 First item on the agenda is S119, which is the use of statewide use of deadly force policy that we passed during the second session and the House been working on changes to it. Yesterday we had a kind of a review of the House changes with the House Government Ops and House Judiciary Committee. My understanding is the bill will be referred today to from Government Ops to House Judiciary and they'll continue to work on it. But I think it's important that we keep updated on it so we can let them know areas of our concern with whatever changes they're making and they have time for a conference committee. So that's the reason and I would expect that next week we'll continue to look at whatever they're doing. So we're happy to have Bryn here to help us update us. And I'm gonna say it again, I've said it before, if people would like to testify on this bill before us on House changes, not on the bill itself because we've already passed it, but on House changes, please contact Peggy Delaney at P. Delaney at, would you give it to him, Peggy, that it's lg.state.vt.us, is that correct? P. Delaney at lg.state.vt.us. Thank you. Anyhow, the Bryn had prepared a side-by-side for us. And Bryn, if you wanna, or if committee, if you have particular questions about sections when we went over the side-by-side yesterday, why don't we start that way? And then if there's, if people have absolutely no problem with the changes they made, for example, it starts out, our bill was a law enforcement use of deadly force policy. And there is a standard for law enforcement use of force. And I'm not sure what the difference is, but maybe we could start there, Bryn. Sure. So good morning committee for the record, Bryn here from legislative council. So yes, that is the, one of the changes that the house made was to change the title of the bill and the discussion about the title of the bill and sort of the words throughout the bill, changing it from policy to standard was, because the bill doesn't go into sort of great levels of detail about use of force. A lot of use of law enforcement use of force policies that the house looked at in developing this amendment have really significant amounts of detail about particular kinds of use of force like the use of tasers, for example, the use of rubber bullets, things like that. So the house wanted to make it clear that this wasn't necessarily a policy that would go into that level of detail, but rather standards by which law enforcement use of force could be judged as reasonable. So that was- They went to the whole use of force. Ours was focused on the use of deadly force. That's correct. The Senate version that passed was really primarily focused on the use of deadly force and the house tried to expand it a little bit to provide some parameters on just the use of force more generally, not necessarily deadly force. Right. Dick? Yes, Phil. I have a question. Yes, please. Bryn, I'm wondering, it seemed to me that one of the most dramatic shifts was around the prohibited restraint and our bill obviously prohibited it in all cases and then we had looked into if someone did use it in self-defense or in defense of others, they had remedies elsewhere in the law. And so as far as our bill went, it was prohibited. It seems to me that under this bill, it adopts permissive language around the prohibited restraint in the event of defense of self or other. And I wanted to ask specifically about, it seemed to me that what it was saying was, and correct me if I'm wrong in this, that if an officer feared for his life, which is now the standard reply when any deadly force incident happens, if an officer feared for his life, this says that they may use a prohibited restraint, but they have to cease use of the prohibited restraint once there is no longer fear for their life. Now, in the George Floyd case, what you had was a senior officer who had received training on using choke holds deliberately to induce unconsciousness. And it seems like that could still, under the house bill, could still be done. In other words, somebody fears for their life, they choke the suspect with the intent of depriving them of consciousness. And then as long as they stop once the person is unconscious, they would be not breaking any law under the house pass, this version we're considering. Is that right or have I put too fine a point on it? Well, I think what I would like to, how I like to respond to that is to, rather than using the words fear for their lives, you remember that the bill defines imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. And that references a reasonable person standard. So remember that it's not a subject, I mean, within the language of this bill, the point is not a subjective point, it's an objective point. Would a reasonable officer in the same situation in the same totality of the circumstances have believed that there was an imminent threat against either the officer's life or another person's life? Understood, but that involves us. If I could just break in for it. People are looking for this section, it's subsection seven on page 12 of the side by side. So just to follow that out, I think that again involves us in after the fact considerations of did the officer fear for their life and if they did, then even though it was a traffic stop, they're able to use a chokehold to subdue a suspect until they're unconscious. The other thing I wanted to just quickly figure out is, it seems to me that what this is doing is opening up also after the fact review. So they've listed a whole bunch of circumstances that need to be taken into consideration. And the last of those as somebody pointed out yesterday is any exigent circumstance, any pressing circumstance. So it seems that last, I can't remember, maybe it's F, but that last piece in the list seems to open it up to anything that's not mentioned in the legislation, but that the officer who uses deadly force could present as having been a circumstance that they thought merited use of deadly force. So in one way it's very specific and it lays out a new list, but then the last item in the list essentially says this list isn't inclusive or exclusive. It could be anything that after the fact could be made to seem pressing or exigent. And so when I put those two things together, it seems like this bill is a boon to somebody who's trying to defend someone who kills someone through a chokehold. It offers them many more options than our bill. Is that correct? I do, I agree with your assessment that that subsection F and this is on page four, subsection F is the last in the list of specific factors that are considered in a totality of the circumstances analysis. I agree that that language is broad and it could encompass a number of factors that were known to the officer at the time. And I agree that some of the other factors listed under totality of the circumstances could potentially be used as factors to bolster a law enforcement officers claim that they were reasonably in fear for their lives. For example, the factors regarding physical characteristics of the officer and the subject could, you could also consider that to be a factor that an officer could use to substantiate their claim that they were reasonably in fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. Which page four, Bryn, F or... So F is the, on page four, F is that environmental factors and any exigent circumstances. Right. I do, what I'm saying is I agree that that's pretty broad language that could potentially encompass a large number of factors. And then the one above it, subsection E there is the one about physical characteristics. Do you mind if I interrupt for just a moment since we're talking about prohibited restraint? I just wanted for the committee that you didn't, on Tuesday when you heard the walkthrough, you didn't hear the last couple of sections of the bill because the bill does make an amendment. You may have already read it and know this, that the bill does make an amendment to the new crime that was passed in S2-9. No, I didn't. Yes, I think I did know that, but it's good to be reminded of everything. Would you walk through it, Bryn? I'm wondering, could we have it on the screen? I know, Phillip, you don't really like it there, but I'm having to look at it on my phone. Sure, Alice. So if people could just shout out if they have a question or comment on, because I can't see everybody. I do, and before we get too far afield from what Phillip was raising the question of, Bryn, I understood you to say that this language came from the Seattle law enforcement. I don't know whether that's an ordinance or that's a state law. It's not a law. It's not a law. It's not a law. Okay, this is, so where is this at found? So the Seattle police department had adopted this use of force policy, I believe in 2014, I'd have to very confirm that, but it can be found online. I can send the link to the committee if that's helpful. Well, I have to say, I don't find that surprising because it reads like something that was written by law enforcement to bolster potential cases in the use of force. I also understood, Bryn, that there was case law that was surrounding the application of this language. And I'd like to be able to read that case law if you happen to have links to it. Yeah, so I haven't found relevant like case law regarding a civil suit under the federal statute of 1983 about specifically for Seattle law enforcement officer. I haven't found that yet. There are, I have found some interesting cases. There was actually a case that went to the Ninth Circuit for law enforcement filed a suit claiming that this policy violated their second amendment, right? To use their firearm in self defense. And the court found that it did not violate the second amendment in that way. So I'd be glad to send you that case and keep looking for