 Good morning and welcome to Vermont House Registrar's Committee. It is Friday, April 1st, which is pretty incredible as about 18 minutes after 10, and we are working on S140 and actually relating to prohibiting civil arrests at court houses. We did have a walkthrough of the bill yesterday, so we won't be starting with that. We'll be starting with our witness money. And I'd like to please start with the ACLU. Good morning. Welcome. Good morning. Thank you for having me for the record. My name is Cindy Schoenher. I'm the Advocacy Fellow at the ACLU of Vermont, and I'm just grateful to be here to testify on this important piece of legislation. The ACLU of Vermont supports S140 because it creates a more accessible legal system for all residents of Vermont. As an organization that works to protect people's civil liberties, we recognize the importance of making sure that our courts are open to everyone. For that reason, we strongly support this bill's proposal to prohibit civil arrests of any person or family or household member who's attending a court proceeding. Under the Trump administration, both ICE and Customs and Border Protection dramatically expanded their presence at criminal and civil courts, including in family, landlord tenant, and traffic courts across the United States. In New York, Immigrant Defense Project survey found that the number of courthouse arrests increased by 1200% in 2017. In 2018, the ACLU and the National Immigrant Women's Advocacy Project conducted a survey of law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors, and others in the first year Trump was in office. What is clear from these results is the presence of these officers and increased immigration arrests have created deep insecurity and fear among immigrant communities, stopping many from coming to court or even calling police in the first place. The impact of immigration enforcement at courthouses greatly undermines the security of vulnerable communities and the fundamental right to equal protection under the law, shared by non-citizens and citizens. The fear of courthouse arrests means immigrants are less likely to cooperate with law enforcement investigation, report crimes, and participate in court proceedings. This can have a negative impact on public safety. Prosecutors across the U.S. reported that crimes including domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking were harder to investigate and prosecute because immigrant crime survivors feared consequences if they came forward. Courts cannot operate fairly and effectively when people do not feel safe appearing in person. And just to highlight some of the key findings in this report, approximately 20% of law enforcement officers surveyed found that immigrant crime survivors were less likely to help investigators when police arrived at the scene of a crime or to help in post crime scene investigations or to work with prosecutors compared to the previous year. 82% of prosecutors said that compared to the previous year domestic violence cases were underrepresented and harder to prosecute. 70% reported the same for sexual assault, 55% found the same difficulties for human trafficking, and 48% for child abuse. And along with that, advocates and legal service providers reported a 40% decrease in the number of cases filed on behalf of immigrant crime survivors. But coming back to this bill specifically, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, some of the discussion focused on the question of who this bill should encompass, specifically whether to extend its protections beyond people directly in the court proceedings to include family members accompanying them. There are several legitimate reasons why it's necessary for a family member to accompany an individual to the court, as highlighted in previous testimony. Sometimes family members are requested by the court. They may be needed to provide transportation or to provide support for victims of crimes. And for these reasons, the ACLU supports extending the same protections to all people in Vermont courthouses, none of whom should fear detention by ICE or be deterred from accessing the legal system as a result. Vermont has made great progress in making the state a safer, more welcoming place for its residents. And everyone who calls the state home deserves access to justice and we support this bill, because it is one more way to help build trust with immigrant communities, and better support the safety of communities across the state. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you for mentioning the need to extend it to someone who is accompanying a part because I did come up. I believe, um, coach asked about yesterday and I had, I had a note to ask you if you can say something that I was just about to look at the language. I don't know if you have suggested language or can think about it or maybe it's in person. Um, I don't have any suggested language at this time. So I think about it and come back with some suggestions. Yeah, that's fine. And we'll work with them. Thank you for your time and counsel as well. But, um, thank you. Any questions? Nope. That's not seeing any. Well, hello. I'm back migrant justice. How are you? Welcome. Good morning, uh, Committee. Good morning, Madam chair. Good to see you all. My name is will land back. I'm a staff member with my good justice. I'll have a couple remarks and then you'll be hearing next from my good justice member at beat though and not Beto O'Rourke, but if essentially as Michael Justice, as many of you know, is a Vermont-based human rights organization founded and led by immigrant farm workers. And we became aware of a law that was passed in New York State in 2020 called the Protect Our Courts Act. When that passed, we brought that law to the attention of several elected officials in Vermont, and that resulted in the following year. After Bruce adopting that bill and introducing it into the Senate late in the session, and then this year it began receiving hearings, and that brings us to where we are today. We saw the importance of bringing these protections to Vermont because, unfortunately, immigration arrests in courthouses are a reality in this state. Former Justice staff members have been direct witnesses to multiple immigrant farm workers detained by ICE at Vermont courthouses. And you'll be hearing one of those testimonies today. I personally have received calls from folks as they're being detained during and after court appearances. This happens at multiple courthouses around the state. That's not specific to one particular courthouse or one particular region. And in all of these cases, these are civil detentions by ICE, not criminal cases, never executed with judicial warrants. These are detention solely for the purpose of deportation under federal civil immigration laws. These civil arrests affect both, well, they affect criminal defendants, litigants and family in civil cases, people who are seeking protective