 time with us in the city. Oh, how do you do? We had asked, I hope you got the latest version of 422, and we had asked for comments on the bill. I have version 3.1, is that the latest? That's the latest, yep. Good. Good. And what, you know, you have it. And we really appreciate the Mont Law School. By the way, Senator Benning this year, and I believe he's a graduate of the Mont Law School class of, he will tell you what class he has in, because it was a while ago. 1983, but who's counting? Ah, wonderful. You must have been in school with Maureen Martin. That I was, and she's planning to have an alumni meeting dinner at her house this coming June. Oh, I wonder. So, Brian, we'd be happy to hear any comments you have on, particularly on the constitutionality of the bills it stands now. Sure. I guess the short answer is that I agree with Mr. Scher from the Attorney General's office. I think the bill is constitutional because it's balanced, and it's measured. It's balanced because it reflects the special needs of the doctor, and the special needs doctor's purpose, which is to balance public safety and individual rights. And I also think that it's measured because, while there is a potential deprivation of one's firearms, that in my mind, that deprivation is minimal because of the very short amount of time between the potential seizure of the weapon and the opportunity for a judge and a half due process, which the next business day, which I think is about as minimal a potential deprivation as you could have. I think it's also, feel free to interrupt me if you have questions. It's also important to point out that the bill fits very well with the well-established special needs doctor. The whole point under that doctrine is that, as the Vermont Supreme Court has held, that once a court decides that, or in this case, a legislature, decides that there's a special need, such as public safety, then the objective is to balance that need against the privacy intrusion at stake. And I think while there is a privacy intrusion here, I think it's very well balanced against the special need. And I would just point out that this doctrine, as I said, is well-established. The Vermont Supreme Court under it has upheld a number of circumstances of warrantless searches. It's upheld random searches of prison cells or contraband. Probably the most analogous situation is upheld a warrantless seizure of a gun from an automobile that was about to be impounded in order to protect public safety. And a number of other circumstances, there are four or five circumstances under which the court has used the special needs doctrine to allow for a seizure of a weapon, even though the weapon was not necessarily evidence in a criminal prosecution. So I think what you have here is a bill that fits well under that special needs doctrine. And therefore, I support it. I only have one question about it, and I can address that now, or I can address that. No, please do, please do. Okay. My one question, and again, it is a question I don't have to answer. I would, I guess recommend that, if you folks don't know the answer that you talked to Mr. Sher about, it's on page two, a line 19, and it talks about the circumstances under which the officer may remove the firearm, of course, if it's contraband, if it's in the immediate possession or control of the person being arrested, and then, or discovered. I know. And I'm not sure what the word discovered means here. In particular, I guess what I'm wondering is if the ex-spouse or the spouse or the girlfriend tells the officer he's threatened to kill me, he has guns in the basement, or he has guns in the shed, or he has guns in the barn, would this bill allow the officer to then go and look for the guns without a warrant? In other words, would discover to cover that. And I just don't know, and I'm wondering if that was the Attorney General's line. Good question, I'm not sure, and we didn't ask, so thank you for it. Sure. I had a question on that too. Pointing that out. We struck the, during a consensual search, it's just, so it would read or discovered under extrusive circumstances. Oh, I don't know if that's what he meant. This is good. It says, where? On line 19. I guess I have the. Or discovered. Oh yes, I'm sorry, you're absolutely right. I did miss that. It was a little hard for somebody that doesn't deal with legislating things off and to know what the difference is between the light strike out and the dark one, but you're absolutely right. Discovered under, okay, that's fine, and that was my concern. Right. Exigent circumstances are well established. Okay. Okay, so that's not an issue any longer. Well, I don't think so. Discovered under exigent circumstances typically means discovered under circumstances where it's impractical to get a warrant where time is of the essence, there's an immediate threat. I guess I'm still not sure though, how far the reach of the search could go. Again, if you have a situation where she says, he's threatened to kill me, and I could understand, obviously, you take any firearms that are under the person's immediate control, anything that's in plain view of the officer. Discovered under exigent circumstances, I guess I'm still not sure whether that would extend to the barn or the basement, and probably it would be best to ask the Attorney General what he has visions there. We will. Okay. Thank you for pointing that out. Sure, sure. And thank you for pointing out that I missed a couple of words, I just read right over there, but I still have the question. Okay, I think it's a good question. Are there any other comments? On the bill, yeah. Do you think striking consensual search is a positive thing or is that open or not? Let's see. That's still on Y-19. Yeah, yeah. Do you recall what the thinking was behind doing that? Well, there was concern that, on my part, I struck it. The other concern, in this draft, I asked Eric, it's factored legislative counsel to strike it. And I did because there was concern about, clearly, if your scenario where he's threatened to kill her and the police officer would, I would think would be able to get a warrant because hopefully they've arrested the person, removed them from the scene, and during that time would be able to get a warrant in between time developing probable cause. They've seen probable cause. They've arrested the person. They've removed them. Hopefully they could get a warrant for any other firearms. So, but the concern was if, let's say, let's use he, she again, there is probable cause to believe the crime has been, a domestic assault's been committed. Could she then say, well, he's got guns in the basement. And it's his house, not her house. Or it's their combined house. What does that mean? Yeah, and then you run into the question, if they live there together, she would presumably have authority to agree to the search. Right. If they don't live there together, then that becomes much more problematic. Right. And the other thing is you, I think it's probably a bit of an oxymoron to talk about consensual search under exigent circumstances, because typically exigent circumstances are an exception to the warrant requirement. So, you probably wouldn't need the consent if the circumstances really were exigent. That's supposed to be separate. I think so. I think so. There should be an order there. It's not just drafting confusion. It's consensual search is struck out in this version. Okay. So, I see a point where we could use just that. Okay, well, as you testified, and this error points out, there