other relevant case law in Washington. And I will send you anything that I find. Thank you. Bryn, what page should I go to on this? Yeah, let's try to keep, I'm getting now confused. I'm trying to keep a list of issues where and that I'll need to discuss with representatives grad and that maybe Senator White will need to discuss Representative Copeland Hans and because bills seem to dwell in multiple committees over in the house and who knows, it might even take over in the appropriations committee. But so I'm trying to keep track of where the problems are. Definitely, I think we all, I agree with Senator Baruth that the idea that we would almost undo our previous law. If I'm reading it correctly, the one that we passed just a month ago is troubling. But I also am troubled by how broad this becomes and all the standards. So I'm looking at, so it might be better to just kind of continue through. So if Peggy, if we continue this conversation I would go to page, page 14, Bryn. Page 13 is when section two begins. And that's what you haven't had a walkthrough of yet. Okay, well, why don't we go to page 13 and get that walkthrough, but also sensors. Yeah, thank you, let's go through that walkthrough. Okay, so this section two didn't appear in the Senate version of the bill. This is the new crime that passed in S219, law enforcement use of prohibited restraint. And the reason it looks like a whole new law here is because there's a technical reason for that which is that what it does is it amends a law that hasn't yet taken effect. So the way you have to do it is to put that language back in there as if it's brand new language and then repeal the version that passed in S219. So that's what I've done here. So section two is the law enforcement use of prohibited restraint. It's exactly the same as the section of laws that passed in S219 saved for one significant change which can be found on page 12. So Peggy, if you don't mind scrolling down to page, I'm sorry, not page 12, page 14. Sorry, okay. So subsection B, this is the portion of the new crime that says that law enforcement acting in their capacity and law enforcement who employs a prohibited restraint on a person. And here's the new language. I'm sorry I didn't highlight it. It's in a manner inconsistent with 2368 subdivision C7 that causes serious bodily injury to her death that the person can be held liable under this new statute. So in a manner inconsistent with, that's the only change to the section of law as it passed in S219. And what that means is that a law enforcement officer can only be charged under this new prohibited restraint crime if they apply to prohibited restraint in a manner that's inconsistent with that language that we just reviewed in the standard for law enforcement use of deadly force. So if they use a prohibited restraint in a situation where a deadly force was justified and no other intervention was available to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury then they could not be charged under the statute. However, if they used that prohibited restraint in a manner that was inconsistent with that statute and it caused death or serious bodily injury then they could be charged under the new crime. So that's how they've changed the new crime. So, Dick, if I might. Well, I'm still stunned. I could just be stunned for a few seconds more. Sure. They repealed what we just passed that they had agreed to. Yeah. Well, can I- Find that deeply troubling that after all the negotiations I went through and being told by the speaker that I could no longer negotiate that their changes were what they were in the speaker's office that now they repeal it and change the wording. I'm deeply troubled. If I might just clarify that the reason it is repealed is really a technical reason. And that is because they're trying to amend a statute that hasn't yet gone into effect. And so for technical reasons that's why we have to repeal the whole statute rather than just make that individual amendment. However, I'm not commenting on the nature of that amendment. I just want to be aware that that's why it's repealed. What I would say, Dick, is it's pretty clear now what their strategy was. They were not negotiating in, I wouldn't say in entirely good faith because what they did was they put an October 1st start date to the legislation with the idea that they were going to do this. So that would in effect mean that what they agreed to they never really planned to do. This is just a way of eliminating the agreement that they made at the end of the last session. And so I don't like it for policy reasons but I also don't like it because I feel like they are attempting to use the fact that we had too many sessions to now try to put us into a position where we have to eliminate what we passed last time or modify it to the point where it doesn't really have any effect. And a manner inconsistent. So then that's why they repeal justifiable homicide. Yes. Which is what we did in 2019, right? Yes. When does justifiable homicide be repealed under this bill? On passage. Which we had it next October or next July, didn't we? Oh, when does it take effect? Yeah. That also on passage. So they changed that date too. Yeah, so that new crime would take effect on passage. No, but justifiable homicide, when is that repealed? Also, I'm sorry, also on passage. So that portion, the other repeal there that you see in section three is subdivision three of the justifiable homicide statute and that's the portion that provides that law enforcement is not liable for the death or injury of a person. In a riot or whatever. Right, exactly. But when did we have that repealed? It was next year one. And that, in 2019, I do not believe that that was repealed in 2019. I need to check that though to make sure. They did, I believe. Okay. All right, thank you. That completes the walkthrough. Yes. So Dick. Yeah. Is it all right to make some general remarks or? Absolutely. Okay. So these two bills have always been sitting side by side accomplishing similar things, one advancing a little earlier than the other. When I look at this, I think if push comes to shove and they say and they say either you pass this bill the way we want it with the changes to it makes to 219 or not, I think we should just let it die because I feel like what it does is unright much of what we did in ways that are damaging. And the thing that I really don't like is they said in October 1st start date for the prohibited restraint now they're writing it out of existence in effect by using permissive language where you may use this restraint under a whole series and articulated series of instances. So I feel like this cuts completely across what we've already done. And if we can't change it back significantly I would be forevoting against the bill entirely. Well, I think what we would do is ask for a committee of conference. Right, but last time we wound up in a situation where the speaker basically said no dice, we're not negotiating anymore, take it or leave it. Yeah. So I'm just saying if we get into that situation we should leave it. Oh, yeah. But I think I'm concerned about the broadening also in the Seattle language. Are others concerned about that? Yes. I'm not gonna say I'm concerned about that as much as I am. What's actually going on right now here as we're discussing this in the midst of a whole lot of angst in society trying to pass a piece of legislation that has major impact and I'm speaking now as a criminal defense attorney. One of the things that left me uncomfortable about what we were doing when we passed our version was that we were making a very clear and bold statement no chokeholds period ends if, buts or maybes that's the end of the story. I went along with that because in the process we recognized that justifiable homicide was still a defense and that's a court decision. That's a jury's decision at the end of the day. I'm okay with that. What I'm not okay with is we are trying to do something with extremely limited time that might have a very major impact on the life of an officer who is faced with a criminal charge. This felony that to me is a very dangerous way to pass legislation. We are in the heat of all of the angst. We are limited by what's supposed to be a drop dead date on September 25th and there are frankly some things in the legislation from the house that I kind of liked and would like to consider at least taking testimony to determine the ups and the downs on that. And we don't have time to do that. So I'm really uncomfortable trying to even get to a committee of conference because we don't have time to flesh this out and we don't have the ability to do it at a moment in time when we are not in the middle of the political nightmare that is surrounding us. So I guess I'll leave it at that for now but I'm really uncomfortable going forward under the circumstances we are right now. Chris, Joe, I feel somewhat, I'm only gonna disagree with you to the extent that we have all next week to take testimony on the changes proposed by the house. And I don't know how far we'll get but I'm happy to start to take testimony if you and others would help us to help Peggy and myself to and anybody else on the committee with suggestions for people you'd like to hear from. I'm happy to do that. We only had two bills from the house that we had to deal with. So we do have some time next week to at least hear some voices and make sure that what we're hearing is what we're hearing. I share your concern about this but I do need to understand better where all the Seattle stuff came from, why we would be, why that is. So, Bryn, if you and Peggy could get a list of who they heard from on the Seattle stuff, was it somebody in Washington or somebody in Seattle? I mean, I've got connections with the Justice Center. We could hear from some people