orders, and all court users. There was a question in the walkthrough about who this would apply to, and I'll confess to not being able to fully follow the thread on the YouTube about where that question landed. Our understanding from the way that the bill was drafted and the discussion in Senate judiciary is that these protections would apply to household members of all court users, regardless of whether or not that household member is a party to the case. And I'd like to better understand the read of the committee, and if there is an amendment that needs to be made to clarify that. We should do so, but under 3701 subsection A, any person or family or household member of the person, we think that language should be sufficiently inclusive. And this, of course, is important. I know Representative Christie shared an experience that he was aware of. I've also had personal experiences with this, just to give an example. In the Addison County Courthouse, there was an immigrant farm worker who was being detained on a criminal charge. He had a bond hearing. His attorney asked the defendant's brother to be present to show community ties during that bond hearing, something that, as you all know, can be very important for being granted bond. I accompanied the brother of the defendant, and as I walked into the courtroom, I saw ICE's Vermont Director of Operations sitting in that courtroom, and that resulted in the brother of the defendant not being present, as was requested by the attorney, and negatively affecting the case. So certainly we do want to see this applied to family members and household members, regardless of whether or not they're a formal party to a case. This film not only protects immigrant rights from arrest, detention, deportation, and family separation, but it also strengthens due process and the integrity of the judicial system. When it went through the Senate, it had broad support. It passed out as a judiciary on a unanimous vote and then passed on a voice vote on the floor. The Senate heard testimony that was very supportive from many government agencies, including the Office of Racial Equity, the Human Rights Commission, also the Defender General, and the Attorney General's Office, also supported testimony from community partners like the ACLU and others. There were slight amendments that took into account comments from the Sheriff's Association and the Department of Corrections, and it ended up passing overwhelmingly. So we hope that we'll see speedy passage from the House as well and that this bill will turn into law in Vermont and that these much-needed protections will be extended. So with that, I'll wrap it up and maybe I'll turn it over to Beto now and then at the conclusion of his testimony, if folks have questions for either myself or for him. And I'll be interpreting. Beto's remarks. Hola, Beto. How are you? Thank you. Está en silencio. Puedes quitar el mute, ahora sí. Entonces, Beto, pues estás aquí con el comité de la Cámara de Representantes y cuando te sientes listo, puedes hablar. Hola, mi nombre es Cruz Alberto Sánchez Perez. Hi, my name is Cruz Alberto Sánchez Perez. I was arrested on December 31st, 2018 at a Vermont courthouse, and I had made a mistake, for which I am very sorry that I had been driving under the influence of alcohol, and so I was given a court date, and I showed up to court because I wanted to do what was right and take responsibility for my actions, but when I did, so I was arrested by ICE. I thought I was going to have a good deal, but apparently everyone in the court knew that this was going to happen because when I arrived there was a big paper that said court. Beto, can you repeat the last part? Beto, can you repeat the last part? Beto, can you repeat the last part? Beto, did you cut the signal? Okay, when I arrived at court, apparently everyone knew except me, that I was going to be arrested because there was a big paper with letters of private court. And so when I arrived for my court appearance, everybody in that room except for me knew that I was going to be arrested by immigration, and there was a sign on the door that said private court room. And the court hearing was simple. I was treated well. It was a couple of minutes. I was given a fine that I had to pay, but then when I was leaving, my lawyer, my public defender told me that immigration was waiting for me outside the courtroom. And so after my experience, a lot of people have asked me, well, if I have a court appearance, should I go or should I not go? And this sort of turns things around because you would think that if somebody is given a court date and they don't go to that court date, well, okay, then the authorities would be within their right to arrest you. But if you do have a court date and you appear, you're trying to do the right thing. And so it's hard to know what to tell people. You want to tell them to do the right thing, but you can't. And with what's happening in the community right now, I know folks who have upcoming court dates and they know what happened to me that I was arrested. And so a lot of people don't want to go to their court dates if they have them. But if this law is approved, then people can do that. When I was detained by immigration, I was held for three months. And I left the prison afterwards because I had a political asylum process, which I won. And I only got out of immigration detention because I was in application or proceedings for political asylum, and that resulted in me getting out and I eventually was granted asylum. And that's the only reason why I'm here today and able to speak with you because I have the good fortune to win my asylum case. I know that driving under the influence of alcohol is terrible, but I'm very regretful and I know that driving under the influence is terrible and I'm very regretful of that mistake and it's something that I won't do again. But I also know that we're human beings and just like anybody else, people can make mistakes. Okay, and I think that's all thank you. Yeah, thank you. Thank you so much, Elberto. It's so valuable to have you here. And I'm so glad that you won your asylum case, but I'm so sorry, the journey that you had to go through. It's so helpful to have you here and have a personal experience and it really does bring so much meaning to our work, so really very appreciative. Okay, and I wanted to add something. So when I was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, the court was fine, they suspended my license for six months, I paid a ticket, and I think that's all right. And I would like to add one more thing is just to say that when I was arrested for the DUI, I had a suspended license, I paid a fine, and that's fine. I think I have no problem with that, but my question is, why would ice, then have to come, because I'm, I'm here working honorably. And I don't think they should be involved. And thank you very much for listening to me. Thank you. What was just going to, you