should have been an order there, and we missed it in drafting. So, it would be, or it discovered under exigent circumstances, or a consensual search. Oh, okay. Okay. And we would strike out my version, again, me, Dick Sears only, was my consensual search. Okay. And wasn't some of the problem there that the, if the person, if they're not actually physically together on the site, they can't... Well, the question came up in testimonial. I think Senator Benning said something, in fact, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he said, so, if they have separate bedrooms, let's say they're not even in a romantic relationship, they just happen to be roommates, and they have separate, they're housemates, and they have separate bedrooms. Does that give the police officer the right to search his bedroom? And... Yeah, and... Can she consent to searching his bedroom? Can he... Right. Say it's to he, to college roommates, who have separate rooms. Yeah. Yeah, and that also requires a determination by a court of just how much authority the... The person who's consenting has over the other person's bedroom. I mean, if, for example, the easy case would be if the person who has the weapon or who is the alleged assailant keeps the bedroom locked and, you know, doesn't, and then holds on to the key, then I think you have, that person would have a pretty good argument that the roommate did not have authority to consent to the search. So, the whole consent issue becomes a difficult one that the court has to figure out. Right. So, other comments and questions for the professor? Hey, thank you so much. We appreciate your testimony. Oh, you're quite welcome. Thank you. Very helpful. Thank you, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Bye now. Bye-bye. All right. Well, that was helpful. So, this is appropriate that David sure would be there. All right. Can you tell me what the agreement was when you were talking about something being struck here or being put in a room? Well, I think David will, it should have read, as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong. It should read, if you didn't strike during consent to the search. Sorry to see, don't bother to see it. It should read, or discover, under exigent circumstances, if you were to add in, or during a consensual search. I think. Well, the way it is now, it's just that because during a consensual search of being struck, there's no need to have it off. So, he was conflating the two and thinking that if you took the strike that way it would be discovered during a consensual search under exigent circumstances. That would be the case. Thank you. Well, I think we'll listen to the witnesses but right now, it's a policy decision by this committee. All right. If the committee's ready, David share with the attorney general's office, accompanied by Carolyn Hansen, also the attorney general's office who's had a lot of on the ground practical experience on these issues and can provide a couple of illustrations. To start with overall, we think most of the changes in this, in 3.1 are good. Very few issues. But, as we've touched on, the attorney general's office does prefer the language including a consensual search and we would prefer to not have the qualifier imminent harm on line one of page three. On the consensual search issue, and to bring up one suggestion that Judge Beerson actually suggested and we think is a good idea that would cover a number of legal circumstances. One option we could have there in that space on lines 19 and 20 is just to say or discover during a lawful search which summarizes things without having to go into the weeds. That's a decision the committee can make. I think it's important to keep in mind when we're thinking about the consensual search issue that this bill will not change when a consensual search can happen. If it can happen now, it can happen after this bill is passed. If it can't happen now, it cannot happen after this bill is passed. What this does do is change the purpose for which a consensual search can happen and changes what an officer can get. Let's say there's a senator who has a renting a house during the legislative session with two other legislators. And there is a woman who comes in with one of those senators. I don't know what the relationship might be. And that woman claims domestic violence and police come and that senator is charged. They find probable cause and is charged. My question would be if we leave consensual search in or are done, would they have a right to search the other two senators or legislators, excuse me, not senators, I'm thinking of the McCalloch case, quite frankly. Would they have right to search the other two senators or representatives in senators rooms? Is that building since they weren't involved? The question is how much was were those other rooms common space? And I think the answer is they're separate bedrooms that the senator in question, who's being questioned, didn't have access to as a matter of course, it probably would not be something that the police could lawfully access under that search because the woman could not consent to it. I mean, the other factor here is if the woman didn't really live there, if it was something that she'd just shown up that evening, she would have very little ability to consent to any search of the home because there's really no possessory interest there. If this individual had been living in that room then they could consent to a search of that room but I don't see how they could consent to a search of rooms where they didn't commonly have access to. So you know, it sounds like to get the consensual search, you've got to do an interrogation of people that are gonna find out what their relationships are, what they, you know, what are their areas where they only need to go. I mean, it doesn't seem reasonable, does it? Well, it's exactly what happens now. Again, we're not changing, it's exactly what police, it's the inquiry police have to make right now because we're not changing. Well, is this fluff? No, no Senator, it's not fluff. The idea is we're not changing when consensual search can happen. So those questions that police have to do right now, I mean, if they're searching for evidence of a crime and they get consent from one of several roommates, they're gonna have to make, they're gonna have to figure some stuff out about what that consent means. And that happens right now. This bill does not change that type of inquiry. The only, what this does change is what can you take pursuant to a lawful search? And that, and now this bill allows for firearms that are not evidence of a crime, but may pose a danger to be seized for safety. Just to explain to you. Well, it depends on how you carve out. And under exited circumstances. So what's the difference between consensual search and exited circumstances? I would view exited circumstances as fewer circumstances in which you could actually search something. So exited circumstances are when an officer needs to say a suspect seems to pose a danger is running through a house. The officer would, I think, would have a right to chase that person because they need to. They don't know what's gonna happen. They don't know who to save or unsafe. And so that's an exited circumstance where they're running after this guy or girl. And then put sort of what they see along the way that would be lawfully viewed and would be a carve out to the warrant. Well, I agree. Is it an exited circumstance if the officer believes whoever the complainant witness is that they are under threat of death? That the individual who's a perpetrator is threatening imminent harm? And the officer decides that that rises to the level of exited circumstances? I think one other distinction to keep in mind here is that with cases like that, we're getting towards territory where that is probably a crime if there's been a threat, a death threat and there's a weapon involved in that death threat. Then we have a crime and now we're back into the sort of normal territory that we've always had in terms of when to get a warrant and when the circumstances are exigent and this bill really wouldn't come into play at all. And can I just add, I think it's important to keep in mind. You're identifying yourself. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Carolyn Hansen with the Attorney General's Office as David mentioned. I think it's important to keep in mind that the concept that you're bringing up exigent circumstances is not something that's new to police. They get tons of training in what that means at the academy. And in your example, Senator Sears, the idea that there's gonna be a consensual search in that situation, I didn't hear any facts that suggested that would even come up. So I think it's important to know that just because there's a complaint of domestic violence doesn't mean that you automatically jump to four to two and you automatically start acting for a consensual search. I didn't hear anything in that example that suggested to me we would even get to this. And I think the key concept or the key conceptual separation is just that we're not changing the law around what's a lawful search or what's not a lawful search here. What is presently lawful will remain lawful and what isn't lawful will remain unlawful. So this bill is not altering that. What it is doing is just allowing, pursuant to a lawful search, it is now allowing people to officers to get firearms that may be a danger to the household member. And that's the difference that we're talking about here. That's the change the law is making. So I understand the committee's concern around making sure we understand what the law is on search but we're not changing the law on search. Any other questions for David or? Hang in there and. Can I say one thing? I just wanted to give you an example since you brought up the idea of is this just fluff. I wanted to give you an example. Molly McLean who was murdered last summer by her husband Jason McLean. She wrote, Jason keeps a rifle on the floor and a corner in the open so he can look at it and mention where it is. So I have to be aware that it is right there where he can always access it. I feel he might get angry and use it against me if he's angry enough. That's an example of the kind of situation where an officer might shift gears and decide, okay I'm here because Molly's been punched in the face and I'm going to make an arrest based on that. But when an officer hears that there's a firearm that's sitting somewhere in the house and that that's the interpretation, that's not evidence of a crime. The situation you mentioned earlier where the officer might have been able to make the physical arrest, which he's going to do and then go back and apply for a search warrant, there's not going to be a search warrant issued to go get that firearm. That goes back to the whole thing where I had the problem and I still had a problem with this bill is when you cite somebody to come to court a couple of weeks from now, what gives you the, why wouldn't you arrest? But even if we assume in that situation that there was an arrest, right, that the person was taken in, there's still, without this bill, there's no lawful basis to get that gun because the gun has an evidence of a crime. And what this bill does is it allows for- I can answer my question about citing. I couldn't answer as to why you wouldn't arrest me. I mean that's the, I'm going back to the house version as passed by the house and one of the reasons that I thought it was, that I presume that it was unconstitutional was the idea of having a law enforcement officer search when somebody was merely cited in the court, which could be a month from now or two weeks from the time of the alleged assault. And that's where I had the problem with the house bill. It wasn't necessarily with the idea of a concept was that as I was getting so much pressure from groups who thought that I was just, you know, didn't care about victims. I do care about victims, but the house version of the bill was so bad in my, I didn't know that I could fix it. So I was reluctant to take it up, not thinking I could fix it. I think we've come close to a fix here, but I'm still stuck on the idea of deciding when you don't arrest, when under the rule three they can arrest when there's domestic probable cause to believe domestic assault occurred. I want to make sure I understand your question though, because that is the preferred response in any domestic violence case where a police officer has authority on rule three. Why is the site in there? Well, maybe just to cover every possible circumstance how somebody could land in court on a domestic assault charge because it could be, as you described earlier, a roommate situation. No intimate partner violence, for instance, and maybe the officer felt that the citation in that case was the way to go. I can't speak to why. I can tell you that, for instance, I spoke with Tracy Shriver this week because one of the things I'd seen in one of the reports that UL said was that Wyndham County had a high incidence of issuing citations. And Tracy said, in her experience, that was not the case. It was 85 to 95% of folks that would be lodged in that circumstance, at least in the past. Now, things have changed a little bit lately, but they have the authority to make an arrest. So, a physical arrest, if there's an exception to rule three, and that is the preferred response. But I think the reason why I brought that example up to you is that's a scenario where, for instance, the officer might then think that if he shifted gears and said, you know, I'm really concerned, I've heard from officers, sometimes they say they leave a house and they say to themselves, I think he's gonna kill her one day. And in that scenario, that officer might, if he has the time and the ability, he might say, would you agree to a consensual search for me to see if there's any firearms, the firearm you're mentioning? And then the officer, if he got a signed consensual search, and again, going back to your point, officers receive a lot of training in what a consensual search means, he would then go and conduct that search to find a firearm at given time. And that would happen in a potentially in a case like this, where it would happen otherwise. I'm sorry, go ahead. No, no, I just, when you were giving your example at the beginning, you said, so this is a situation, this is what I heard. I'm not sure this is what you said. This is a situation where they would not the next day have been awarded, or whatever one does, a search for that weapon. Why would that not have been, why was there not enough evidence there that it was connected to something? In order to get a search warrant, you have to be searching for evidence of a crime. So the officers would have to have probable cause that a specific crime had been committed. And then you have to be able to say that this is evidence of that crime. And you also have to be able to say with some specificity where that item will be found. So the judge could issue a warrant. If, for instance- I'll give