there too. They spoke with Julio from the AG's office about they didn't hear other testimony about it. I would suggest next week if we could schedule Julio but Peggy, I would also try to think, I think there's a board member from Seattle actually the Justice Center. At least, did any other cities have this? Yep, Julio did talk about several other cities that had model or that had a law enforcement use of forest policies that encompassed a lot of work that had been done with stakeholders. Another one was Camden, New Jersey and Washington, DC. So, the House members that worked on the bill and I looked at several of these policies in creating the amendment. May I ask a question? Do we have any agencies in Vermont that have use of forest policies that we could look at just to see what their own policies say? Do we know? Yes, the law enforcement have their own use of forest policies. I know the Criminal Justice Training Council has a policy for the use of forest that they could speak to. And here, are you muted, Bruce? Yeah, sorry. I'm wondering if it would help to look at a number of states have passed ban chokehold bans in the last six months. And I'm wondering if looking at the interaction between their new ban and their use of forest policies would be instructive? Because that's what we're doing here is we're trying to harmonize this ban with the use of forest and they may have already figured out a better way. That may be. I can't remember the couple of states that I saw had passed chokehold bans, but... Yeah, I'm just looking over our board of the... We have a number of police chiefs on our... It seems like we wouldn't want to be, no matter what they had, we wouldn't want to be copying Seattle right now and they're in such a mess. Absolutely. No, but you also don't want to dispose of all ability for someone charged to make a defense. Right. And there's a balancing test that we're going through here. And I'm worried about the emotions that are set up on each side that might force us to do something in the haste of the moment that I would be regretting 10 years down the road. This committee has spent a lot of time trying to repair things that happened 15 years ago. And I would prefer that we take the time and ability to make sure we're examining it as best we can, preferably in the circumstances where we're all not feeling like we're literally under the gun. Okay. I agree, but it is what it is. And I have to say I lean toward agreeing with Joe on that only because the house has set up a situation where the path that they're laying out is that essentially the parts I like best from 219 will never come into legal force. In other words, the prohibited restraint section doesn't come into force until October 1st. They are with this bill looking to essentially write it out of existence so that it never comes into force. So I would be in that case, I would be for not pursuing this bill and waiting till we come back in January and starting fresh. Okay, but I still feel like I want to hear testimony next week from witnesses. But I can let Representative Grad know there's general concern here and that if it passes in its current form that we would need a conference committee. I think that's the only appropriate way to deal with it. No, if they choose not to have a conference committee that's their choice. I also think we should probably talk to our leader, Senator Rash before we get into too much down the road. But I'm still, what does adding, I mean, I think much of what they've done is similar to what we were doing in both 219 and 119. It's the additions that are concerning, correct? Yeah, I look at it and I think almost all of the additions seem to be articulating grounds for defense of an officer in the event of a deadly force case. So all of the articulations about circumstances that would need to be taken into account. And it's not to go to Joe's point, I don't want to deny officers a defense but I feel like what's happened is here they've leaned so far the other way that it just seems to me to go almost 180 degrees from the direction we were headed in those areas. Have any, did anybody have any testimony on any officers being convicted in communities where this happened? Where they have this law? They haven't heard any testimony yet. They just had the walk through, how's Judiciary about to sign the bill yesterday and they had their walk through yesterday morning and they haven't taken it yet. So a lot of this came from House government ops? No, the House members that worked on it on the amendment before it was presented were primarily House Judiciary members. So this hasn't been adopted yet by them? No. That's good news. So I'm just confused about that process. So House Judiciary members drafted language and gave it to House government ops? So I think that the bill was, when it was voted out of the Senate, it was assigned to House government operations and during the interim between the close of the last session and the beginning of the August session some House members worked on language to present an amendment once the session got started. And so that's how it happened and the three committees together on Tuesday heard a walk through and then the following day it was the chair of the government operations committee asked to be relieved of the bill and assigned it to House Judiciary and that was agreed to. I see. Okay, thanks, Brent. You know, are there other states working on this type of language? Yes, I do think that other states are looking to put standards into law about the police use of force. I can't name all those states right now but I know that there are other states working on this. Well, I'm gonna refer to this as a draft and not as the bill. Under this draft, if a person were to throw bodily fluids at a police officer or spit on a police officer or whatever, would that rise to the level where the police officer would be able to say that that was a threat of serious bodily injury or death and thereby use prohibited restraints? That's a very factually specific question for a finder of fact to determine. I mean, I think under the circumstance, are you referring to the fact that there's a pandemic going on and perhaps the person could have been infected? Well, that's been, you know, I know that a number of police officers in Vermont have faced that where I sometimes intoxicated but other times just somebody who's got significant anger issues says that to the officer but we also have the situation in Rochester, New York that just came out and I know having worked in corrections that that's actually a frequent thing that's happened to corrections also whether it is a pandemic or not. Yeah, in fact, in the jail, they have a spitter cell that has a plexiglass front where they put you if you spit at them. So I know, because I got put in it. Oh, my God. When I got arrested with other people at the protest in Brattleboro at the nuclear plant and they put us all in jail, I wound up in the spitter cell. So... Senator Bruce, I think this is ideal for your next book. Yeah, yeah. Peaceful protests. They're getting back. It depends on whether or not throwing those bodily fluids could be determined to be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, which as you know, is based on the definition, turns on that inquiry about the totality of the circumstances. I'm just curious if, I know Representative LeMond was one of the members of House Judiciary who wrote this, he, I think he mentioned that when we were in our joint meeting. So I'm sure the House Judiciary Committee is going over this. Other areas of concern, committee? I would just say that I liked 219 in many cases because it made a statement, but it didn't try to articulate or accordion out a whole sequence of circumstances or options. And I feel like this bill tries to do that. And that's usually the places where I have the most trouble is where they've tried to open up, expand or create lists. So I think that's just a difference in the drafting approach. And I think Representative LeMond probably pulled that from the Seattle policy, but you know, for instance, on page four, if I go back there, it lays out totality of the circumstances and then it culminates in that F, which includes anything that's exigent. I would just strike that listing and retain the idea of totality of the circumstances because I like that better as I read it. What is your fear, Phillip, about explaining or actually setting the parameters on totality of circumstances? Well, so I feel like if you look at our bill when you look at this bill, if you were to ask which would you prefer to be operating under if you were a law enforcement officer who had just killed someone with a chokehold, I think this bill is much friendlier to your situation than our bill. And let me offer this thought. F is, I think the bone of contention. Yeah. I don't know whether environmental factors mean something of substance or is it raining or snowing? And you can throw in exigent circumstances and include just about anything under the sun. So I understand that that is something that is way too broad, but when it comes to the words totality of the circumstances, it seems to me without parameters of some kind, you have the ability to make that argument anyway. And if you have a specific set of parameters like I'm looking at E now, if I'm sitting next to a defendant who has been charged under this and that defendant is a woman five feet two and the person that the chokehold was used against was six feet seven and 250 pounds. As a criminal defense attorney, I would like to be able to make that argument, but there's no set parameters under our bill on what that actually has for me to make that argument at all. Well, that's, I guess that's what I'm saying is it presents a full sequence of possibilities under which it might be