actually have a question for well in Beto and then I was just going to share some of what we heard from my legislative council yesterday about this question of who's covered. But maybe I could ask my question first and then that's okay. So thank you so much for being here, both of you. And I really appreciate Beto, the your observation, you know, you made a mistake and you wanted to take accountability. And that's sort of how our court system is supposed to work at its best is to offer people the chance to be accountable for their actions and do any restorative work that's necessary for themselves or others. I can stop there if you want to translate well on that aspect of it. You're going to keep going if you want to. So I'm just wondering. I mean, it seems like one of in your in this case, I think you were able to pay the fine that have the consequences. But I can see how, in addition to just all the trauma and hardship that these ice detentions cause. They also have the potential to really disrupt that people's desire to take accountability and kind of see their case through and take whatever actions might be needed. And I'm just wondering if either he would like to comment on that. So Beto, thank you very much for being here. I really appreciate your observation that you made a mistake and wanted to take responsibility. And in your best form, that's how our judicial system should work, is to offer people the chance to take responsibility for their actions and do the necessary work to restore, take restorative steps for themselves or for others. And in this case, it seems like you were able to pay the fine, had some consequences. But I want to ask or understand how, in cases when immigration arrests people when they go to court, in addition to the trauma and the difficulties that these tensions cause, do you see that it could have a potential to interrupt the desire of a person to take responsibility for their actions? Another word, I think it would be less likely that someone wants to present the court or wants to give a follow-up with a case. Well, first of all, I don't think it's going to happen again. No, as knowing from your experience, do you think that others seeing this makes it less likely that they are going to want to take responsibility in the same way that you took responsibility? Of course, but if it didn't exist, that they know that there will be no immigration. Everyone would like to do things right. I think I already have a good record of this. Many people are communicating with me asking me what the process is, what happens if I go or not. And I still don't have an answer. So yeah, of course it can disrupt that. And if people know that immigration won't come to detain them, they'll go because everybody wants to do the right thing in these cases. And the truth is, lots of people have asked me, what should I do? Should I go to my court appearance or not? And unfortunately, I don't know what response to give them right now, knowing the risk that they could face. What I was going to convey, well, and the chair could weigh in too. But we heard, I think the language as drafted, the definition of a household member is covered. So it's a person, family or household member of the person who is attending a court proceeding in good faith as a party juror, attorney or witness. Our legislative council told us, oh, Eric, maybe you can clarify. Because I think we heard yesterday that this protection would only apply to folks who had that standing in the court case as a party juror, attorney or witness. And maybe that was because that tracked most closely to the common law principles that this is sort of rooted in. But I think I would like to, like many have said, like to see it kind of extended clear protections for people who might be just accompanying someone on their court case and wanting to be there as a support person. But Eric, did I get that right or wrong? Yes, you got it right from the discussion that we had yesterday. I think though that I have since had a chance to go back and look at the what happened in the Senate and it kind of goes to the language which might need a bit of tweaking, because I think as Mr. Brown said, the Senate did actually intend to cover family members, whether or not the family member actually was a witness or had that specified role that was the intent. But the fact, for example, that I forgot that they misread the language is probably a good reason to clarify. And I think it might be easily clarified if you just said something like, you know, any person who is attending the court proceeding good faith party attorney, etc., or any family or household member of that person. And I think that that gets at the same intent, which as I say, the Senate did intend to cover those folks, whether or not they fit in one of those defined roles, just that family members would be protected as well. And I think so either that way or maybe just by adding a couple of commas, I think there's a technical way that the language could be clarified and it might not be a bad idea to do that. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. We'll do you want to translate so because I think it's important and then we'll. Thank you. They enter the como que el apoyo es para que por ejemplo si voy a la corte con mi familia o amigos que ellos no se han arrestado. Exacto, and they just clarify so to understand that if I go to court with my family or roommates that they, they wouldn't be arrested either and I said that that's the intent. Thank you. Coach. Buenos dias. That was the intent of my question from yesterday, because that's what happened to one of our brothers in White River. And extended families are our normal, you know, in our culture, and, you know, I can remember and I just kind of qualify this statement. There were times that in our household, we'd have anywhere from 13 to 14 people. You know, there were eight kids in our families, you know, we'd have cousins, aunts and uncles. You know, and so that extended family and friends and roommates piece becomes very critical because maybe one of them is the only one that has transportation. And that's the only way that the claimant can get to that court hearing. And then that would, that would be sad if, you know, the community and the family extended or otherwise is trying to do the right thing. And in the middle of trying to do the right thing, this occurs. So I really thank Eric for doing his legal magic with the language, and hopefully we'll all be able to come to agreement with that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, that is very important, the transportation piece, because if you're going to court for an issue where your license has been suspended, then obviously you need to ask somebody for a ride, and that person should be protected as well. Thank you. Questions or. