 Good morning. This is Senate Judiciary, and it's Tuesday, April 6. Senator Sears is away on an appointment. He'll be back at 11. But this morning we're picking up H18 and act relating to sexual exploitation of children and considering amending that with language from S103, so-called Good Samaritan language. So we do have Michelle Childs with us from Legislative Council. And good morning, Senator White. And Michelle is going to walk us through the language of 103. Can you put that up on the screen, Michelle? Sure. Can everyone see that? Yeah. Okay. So good morning, everybody. I'm going to start out actually talking a little bit about another provision of law that you have H18 as it relates to possession of regulated drugs. And I think most of you will remember it was about eight years ago that the General Assembly passed a good Samaritan law with regard to reporting drug overdoses. And you established some limited immunity from liability for certain crimes, specifically for drug crimes, for lower level possession. If someone called to either report that they were experiencing an overdose or someone that they were around for reporting an overdose and that they could report that without fear that they would be prosecuted for possession of a regulated drug. And so the legislature had made a policy decision to want to kind of prioritize the safety of that person who is in a medical emergency and you didn't want people to be discouraged from calling and reporting that overdose because of a fear of prosecution for drugs that may be on the premises. And so this is this is the same idea except it applies to either survivors who are engaged in who are part of human trafficking or a victim of human trafficking or people who are engaged in sex work. And so what you have here if you have a new addition to the prostitution and lewdness chapter so you have immunity from liability. You'll see in section one, the under the definitions we're just using referring to existing definitions of human trafficking and for prostitution. You'll see subsection be at the bottom of page one person who in these terms we can go back and we can look at how they're the terms are used in the same way that they are have been used to the other law that we've had operating for eight years. You do want to hear from someone in law enforcement you might want to check with the states with the attorney general office with David share because it was initially the the attorney general who brought the original good Sam law proposal to the general family and my recollection was that when this past, because this exact language past the house last biennium. And I think just got derailed because of coven and more pressing matters and but the my recollection was the attorney general's office testified in support of the language and was comfortable with the standard that was being used currently in the title 18 provision. You see in subsection be a person who in good faith and in a timely manner reports to law enforcement that the person is a victim of or a witness to a crime that arose from the person's involvement in prostitution or human trafficking. And then be cited arrested or prosecuted for a violation of the following offenses, and then it lists prostitution, as well as prohibited conduct prohibited conduct to being that lowest level sex offense that oftentimes other offenses are down to. It has a general lewdness aspect to it and we can pull up that language at some point if you want to take a look at it and then the other offenses are related to lower level possession of a regulated drug and I see on page two line five I think this is based on what it passed the house and we probably drafted it last year so it. The legislature directed my office to change the term marijuana throughout the titles to cannabis based on last year's adoption of Act 164 so I have done that and I'll just update that if you decide to move forward with this proposal. So it's all it's not an exemption from liability for all crimes, it is only pertaining to these specific possession crimes as well as prostitution and prohibited conduct. Okay, so I want to make sure so that it's not that if you were, if there was an aggravated assault or something like that that it would provide immunity for those particular offenses. Before we leave that list, Michelle. Yeah, I'm assuming that this long laundry list of drug possessions that would be immunized comes from testimony saying that that's the most common reason why people don't report is that they're, they're worried that drugs that are in the environment will be found. So totally that yes that is is the case is that if there's drugs on the premises let's say if you have someone who is a, who is a sex worker and they are with a client and the client was violent or engaged in something that the, that the sex worker wanted to report but perhaps there were drugs on the premises. The principle is to make sure that that person doesn't fail to report the crime or that they're in danger because they're worried that they would get charged with a drug crime. This goes back to a couple of years or two or three years ago, and there was a study, and I have to go back and look, but it was the AG's office I think working with the network against domestic and sexual violence and I think the Center for crime victim on certain recommendations on updates to the, to the prostitution and human trafficking laws and my was that this came out of that and was one of the recommendations from that small study group. And then just one, one follow up question is, in title 18 with the limited immunity that you talked about. Does that work the same way does it does it give a list of drug crimes, or