okay to choke somebody. So given the example you just offered, this bill makes it clear that if you are an officer who's somewhat undersized and you're up against somebody who's larger, then it specifically states that it may be okay for you to choke them. And if you look also, it talks down below about disordered thought. So I have a quick exchange with somebody and it seems to me that what they said was evidence of disordered thought, maybe they're high. I don't know that, but I think that and then I choke them under this bill. It seems I have more defense for that action. So that's what I mean is that it seems to imagine, articulate, and then permit a whole sequence of hypotheticals under which it's gonna be okay to choke somebody. But can I throw something in here? Yes, please. It also says that there were no other available means to defuse the situation. So if you are the small female officer and you're against this brute of a guy and you had other means to do it because there were three cops standing right behind you or you had a taser or something else, it also says that it justifies the chokehold automatically. I agree. I just wanna break in and just suggest that it's all that is very troubling to me as well. And I wanna tell you a little bit of a personal story about why in my career working with troubled youth, I did three, what I would consider major restraints. Many times I would talk kid down, many times I would put my arm around him and say, no problem, we'll work ourselves through this. The one that was the most difficult restraint was a kid who was no more than 98 pounds soaked in wet. He was small, but the adrenaline was rushing that he was the most difficult one I ever had. And it took three of us to eventually get him restrained. So I came up against 200 pounders and 150 pounders, but this young kid who was very, very angry and emotional. So I think size is really immaterial. I also think that whether I'm exhausted or not, is also immaterial. I don't understand why, that's like, what a way to go. I mean, I worked two shifts last week, so I was exhausted from that. And I had a rough night, I was exhausted from that. And I had a rough night the night before arguing with my wife. So I was exhausted and that's why I did what I did. I just think those are, that's a troubling section to me, E. And also F, as you pointed out. I just wanna point that out in terms of the size. Size, in my experience, doesn't really matter. So, Dick, if you were sitting on a jury and you were considering that I'm defending a woman who was five feet two and aged 27, and the victim here is somebody that vastly outweighs her. Do you think a jury does not have the ability to consider that as part of the totality of the circumstances? I'm sure they would in it, but I don't know that we need to spell it out by spelling out the words age, size, et cetera, because it may be immaterial. Or was the officer exhausted? So, I mean, I would, if the officer, if the jury found that the officer was exhausted, I'd sue the city town or municipality or state because they had somebody out there who was exhausted and couldn't handle the job. I mean, I think it just is very troubling to add those factors in. So, yeah, I'm sure a jury would consider the size and so forth, but I would hope they'd consider the totality of the circumstances. May I ask a question? So, without that list. I mean, does that answer your question, Joe? And then, Jeanette, please. Yeah, I think that we're all actually on the same page. We're talking about the nuances of how the language has been set up here, but a jury goes off to deliberate and they're given instructions before they go into the room. And the question is whether or not the jury can be told, they may consider the totality of circumstances. In our bill, there really isn't anything. It's an absolute ban on chokehold. And you have to go to a separate bill, a separate statute to determine that, well, yes, we've said that, but there's also an opportunity for a defense under justifiable homicide. It appeared to me that the house was trying to set parameters. We may have disagreement with the parameters that they're establishing, but in spelling out totality of the circumstances, it actually sets up proscriptions on what that discussion of the jury would be inside the jury room. So they couldn't go into talk. For instance, if we struck out the clause about exhaustion, they would not be able to talk about exhaustion as one of the totality of the circumstances, whereas here they could. So we're getting into the nuances of what the wording actually is. And I think other than that, we're all on the same page that the jury should have the ability to consider totality of the circumstances. We just don't know what they're gonna talk about when they get in there. May I ask a question about that? Yep. So without this, first of all, is this list exhaustive or is this includes? And secondly, if there isn't a list, what's to say they can't talk about anything in the totality of the circumstances. I mean, it seems to me that the defense attorney could present what he or she sees as the totality of the circumstances and that the jury would have to consider all of that. I'm not sure that I don't necessarily disagree with the list, but I'm wondering if it's necessary. Is it, Bryn, is it inclusive or I mean exclusive or is it include these things? And could the defense attorney raise any of these things in the defense case anyway, and they would be considered because they're part of the defense, even if they're not listed? I think the latter is not an exhaustive list. If you look at the language that precedes the list, it says consideration of the totality of the circumstances may include. I read that to mean that this is not the only things that a jury could consider. It could really consider anything that came into that encompassed any fact known by the officer at the time that could be relevant. And it would be up to the defense attorney to figure out what those things were and present them in the case. Exactly, yes. Okay. So we don't really need the list. The list is kind of implied by saying the totality of the circumstances. Yes, cool. So I wanted to go to page 12, section seven. The toughest thing for me about this bill is the use of the word may there. An officer may use a prohibited restraint because if you remember we had a lot of discussion about what even to call it and we ultimately decided to call it a prohibited restraint because we wanted to make it clear that it was prohibited, that you couldn't use it. This bill says you may use it. So you remember we found out that in Vermont at the training academy at the advanced level they did instruct in these kinds of holds. And that was a surprise to me. And I don't think we should be training for those kinds of holds. And under 219, as I understood it, it would be prohibited to teach those holds because you'd be teaching something that was illegal. But under this bill, if an officer may use a chokehold or a hold that cuts off blood to the brain, then it seems like it's a logical leap to say, well, if they may use them, we should train them so that they know how to use them properly. That takes us right back into the world where we're teaching the chokehold to officers who will then choke someone and say, hey, I was told that it was permissible and I was taught the right way to do it. So that may at the top of page 12 is what really bugs me more than anything. I understand. I actually kind of liked that because it was followed by, may is followed by, but only in a situation where deadly force is justified and only if no other intervention is available to defend. And to me, not training somebody in a situation where they could literally lose their life is problematic. And I don't know how to get to the answer of how to resolve where you wanna go with it, Phillip, but this is one of the areas I'd really love to have more testimony and to make sure we're doing the right thing moving forward. Okay. Can Bryn or Peggy, can you work on who would be a good person to testify about this section or persons? May I ask, a chokehold does not necessarily... Did you get Bryn and Peggy, can you work together on who would be good a good set of people to talk about this section? The prohibited restraint in particular. Yeah. Yeah, so I assume that you also want to hear from law enforcement as well as some other stakeholders. Yes. But I wanna mention one concern here. If it's okay for law enforcement, the train in it use it, et cetera. What about others? Meaning who? Woodside. For example. Oh, go ahead. Jeanette, go ahead. Well, using a chokehold does not necessarily mean death, right? Am I, do I understand that, that a chokehold can be used without causing death? Yes. Okay, so if using a chokehold is only allowable when the situation would allow for deadly force, it seems to me that a chokehold that doesn't cause death is better than the deadly force, meaning shooting someone, right? I mean, if you take that paragraph as a whole, you're saying that in a situation where there are no other possibilities and deadly force was, the word isn't allowed, but I don't have it in front. Was what? Justified. Justified? Yeah. If deadly force is justified that the chokehold, it might be a better option. But the chokehold is deadly force under this bill. But yeah, but well, okay. It is deadly force, but it doesn't necessarily cause death. Well, neither is shooting someone. No, I know. Oh boy, Bill and I just had the same thing. Shooting someone is more likely. Well, what I think happens in the use of a chokehold is that sometimes people inadvertently it causes death of serious bodily injury. Yeah. And I'm not sure that it's on purpose, but using it can be very dangerous. Yeah. And that's why, you know, it's been banned. And