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Office. Answer. Thank you. It's good to be back. Thank you. Good morning, committee. For the record, Rebecca Turner from the defender general's office. As others have already summarized. The sort of broad base support for this bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee. firm here this morning, but the Office of the Defender General does indeed support this bill. It is not only non-controversial, because as has already been provided, it is long-established law in this state, and in fact, the federal system, and most states in the United States. And when I say long-established, I think it dates back to the 15th century. It was a centuries-old common law back in England. And then when, of course, English common law jumped the pond and came here, we integrated that into our courts. And again, this is about the common law privilege to not be arrested while you are going to court, in state courts. And it was deemed an absolute necessity to ensure that actual public justice could be done, the administration of the courts could happen. And so I know that there was discussion yesterday about where and how to think about this privilege, whether or not this comes. So the authority, the courts have an inherent authority to ensure that administration of courts goes forward. It has been compared to a standing order, a standing order prohibiting people from arresting those who are there at the courthouse so that they can come freely and do their business, so that others would not be chilled from coming from using the court system. And so we heard Mr. Sanchez share his own personal experiences, and he shared that from the perspective of someone who was charged with a crime as a criminal defendant. It could have easily have been someone who was a victim of a crime, who was seeking a protective order, could have been easily a witness for the prosecution or for the defense on a key case who wouldn't show up to court because of this chilling effect. And the bill extends to prohibiting such civil arrest, not just at the courthouse, but for those who are traveling to and returning from. Now, I just also highlight that that was part of old common law privilege. Again, this idea that it's not just about protecting people at the courthouse, but it's arriving and leaving. In Vermont, from my perspective from the Defender General's office, we've heard an actual experience of having been arrested by ICE in a Vermont courthouse. It sounds like it was Windsor courthouse. I have heard a handful of accounts from defense attorneys after the fact, or people like Will, or those from BOS, where people are trying to get to the courthouse because they have a citation date. Windsor has heard from Orange County courthouses chitin'ed in. Some are trying to arrive, unlike Mr. Sanchez, where he was able to go through and finish with his criminal proceeding. I have heard that ICE has apprehended someone who has not yet gotten into the courthouse, has not yet been arraigned, has not yet been assigned a public defender, assigned counsel, assuming that that person was deemed needy, and therefore was whisked off into that system. And again, no opportunity to have had any legal support. Again, an incredible chilling effect that goes way beyond that individual, right? The communities that hear that, and what messages that. Another anecdote. That's a kind of system. So when that happens, are they found in contempt in addition to being arrested? Yes, they arrest warrant issues because there's no presence. And so that proceeding stays open until, and of course, no one can close or reconcile the charges there. So again, depending on what was the case that issue, there is no closure, right? And the consequences of that are numerous. There was another story again in Chitinden where a defense attorney shares that he was expecting his client to show up at a particular hearing in the middle of the criminal proceeding, post-arrayment, and his client never showed up. And what he subsequently learned was that a block or two away from the courthouse, I said apprehended and arrested. And so on and on and on, this is for sure not as big of a problem as what we saw going on and heard about in New York, in other populous metropolitan areas. That is not to say though that it's not a problem as you heard it as we see. And so this law is important and so we support. As to the question of how this language could be interpreted as being both not expansive enough, not covering beyond the household family members, however that's defined. Representative Christie, I think his point of, recognizing how expansive family members could be, that the second, third, fourth cousins removed, I'm not sure this bill and its current language would cover that. Certainly the cross reference to household members to the statutory definition is useful as from a lawyer's perspective, but it requires that you have actually lived with someone. I don't have had a dating or a household family relation that way directly. So there is that concern. And then of course there is the concern that came up during the walkthrough where there is also, could it be read to also limit protection to people who have an actual status in the case itself, a witness, a juror. And I agree with legislative counsel that it's, you know, I'm hearing it discussed. It certainly wasn't the intent. And I think it could be interpreted as it were. And so I wanted to share, so we would support expanding that coverage and making it more clear. What I was able to find going into this morning's testimony is some helpful language from Colorado. And I'm happy to share that version of prohibiting civil arrests in the courthouses, it was passed into law, I think in 2020, a march. And there they drop reference to person, household member, family member, as well as dropping reference to witnesses, jurors, and instead just say a person. A person shall not be subject to civil arrest while the person is present at a courthouse or on its environments or while going to attending or coming from a court proceeding. And so I'm happy to share this. We would support a similar language going in. And I think that would address the concerns that have been raised on this point. Yeah, thank you. If you can share that with Eric, could be a little helpful. Sure, go ahead. Yeah, I have a, maybe this is something that Eric covered yesterday and I missed it, but I'll just ask you as well. What restrictions are there on what the state can do vis-a-vis a federal agent exercising their authority? What's the extent of what kind of punishments or prohibitions can we put on a federal agent in this situation? And I heard those questions come up yesterday a little bit. What is the authority? What is the role? I think that, again, Eric Fitzpatrick shared the federal district court decision on New York where a federal judge considered that same question. And I'm familiar with that decision as well. And as he shared yesterday, that judge, and I would agree with the legal analysis, that judge considered, again, the