all those, but you couldn't go back that the guy is arrested. He's taken down to jail. And now you can't just get a search warrant to go search for all those guns that might be in the house because they're not connected. So that, I didn't go there. That is very helpful. Thank you. I'm just still puzzled about the sighting. I may be Judge Grissom can help me with it, but I'm just puzzled by why Joe, you can ask Africa, but I'm still puzzled by sighting. By sighting, yeah. About sighting and not actually removing the individual from the scene when you can. So if you think it's serious and you think that danger might happen, why would you sight for two weeks from now to a month from now? Why would police officers do that if they didn't feel serious? I suspect they do that because they don't feel they have probable cause and they want to develop a case with the state's attorney or whatever. So I'm just suspicion that this, I have friends who can say suspicion. I'm just speculating that, that might be the case. And when I do that, just brings the whole thing and brings me back to an extreme risk provision that could be through the family court in 221 passes. Yeah, and I think that that's a really important bill too, but I think this does something that that doesn't do. I agree, but I'm still puzzled. I think. Yeah, sorry. By sighting, which I'll go ahead. I'm gonna be puzzled, I'll probably vote for that bill. I'll probably be puzzled by this until somebody proves me up, right? Well, if you wanted other examples, there are other examples if you wanted. I'm sorry. Let's send her back. I'm sorry. As 221 would take care of the situation. Any problem, as I understand, I also don't understand why if a potential victim is standing there screaming, saying, I've just been assaulted. I'm afraid he's gonna kill me. He said he wants to kill me. Why that doesn't give the officer almost carte blanche opportunity to take any weapon at the scene the way this language is there, whether there's a consent to search or not. Isn't that an exit circumstance? Well, again, Senator, I think that when you're talking about a hypothetical like that, you are talking about in a situation where you've got evidence of a crime and so you're sort of out of the 422 territory and back into regular criminal procedure. What you're asking essentially and what we've been struggling with is you're presuming the existence of weapons in a house. In any domestic situation whatsoever should be presumed to be a further potential problem and the weapons should be removed. That's essentially what you're saying. This bill does as opposed to anything else we've talked about. And it's not just us presuming that. There's significant data. I've heard the data in the statistics. I'm somewhat troubled by the desire to say, we like this and we're giving up the waiting period that we thought was there for a cool and off time period. But essentially what you're saying is no matter what the officer chooses to do here or not, we know he could arrest the individual which would take care of the immediate problem. But you're still saying that whether the person's arrested or not, any guns in the home must be presumed to be a further problem and therefore should be removed as long as a consensual search is given. And I don't know how else to explain it. But it seems to me that in the case, I don't remember when Molly was killed in relation to the date where he was originally cited. But if my memory is correct, there was a period of time transpired between point A and point B. That would clearly be covered by S-221 without question. This, I guess I keep coming back to the circumstances. It's giving me exactly what you're asking for. We don't get messed up in whether it's a consensual search or not. Why would the officer have to ask for a consensual search if in fact it's ages and circumstances? Yet get the guns removed. Am I missing something? I think the gap where this bill does a lot of work is the situation where you don't have an exigent circumstance or evidence of a crime where a victim is saying, there's a gun here that I- But I said that was S-221. That's where I see 221 working perfectly correctly. The officer walks away and says, you know the more I think about it, he's gonna kill her or something. That's the ammunition you need to start doing with 221. And it's also important to remember that with 221, it's definitely doing important work and may serve that situation. But it may, there may not be an order that issues. There may not be an order that meets the, they may not be able to compile the evidence sufficient to say that this is a risk of imminent harm. I'm forgetting the exact language of the standard in 221. It's not a guarantee that you'll get that order and it's not a guarantee that you'll be able to get the firearms. This does provide that guarantee. That's where we remove the judicial oversight. Well, the judicial oversight will come very, very rapidly. At one final point, I think we've made our point extensively about the consensual search and do feel that it's very important to make sure the bill can do the work it needs to do. Just briefly, we'll mention the imminent harm phrase on line one of page three. Some concern that that makes it more difficult for officers to make a judgment as to when these things are necessary. As we heard the Montpelier police chief testify last week, they do like clarity and in clear direction in terms of what they should do. This bill already does leave them with a lot of discretion. And the imminent harm standard is, I think it's gonna be hard for an officer trying to make decisions to decide what exactly that means. So we just think it's clear to leave that out, give the officer the discretion to make a decision on a case by case basis and then allow the judge to review it very shortly after that. And I'll leave that there unless there's any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Who's getting the question? I think that we should call on the officers. The officers. We should call on the officers. Good morning. Good morning. But one of the things that just, one of the things that struck me was even if there is an arrest and they're taken away, they can't get a search warrant for those weapons just because they're there. For the next day. So even if they go away for two days, they're not gonna get a search warrant for those too. So that was, if I understood that right, that was very helpful to me. So assigning your arresting wouldn't make any difference. Well, maybe if they felt there wasn't enough. I mean, we're on to the evidence. Okay, good. Go ahead, officer. That's all right. Good morning. We're gonna have to stop at 11.45 because I have to leave at 11.45 and Senator Nicke has to leave at 11.40. Okay. Auburn Watersong from the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. So I just wanted to start off this morning, going back to a concern that I heard from the committee before and I followed up on it just to do my own homework on, I talked to some Vermont attorneys about the concern that if there had been, for example, a mother hitting a child that we would be removing firearms in those circumstances. So I checked into this. First, I just wanna say that the network holds the position that dangerous people should not have access to dangerous weapons. And I just wanna clarify for the record that in Vermont, now that I've consulted with some attorneys on this, I've been informed that a mother hitting a child would more likely result in a cruelty to a child