that, I mean. Yeah, but the choice we're being asked to make is between banning it altogether or using it only in circumstances where deadly force is justified and if no other intervention is available. And that's the choice we're being asked to make. And I'd really like to hear testimony from both sides of that argument and figure out where I'd like to go with this. Well, and back to Joe's original point, where the house is not taken, house judiciary has not taken testimony yet. We're almost two weeks into a five week session. So we're talking about a situation, let's face it, where they're gonna hand us this thing with four or five days left to go, which is the position that we wound up in last time where there was a last minute scrum in the speaker's office and we had to accept the sunset, which I really didn't want to, but there was no way around it. So what I don't like about this whole setup is I feel like they've used an effective date that holds off on bringing 219 into force and now we're being set up to accept a bill at the last minute that basically unrights parts of 219. So that being the case, I feel like unless house judiciary changes this substantially, I would be for not moving it through the process because I feel like we'll wind up having to unright our own work, which I'm proud of 219, I think it's a good bill and I'd rather see it come fully into force and then fix it in January. I wanted to clarify something that I said earlier, which is that 219 does repeal that subsection three of the Justifiable Homicide Statute and that takes effect the same date that the new crime prohibitive restraint takes effect, which is July 1st of next year. I thought October 1st was when the prohibited restraint crime took effect. The crime doesn't take effect until July, but the other portions of prohibited restraint take effect on October 1st. Right. The crimes coincided under their construct. The crime that the officer could get up to 20, I believe 20 years. That's right. I'm surprised that this bill went in this direction and think that the House Judiciary Committee might have, if it was the whole committee, might have sent it in a direction more as to Phillips liking. And maybe they will, yeah. I think they might. I mean, I don't know who was on, you said Representative LaMonde was on the summer group that did the amendment, but I don't know who else. It's hard to know. Hey, Bryn, I'm looking at 219 and I'm looking at the effective dates. So it's tricky because you have to look at the repeal date as well. So that new crime of prohibited restraint taking effect on October 1st is repealed on July 1st. And that's the same date that the justifiable homicide portion is repealed. Right. So am I correct that the crime part kicks in October 1st? October 1st, right? Yes. I'm sorry, if I misspoke. And what I meant to say is that it was repealed on the same date that the other portion is repealed. Yep. And in the House version of 219, the crime takes effect on passage, which may have been the similar date of October. Or do you mean 119? 119. Yeah. Could you go to page 10, sub three at the top of the page? That seems very confusing to me. So this is language that does not appear in the Senate version of the bill. It provides that law enforcement has to cease their use of deadly force as soon as the subject surrenders or is no longer posing an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person. Is that the language you're talking about? Yeah. So that language also came from the Seattle policy. So you can shoot him three times, but not seven? You could read it that way. Yes. I was looking at it in terms of the choke hold. It seems to me like a way of saying when the person goes unconscious, then you have to stop choking them. And I think if you go down that path, you're asking for people to not know when someone is unconscious and they slip into death. Yeah, it doesn't say just the choke hold. It says... Right. But I mean... Use of deadly force, so I mean... Yeah, so whether a gun or a choke hold or whatever, you're putting it on the officer to know when the suspect is not going to continue to resist. They may say, as they often do, I thought he was spasming or gonna lash out at me. So I shot an additional one, two or three times. I don't know. It's... It hopefully may be very different when by the time the House Judiciary Committee finishes its work on it. But as everybody said, we're in time crunch where if we don't get it done in the next week, in the next week, or at least know their direction, it's gonna be difficult to react to. Well, as you said, Representative Lalonde apparently drafted this. I think he's generally very good about checking in with Representative Grad as he works and other members of the committee. So I honestly, I don't expect a big shift in direction from them, maybe some tweaks, but I think this is kind of their approach. And if they did have major shifts, then the government operations committee that worked on this would have to go back. I don't know how that would work over there. Yeah. But Bryn, did government operations even take testimony? Not on this amendment, no. What do you mean they didn't take testimony on this? They have not taken any testimony. They just heard the walkthrough with your committee on Tuesday, and then they have not heard anything else about this bill since then. Oh, so it was assigned to them, but they didn't actually do anything with it? Right, they had a similar version in the House that they did take testimony on back in the regular session before we all left the State House. That was H-808, but again, that was different from the version that you see right now. That was different from the amendment. So who wrote this version? That was that summer group? The version that you see in front of you, the S-19 House Judiciary Amendment, that was the group of House members that worked on it during, in the interim, yes. Oh, okay. Well, we're gonna go ahead, just wrap up this subject. Okay, I was just gonna say, I keep reading in the press about the House wanting to slow this process down and that's starting to make more and more sense to me. In other words, January, as opposed to trying to get this out by, you know, September 25th. Yeah, it's, well, it's discouraging. We did, I think, amazing work on S-219 and amazing work on S-119. And I think they're both good bills, the way we sent them out. Glad that with minor changes that S-119 was accepted. Excuse me, S-219. And hopefully, at least that's there, and that's the law under, if nothing happens with S-119, so. But we will try to schedule some more testimony on this bill so that we can be up to date and understand. Let me, and I will try to get in touch with some people from the Justice Center to see if there's people. I know Marshall Clement, who's the deputy director, lives in Seattle. He may have some contacts with Seattle PD that might be able to provide us or state's attorney out there, whatever. We just have to have them rather late in the day because they have a different time zone than us. And they also have various issues. I wanted to go to Michelle and then we'll take a short break for an update on, if you remember, we did S-294, which was a major expansion of expungement and ceiling. Unfortunately, the House, for whatever reason, doesn't feel that they can do justice to the whole bill, but after discussions between myself and Representative Grad and others, they've agreed to try to do Section 6 and 7, which were the marijuana sections. And so Michelle was gonna give us an update on where that stands, if there's any significant changes going on there. We also have, I believe the judiciary, if you remember the judiciary wanted a million dollars, what's the new S-294? I think they've come down to about a quarter of a million to do S, to do the Section 6 and 7 on marijuana, but given the situation financially, I don't see how we can get them even a quarter of a million dollars. Anyway, that's the situation. To me, this is important in terms of social justice and in terms of the S-54 conference committee. So Michelle, I just kinda hand it over to you. Sure. Good morning. So you all should have a document that has, it looks like an amendment from House Judiciary to 234. This is just kind of a standalone, but Eric is incorporating it into the Miscellaneous Judiciary Bill that House Judiciary is looking at. And House Judiciary has mostly approved all this language. I think they're gonna finalize it today. And Senator Scherz is correct. This is the two sections regarding cannabis expungement that you had in S-294. And then there is one little addition of a technical correction that was requested by the Attorney General's office, and I'll show you that as well. So, and I've highlighted any changes that the House has made, and I'll walk you through those. So if you're looking at what I just have labeled as section A, this is the expungement section. And you'll recall- Can we put that on the screen, please? Can that be on the- Yeah, yep, give me one. So I'll just talk about it in general for a minute. Is that you'll recall that what this does is this is what we refer to as an automatic expungement. And by that term, I know that the court gets a little, a little testy with referring to automatic expungement as if you just push one button and everything disappears. And by that, we don't mean that. We just mean that a person doesn't have to petition the court for the expungement order. So right now under your existing system, it's by petition. And so what you wanted to do and why you included this in S-294 was to provide a process where it wasn't up to the subject of the record to have to go in and petition every single time. And so if you think back, so I know that a number of you were around when you did something somewhat similar