centuries old privilege and how that has existed coming into the creation and the establishment of our federal constitution. And therefore then reading that as consistent with our system of federalism and reserving to the states, the ability to set up their own state court systems and to make sure that those can be administered properly, that that was done in the same kind of place. So again, presumably that that is permitted, that the court's authority to prohibit all from conducting a civil arrest would extend to federal agents as well, who are trying to do a civil arrest and remigration law. I do wanna share that, I think, Senate judiciary that tried to get someone from the US attorney's office to share their thoughts on this bill, but they, and so then an invitation was extended but declined as apparently they do. As a matter of course. Yeah, just a follow up. I guess a little more nuance. Are there limitations as far as whether it's a criminal penalty or a civil penalty? I mean, are there limitations there? So I don't know the answer to that, a friend. What I do know is this bill doesn't talk about criminal punishments, talks about civil contempt proceedings and of course, the establishment of the civil action, right, or liability, but in terms of what the court could do as a sanction against these federal agents, I understand it as specifically limiting it to civil contempt proceedings under chapter five, title 12. Now that could include imprisonment. It could include fines, right? And as you were teasing out yesterday, the difference of what is criminal, what is civil, what is punishment versus what is effectively trying to compel action, right? I think this is consistent with the purpose of civil contempt, which is to try to compel action, to prevent, to compel compliance with the standing court order. You shall not arrest for civil arrest, conduct civil arrest. So on that, I mean, I think Eric did look into the civil contempt a little bit more. I'm sure we're gonna hear from a little bit more. And I continue to think that civil contempt doesn't work in this situation. So criminal contempt could work in this situation. And that's where, but I guess criminal contempt is still a little bit different animal than being charged with a criminal offense. And so I think these are very nuanced things, but I am trying to tease those out to see what's the best consequence of somebody breaking this offense or breaking this law. So. I think what's helpful here is we do have an old old Vermont Supreme Court case law interpreting this privilege, again, because it's common law. And it was specifically addressing the question of remedies. And in that case, it's for the record, it's in red Q8, 53 VT, 694, 1881. And I'm happy to share that decision later. But if I believe anything to Supreme Court, consider that question. Someone civilly arrested because for another civil action. And so they, Supreme Court considered as a sanction their ability to imprison indefinitely or to order a fine subject to the person who was violating it, this conducting the civil risk, dismissing the action, right? When that civil arrest, the civil action that was connected to the civil less basis, right? Once that violator dropped the suit, they were allowed to not be imprisoned and not to return the fine, right, paid. So again, that's not criminal because if it was, you wouldn't get to your fine breath. Even if you dismiss the case, you would still have to serve the time in prison, right? So it is nuanced, but it is interesting this sort of this, how this court has treated how to enforce this privilege in the past. We have an example when it was through the civil contempt proceedings. Yeah, and I guess with respect to that, that may get into some more difficult terrain when we're talking about requiring the dismissal of a federal detention, I mean immigration issue to free the individual or to miss the fine. And I'm not sure where that necessarily goes. All right, I appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah, I think it's been the case, that'd be great. I'd like to. I will, I will. I don't have any other testimony. So there are no other questions. Actually Bob, I guess I have a question for you. So as this bill is presented, should it pass? We've had rulings from Colorado and the state of New York. We have not had a ruling from the state of Vermont in reference to this particular bill. So this bill in your interpretation would simply be remanded to Vermont law enforcement because we've never had a ruling to our Vermont federal courts as to what our federal agencies can do. So are we kind of putting a cart before the horse here and not filing for a ruling or something to the federal court system prior to passing this bill? Should I say? You're looking for a challenge, obviously a federal court. Is that what we're doing? No, well, I certainly hope it doesn't get challenged, but if it does get challenged, I think that it is lawful. And so I don't think we need to wait for this question to be resolved by the courts. A, because we do have so much foundational understanding of where this privilege comes from, including our own Supreme Court, right? Not in this specific context. And then we do have it from Rob Beasling with the New York federal district court again confirming where you can look at that analysis. So no, I don't think this is going out on a limb. I do think that this is quantifying what has long been the privilege. The question is, why do we need to do it? Unfortunately, as we heard from previous testimony, the need is being forced upon us because of ICE is making these arrests and disrupting the state court proceedings. If this wasn't happening, then we probably wouldn't be here trying to do this because it hasn't had to be done before. Well, to a certain extent, I agree with you, but you stared out by saying it's not really a problem in Vermont, really having had a whole lot of examples in Vermont. And then, you know, so as far as disruption within our court system, I still can't believe that it's because should this law pass, our federal entities are going to fight with. I don't think it's going to happen either, so. I'm sorry. I know if you wanted to... Oh, no, to the extent of how the federal agencies and the attorneys will respond to it, you'll just have to see. I don't know. I do know that having read the case law to support it, there is no reason to question both the legal authority of this state legislatures to pass this. And in terms of knowing what the problem and how small or big of a problem it is, and literally our numbers of non-citizens is smaller, but it is impacting our cases. And the unknown is the killing effect and how much is spread, right? And how also the sort of the ripple effects beyond just showing up to the courtroom, but now extending to fearing trusting law enforcement to call them when people, when these communities need protection to even initiate these