is it more a blanket immunity. Oh, it just pertains to, I have to go back and look but it pertains to the drug crime specifically. Okay. Oh, go ahead, Senator Nitka and then Senator why is there a quantity limit on the amount that might be present. The quantity is based on the citations that are contained in that subdivision so if you look at for example, you know, the, the, whether it's cannabis or cocaine or LSD, it's the first two levels of possession. And the way that the drugs, the drug statutes are organized is you have a general one if you possess any amount even just the tiniest amount it'll be a one year misdemeanor. And if you possess, and then each statute is different depending on the drug but if you possess a little more, it will either go to a two year misdemeanor or it'll go to maybe a three year felony. And so that's the set that's the second level, and then it'll go higher and those are not here so this is just the first and the second level with the exception of cannabis and that also covers the. I'll have to go back and double check on this to make sure that it didn't change at all in section 42 30 with 164 but it's the lowest level so. So one and two refer to the level that are one and two and parentheses here refer to the level is that yes that's that would have the amount in each in each statute about what it is it doesn't cover in sale. Doesn't cover sale. Okay. Yep. Senator White. I don't imagine that a human trafficker him or herself would report something but in the paragraph right above there it says from a person that that. This to a crime that arose from the person's involvement in prostitution or human trafficking, just the involvement. I mean I can't imagine that the trafficker him or herself would would report this but would it cover if one did. Well, you have to look at the crimes for which the person would receive immunity they you would not receive engaging in human trafficking. Okay, just just just just under the misdemeanor prostitution. Okay, okay. Yep. And, you know and again I think if you when if you from additional witnesses there may be situations where you have someone who is engaged in illegal activity but and it may fall under, you know one of these subdivisions here. But they, but they're a witness to some other type of crime that or they're in danger and that they want to be able to communicate with law enforcement. And, and they, they don't want this to be a bar to that so I want to think I'm going to think about what Senator Nick had brought up which is like if you are someone who is visiting and using the services of a sex worker. What she said well could you get immunity for a for under prostitution if this if you report yourself, but I mean I think the thing is let's say whether it was a sex worker or a client. Let's say if the client is being physically threatened by the sex worker, you want the client to also be able to report and to obtain safety from law enforcement without worrying about that they're going to be prosecuted for prostitution. I would guess it's I think it goes both ways. As you're looking at the safety of the physical safety of folks and I'm wanting to encourage the reporting of crime rather than charging these misdemeanors. Well, that's a key, a key point because in, I believe in the Nordic model, they do pursue on one track they do something like this and on another track they do continue to pursue the client. And to criminalize the client's behavior. So that's something we should hear from the witnesses about. Right and you can parse I mean you think about it is somebody could be visiting a sex worker and they think they're visiting someone who is, you know, by their own free will choosing to engage in that type of work I'll be illegal. They have the same treatment under the law as human trafficking, understandably and so someone who goes voluntarily to a sex worker but then may see something. That person and may say, you know what, I don't think this is voluntary I think there may be some human trafficking going on here. That's in part why you haven't. And it goes back to the word involvement, I think Senator White or Senator nitko landed on that. If involvement means the person who's providing the service, the person who's buying the service and the person, theoretically who might be operating the person providing the service, if they're all involved then there's a potentially confusing. Little node there that we should pull apart. And I imagine the house disc or the witnesses will will weigh in on that but it the language seems somewhat vague I have to say. Okay, so again, but just always go back to the only immunity they're getting is for drug crimes and for prostitution prohibited acts. No. Right but still they, they could be granted some sort of immunity. What you see is the immunity provisions applied to only to the use and derivative use of the evidence gained as approximate result of the report person reporting to law enforcement that the person's a victim or witness to a crime that arose from the person's involvement in the situation of human trafficking. So, this just means that this is providing immunity to the witness with regard to their statements, and that they can't be used against them with regard to those particular crimes, if there is independent evidence that can sustain a charge, separate apart from what was gained with the witness reporting the crime then that can be used and the person can be prosecuted. So what's the derivative use of evidence. That is if you. So, if you have a piece of evidence, and then by having that one piece of evidence, it leads to another piece of evidence that you would not have other known about or discovered without