más probable que no vaya a las cortes así sea acusados por algún caso criminal o casos familiares de mandas legales o por alguna detención que haya pasado antes. And so what we're asking as a community is for these detentions to be prohibited because the more that this happens, the more probable it is that members of our community won't attend court proceedings, whether that's a criminal case, a family case, civil litigation, or if somebody is in detention. Esta ley para nosotros es muy necesario y es un poco distinta a las políticas de no polimigra no se trata de la colaboración de la policía con la migración que claro es importante también si no delimitar las acciones de la migración. And so this law for us is very necessary and it's also different from previous actions and policies in place like the fair and impartial policing policy. This law isn't about the collaboration between local police with immigration per se, but although that's also a very important issue that needs to be addressed, but this bill focuses on limiting the instances in which federal immigration can arrest people in Vermont. Estoy aquí también porque también tengo familiares conocidos o amigos y para mí es muy importante que tomen en cuenta lo que se está pidiendo porque de por sí a veces que se quiere cumplir y ir a las cortes por algo que haya pasado en la vida de cada persona aquí, pero es difícil ir o no ir y en alguna parte estaríamos fallando otra vez, pero pues no nos da esa seguridad que uno va a regresar y algunos tienen familias y si uno les detienen en la corte, qué pasa con la familia aquí, qué pasa con los hijos aquí? And so I'm here testifying today not only for myself, but because I have family members and acquaintances and friends who this affects as well because many things can happen in life that can bring you to a courthouse and then you're faced with a difficult decision of do I go to court and fulfill my responsibility or do I not go and not comply with that responsibility? And many people will choose not to go out of fear of detention and deportation because that means being separated from your family, being separated from your children and your community. Es importante pensar que este pues en qué hacer bien el trabajo que ellos están haciendo, pero este también importante pensar en nuestra vida de que no es fácil pues cuando llega pues una detenciones o conlleva muchas cosas y es difícil para nosotros es difícil este como como tratar de hacer pues lo correcto por lo mismo de que pues uno nunca sabe lo que vaya a pasar y pues esperemos que tomen en cuenta lo que se está pidiendo porque es muy importante para nuestra comunidad. So this is an important issue. We hope that you think carefully about this because it affects our lives. It's not easy when somebody is detained by immigration and it's difficult to want to do what's right by going to a court hearing but without knowing the consequences of that action. And so I hope you take this into account because I think this is a very important issue for myself and my community. Muchas gracias por darnos este tiempo de participar aquí porque nuestras voces sigan siendo escuchadas. Mi nombre es Olga y muchas gracias. Thank you again for giving us the time to participate here with you today and to hear our voices again. My name is Olga and thank you very much. Muchas gracias Olga excelente y ahora voy a decir algunas palabras tan bien. So yeah, thank you very much to Olga. I have some some testimony to add, but I can take a break if anybody has questions for Olga at first. Has this happened to any of her family or? Olga, you know, this has happened to people who know family or family members? I know a friend. In fact, he was going to be present today, but for some family emergency. He was not there, but he will have to talk to him, give his testimony. If we meet people, this is what is happening. Amigos conocidos, eso pasa siempre. So Olga says, I do know people, a friend of mine, who this happened to. In fact, he was going to be here this morning to testify, but he had a family emergency and hopefully he can testify in the future because this has been happening, it's happened to friends and acquaintances and it's something frequent. Well, and maybe Olga wouldn't know, but in 2017, I think you were involved in this. We passed what I think was Act five and it was designed to prevent cooperation between ICE and law enforcement. You know, if that has been followed up on, have there been violations of that? Statute. But I remember correctly, Governor Scott followed Trump's initial efforts and Governor Scott, Attorney General Donovan, pushed this strongly as I think it was the first bill this committee did that year. Yeah, thank you, Senator Sears for the question. Olga, I have a question that I'm going to answer to you. So yeah, you're correct. Act five or a 79 and I believe you are the principal sponsor on it in the Senate. This was this was a law that was passed in 2017, which did two things principally. One, it attempted to preempt threats that were happening at the time around the creation of a Muslim registry and prevented Vermont from creating registries or sharing information based on people's