charged than a domestic assault. But I would defer to state's attorneys on how that all would play out. But if that were the case, then H422 would not necessarily come into play. So I just wanted to clarify that one issue. Excuse me, just saying. Do you have that testimony so I can make my notes? Yeah, actually, I'm sorry. I forgot. Yes, I do have. Yeah, you can make your notes. Oh, but I just wanna start right there. Miranda Shaffer just got done serving 10 days in jail. She was charged with cruelty to a child and domestic assault. She got found and not guilty on a cruelty to a child and convicted on a domestic assault. So I don't know who gave you the information. What do you mean? That's not correct. Yeah, good point. But I don't wanna make an issue of it, but I can't just let it go. No, that's fine. I understood it would be based on the facts of the case too. So, yeah, of course, of course. And again, for us, it goes back to the assessment of the danger in the situation and whether a dangerous person really should have access to dangerous weapons. So yeah, so we stand there. Why don't you go back to your testimony? Yeah, okay. So I have a little bit more of my testimony about why it's important and why it's needed, but we've talked about the research backing up, the lethality of a combination between firearms and domestic violence, and that's really what this is rooted in. It's needed because we understand that combination and we want law enforcement officers to have the tools they need to lawfully remove firearms that they currently cannot. So that goes to what the AG's prior testimony just was. So to that end, we want to keep consensual search in the language. It's important to remember when we're thinking about this that H-422s is really a discretionary bill. It allows law enforcement the discretion to make some decisions at the scene. It's not requiring them to make those decisions. New Hampshire state law requires the removal at the scene and others, 12 other states that are similar have that requirement as well. And we started off with Shell and we ended up with May in our language for that reason to give law enforcement that discretion. So currently under consensual search, the way we're understanding it from the AG's office is that it can currently be done. Law enforcement officers are familiar with how to do that and what H-422 would do would be to allow that search to happen for firearms that are not evidence of that crime but still pose a danger. So we would support keeping consensual search in there. I also put in my testimony, we'd heard in the past that victims often will say like the worry about the victims who own the firearm and whether that firearm will be taken if the victim wants to keep the firearm to protect herself. And I just wanted to cite that we have some data that shows that when the victim is a woman and the woman owns the firearm that regardless of ownership that firearm in the household makes it more likely that that woman will die from homicide in a domestic violence household. And so this was a California study from 91 to 96 that concluded that women who owned a gun died by firearm homicide at twice the rates of women who did not. And I cited that study at the end of my testimony. So I just wanted to also revisit that issue. I also wanna say that we'd like to delete the imminent harm. And as soon as I read that I remembered a case that I was familiar with in my work where a victim was aware of sort of impending abuse when her abuser would turn his wedding band. He just would look at her and turn his wedding band and she would know that that meant I need to stop talking. He's gonna beat me later if I don't. So those kinds of imminent harm, they're hard to detect in a situation. A law enforcement officer may not be perceiving imminent harm and the victim may be perceiving imminent harm. So that judgment of what is imminent harm and when it is perceived is a little bit, in these cases, possibly more tricky. Also, if the purpose of the imminent harm, which I'm thinking it may be, putting that in there was to ensure that the firearms not be removed in the event that a citation is given like for an older incident. And I was put in there to make sure that the law enforcement officer can have a discussion about the mental health of the individual who was being accused. And it was put in there for the same reason that it's in 221. It's not put in there to create more problems for victims in a prior to hearing that. It was put in there to provide the officer more information. Let's say you've got somebody who's not playing with a full deck right now and the officer wants to talk to the United Counseling Service in Bennington. Right now, they can't. But if it's imminent harm, it takes the hip up. It gives you a way through imminent harm. Now if you can find a different way to get imminent harm in there, if you're concerned that imminent harm further diminishes the ability, I wasn't trying to diminish the ability. I'm trying to increase the information that the officer can gather. I understand. Yeah. Yeah. And then that's important. I have a failure to communicate here on this one. The term itself, imminent, comes from hiporegulation. Right, right, right. That's why I understand that. That's why it's in there. So if you wanted to further clarify, I don't want people to be more your example. And I don't have a problem with, I want imminent harm in there to protect the victim, not to harm them. I hear you saying, like the goal is to bring in the mental health assessment piece. If the person's been under mental health care or some other form of, maybe the person has a brain tumor, I don't know what's causing this, but the officer then would be able to find out more information, and that's information to help, particularly in these cases. So that's the goal of this. Well, I appreciate that goal, Senator. Yeah. It's causing, if you think that imminent harm is, how do I put it? If you think that imminent harm is narrowing the focus of the officer, it's not the intent. So to find a way to make sure that that doesn't narrow the ability of the officer to. Right, right. That's what we, that would be our testimony. It's just to find a way to, so we could both do this. So there needs to find a way to reword this so that it's clear that it could be imminent harm or something else, could add, or, I don't know what. Okay, so you can think on some language. Right, imminent harm is only. I understand your purpose. The answer ability to talk. Okay, great. And then my last comment is on, or any other person. And when I was thinking about this, we wanted to try to keep that language of protecting the officer or any other person, because we know nationally from the connection, we know the connection between mass shootings and domestic violence. We know that between 2009 and 2016, perpetrators of domestic violence accounted for 54% of mass shootings. And then generally, the mass shootings that are related to domestic violence, they fit a pattern of easy access to firearms of individuals who have these controlling relationships with their intimate partners. And then their control is challenged in some way. So that's like, for example, when law enforcement intervenes. Some perpetrators feel most challenged when the law enforcement officer is intervened, they're threatened, their control has been broken, and shooting begins. And abusers often take their rage into the public arena. And to seek out a victim or somebody else in the victim's life who might've challenged their