in 2007 where a Senate judiciary came up with a proposal and it eventually passed on this automatic ceiling of a bunch of delinquency records. And again, so there is some history to being able to do this kind of in one big swoop. And so what you have here, and the definitions that are in here in this section are modeled after what you have in current law in chapter 230 for the expungement and ceiling in title 13. So we're talking about criminal history records, so that's the full record. If you look at subsection B, you'll see the court is to order the expungement of criminal history records for misdemeanor cannabis possession crimes that occurred prior to January 1st of 2021. And that date's important because what we have to do is, remember there's two parts to this. There's the expungement and then you're also decriminalizing what has been a misdemeanor possession. Because if you recall when we talked about this before is that prior to decrim of an ounce or less of cannabis in 2013, anything under two ounces that was possessed by someone was a misdemeanor. And so it's come up a debate, well, can you just order automatic expungement for an ounce or less? Because that's now illegal. But the issue is that if somebody has in their record, let's say a 2004 conviction for a misdemeanor possession of cannabis, you can't tell by just looking at that record, necessarily did they have a half an ounce or did they have a little over an ounce or did they have just under two ounces without going into kind of digging into the records and looking at the information in affidavit, which is obviously adds a lot more work and cost to the process. And so you have these two parts which is section A and section B working together so that any record that would be from January 1st, if somebody has a conviction previous to January 1st would be expunged. And then at that same time, the decrim takes effect as well. So that going forward from January 1st, anything under two ounces would either be legal or only civil violation. And then it would be expunged if you had a misdemeanor conviction for those crimes. So you'll see that. So then online 16 on page one, the process for expunging the record shall be completed by the court and all entities subject to the order. So that means VCIC or local law enforcement or whoever also has those records has to complete it within a year's time. So they would have to be done by January 1st, 2022. So C subsection C is just language that you have that exists with regard to expungements under existing law. So once you expunge an order, it's basically considered to have never occurred. You'll see page two, online seven. I have just a little highlighted language there. And that was just to clarify that when the court provides the person who is the subject of the record notice of the expungement, that they're just to notify them at the person's last known address. And that was just to address any concerns that, well, you know, how much time does the court have to take tracking down someone who has a 30 year old marijuana conviction if they can't find them. Subsection D, you'll see this has a few aspects of that people have expressed some concerns about about how long would it take for someone's record to be expunged starting on January 1st because the court will probably do it on a rolling basis. Maybe it'll take it in like 10 year chunks. They've estimated that there's probably somewhere around 10,000 convictions that they would be expunging. And so they'll probably do it on a rolling basis. And so D kind of provides folks who have those records to be able to say, as of January 1st, I no longer have a record. Even if the court hasn't yet completed the expungement process and issued those orders for all the other entities to destroy the records. So C, on line 12, on and after January 1st, a person who was arrested or convicted for the misdemeanor possession. Subdivision one is, shall not be required to acknowledge the existence of such a criminal history record or answer questions about the record in any application for employment, license, civil right or privilege or in an appearance as a witness in any proceeding or hearing. And I see I have a typo there, but I bet Eric probably the editors probably caught that. Is that so that just means that as of so on January 1st, even though the court hasn't yet issued the expungement order, if someone's filling out a job application, they do not have to acknowledge that misdemeanor. It will eventually be subject to the court issuing the order and expunging all the records. But for purposes of them having to disclose, they won't have to do that after January 1st. Subdivision D2 is the person can deny the existence of the record, regardless of whether the person has received notice from the court that they've completed the expungement order and the top of page three. The person can- Hold on there just a minute. Please have a question about that. So the person who had a marijuana possession conviction 20 years ago and now is denied taking her grandchild to a school field trip, I mean, assuming we ever get back to those, would be able to deny the existence of a record, even if it hasn't yet been expunged. So it will have the effect of expungement whether or not the judiciary has actually gotten to it. Right, so that person, let's say in the spring, they haven't gotten their certificate of expungement yet, but they would not have to disclose it on an application. Now, if the school then does a record and finds that there is that conviction on there, they would just say, well, that offense is no longer a crime and here's this act. And it says I'm under no obligation to do that. And so there's a little bit, where we're trying to find a way that can kind of speed up people's relief without having to wait the year for the official order to go out. Okay, I'm sorry I interrupted you. You were on line 18, I believe. No, we just talked about that, so that they could thank you tonight. Okay, now you're on page three. Yep. And then top of page three, that just clarifies that if somebody wants to expedite it and they said, well, you know what? I do wanna, I know I wanna volunteer for my kid's school coming up and I don't wanna have to wait to see when my number comes up to get expunged. They could still continue to use the existing process in chapter 230 if they wanted to. So whatever avenue is available to them now to get rid of that record, they could still do that if they choose to do that. So just the fact that we, that you're adding this is doesn't exclude them from that opportunity if they want to do it faster. Okay. And then no other changes to that section. Does anybody have any other questions about that section? Can I ask a question? I'm just wondering with regard to someone who say wound up going to jail, are those records going to be cleared up also or is that going beyond where we're going with this? I mean, I can think of it, you know, a county jail back in the old days or, you know, a municipal jail. I mean, I can't imagine that all those records are gonna be expunged. You just deny it, is that what happens after this? Well, the court order does go to all entities, whether it's like local law enforcement or department or agency, whatever, that holds those records and they're all required, you know, subject to the order to expunge and destroy those records. So it's under the obligation of those local agencies. I hear you around concern about does that actually happen? Will it happen? But that's kind of an issue with the existing system of expungements that, you know, that doesn't, it's not unique to this. Right. I think that, you know, clearly we all would look to that but we don't even know how much it gets done in practice. And there still is, there still are records of the record out there, you know, the Browber Reformer could have a story from 1972 on somebody that, you know, if you Google that name, it might come up. You can't get rid of everything. Right. But for purposes of legally you do not have a record once it's been expunged. And then also it's, I don't know what percentage but you gotta assume that most of the time when people are actually seeking a copy of their records they're not necessarily going to the Washington County Sheriff's Department or whatever that they're doing a check through BCIC. So like usually a name and date of birth check. So that's available to the public. So BCIC when they receive the expungement order, my understanding from Jeff Wallin is that BCIC usually completes that expungement within 30 days of receiving the court's order. So I think that most of the cases, you know, again, so once it's gone from BCIC, I think that's what most people would use. So if you're gonna, so if your school's gonna be, if you're doing a fingerprint supported record check to be a volunteer at the school and they're gonna be using BCIC. And so that as the official repository of the state records. So I think there's always the issues around, how quickly or how thoroughly to do the local folks comply with the order. But I think you're gonna capture most of it through this. So I'm just wondering, Ken, a person then if, you know, two years after this has all happened, they discover that they're harmed because someone found out there's a record locally. Does this open up those towns for lawsuits? You know, that's not something I looked at. Again, that's just something that would be inherent in the existing process for expungement. And I'm only handling like this little swath as opposed to campus. And Bren usually does the ceiling and expungement stuff. So I don't know whether or not she's ever dealt with that issue before. Okay, thanks. So the next section, Section B is the amendment to the existing marijuana criminal law. And so again, because you can't separate the