that first piece. So it's kind of you heard the term fruit fruit of the poisonous tree so if you can't have if you can't use the first piece of evidence that leads you to the second you know second piece you can't use the second piece other. Okay, so if, if there's a person in an apartment who notifies police of a, of a crime. And there are some of these substances in the apartment police go in they find the substances. They can't use the Henry, if you could mute. I didn't realize I wasn't muted. That's all right. Yeah. And they, they can't use that line of evidence against them but then if they busted someone else who sold the drugs there and could provide independent corroboration, they could use that. Right. So there was a house that they kind of thought they had known drug activity people going in and out and they'd been kind of aware of drug activity in particular house. It's not like that just would preclude them from pursuing that based on their other evidence they just couldn't use the evidence obtained in that particular incident with regard to the reporting of the crime. Okay. Any other questions on that. Joe, I can't see you so just speak up if you have one holler, but I have it so far. Okay, keep explaining use and derivative use immunity though Michelle. Oh, thank you. So, subsection D is this is if you qualify for immunity up above, then you're not subject to the forfeiture provisions that are in chapter 84 which is your drug, your regulated drug chapters. But that contraband can be subject to forfeiture so if law enforcement arrives, based on a call, and there are drugs at that location. They, the person is not going to be prosecuted for the possession if they're within the limits, but law enforcement can confiscate the illegal drugs, but the person wouldn't be subject to the forfeiture provisions either under the chapter. Mike. Oh, go ahead. So with regard to the forfeiture provisions I mean I see a couple of places in Rutland where the whole home was forfeited. And is that I mean that's fairly serious. So they wouldn't. So that wouldn't apply if you qualify for immunity under the spell. I'm sure they'll find a way. It's hard to. Anyway. And then subsection e accepting cases of reckless or intentional misconduct law enforcement is immune from liability for citing or arresting a person who's later determined to qualify for immunity under the section so it's basically, you know law enforcement, hopefully, if this pass would be trained on this issue would be about this, but if there is an error someone is, let's say arrested the scene for having those drugs and then once you know it's referred to the prosecutor the prosecutor talks to them and as long as it wasn't reckless or intentional misconduct, then there's no issue for the law enforcement officer. And if I could date us this July. Any questions before Michelle takes the draft down. Thank you. Okay. Thanks Michelle. So, with that, our first witnesses Dave Mickenburg. Good to see you David. Good to be here. Thank you for having me. And I know there was a couple of questions that were raised. I have some formal remarks that I'll sort of read into the record and then happy to answer questions, but for the record, my name is David Mickenburg. I'm here on behalf of decriminalized sex work, which is a leading national organization advocating for the end of the criminalization of sex work. And as we clear at the onset DSW is an anti-trafficking, we are anti-trafficking advocates at our core. We believe that part of the anti-trafficking effort is the separation of adult consenting sex work from criminal human trafficking. As you know, that's not before the committee today and happy to talk about that at another time. Today, we're here supporting a relatively small but important provision that would extend the harm reduction policies known as the Good Samaritan immunity that you all enacted around drug policy to sex workers. At its heart, this issue like the work that I've done for almost two decades now on drug policy is about harm reduction. Inherent to this approach is an acknowledgement setting aside whatever moral judgments people have of the reality of sex work as part of our state, our nation and our world, despite its ongoing criminalization. Once we acknowledge that sex work is part of our society, we must then ask the question how are able to best deal with the potential negative consequences of this work. Vermont right now has an active sex work marketplace, you'll hear more about that later. One way you can see it is just simply by going online searching something like Vermont Escort on the internet and you can see advertising there. Because this work is happening in the shadow of the law, sex workers face a lot of challenges verifying the identity and the safety of clients before they engage with them. And giving sex workers the ability to contact law enforcement without fear of prosecution will empower workers to advocate for their personal safety in a way which remains unlikely under our current laws. Leading human rights organizations such as amnesty international human rights watch the open society Institute, the human rights campaign and the ACLU among just some have taken strong positions in favor of policies that will reduce the harms associated with this work. Countries throughout the world have begun to implement harm harm reduction policies associated with sex work and legislatures around our country have begun to take to seriously take up harm reduction policies associated with this work. In fact, the last few years California past legislation. Similar to the language that you're considering today. New York New Hampshire Washington State Rhode Island Washington