power. And I know you've recognized that by keeping the family member in there, which is important because we do have history of perpetrators targeting, for example, victims' mothers or victims' support people that are in the family. But there are others who do not live in the household or are not family members that are in danger. And we have that, we've seen that historically in Vermont too. And I'm just citing some examples here, the neighbor who called the police, the supportive family member, which I just mentioned, or the coworker or the bystander. And then I just, in the bulleted list, I've just given some examples of some domestic violence homicides and suicides that have taken place and where they have taken place because I think it's important to recognize that when they take place at work or in an office or in a parking lot, it can put the public, it can put bystanders in danger. And I also wanna just pull into this the shooter themselves are oftentimes threatening to kill themselves as a way of coercively controlling their victim, but then also some carry that out. And we've had murder suicides in Vermont and Maidstone, but Molly McLean case was one of them, in fact. But we've had a number of them and any other person would cover the shooter as well. And I think that's something that was sort of missed in the language that was crafted this time around. So. But ever, because the person being arrested decided he meant to cover the shooter. Okay, okay, great. So, so yeah, so I just point out these. I'm going to go home. Thursday, I have to leave at quarter of 12. Not today. So I just point out these other spaces where these things might happen and put other people in danger. And that's it for my testimony. Let me. So the network would support the bill and we need your help. First of all, a consensual search was back in. Yes. Number two was some rewording of imminent harm to make sure it doesn't limit the ability of the officer to do whatever the officer needs to do. And then finally, the issue that you have a problem with is the, any other person. Right. Any other person is so broad. To mean, I mean, it could be anybody, right? So. Yeah. I mean, and is that concern, that connection to public safety, that domestic violence? I understand. Yeah. You have so broad, that's why the committee decided to do that. I don't know where we were at. I appreciate it. So it's basically three years. That's it. And one of them could be resolved. Some language, yeah. The imminent harm could be resolved with some more language that doesn't both. We weren't, I didn't want to narrow with the imminent harm. I wanted to provide that ability. Maybe somebody has some suggestions on how we can reward that. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for others? Thank you. Judge Grissom, I thought we were down to be this year at six to five. But what did they do to it? I see. Who the hell is that? Oh, okay. That we don't know. Depends on what day it is. I suspect. Six to five. David Meklinberg. Why don't you take us? What did they do to it? They added a provision on bump stocks. They added a provision on, I think, high magazines, high capacity magazines. How did they identify them? 10 or? 10, yeah. They left in 21 and under, but qualified the exceptions for, or I'm sorry, that was over the universal background checks. They had left in the 21 and under, and they put some exceptions into universal background checks for personal transfers to relatives. I believe that's, I haven't built one. That was already in. They had a step-grandfather or some grandkids, step-grandparents and stuff like that. How about defacto parents? I don't know if you got any. I appreciate that, David. I'm glad to judge Chris, but thank you for that. Absolutely. Thank you. You could attach. We look forward to seeing. We could attach the whole new team. We look forward to seeing what the house does. One out. But then voting that out means that I'm doing a 2.21. You could attach the 58-page Parenting Bill onto that. Right. Yes, to make sure it was back to parents. And genetic donors. So good morning. Genetic children. And thank you for the opportunity to speak to H-422, the draft 3.1, Brian Greerson, Chief Superior Judge. I came here today in part to clarify, hopefully for the committee, the court's position on this bill, and I would start by saying we did not object to the bill. I know when I was here last week in talking about this bill, and listening to David Shear's testimony this morning, it's committee, I'm sure it's clear now that much of this bill is, and I think the Defender General said the same thing, it doesn't change the rules for lawful search, add to or take away from them. The big difference in this bill is that it provides for removal of firearms that are secured by a lawful search. And so I do not know if the Defender General agree on that part of it, but certainly that is the distinguishing feature in this bill. And so my testimony last week that a lot of it is not necessary, it was said in the context that it doesn't change the existing laws relating to lawful searchers. So I just wanted to clarify that position. We do not object to the bill. Will the, maybe you had other points you wanted to make. A couple of points. I have a question, a general question that might be appropriate right now. Putting on my appropriation map. Okay. And understanding that the judiciary's down about a billion dollars from what it requested from the governor. Yes. And I don't know what the House did with that, if anything. I think they bumped it a little, but not a great amount. Not a great amount. So assuming that we have a million dollars, that's 988,000, that's exactly from what was requested by the judiciary. And you handled the work load of requiring this within one business day, and I like that within one business day. I don't think there will be any financial impact on the court because these cases would be coming in anyway. Whether they come in the next day as the bill currently provides, or they come in sometime later. Obviously for anyone who is arrested and lodged, they're coming in the next day anyway. Or by video, by video. Or by video. Or by video. Yes. At least for the time being, I take every opportunity. Please don't tell G.L.I. first. I keep hoping, Senator, but anyway, we'll put that aside for another day. But so if some- So you'll have your chance to put another body on that one. I know, I know. So it won't increase the workload in that sense because these cases will be coming in anyway. The difference will be is, quite frankly, it's the processing of the paperwork. Then that burden would initially fall on the police and the state's attorney to make sure they get that paperwork done in time for the court to process the cases. So I don't see a financial impact on the court in that sense. And I would say that in looking at the current version of the bill, I did make the suggestion to David Shear that in line 19, that because of the debate going back and forth between consensual or not, or including that or not including that and exigent circumstances that you could cover all the areas by simply putting a lawful search and that would not restrict or expand the ability of the officers to secure firearms on the premises without getting into, I think, David said, getting into the weeds. It allows for any search that is currently lawful. And as I said, that part would be for authorizing the removal of firearms, which is different and which is the essence of this bill. What do you have, A, B, and