difference between an older misdemeanor, whether it was a half an ounce or just over an ounce, you have to go with the whole misdemeanor. And that was under two ounces. And so what you do is you, because one ounce now is legal. That's in the bill that we passed, correct? Yes. We know that. Can we move on to any changes? Yep. I just wanted to tell you the one change I put in here, which is that when I originally drafted this language, you'll see on subdivision A to A, I had two ounces and I had more than one ounce, but up to and including two as being decrammed. And then when I went back again, and I was looking at it, I realized that the old misdemeanor was under two ounces. And so I just had to just, I had to move two ounces to the civil as opposed to the, as so that's just a little technical tweak, but everything else here is the same as what you did. And I will just mention that I had Peggy post, I did do a chart that shows the penalties, which is the current law, and then compared to the language that's proposed here. So you can just see if you have questions for folks, you can take a look at that. Then section C, this is what was requested by the attorney general's office and legal aid. So David Shearer had made the request and that is under existing law, the definition of qualifying crime for the chapter on ceiling and expungement. It lists a violation of misdemeanor possession as a qualifying crime, but as you know, for cannabis under there, it's not just possession, it's possession and cultivation. And so I think what everybody's thinking is that when this was originally drafted, there was just a technical error and the cultivation part was left off because 42.30 is not just possession, it's possession and cultivation. And so they requested that that be added back in as a technical fix. All right. And then I just have there is just kind of place just to kind of show you what the dates would be, is that the expungement would take effect on passage. So even though the court wouldn't need to start working on it until January 1st, at least takes effect and then they start gearing up for it. And then the marijuana penalties takes effect on January 1st. So the decrim takes effect on January 1st, which is the date on which they start to do the expungement. Okay. And that's it. All right. And the court, I asked Peggy to post the document from Greg Mosley estimating the court's proposal on our webpage. I don't know if it's there yet, but... Yeah, no, I haven't done it yet, but I will as soon as I can. It is 245,000. So I do have one question, Michelle. And you may want to bring it up with representative grad and representative Ansel. Is there a way to wave the $70,000 fee to the archivist? Right. Yeah, I did notice that. Okay. I mean, I'm still thinking the judiciary can eat the cost, but if it's gonna be a $70,000 fee to the archivist, I'm not sure that, you know... Right, right. So it's $7.50 for each record. Well, the estimated $10,000. So that's where they came up with $75,000. Right. $75,000 seems like a lot of money to the state archive that they didn't expect in their budget. Sure. All right. Any questions for Michelle? All right. We're gonna take a three-minute break and try to get back. State's attorney, okay. Just so you know, Senator Sears, we took testimony in GovOps on DPS on there. And we're making recommendations. Well, God knows. Yeah. We already took testimony and Senate approves and gave them a rubber stamp. Well, we're just, I thought you said that you were gonna take testimony tomorrow on that. No, on the modernization plan. Not on their budget. Oh, okay. The commissioner has a police modernization plan. I know. We've been dealing with it. Well, that's what we were gonna take testimony on. Okay. So if you missed that part, we'll disagree with GovOps and just like the House. Well, there's nothing. There's no legislation around it this year, except in 124. Okay. We have actually S-H-962 actually into RFAs. We were marking it up and Senator Benning had a problem with B2 and section one, B2. If the plaintiff fails to appear at the final hearing, the petition shall be dismissed unless the court makes findings on the record stating why there's good cause not to dismiss the petition. And I believe that Eric, Matt, and perhaps someone else have worked on some alternative language with Senator Benning. So I don't know who wants to take over Senator Benning, Eric or Matt, whichever. I can jump in for a minute if that makes sense. That makes sense. Okay, good. Morning everybody. Eric Fitzpatrick with the legislative council here to talk about a Senator Sears said H-962, which is an act relating to the duration of temporary relief from abuse orders. You remember the, for a moment on the big picture here, what was going on in this bill is addressing the fact that temporary relief from abuse orders only have a duration of 14 days. So that if a defendant, and then they have to be personally served on a defendant in order for them to be effective. So if ordinarily there's a final hearing within that 14 day period, and if the defendant shows up there's no issue because they're deemed to be served the final order if they attend that final hearing. The issue came up in situations where the defendant does not attend the final hearing. Since that temporary order is only valid for 14 days and it expires at the end of that 14 day period, if the defendant doesn't turn up and the court decides to go ahead and issue that final order, then that final order doesn't take effect until it's personally served on the defendant. So as a result, you potentially have a gap because that 14 day period is gone, the final order hasn't been served on the defendant yet because he or she didn't turn up at the final hearing. So there's a period of time during which there's no order in effect. And the defendant can go ahead and engage in any behavior that would have been prohibited under that temporary order and it won't be illegal, won't be a criminal violation because there is no order in effect during that gap period. So the bill, as you looked at last time, proposes to sort of close that gap by saying that when the court does issue that final order at the final hearing, then the temporary order remains in effect until that final order is served. So that way there's no gap. See that? So instead of expiring after the 14 day period, if the court issues the final order at that final hearing, then the temporary order stays in effect until the defendant can be located and served. Of course, that's assuming that the defendant didn't turn up at the hearing, in which case there's no issue. But that's what the bill proposes to do. And actually the first thing, before we even get to what Senator Sears was mentioning, you'll see if you look at the language on page 1, lines 12 through 15 that's highlighted, this actually addresses, I think, an issue that Senator White had brought up and the committee had discussed, which was that how do we provide defendant with notice that the temporary order will remain in effect if they don't turn up at the final hearing? So the thought was put in some specific language. And you see that it fits in nicely with the existing law there, because there's already some provisions about what has to be in that order, the temporary order, I should say. So there's some existing law about it has to contain the names of the court, names of the parties, et cetera, has to state the date, time, and place of the final hearing. So the defendant knows when to turn up. And so the proposal, the possibility is to add the highlighted language, which just explicitly says every order issued under the section, and this is the temporary one, informs the defendant that if they fail to appear at the final hearing, then the temporary order remains in effect until the final one is served. And that's just a statement of what you've done further on and proposed to do with the legal change, but that way the defendant has some notice of it. So that's possible. And I should point out with this that and I sent this language to Senator Banks, Senator Sears that Judge Grierson, well, I think he's OK with the language, also noted that there is some existing language and existing orders that may cover this already. So he was questioning whether or not, technically speaking, this might be needed or not, since they're in the boilerplate language that the orders already contain. It isn't quite as direct as this, but it does address the issue somewhat. So that's something you can consider. Can I ask a question? So anyway, I'm wondering with regard to the defendant, if the temporary order then becomes permanent until, well, it continues. So and does someone continue to try to serve the defendant forever? Or what's the period of time whereby someone will try and find that person and serve them? Is there any guidelines on that? Or might this go on like this for seven years or something? That's a good question. I think you asked someone asked a similar question to Judge Grierson. Last time the committee was talking about this, and he indicated that they continue to try, but that after a certain point, the general practice is to I think the plaintiff can continue to seek temporary orders, but the general practice is at some point in time, if they can't find them, then it may expire. But I think there might be occasional situations where they last for longer. Matt might have some information on that as well. The other thing you said it was the person, it had to keep coming back into the court every 14 days or something or it would expire. And it sounds like that's going away, but could it go on forever? And also I'm wondering about is there a fee if the defendant decides he's coming back in to get it changed in a couple of years? There's no fee that I'm aware of. It's ongoing