proceedings in the first place. So I think it's an important message to send. I also think that the impact will be bigger than what the small numbers of non-citizens that we just look at will be. But yeah, I'm trying to think of other times when we've done this, but whether it's good Samaritan or we've done other, I'm sorry, but I'm just not remembering all the bills that we passed but recognizing that it is important for victims and others to be able to come forward and work with law enforcement and really achieve public safety for all and get in community policing. I mean, like I said, there really are many more implications and reasons. Lena. Yeah, I think you addressed it a little bit with Martin's question, but I'm, and we certainly got a really good and clear legal opinion from attorney Fitzpatrick yesterday, but I just wanted to ask you if on the record, you just kind of, like, because I think it's good to have multiple legal opinions on the record, just address that question of the legislature's authority to make a state law about this in the face of kind of federal immigration law. Yes, no, I think, again, it is this fundamental principle of federalism and what has been reserved to the states, right? And I think, because it's this question, federal enforcement of immigration laws, civil immigration laws versus the state's clear authority to create a state court system and to administer that system so that it can adjudicate and address the rights of its citizens, of its residents in the state. And this privilege is at the heart of it, right? This privilege essentially puts that protection bubble around it to make sure people feel that they can access the courts, all people, right, who have any interest. And I think that that is where the authority is in terms of this interplay and seeming tension between what is federal, whether the state is stepping on the toes potentially of the Code Jifon federal law enforcement. Again, this bill doesn't try to prevent federal ICE agents from enforcing immigration laws elsewhere. It is really, truly just this situation, this place so that we can have no disruption or is a little disruption to our state court systems. Yeah, just, this isn't really quite, my main concern is I don't want to get this tripped up by putting in the wrong remedy or consequences. And that's why I'm just trying to tease that out to make sure, so I appreciate what your input was on that. Again, and then my only response to you is we can also look at how these other jurisdictions have done it in specifically New York where you have had the federal courts, maybe review it more. And I believe those have also been said in the civil contempt proceeding context, but I'll double check, so that's my understanding. I appreciate it. Coach. Thanks, good to see you again. I think that Martin's question really gets to part of the core question. And then that relationship with the federal officers is another question, but one of the tenants of our committee that we all collectively agreed upon was access to justice. And when we think about that access, that does mean that ability for all of our vermonitors at any point in time to be able to access our judicial system. And that's where the question is, courts, I should say the higher courts, the district and supreme courts do battle over that federalism question. But at the end of the day, our first and foremost responsibility is to make sure that as many vermoners who choose to access or need to access the judicial system can. And I hope that that's what the intention of this bill continues to be. So I'm looking at the bill as introduced and I can't reconcile what the other differences as it passed, but in coming to what passed the Senate, would you say that stakeholders work together or we will hear from DOC and I do hope to hear from the sheriffs? Does this represent that or no? Yes, no, my understanding is that this represents everyone's, after everyone had a chance to weigh in and share their thoughts. I think that there were very few changes, although I know that Erin Jacobson is gonna follow and so she can fill in more on that. I do know that there was an addition online 20 or in the remedy section and making it clear that this doesn't, and increasing the mens rea requirement. And that was a concern that it wouldn't inadvertently capture actions where law enforcement officers were trying to do their job and ensure public safety wasn't at issue. And so again, there was the insertion of knowingly or willfully, I forget which one, but it was an addition. I think that was it, but I'm sure Erin Jacobson and folks will add more if I miss something. They come. Thank you. All right, thank you. Good morning. Welcome. Good morning, Chair Rad. Good morning to the committee. So nice to be here in person. For the record, my name is Erin Jacobson from the Community Justice Division at the Attorney General's office. I'm here today to testify in strong support of S140. I do wanna begin with a couple of anecdotes from my personal experience from when, before my current position, I was an immigration attorney at the Vermont Law School. The first experience I had with civil courthouse arrests by ICE was in 2013, I believe, when actually a victim's advocacy organization in the Northeast Kingdom called me. The advocate I spoke to on the phone was kind of in a panic. She was in a lot of distress. And she said that one of the people that they'd been working with had just been arrested at a courthouse in the Northeast Kingdom. And that she had been there simply to get a protection order. That it had been kind of a fraught journey to even try to help ensure that the person they were trying to help felt like that she could contact the police. She was really, really reluctant to ever call the police about the abuse she'd been experiencing at the hands of her husband. She had a small child. She'd overstayed a visa. She was afraid that she was going to be arrested. She had a real mistrust of police and government in general. And the law enforcement in that community then did help her find safety. But it was when she went to court to explain why she needed a protection order where she was arrested by ICE and detained. And so it was the victims advocacy organization that managed to get her out of detention and then called me to help her with her immigration situation. But again, so this was in 2013. The second time I experienced a courthouse arrest of a client was in 2017 when one of my clients went to the Windsor County Courthouse to respond to a negligent operation of a motor vehicle charge where she pled guilty. She admitted that she had in fact done that and then her public defender left the courthouse. And it was when she was at the clerk's office paying a fine that two plainclothes officers came and arrested her. Didn't tell her why or what was happening for her in an unmarked car. Luckily, a friend had been accompanying her to the proceedings. And it