C, ever? The choice is here. A would be languages in front of us. B would be striking during a consensual search. And C would be judges. Lawful. A lawful. I think that, I have to admit, I think just saying a lawful search doesn't give a bright line to the police. They don't know what a lawful search is, as opposed to others. I hope they know what a lawful search is. I hope they know what a lawful search is, but why not spell it out very specifically? Yeah, I'm offering for tomorrow, for tomorrow, three choices, but you can have that. My only suggestion, a response to that, Senator, would be that in setting forth specific ones, you may, in fact, be eliminating others. So, it's essentially a policy decision. I have the concerns expressed by Mr. Shear and Ms. Watersong on limited harm. I'm not, I wasn't sure why the committee was asking for that language. I tend to think that it limits, because it then qualifies the removal. So, I'd be glad to talk with Eric and see if... I think it can be put someplace else and in a, using the word someplace else that would do what we want it to do without making it confusing about the limited harm. And when you get down to line 10 on page three, citing the person for the next business day, and I'll be glad to try to answer any questions you have, Senator Sears, about citation, you may want to consider adding a phrase that the state's attorney shall seek conditions of release in the event they're going to cite someone. And the reason I say that is when they arrive at the scene of a domestic and they are removed from the home, they are, they have been arrested. The question then becomes, are they cited in? And if they're cited in, are they going to be cited in for the next day as this calls for? Or is there some reason to not bring them in? But regardless of when they're cited in, I think what's important for purposes of the issues in part driving this bill, the domestic violence, that conditions in release at least be sought without knowing what they would be. That would give some protection in that short time period. If someone is lodged, it's certainly common practice when you set bail as a judge, you will also set conditions of release in the event they- So you set a condition of release that they not possess a firearm. Can you also set a condition of release that they turn over firearms to the local law enforcement? Or can you, do you, can you do that? The short answer is yes, we can do it. The longer answer is that you're relying if you will on no knowledge or self-report from the individual as to what they have for firearms. And so it's in some respects asking them to surrender what you don't know they have is kind of a, but you can do it. You can say surrender firearms. This was a drug issue, so it wasn't a domestic violence issue, but a male and a female were in court the day I was watching arrangements. And the male and female were brought before the judge for violating conditions of release and the police came to the apartment and not only were there additional drugs there but there were seven firearms, Christmas on the bed. And they had both been ordered not to possess firearms. So whatever reason, the male was incarcerated and the female was released on conditions, permit conditions, but I won't get into why that happened. But what was interesting to me was I didn't hear the judge, maybe I missed it. I didn't hear the judge say those firearms, maybe I think the police didn't seize those firearms, but I didn't hear anything about additional firearms given that the female was released. When you say additional firearms. Well, she might have had others. I'm going back to your point. And I think my reaction would be if we're aware of firearms being an issue in the case that you would order them to not possess fire any additional firearms, but again. Well, he'd already been ordered not to possess any. Right, and that's what I'm saying. Clearly, it didn't bother him. Even issuing that order or issuing an order to surrender firearms, it might look good on paper, but the ability to enforce that is extremely difficult. And so that's why I would encourage. But if the victim were to tell the victim's advocate that he had seven rifles and a locked cabinet at the basement, that that would provide the judge with the opportunity to order them to be. Yes, if we have information of specific firearms, the more information we have, the more specific we can make an order. So you couldn't do that. Right, what we can't do though is authorize the police to search. And that's why going back to your question, Senator Benning, to the incident of McCain. Is that the name? And you said that would be a place for 221. It's my understanding of those facts. It wouldn't be because that individual, my understanding was already was facing conditions of release, not to have firearms. There was a relief from abuse order that prohibited firearms. And that 221 wouldn't authorize the police to go into any home or other place to look for firearms. So I did not see that as an application of 221, but I don't want to get away from this bill. That would be my recommendation, I think having conditions of release, whether they are lodged or whether they are cited that the state's attorney should seek those conditions of release. And that would give some security even on a short-term basis. I do not think so. Do you have a problem with the definition of, or do you care about 7, 8, 1, on page 3, 7, 9, 7, 8, 1, where we struck any other person or whether they remember me, excuse me, line 1, 2, and 3? Right, I felt, and I believe I testified the last week that I thought the statement of any other person is overly broad, and my concern is, if you're looking at it from the perspective of the domestic violence, the victim, I understand that. The police are going to have much less knowledge to them, and if you're looking at what guns are they to secure, then they can define obviously the person that's on the home or the family member, so if you look at it from the police perspective, they need some guidance, I would think, to know what firearm, who are we trying to protect? So I think it gives them some definition. Any other questions for the judge? Thank you for letting me clarify. Anybody else who wants to comment right now before we have version 4, 5, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1? Eric, do you want to give us a couple of minutes? Yeah, just a minute, please. If you'll leave something there. I know you can get quarter 12 tomorrow, but it's a good thing that I had all my plans made. I'm meeting four old group of people from UBL, but I'm sorry, I was probably wrong about that. It's interesting to see how old they are. They look much older than I do, gentlemen. I've got a picture of my, the female classmates at my school, I don't know how old they were. Just kind of look at this, I'm sharing it with these guys. You can realize how old they are. They're like old old ladies. Yeah, these are a bunch of old guys. I know. They're walking with limbs and everything else. Great hair. Great hair, white hair. Punching. No hair. It still wasn't. I had a fistful crush when it was a year ago, and I was lying on the side of it. Oh, no. Now, right after this. Eric. Yes. Are you familiar with age 422? I've heard about that. Is that a girl that came down from the house? Yeah. It's a straight-in-all version. Yes. 3.1 in font. Right. So I think we're looking at three choices for Y19. Yes, so we will look at it. I definitely think if you keep in consensual search, it needs to