proceeding. But as far as the potential for it to last for longer, I think there is that potential. So the 14 day piece where they would rehear it every 14 days will be gone with this, is that correct? Which piece? The 14 days. In other words, I think Judge Grierson had said by every 14 days, they had to have another hearing to keep following up on this in order to renew the temporary order. Assuming the defendant doesn't show up, because it's only in that situation. But I think that that's right, that the order will remain in effect until it is served. So indefinitely until it's served. I think there's that potential. I think Judge Grierson indicated that as a practical matter, that didn't really happen frequently. But I think that's a possibility. I'm gonna, Eric, I'm gonna ask you to take a look at line 17 on that page. The opportunity to contest shall be scheduled as soon as reasonably possible, which in no event shall be more than 14 days from the date of issuance of the order. I guess I'm reading that to say that the 14 days would still apply, even if there was a continuance granted. Am I incorrect on that reading? Well, I think that it still applies in a sense that the order has to be scheduled within that 14 day period, absolutely. It's the opportunity to contest though that is vested in the defendant. And I guess I'm reading that even though a temporary order gets issued and will remain in effect if there's a continuance of the final hearing, that final hearing is still subject to the terms that are on the bottom of the page, if I'm reading that correctly. It's an interesting question. So if you sort of think about how the time might unfold. So the temporary is served on the person and that's then language that you just indicated Senator Benning kicks in, right? That the temporary is served and they have to schedule that final hearing within 14 days. So let's say they scheduled on day 13, but the defendant doesn't show. So then the question becomes, at least under the language you've got here is that if the defendant doesn't show and the court decides, because the court could always dismiss it. That's a possibility too. If the defendant doesn't show, court might dismiss it, particularly if the plaintiff doesn't show up as well, they might dismiss, but let's say they don't and they go ahead and issue a final order. Then the point of the new language in this bill is that the final order we know can't be effective until it's served. So the temporary order is gonna remain in effect until the final order is served. The question is then what happens next, right? They keep trying to serve the person, but say they can't locate him or her. Does that continue? Or do you sort of indefinitely, as Senator Nitko was saying? Or is that? I'm gonna anticipate that Alice heard from the same constituents that I did. And I think the concern was that if a plaintiff for whatever reason did not show and the court decided on its own that there was good cause for continuing the event that the plaintiff has now missed. I'm reading this as in the event the court continues the case, that 14-day language that offers the opportunity to contest is still part and parcel of this package. Meaning the court should be rescheduling that within 14 days of the issuance of the order that continues the case. Yes, I agree with that. So that could be because if they've reissued the temporary then the 14-day still applies. So it can't go on forever. And I think Alice, that was the concern that I had heard from constituents. What happens if the plaintiff doesn't show up and the court decides there's good cause? Can it be continued on and on forever? And the answer is I don't believe so because the opportunity to contest is what's vested in the defendant in that language, not the plaintiff. So the defendant has a right there to say it's gotta be scheduled within 14 days if I'm reading all of this correctly. I was gonna say that I agree with what Senator Benning. By every 14 days it's gotta come up again. That was my reading of it. That's your reading of it. I'm very happy to have this discussion. And I now feel the need to reschedule or reschedule. At least here from the state's attorneys, the network and Matt and Judge Grison on these changes. I think they at least deserve the opportunity to comment. And I would give Matt, if you wanna wait a little next week, let me take this up again. Yeah, that's fine. Because I don't wanna, I think we're getting into areas I want to, I don't wanna end up us getting this to the floor and then having hearing from the court and then having hearing from the network that they have a problem with it or hearing from some other group. So I'd prefer to at least have it run by them. If they don't wanna testify, that's fine. So if they do though, we'd be happy to hear from them. Let's say next Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock. That's fine. Okay, Eric, can you send that out to them and ask if they wanna testify to contact Peggy? Could I ask one question if we're gonna be doing this? Yeah. I do wonder about whether or not it can just go on indefinitely being rescheduled for 14 days. Right. To me, there ought to be some sort of limit six months, you know, even a final order only lasts for a year. So maybe six months, I don't know what the number would be, but there probably should be some time when that temporary order expires rather than just going on indefinitely. For the heck of it, Eric, just put in the six months and see what kind of response you get to that. Three. Three months, Senator White. Put three, X-9, X-12. Cause that's already six, 14 days. I'm suggesting that Eric put in three, question mark, six question mark. Oh, okay. Good idea. So people could comment on either one. Yeah, that sounds good. Yeah, what I mean, Senator White. Yep. And I know everybody's saying we gotta drop dead day in there, but I just don't feel rushed on this. At least I hope it gets done. But, you know, I think next Wednesday's fine. Senator Sears, when you sit on Tuesday from 10.30 to 11.30, the Defender General and States Attorneys at S-9, S-119, you want? No, no, that's their budget. The Defender General has a big $400,000 hole and I'm gonna try to take it. Okay, budget. No, I'm kidding, but we need to discuss hole in the State, in the Defender General's budget as well as there may be some similar problems with the State Attorney's budget. So I thought we hadn't heard from them and Matt sent me an email regarding the, that was the use of CARES fund that's been suggested that it's not, can't be used. So what's the hole in this budget? Okay, and then at 11 on Wednesday, you want Julio to testify? Yeah, we'll pick this up at 10 and then at 11, put on Julio and then I'll see what else I can find Peggy. I'm gonna contact Marshall Clement at the Justice Center to see if there's somebody in either, some of the cities that Bryn mentioned. I believe she said Washington D.C., Seattle and... Hamden, New Jersey. Hamden, New Jersey. So I want to contact Marshall, ask him if he's got any contacts there, would be willing to testify. Okay. We're gonna see how it works in those cities that we have that type of language. Dick? Yes, sorry. This is off topic a little bit, but going back to the drop dead date and the budget, do you have a sense yet of, so we have about three weeks left, is the idea that the house passes the Senate a budget in a week and then we turn it around to them in another week or what are the big... I think the expectation is there won't be a conference committee and there are any differences between the two bodies will be ironed out. But usually you have, usually you try to get the bill back to the house in time when we usually, they usually say they want a conference committee and then we usually confer for two weeks so that won't be possible. I think the plan is that we're gonna start marking up the budget in the next week or two while they've still got it and they're gonna have it on the floor and pass it to us. And then when we've got it trying to work out any differences, I give you one example, the migrant workers payments, the governor put in $2 million, the advocates as well as Uzana believes it needs to be $5 million. So you have a $3 million difference but because it has to be general fund because you can't use CARES Act funds, where's that $3 million coming from? So those problems will need to be ironed out and is it in fact $5 million or $2 million? Actually I have one example of what will need to be ironed out because I think they're gonna try to avoid a conference committee. Okay, good to know. And as long as I'm at it, was there any movement at all on the S54 conference committee? Actually, we have a meeting tomorrow afternoon and I actually have a call in about 10 minutes with Representative Gannon and I'm hoping that there's some positives. We're hoping where we have made offers to them is now there, we need to hear offers back from them and we're down to about eight issues but they're very difficult issues like saliva, seat belts, things like that. Okay, Janette or Joe, you're welcome to add to that conversation. We just don't wanna be counter pitching ourselves. Right. And also opt in, opt out is a major issue, taxes. We've actually agreed with them on your after school money that you wanted. Reluctantly. Reluctantly, but knowing that Senator Baruth would be behind us if we did agree to that. Well, fair warning, I would also push for money for the state colleges but I'm very... Don't push it, Phillip. I know, I'm glad to see the after school money there for sure. Okay. We caved for you, but don't push to the state colleges. All right, we'll adjourn. Thank you all very much. See you tomorrow morning. Thank you. See you at once. Maybe later, can't make it, we'll see you then. Bye now. Thanks, Eric. Bye. You bet.