DC have all organized efforts to improve improved sex work related policies. Finally the legislation you're discussing today really is at its heart anti trafficking legislation, at least in part and by allowing the issue of sex work to come out of the shadows through a good Samaritan law. We're able to focus needed resources on the human rights abusers that are coercing and forcing people into sex work, and we are empowering workers to come forward and work with with law enforcement to root out these individuals without fear of prosecution. At the end of the day, there should be a public health provision enacted to reduce the harms associated with sex work which can include sexual violence work conditions and importantly the collateral consequences of an arrest. We appreciate that this bill looks to the public health approach and works to respect the lives and dignities of the indignity of those that are sex workers in this state. We feel like this language 103 potentially in 18 will provide a life saving outlet for sex workers to help ensure their safety and a bodies the harm reduction principles Vermont have been Vermont has embraced in other areas of the law. So thank you for that brief time and I'm happy to answer any questions or go back to some of the questions that have been raised in the discussion so far. Any questions for David Mickenburg. Okay, thank you very much David. Thank you. Our next witness is Henry Binks co founder of the Ishtar collective. And welcome. Thank you so much. First of all, I'd like to give you a greeting good morning. I want to thank the committee for giving an audience. So my name is Henry Binks. I am the co founder and the co director of the Ishtar collective out of Montpelier Vermont, where nonprofit organization that advocates for safer sex worker conditions. We also deal with issues in the LGBTQ community. We deal with general labor issues issues of violence and we are a non trafficking organization. So, this discussion is important to me and the folks that I've known through the years, and the remanters that I work with now. We see this legislation first and foremost as an acknowledgement of our collective humanity and the recognition by you all the value our lives. The importance of protecting the health and safety of all remanters, including erotic laborers. I'd like to start by giving you all a little bit of background about myself and why I do the work I do. And then I can talk about how S 103 will help the many dangerous situations that sex workers find themselves in. So I am a second generation sex worker active for almost 10 years now. My mother was an erotic laborer. A lot of her experience serves as a constant driving factor for the advocacy I do, because much of her story went without proper recognition and was erased by the criminality of her profession. As a result, I kind of watched her mental health and her physical health deteriorate in a lot of silence and shame without proper outreach. Subsequently, she ended her life at the age of 53. I wonder often how her life would have been if she did live in a world that supported her and being who she was. She was a woman that was born in the late 50s and more often than not many of her peers had a more rigid understanding of what right and wrong was when it came to elements of intimacy. She was a bisexual full service worker. She lived with mental illness and she kind of lived. She existed in a time where the only women that were allowed to be out were more prudent, straight, white and well behaved. She didn't really fit into that box. In her life, she could only really muster the courage to provide for myself and her through substance use and a revolving door of protection through the men that came in and out of our household. I wonder a lot if she lived in a society that saw her as a more dimensional person beyond the nature of her labor, what the trajectory of her life would have been and if things would have been easier for us as a help. So the heart of this bill and the heart of this advocacy that I do is the vision for collective protection community. It's a word that we hear a lot in Vermont. And for many communities about friendly greetings and shoveled driveways post a front porch forum. So people like my mother and my friends and the people I work with. I think about what it means to be there for one another when things get dangerous when they get hard. And do we feel like our surrounding community is a safe place to go for help when those dangerous times occur. In a country where consenting sex workers and partners of sex workers, affiliates and even our heart, our hired security, pardon me, could face trafficking or prostitution related charges should the law get involved with the bad date. So that means the life that I live is a constant risk assessment. It means getting creative when I'm vetting a client. It means dropping my pin on Google Maps to my friends when I do go on these dates because I know that if things go sour and I call in the police, the possibility for my own arrest is very real. And that arrest could be published or broadcasted along with my legal name and the small and rural towns of Vermont. The stigma associated with these types of public shaming could likely hurt my ability to find housing or stable employment outside of the adult industry should I choose to make that exit. When I was dancing only a year and a half ago in a legal and a regulated space. I was assaulted by a client on negotiating dance prices. And I immediately reported this assault to house security, but I was given no protection because that private security was paid off. Likewise, a member of the collective here in Vermont shared a story with