religion or ideology, things like that. And then more germane to this question. It also limited the ability for Vermont law enforcement agencies to sign formal collaboration agreements with federal immigration authorities. And the real target of that was an immigration agreement called 287 G, which refers to the federal statute, which allows ICE and Border Patrol to basically deputize local law enforcement agencies to perform immigration detentions and it will require that the governor would have to sign off on those agreements before they could take effect. So that that law was passed and put into place and has has been followed to my knowledge. There are no 287 G agreements in Vermont. And this is a distinct issue in the realm of sort of how Vermont relates to immigration enforcement. There's also the related question of Vermont's fair and impartial policing policies. Your committee has looked at this issue of FIPs over the years. And there are significant problems and loopholes with the enactment and implementation of those policies in law enforcement agencies around the state. But this is a distinct issue. As Olga said, it's not necessarily about the actions of Vermont law enforcement, but provides protection around courts from federal immigration enforcement. Thank you. Go ahead. Any comments you want to make about the bill? Well, I kind of. Yeah, thank you very much. Olga, now I'm going to give you some testimony. So, yeah, thank you to the committee. Thank you, Senator Baruch, for introducing this bill. My good justice is a Vermont based human rights organization founded and led by immigrant farm workers like Olga. And so I do want to start off by saying that these isorests in Vermont courthouses are really important to the community. So I do want to start off by saying that these isorests in Vermont courthouses are a reality in Vermont. This is something that does happen in the state. My good justice staff members have directly witnessed immigrant farm workers detained by ICE at Vermont courthouses. I personally have received multiple calls from people as they're being detained during and after court appearances. And this happens in multiple courthouses around the state. It's not limited to one specific courthouse. And in each of these cases and as the bill addresses, these are civil detentions being carried out by ICE. They're not criminal cases. They aren't being there. There's no execution of a warrant in these cases. They're all civil detention solely for the purpose of deportation. This is something that affects a criminal defendants, also litigants and family and civil cases and all court users. And one instance in Addison County Courthouse, and this I think goes a bit to Senator Benning's question from before, but there had been a case where an immigrant farm worker was detained under criminal charge and he was being brought in front of a judge for a bond hearing. The the attorney asked the defendant's brother to be present as a show that the defendant had community ties that the judge could release him on bond and he had a family member there who would vouch for him. I accompanied the brother of the defendant to the Addison County Courthouse at the request of the attorney. And when I entered in the courtroom, I saw the director of Vermont's ice office sitting in the courthouse. I advised the brother of the defendant who promptly left the courthouse due to the presence of ice and the court hearing went forward without a family member of the defendant present. So here's a clear instance of a community member in Vermont being denied due process essentially in the Vermont court system because of the intimidation of a federal agency acting on civil matters. So this bill by prohibiting those detentions would strengthen due process and in turn strengthen the integrity of the Vermont judicial system. And so this is a needed protection for a documented problem in the state. It also has wide support from a variety of stakeholders. They aren't on the agenda to speak today, but you will be hearing in the future from the Attorney General's office, from the Office of the Defender General, both of whom I've been informed, do support this bill. I believe the Attorney General's office will be recommending a slight amendment to clarify their enforcement powers in the bill. We support that amendment and believe it. It just clarifies and strengthens the intent of the bill. And so with the support, we hope for speedy passage. You'll be hearing from more voices in support directly following this testimony. And then if you do reconvene, Olga had mentioned a gentleman who was detained by ICE at his court appearance. He was scheduled to testify today, wasn't able to join us. But I hope that he may be able to if there are future hearings so you can hear directly from him. So thank you very much. And I'll end my testimony there. I do plan to hold a future hearing next week, but day and time to be announced. So yeah, we'd be happy to hear from other folks. I appreciate your testimony, Will. Are there any questions for Will? I think it's fairly clear. Peggy will be in touch with the future date. Hopefully, we can hear from some of those other