be separate from or discovered under certain circumstances. If you keep it the way it is, doesn't it need to be an or there somewhere? Yes. Exactly. If you're to put back in consensual search, it'd be an or. You don't need it now because the proposal was a little struck, right? But if you do put it in, it needs to be in a or and discover it during a consensual search or under external circumstances. That's right. So that would be choice B. Any thoughts on how to solve the imminent harm problem? I didn't quite follow the problem. If the problem, or maybe Auburn could restate it. Auburn believed that it narrows, that was not our intent. Our intent was to provide information to the officer to be able to use. So the removal is necessary for the protection of the officer. So just think of that. And then if we could grab some language from S-221 in a separate sentence regarding imminent harm. Yeah. So are you still wanting to include the concept of imminent harm? I'm understanding them right. If you're including the concept, then that means that it's somewhat a higher level, you might say, than just saying protection of the officer. Because there's some sort of additional, might be protection that might not be imminent, for example, that could justify it. You take it out of that. Take imminent out of that. So if the removal is necessary for protection of the officer, the person being arrested or cited, or a family member, the person being arrested or cited. And then a new sentence, if the officer believes that harm is imminent, it may consult with the member. Or you could say that the imminent nature of the arm is a factor to be considered. It is a factor to be considered or something like that. So it doesn't narrow what would allow the officer to get that information. Because a lot of police departments are moving in the social worker arena where they're working with the local mental health centers. How did we say it in 221? That's why I was wondering if we could rob that. It doesn't really fit. That's where I go with the imminent harm phrase from. So that we would have a second sentence there would allow the officer to get that. Because I do believe that that's becoming more and more the practice of law enforcement, is to be involved in the little law center or to have their own. I believe Burlington has actually now has some social workers on staff, as Ruffin does as well. I know those followers have touched on this for a long time since Keith Clarke was the shareholder. The more and more they're dealing with social as well as criminal justice. I think that would satisfy everyone on this issue. It wasn't designed. Right. Yeah, that makes sense. I think I can work up some of that. And I guess, and I don't know if there's any in between, but I guess the A would be not striking. A would be family members, any other. And B would be any other person. And that's pretty clear, those of them. So we're down to a few policies. Great. Are there any others? Why are we? Well, Judge Grishen had some suggestions in unwind 10 through 11. That might be correct. Did the state's attorneys are OK with that? Did you catch that one? No. I didn't catch it as a proposed change to existing light. You said I believe that the state's attorney seeks terms of release. Of course, it's being cited. In addition to the conditions. So it's not obvious. Terms of light. Conditions of release. Was there a concern, Senator Sears, about, I don't want to mock it up, but when you're changing the language from any other person to the person being arrested or cited online, sort of one through three, page three there, I thought I had heard that there was a concern that it might not include a victim. Was that the concern? Yeah. That it might not include the shooter? No, the shooter, I think, is included in the person being arrested or cited. Really? Right. Maybe I'm assertive. Because you could just add a victim to that list. If there's no concern, then like I said, I don't want to mock it up. But I thought I heard that. Well, you could add a potential victim. Rather than any other person with a potential victim, it could include the mother-in-law. She would think about the Texas case. I think that list could easily read protection from imminent harm of the officer, the victim, the person being arrested or cited, or a family with a person being arrested or cited, if you want it as a policy matter. If there was a thought that the existing, that the proposed new language might potentially not be covering it. If you put an, I don't know what a number it would be, but the term imminent harm of any, that's where I'd be more comfortable with any potential, the family member of a metric, et cetera, or any potential victim. But then there would be a second sentence, I'm sorry, so thinking, right? Right, second sentence. So the first sentence, line one would strike the word imminent. Right, right. And then a new pay or whatever, I don't know how to do that, would contain the wording. And that's something like when the officer is determining whether or not the removal is necessary for the protection of one of these people, the imminent nature of the harm shall be a factor to be considered or something along those lines. Right. You're great words, but thank you. Well, thanks. It's a minor gift, but it's helpful. So were you thinking of removing just the word imminent or removing from, or removing all three of these? The original bill had protection from harm of the officer. No, the original bill just had protection of the officer. Okay, so remove from imminent harm. Right. Remove the whole term. Yep. And then do a new one regarding imminent harm. Yeah, sounds good. Okay. Yep. Anything else? Did you discard Judge Gerson's suggestion about doing a lawful search for 118? That was choice three. Right. Eric's going to draft, redraft the bill with everything they would need to, which includes taking out the findings by the way. Right. The attorney general took out the findings. Does anybody complain to you at all? I don't recall. Well, your first draft took out the findings. Yeah. You may not have intended to, but we have a little thing we can always do with house bills, and that's take out their findings. And you helped us do that without, yeah. What we gave you was just, I understand, but, so we just adopted your, all right. Thank you for doing that, the man. Wasn't quite intentional, but. You'd be amazed at what we can get for findings and negotiations. So, Joe, what the plan is on the lines, in terms of the searches, you'd have A, which is what's in front of us right now, B, which would bring back in consensual search, and C, would be resolution. I think we've done it. I don't think we can do much more to, Eric's had a chance to word Smith and redraw it. What time is the schedule for tomorrow? I was trying to remember that. Is it early 830 or late 10? Wait, wait, is it 1030? 1030, great. Is it 1030, Peggy? Yes, 1030. 1030, you've got plenty of time there. You've got something else to do. Exactly. Nobody's going to call you from the house, David. No, they're all set. They're all set. They don't care. Right. No, I think they didn't care. They said they don't care. Do you want to, can you make copies of this for the committee, for the judiciary committee, for tomorrow? This is differences between the House version of it, as 221 and the Senate version, as it stands this morning. There are only three differences, but they are major. Where you can see what they've done, what they did. All right, great. We done? We've done. We done.