me the other day, they're both a parent and a longtime sex worker. And years and years ago, when a client became violent and subsequently sexually assaulted them. Because of the criminalized nature of their occupation at that time, my colleague felt no confidence to come forward to the law at that moment of assault. Instead, they waited until after when during an emergency visit to their OBGYN, they were in a pressured environment in which they made a statement that was dismissed by police due to the surrounding circumstance. To say when the police are made aware that this violence word during an appointment, they felt the claim to assault was invalidated by that person's work. The attacks in Atlanta that we all heard about where attacks on establishments perceived to be places of sex work, regardless of whether or not those victims were sex workers themselves and eight people lost their lives. After the fact, the shooter had full intention of attacking of pornography set pornography is a fully legal and regulated form of sex work. So, if we're seeing violence against fully regulated sex work and those even perceived to be doing illegal sex work going up, such as it was in Atlanta. Then it begs the question of what do we need to do differently for those who who we've lost who did not make the evening news. In the days following the violence in Atlanta likewise I, my attention has been brought to an uptick of assaults in the sex worker community nationwide. Here I see my siblings in the industry closing in around each other for that protection that the community offers, but unfortunately, none of these victims will see justice through the legal system, because their trust in the law enforcement has been strained versus the face. Every day sex workers must make the calculation risk my health and safety, or risk my home, my non sex work job my schooling, my freedom. I saw images of my colleagues faces broken and bruised crowdfunding for surgery and relocation, and none of their silence will be arrested, because to report their assaults would incriminate themselves. So I had to face questions like what were you doing there. Why were you there. What were you wearing. How did you behave. The Good Samaritan bill could be a multi layered power of protection here in Vermont. I think it's really important to look at this and understand that it could be preventative and not just reactive. Not only could it allow sex workers and survivors of trafficking to report a crime they are witness to a victim of, but they can also use this law to deescalate a potentially dangerous situation. An erotic labor who knows their rights under this law could feel confident calling the police before the moment of violence, or they could evoke their right to call the police if they feel a client is exhibiting behavior that would warrant police action. The fear of arrest would no longer be a tool of coercion for a client or pimp to use it in order to exploit a worker survivor, which is a common tactic of exploitation. Often we hear things like, what are you going to do, call the police. And we have it kind of ingrained in us now. You know this, this idea that the response would be your hooker, they won't believe you, they would probably arrest you first. And so in particular gives our community s 103 gives us hope because it says to us that we're humans, and that we deserve to be alive and safe. Furthermore, in coercive relationships between trafficking victims and their traffickers. This legislation would provide these victims a way to freedom with it from exploitation without fear of arrest. And so in the middle of several trafficking laws, survivors of trafficking are often arrested, while the narrative in the courts and in the media is one of rescue. Is there any other scenario in which someone who is being rescued or liberated is handcuffed, put in the back of a car and then thrown into a cage. I don't think that. That begs the question of whether or not it's rescue at all. And I feel it's our duty to stop the hurtful response to victims and survivors of human trafficking. And I think this bill is the first step in doing that. I take a lot of pride in my residence in Vermont, knowing that our history is one of leading by example, the passage of this bill changes the dialogue between the working people in the industry and the law. And if we can protect, if we could work together to protect all of our labors in Vermont, we can build trust and combat that life threatening violence that I spoke of. What we have here today is an opportunity to build to further build the state's legacy of working together across the political spectrum to create change right here in our community. We were part of the spearheaded effort to give marriage rights to the queer community. And as was for mentioned, we've already given a good Samaritan bill for persons with substance use disorder. Vermont already put in place a lot of protect detainees from sexual assault by police, because our state recognizes that nobody has the ability to offer real sexual consent when their freedom of movement is controlled by police custody. This was a good first step in building trust with the police. And I think it's imperative that the passage. I think, I think that this good Samaritan bill is the next logical step. Thank you again for taking time to acknowledge our humanity and hopefully to advance this important legislation that helps to protect part of Vermont that has been forced to live in fear and in the shadows for too long. Now I'm available to answer any questions. Thanks again for your time. Thank you. Committee, any questions for Henry banks. I have a question. Yes, I'm, I'm just wondering about the