was her friend who called me saying, I don't know what to do. I don't know what's going on. I don't know who took her. I don't know where they're taking her. I'm following them on the highway right now. And also I can't get in touch with her lawyer because her lawyer had already left the courthouse. Turns out she'd been arrested by ICE. She was detained in St. Albans for several hours. She was only able to get out of that detention because she had a small child at home that she need. And she was the sole care provider. And so luckily, the ICE officers in St. Albans let her go on her own recognizance, but she was then put into removal proceedings. So currently now she is in those removal proceedings. She very well could be deported. That again, that was in 2017. So shortly thereafter, Chief Justice Ryber actually wrote a memo to the judiciary and talked about how in that memo how fair and free access to our state courts is enshrined in the Vermont Constitution. And that when that access is foreclosed by fear of civil arrest, then we are all less secure. And at that time, the judiciary's response was to try to with other chief justices around the United States to try to work with ICE on coming up with some kind of a compromise to protect the sanctity of our courthouses that the judiciary's recognized was really inhibiting access to justice and just the government wheels from continuing to turn. ICE did not want to work with the courts. And so that's another reason why codifying this common law protection is an important step for states to take. There are some really good important questions about, well, what happens if we have this state law and then somebody is arrested at a courthouse and then there's federal litigation? Well, that's going to be, honestly, that's going to bring up tricky legal questions about federalism, about the supremacy clause. But it also brings up the 10th Amendment and the protections that states have to make sure that we can effectuate our sovereign interests. And one of those most important sovereign interests is making sure that our courts are running smoothly, that people do not fear showing up to pay fines or to get a protection order. And that this kind of state codification of the old common law protection that allows people to go into state courts without fear, then bolsters the state's argument for how important we feel our sovereign interest is. And so that would only serve to strengthen the state's case should the federal government try to argue that somehow the supremacy clause trumps our sovereign interests. I would say too, though, that in terms of supremacy clause arguments that the federal government might try to make, the supremacy clause only really establishes that federal law wins when there's a conflict between like the federal law and the state law. And what this bill, S140 would do, is simply say we need to protect the sanctity of our courts, of our system of government, that we and our Vermont constitution have principles about access to justice. And therefore we feel that we need to make sure that we protect that. We're not, this bill does not say, hey, ICE, you can't do your job ever. You can't, Department of Homeland Security, you can no longer regulate immigration. This does not say that. This bill simply says that if you are going to effectuate an immigration arrest and you feel that you need to do it at a courthouse, then get a warrant. Also, this bill says nothing about criminal arrests. So this is really just saying that immigration enforcement are, anybody else can't come into our courthouses and effectuate a civil arrest. Doesn't mean that immigration enforcement can't do their jobs. So just one last thread and then I'm happy to answer any questions. After Justice Ryber and the other chief justices, several other chief justices around the country tried to come up with a compromise with ICE and then that didn't work. That was in, I believe that was in late 2017. As Beto very effectively testified, he was then arrested in 2018. So nothing, there was no efficacy in trying to negotiate and yet, and Vermont didn't have any state law that Vermonters could then find protection through or that the judiciary could point to and say, look, we have these protections in state law. You cannot effectuate these arrests here. The other last thing I wanna point out, sorry, I already said I was gonna point out one more thing is that the first story I told about the woman who was just trying to get a protection order, that was in 2013. So that was the Obama administration. At that time, the Obama administration had a very similar policy to what the Biden administration has now, which you would think, I mean, the way it was stated was that the presumption is you're not going to make courthouse arrests unless the public safety interests far outweigh the interests that states have in making sure that they have access to justice. Well, it happened anyway. My client, the only law she had broken was she had overstayed a visa and she was just at the courthouse to get a protection order. So in no way was her arrest something to do with public safety. So my point is just that it's not just a Trump administration issue. This can happen anytime and it does happen and it can be despite policy memos that the current administration might have. I'm happy to answer any questions. Yeah, thank you, I appreciate your testimony. And I actually before you said it, I had a note, look at Vermont Constitution access to justice language. And I know that the subscriber speaks about that a lot when he comes here. And so if you can have a copy of this letter that you read, it would be really helpful. I'll try to find it, Chair Gradd, where I only knew about it from the judiciary back in 2017. And then the only thing I could dig up recently was when he, an old VPR interview with Justice Ryber about the memo itself and in which the memo is quoted and also the discussion about they're trying to compromise with ICE. But I'll dig harder and see if I can find it. And the VPR would be very helpful. Sure, happy to provide that. Yeah, and Marty. Yeah, so do you know if the courts in these situations have considered issuing criminal contempt citations against the ICE officials who are disturbing the court proceedings? I do not know whether they have. I do know that that has not come up as an issue in litigation. And so I think it's an open question. Your questions are really good ones about the power of courts to effectuate criminal contempt or civil contempt orders. I would say that I think what that's, well, that contempt remedy is in Colorado's bill and New York's also. And from my read, not knowing a lot about contempt powers and maybe Judge Zone would be a good witness on that is that it's trying to allow for the court to have its own remedy. In other words, if the court doesn't have a remedy, if the judge sitting there can't stop an arrest from happening, then the only other remedy