folks that you just mentioned. Senator White. So I fully support this, but I'm just curious. Do and in the other states where this is done, do we have the ability to control ISIS? I guess is it enforceable? I'm fully in support, but I just want to make sure that we make sure that it is enforceable. Yeah, thank you for the question. And there I'll leave that the specifics, the question to the lawyers who are going to be speaking next. But as you heard from Eric, this is based on the Protect Our Courts Act from New York, which was carefully studied and debated, has been in practice or implemented for over a year now. And it's certainly our belief that this is fully enforceable. Thank you. Thank you. I'm glad to hear that. Other questions for Will? Will, thank you. We'll see you next week. Our next witness, excuse me. Next witness is Amanda Garcia from the Human Rights Commission. Amanda, welcome. Oh, thank you so much for having me here. Chair Sears, the members of the committee for the record, my name is Amanda Garces. I am the Director of Policy Education and Outreach for the Vermont Human Rights Commission. I want to thank Senator Bruce for bringing this forward. The mission of the Vermont Human Rights Commission is to promote full civil and human rights in Vermont. The commission enforces the laws over which it has jurisdiction through investigation, conciliations, and litigation, as well as prohibiting as well as providing education and training. It develops and advances policies and legislations related to the protection of the most vulnerable for mantras. By enabling statute, the Human Rights Commission enforces anti-discrimination and civil rights laws. These statutes prohibit individuals or entities from taking adverse action or discriminating against individuals in protected categories. In this case, a national origin discrimination case may be brought to us when access to courts is prevented. But this bill does strengthen people's access to justice. It creates a clear path for relief. We believe the Human Rights Commission should not be the only process for people that would like to have some sort of relief. So again, it just creates a very clear path. Vermont has seen a fair share of injustices towards our immigrant community from the settlement of a discrimination lawsuit against the Vermont DMV to the stories that migrant justice brought here today and the stories we might never hear. With this bill in place, our immigrant community will be able to seek justice without fear or present themselves to take responsibility. Whether a person is a party on a case or a witness, many organizations who work with immigrant communities work hard to educate them about their responsibilities to present themselves in judicial proceedings. But that fear has always been an obstacle. And this fear was exacerbated by the past administration nationwide. These types of arrests are work against due process. And this bill affirms the need to access to the due process without obstacles. In Vermont, we must offer our immigrant community access to court to a court system, access without fear, regardless of people and people's immigration status. And the HRC fully supports this bill as is. Thank you so much. Thank you. Very clear. Amanda, just so you're aware, Senator Benning used to be the use was the chair of the Human Rights Commission back a few years ago. So we get every now and then updates the Human Rights Commission. So Senator Benning, don't know if you've met him. No, I have not. Nice to meet you, Senator. Good morning, you as well. Morning. Thanks. Thank you. Other questions for Amanda? Thanks so much, Amanda. We appreciate the support. Thank you. Falco Schilling is here from the ACLU. I'm assuming in support of the bill. That's correct. Good morning. My name is Falco Schilling. I'm the advocacy director for the ACLU of Vermont. And I think this is actually the the first time I've had the privilege of coming in front of the committee this session, though I've had the privilege to be in front of you many times before I'm actually just coming off of leave. My wife and I just had a new baby. So if I am a bit scatterbrained, it might be due to the lack of sleep, but doing my best to come in in support of this bill today. And thank you for the opportunity to testify before you start your testimony. Congratulations. Thank you so much. So the ACLU of Vermont supports S 140 because it creates a more accessible legal system for all the residents of Vermont as an organization that works to protect people's civil liberties. We recognize a key component of that is access to the courts. One thing that we have heard already in the testimony today and that I'm going to highlight in some of my testimony is the chilling effect that having civil arrests at courthouses can have on access to justice and also cooperation with law enforcement and just the operation of courts in general. The ACLU in collaboration with prosecutors, law enforcement officers and legal advocates across the country in 2017 conducted a national nationwide survey to see what the impacts of increased enforcement from the Trump administration had on access to justice and the operations