part that I think you heard us discuss earlier with regard to the person who's in who is patronizing a prostitute. I think would come under this. I'm not sure what the exact fence, they do when they do patronize a prostitute, but in terms of them being, they were arrested for that that they would be. They would be forgiven under this or not able to be charged, or I don't see how this works with the human trafficker who could get off. Well, I would like to first address the issue of human trafficking. There are a lot of misconceptions in major media dialogues as to what trafficking looks like in the United States. We have a lot of campaigns that say save our children. A lot of the trafficking campaigns we see with major religious organizations paint this picture where most trafficking in the US is one of a sexual nature. In fact, 80% of the trafficking that takes place in the United States is agriculturally related or related to the service industry. So more often than not, when we see these arrests involving traffickers or traffickers. They're really more abusive and coercive relationships between two adults that might be romantically involved. It might be a scenario where one person is a landlord or has some sort of financial control over the person they're exploiting. It's not this kind of Hollywood cartel fuel dialogue that we see often. More often than not, it's a deeper issue, one of consent and one of active labor exploitation. I hope I hope that first part kind of clears up the concerns that people might have that this good sandbill could be protecting traffickers. Us at the Ishtar collective we have no intention of advocating for people who exploit other people. At our heart, we are an organization that wants to protect not just our community, but all forms of labor from violence and coercion. That's why we vet for criminalizing sex between police and detainees. That's why we are seeking collaboration with migrant justice and that's why we want to push this bill. We want to empower people who are in trafficking situations to feel safe to come forward and seek that safe way out. So in a moment, imagine if you will, that a person engaging in sex work who's maybe in an exploitative relationship, those things aren't mutually exclusive. I do want to fly. You can be an active consenting sex worker and find yourself in an abusive relationship on a trafficking situation. And you can still retain that identity of a sex worker. So let's say that even a consenting sex worker falls into a coercive relationship and they find out that the Good Samaritan bill has passed. They could make that call to the police or to circle or to mosaic or even the Ishtar collective and feel that much more safe coming forward with their personal story. Understanding that they themselves might be immune from catching a charge when they're just asking for outside aid. Right. This is unfortunately, you know, I don't have a lot of experience in writing laws and policies myself. But I do have a lot of experience in advocating for hard dialogues and and people that don't get a chance to speak their truth to the world. One of the major proponents of rape culture is the fact that we do not believe survivors. So this Good Samaritan bill gives room for the state of Vermont to say we want to believe our survivors. We want transformative justice. We want to protect the people that we might not align with politically. His labor we might not understand. Thank you. Yeah. So, Senator Sears has joined us. Senator Sears we've done a walk through through Michelle took us through 103. And we've heard from Dave Mickenburg and Henry banks. And just, just finishing up questions for Henry banks now. I'm sorry I missed the testimony. We are a citizen legislature and sometimes we have grandkids to pick up. Thank you for hanging in there, Senator. Oh, Dave, go ahead. I just wanted to just to provide some context for Senator Nick's question. I think because this law is so closely tied to. I'm not this law hopefully law this let this legislation this bill is told is so closely tied to, to what we did around the Good Samaritan law for drugs. Those same types of scenarios were raised at the time, maybe eight, nine years ago when we did and they have not come to fruition. In fact, I think you see the attorney general asking the state of Vermont to please utilize our Good Samaritan law. I appreciate the perspective that Senator Nick has brought about the potential for that but I think as it's played out, at least in terms of our overdose prevention law and our Good Samaritan law related to that. It hasn't been used sort of as a vehicle for, I guess the core layer of the sort of drug dealers to take advantage of the law that we, nothing that I've heard of or in the conversations that I've had with law enforcement and others that have been utilizing the Good Samaritan law has found to be the case so just to provide some context about the potential that you raise. Just one quick follow up with Michelle. Michelle. If you're still listening. She's there. Michelle, are you there. She's there. So, so I, I see that it only immunizes prostitution under this 2632 provision. Is there a separate. Is there a separate provision under which a client would be prosecuted. No. So, so we think that prostitution laws are, are terribly out of date, they're about 100 years old with some a few little tweaks to them. They haven't really kept up. So, now it's a pretty blunt instrument. Okay, so we would be immunizing potentially clients and sex workers. Anybody involved. And so it could, it could be a client. I mean, I think, I think David David is right I definitely recall a lot of discussions when the legislature was doing