is to wait for the Attorney General's office to file for an injunction in court or for the individual who was arrested to try to effectuate their own remedy. So that's my understanding of the purpose of it is to try to give an immediate remedy to the court itself because that's also underlying the purpose of the bill. But I don't know the answer to your question about powers of courts to be able to do that, to issue contempt orders to federal agents. I guess the other question I'd have is, and this is for any Eric or Rebecca. Is there any place else where we've had as a remedy in statute similar to criminal contempt? Maybe there is, but that seems to be very much a court-centered remedy that, I mean, courts issue. It's not, you know, generally have law enforcement involved. I know that you can have a defender involved if somebody is being held in criminal contempt. I guess they have the right to have defense. That seems to be very much a court-centered. Like a court rule versus a statutory remedy? Yeah, I just don't, I mean, are there other places where we've actually, in statute, I've said, yes, we have. Federal 15, I mean, family. Yes. Is there a way? Okay, good. I want one. Okay. But we're going to ask the truth. Right? Yeah. With then, my gosh, judge, now judge divine. What's working for, okay. Well, that's a good question. Okay. So, I can find it, or yeah. Well, and that's well chapter five, as it lays out the civil contempt proceeding with what the court can or can't do, and the annotation there will be helpful in terms of where the prospectus is out of that. It's possible. Right, thank you very much. It's right here, right here in the bill, it in fact says that, so, sorry, one question. Well, thank you. Thank you. Okay, and now we have Joshua Rutherford from DOC. Thank you so much for being here on switchboard notice. I'm sorry that the invitation didn't come sooner. No problem, and just glad to the opportunity to offer testimony on this bill for the department. Great. Thank you. For the record, Joshua Rutherford, Director of Classification with the Vermont Department of Corrections. We did provide testimony on this bill to the Senate. Our only concern was that our staff are sometimes in the courthouses, whether for other business or with somebody in custody. And we did not want our staff to accidentally or unknowingly be involved in something that would put them at liability because they were attempting to help a law enforcement officer resolve something or they had custody of a person who somebody was attempting to serve a civil arrest on. So the Senate added that knowing and willfully language, that addresses our concern and DOC has no objection to this bill. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's really helpful. Bob, do you want to? Questions or pursuers? I was, and I don't know who to ask this to. And it's a touchy issue, obviously. It appears as though, just to my opinion, this is a bit of a ruse here because what I'm looking for and what I'm hearing from our witnesses is that whether it's, I'm sorry, Roberto or whatever. Can you give me an example of anyone else who's been arrested on a civil warrant that was in violation of a federal law, so to speak, without going in there? It appears as though we're talking immigration issues here and not really, I don't know what to use the term for monitors, but I mean, what's going on with this bill here? I mean... So I'll address that first to ask DOC, Joshua, if you can respond to that. If not, then I'll turn to the other. Yeah, I think that's a little loud outside my wheelhouse. Thank you. I do see hands. Sure, should I show my comment? Yeah, but identify yourself for the record, yeah. Defender General's Office. I think your question is fair, like where else do we see civil arrests happening, right? And I wrote your question yesterday and I did some review of where civil arrests are authorized in this state and there's a civil rule, Vermont's civil rule 4.3 where they have generally prohibited civil arrests before final judgment, before final judgment. And again, when I cited and talked about that old 18, 81 case from Vermont's court reviewing this privilege, it was in the context of a civil arrest that has now been prohibited by this Vermont Supreme Court rule. Pretty, and that's for policy reasons because there are other ways to deal with this, but what I mean is that there are still now fewer avenues for civil arrest to stop her post-judgment to enforce a court order, civil case, right? Where damages are awarded and there is failure to pay, right? There's those, there's big cases there. As well as where a court where a subpoena has been issued for witness to show up in action and just won't show up. There can be a civil arrest if that person is at the courthouse that there has been a subpoena issued. Those exceptions are actually in the bill and they're reflected there on the lines 13 to 16. So it is great to see that integration of where our law is on this state. You're right, you're instinctively civil arrest pre-judgment are not happening. And I understand the motivation for this bill is because of what we are seeing around the country and you're in Vermont is the public take of how civil arrests are arising in our state courthouses and that's the federal immigration agents coming in to do something about it. Thank you. Yeah. Erin, is there anybody else? Yeah, can you just tell us what the rule? Yeah, since again, four countries. Civil procedure, four points. Four points, okay, I have it up here. Thank you. Well, thank you. Any, before we adjourn. Can I just, I just forget one thing. Erin Jacobson, Attorney General's Office for the Record, who would also be in very strong support of expanding the protection to all people who are appearing at state courthouses or going through or leaving from and the suggested language by the Defender General's Office from the Colorado bill that we support as well. Yeah, so just a follow-up to the earlier question that I had about content. And so just reading the chapter five and also looking at what we have in here. I, chapter five is giving certainly the authority to courts to issue contempt orders if an order or a decree is violated, but it's very much in the language of discretion to the court. Whereas in this bill, if we go this direction, whether it's civil or criminal content, we are saying that it shall be subject to contempt. And that's a little bit different. I'm wondering again, in the family law situation, I know if there's, if there's any places where we're actually saying this will be the outcome as a, which is taking that away from the court's discretion. And that's really how I see the contempt between a discretionary action of the court. So whatever way we go, I think we, that shall language may be problematic. Okay, well, Eric, can you look into that? Thank you, and we will reset the charts. We'll make sure that they are specified as they did in the Senate.