of the courts. So looking at the change between 2016 and 2017, where we saw a 30 percent increase in overall arrests of enforcement actions and also courthouse arrests, in particular, anecdotally over in New York State from 2016 to 2017, we saw a 1200 percent increase in those arrests in courthouses. So as you've heard from folks earlier, this does have a chilling effect on people's ability and willingness to both work with law enforcement and to engage in court proceedings. This report, which I'm happy to share with the committee, I'm sorry, I didn't share it ahead of time, is called Freezing Out Justice. So it does look at the period between 2016 and 2017. We saw this increase in enforcement and what chilling effect that did have on access to justice and willingness of immigrant communities to work with courts. So some of the key findings from that report were that approximately 20 percent of law enforcement officers surveyed that found from 2016 to 2017 immigrant crime survivors were less likely to help investigators when police arrived at the scene of a crime to help post crime scene investigations or to work with prosecutors compared to the previous year. 82 percent of prosecutors said that compared to the previous year, domestic violence cases were underrepresented or harder to prosecute. Seventy percent reported the same for sexual assault. Fifty five found the same for difficulties, same difficulties for human trafficking cases and 48 percent said they had similar underrepresentation for child abuse cases. Advocates for immigrant communities said that they are the legal service reported a 40 percent decrease in the number of cases filed on behalf of immigrant crime survivors, and this creates an overall decrease in public safety when we have people who are either unwilling to cooperate with authorities both to report or be witnesses when a crime has occurred or to try and report crimes to protect themselves or family members. I also appreciate the testimony and the discussion earlier on the clarification about who this bill would encompass. And I think you heard many some good arguments for why this is important to both encompass the people who are directly in the proceedings, as well as those family members who might be accompanying them. As discussed earlier, there's both transportation issues and as many other legitimate reasons why a family member might be necessary to accompany someone in the court proceeding and that by denying them or, you know, by making them have a reasonable fear of detention that might not participate and that could help that might reduce some of the due process guarantees that folks could hope to enjoy. So keeping it pretty short because I know that you've been going through a lot and you've heard some really good testimony and probably hear more on this, but the ACLU of Vermont supports this bill and appreciate the committee bringing this forward and having this discussion. Thank you. Thank questions for Falco. Falco, thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. It's pretty clear. Our next witness is. Oh, God, grab the wrong agenda. Susanna Davis. Is she not here yet? I guess not. Peggy, do you know she's supposed to be here? I can reach out to her again. Would you please? Sure. We're actually going a little quicker than I expected. Senator Sears, can I just ask a question of you? If we're lining up witnesses next time around, this bill is actually going to create liability for ICE members. I'm wondering if we're going to hear any witnesses from that camp. Excuse me, I appears you have frozen. There's a pond in there somewhere between ice and being frozen. There you are. I'm just curious, since this bill would exact a penalty on ICE members who attempt to affect and arrest, I'm just wondering if we're going to hear any witnesses from that side of the equation. We certainly could, if they're interested. Can you check on that, Peggy or Eric? I don't even know where to begin. Be the federal prosecutors office, I suppose. I would think. Thank you. Yeah, I would. I would think that you would, if you were looking to hear some perspective from from that side, I would think your first stop would be the U.S. Attorney's Office. Yeah, usually they refuse to testify by the law. I just heard from Susanna. She said she's still in house commerce, hoping to join soon. Um. Well. We have a break scheduled at 10 15. Can we take it early and see if we can, if she can get back to us by, if not, we can schedule her next week and we'll take our break at 10 15, so 10 15. And yeah, why don't we take our break and then pick up at 10 30 with no knock warrants? Unless there's somebody else on the screen, they would like to comment further about. Thank you. Why don't we ask her to come back at 10 30, Nick? No, 10 15 and 15. Yeah, if we come back at 10 15, hopefully she'll be able to testify. If not, hopefully some of the folks. Well, we know Eric is already here anyway, could walk us through as to two ways. And then we can hear from other witnesses. Yep, I'll let them know we're starting a few minutes early on to do. Well, we don't know yet. Yeah, if she was honest here, we're going to hear from her at 10 15.