the Good Sam law for overdoses around people concerned that people who they weren't necessarily targeting as, as around the harm reduction would kind of exploit this and that was there was a lot of talk about that and we tried to get the language as possible to address those concerns. So probably talking connecting with the Attorney General's office to see whether or not they have heard any of those reports or whether or not it hasn't been an issue. I will just, so it could be certainly I'm trying to think of the scenario necessarily where you might have somebody who is a client of a sex worker who calls law enforcement and then is immunized from any kind of evidence of a prostitution charge or a drug charge from that location. I mean I'm not sure why they, why the client would call. But unless there was, they were in danger, perhaps or there was certain circumstance that they needed to fell if they needed to reach out to law enforcement and then again it's just going to protect them from being charged with those particular crimes and I know we keep talking about human trafficking as well as prostitution but this doesn't immunize anybody with regard to human trafficking either the client or somebody who is a trafficking people. Understood and I understand also that it may be unlikely that somebody would take advantage of that potential immunization but it's good to know what we're about, what's covered under the provision. Sure. And you could, you could, you know, you could say it doesn't apply to someone who is, you could do a carve out there but I think you probably want to hear from other folks because you know from a policy perspective is I think we're thinking about the safety of the sex worker but it could be that of the client perhaps it's the safety of the sex worker and the client because of someone else who was trying to harm them both or something they witnessed that doesn't actually have anything to do with them. You know, does this principle apply in terms of wanting to protect that client and them to call and report the crime. And Henry mentioned the shootings. And there were people who were in the process of, you know, receiving, you know, the services that they had paid for during that shooting, who then are going to be looked to as witnesses. And under this, potentially, maybe they would be, they would be immunized. Senator White. It also, and you may have covered this Michelle but if somebody is, if it isn't, if it's a situation where there's more than one person involved there and a client is under the impression that everything is on the up and up, and and then sees something that they really feel is not quite right and want to have an investigation of the, the place itself, not necessarily of the, of the person with whom they were having their liaison or whatever one calls it. But so I can see that there might be an instance where somebody who is a client might want to want to have an investigation. Senator Nick. I can certainly see, I can foresee a scenario whereby I don't know how it doesn't apply to the human trafficker and something like this they say the police have had cameras scanning the place for, for weeks, and they know there's going to be a first, you know, from people patronizing a certain place, although they're probably, they certainly need more evidence but. And so they decide they're going to report themselves first in that they've been going there regularly they decide I'm going to report myself first because I don't want to get arrested. So they call it in. And then, you know that they would claim immunity. And potentially with the human trafficker to. But there's no immunity for human trafficking. Not for human trafficking, but maybe for something only for the drug for the other drugs or from misdemeanor prostitution. And even if it was drugs, a certain level of drugs that is presumed to be enough to be selling drugs, it wouldn't be immunized from that allegation. Correct. Yeah, there's nothing. So if there's dispensing or selling or anything else there's no protection it's just for the possession. It's for the misdemeanor level it's for the misdemeanor level and either the year and then additionally if there's a two year misdemeanor or the lowest level felony. I mean, it's in like maybe there should be a fine piece that could fine tune it so that the, I mean, I mean I don't really care if someone is patronizing a prostitute that doesn't matter to me Jeanette and I have been on this kick for a long time to try and We got in big trouble, as I remember once about it. I've been on this for years. I still got your draft somewhere in my files. As exactly this way but this works. All right, but I really don't want to see someone get off that shouldn't get off and I don't care if it's the person that patronize the prostitute that's all right, but I want them caught. David, do you want to speak to that. Well it's just one one other pointing out as Michelle went through the draft paragraph see does talk about other sources of evidence so this doesn't. So in your scenario if they have cameras or if they're using other independent sources of evidence I think that that that would apply we're only just talking about the, the evidence that would be acquired from the call itself so hopefully that would if the police are investigating and they have a variety of other witnesses and things like that that all would be fair game for a process for prosecution. That's David's exactly right and again that for the debate, eight years ago for the other good Sam law, that was discussions as people saying well what if they were feeling and they knew something was going to go down, could they try to cut off prosecution for those charges because they by by calling in an overdose and you know something like that and again, if there's independent evidence. That was not obtained as a direct result of the report of a crime to law enforcement that all can be used and it's only about the evidence that's gained as approximate use of the phone call to law enforcement to report the crime. It doesn't negate all of that other evidence. And then from following up on other evidence outside of that context to investigate the person for those things. Just a question, Michelle, the case of Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, Robert was at a massage power in Florida, and there were cameras there. And so he was charged with prostitution, you know, soliciting prostitution as a result of what was witnessed on the video. But had Robert been concerned that there might be human trafficking there and had he called law enforcement. That wouldn't affect what was seen on the camera. Is that what we're hearing. The evidence, the evidence that's already there. Even though he call I mean obviously that way. But it doesn't destroy. And interestingly that evidence was thrown out. Based on some part a lot. The case remains that he. The video evidence was there, even if he had called it. It wouldn't have exonerated him from prosecution. Right. And while we're at it. I was reminded this morning while we were meeting with Michelle Brennan, Eric, that back, one of the first bills Eric ever did was similar to this and that was the abandoned baby bill. Some of you may remember where you had a woman who wanted to give up her child but whatever reason left her at a hospital and was charged with abandonment and we created the law that if you abandon your child at a hospital. You didn't have to give your name and so forth to protection of the child. So, I mean, I, that's a similar law that we passed. I don't know how much any has been used. I think there are cases where we want to protect the victim. In this case, prostitution. Any prosecution in the case of the one that we were talking about I remember well working on the, the bill on the overdoses. And then I had had a kid that I've worked with a tool for diving overdose in an apartment in Rutland, who easily had people called might have been saved. But since he survived for a while in the hospital before he passed away. I would guess that he couldn't say something called me. It's not, I remember that discussion brought up that bill. And it's a similar discussion. Somebody gets away with something because we help save some of us like that was being human traffickers. And someone got away with something because of this. I don't know what it is they get away with. I remember the stories from David Cahill of a woman who was being human trafficked in the prostitution in Vermont, bringing drugs up from Massachusetts. And he was so shocked by it. Remember that testimony of David Cahill. What happened to this. Michelle you said we should hear from other people who you have in mind. Well it's totally up to you but if you would like to hear from some folks I would suggest David share in the Attorney General's office in terms of from law enforcement. The, the language and the policy idea behind it came from a group between the AG's office, the network and the center. They were tasked with looking at the human trafficking and prostitution laws and wreck making recommendations to you on updating the laws and this was one of them. And so you could have the network and or the center testify. I think I mostly works, I think with Sarah Robinson from the network on the, on the language. Maybe Peggy we could find some time next week to hear from Sarah Robinson and David share if necessary. If you want to map the area. Probably Wednesday. What, yeah, whatever we can, whatever you can make squeeze in there. I don't want to pass the house that had the sex work study on created all kinds of the what I couldn't understand the body of sex work. Oh, there was a study legislative study created to look at updating the prostitution chapter. That one. Why would that cross problems. I think one of the things in their charge was potential legalization or decriminalization. It became very controversy controversial over the house. We can do a study without having we're not going to. I would appreciate. Well, you could do that but I would appreciate. I think the house. For not to do a study on this petition. So it would be, it would be important to get this passed them. Yeah, I think we all would agree that. Senator Nick and later. Updating our laws on prostitution I would suggest introducing a bill to do that. Maybe we can do it in January Alice. I'm not sure we need to do a study on. We all agree that we need to update our laws. They're similar. Similar to the law we're just working on on the S 145. The use of force law and the laws regarding self defense. You know, those are had words like ministers master. But I don't think we need to study it. Yeah. Right. Well. Okay. So the idea is then to merge this with H 18. Yeah, I've talked with representative grad because her committee already dealt with this last year. This, just this particular. They will probably take it up. Look at it. She understands that we're going to do that. I'm okay with it. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Senator moves. David. Thank you. Thank you. Nice to be here. Sorry, I missed the test. It's okay. I hope we have an opportunity. The good thing about YouTube is we can catch up. There you go. Yeah. And our, and our organization is fairly easy to access. So if you ever have any questions. Feel free to reach out. Okay. Is there anything else? Peggy, if we could. Think we time for it.