 So we finished up with insurance fraud. Now we're moving into the larceny offenses. So you granted grand and pettit larceny, depending, again, phrases that have been around for a long time referring to how much property is involved from the theft. You'll see that there's a distinction. There's also an offense called larceny from the person. And that's when you actually steal from somebody physically, from the person in custody of another, so that they actually robbery or theft from something that's on somebody's person. Whereas the grand and pettit larceny you see are from the actual or constructive possession of another. So these are the fences that are more often used for shoplifting, stealing from stores, that sort of thing. So where these larceny offenses come in. And you'll see that when we look at the tiered proposal on the larcenies, they under current law use that $900 threshold that I talked about at the top of this page on the chart here. If it's a less than 900, it's a one-year misdemeanor. Whereas if it's more than 900, it's a 10-year felony. And larceny from the person on the other hand is always a 10-year felony regardless of the amount involved. And obviously it reflects something, a different perspective about stealing from somebody that's on their physical person as opposed to stealing from a store when there's probably less opportunity for somebody to be harmed physically or intimidated that sort of thing. So along the same lines, you'll see that the grand and pettit larceny is the thefts from say retail establishments. They follow the tiered proposal. So whether it's a $900 or above or below that distinguishing monetary value is again discarded in favor of the tiered system in age 87. So that can range anywhere from six months to five years, or sorry, 30 days to five years. Larceny from the person though keeps the same entity that's in the current statute. That's a 10-year felony and there's a typo there that's a $5,000 fine, not 500 in that column. And the felony proposal for age 87 keeps the same period of incarceration 10 years, although again increases the fine from 5,000 to 50,000. So that's larceny. Another type of theft you might call it or a similar concept. Larceny from the person goes up that's 10-year 50,000. Correct. Okay, and that's in the same line as the typo is 500. Yes, that 500 should be 5,000. Oh, I thought you said 50,000. Oh, no, I'm sorry, let's double check as long as we have the statute right in front of us. But just to be sure, let's look at the penalty for some reason that's odd. Every time I... Not as odd as the 14-year. Thank you, that's true. Judiciary humor. Yeah, it's all relative. But yes, so the current penalty for grand larceny, you'll see that it's struck through on starts on line 20 here. 10 years, 10 years incarceration and $5,000 fine. See that struck through in line one, they're paid 16. Yep. So yeah, that's the typo. The current fine is 5,000. The proposal on the H87 keeps the period incarceration the same 10 years, but the fine does go up to 50. Okay. Larceny from the person, interestingly, does have only a $500 fine. Let me see that, maybe that wasn't a typo. That was not, look at that. Okay, right. So it is only a $500 fine currently. So it goes up quite a bit. Right, yep. Now, again, what's the definition from the person is it physically taking something from somebody that they have in their hands? Potentially. Or on their person. Yep, it could be in your pocket, something like that. Okay, so from the person, it has to be in your hands or in your pocket or that type of thing. Because what's going through my mind with that, I mean, I'm gonna guess that with something like that, there's probably gonna be some kind of assault charges also. Potentially. Yep, that's a very good point. Certainly could, depending on the facts of the case, but it's very possible. Yep. So that brings us to embezzlement. You see, there's a number of different types of embezzlement offenses. And I think everyone kind of has a sense of what embezzlement is. And then it generally applies to an employee, someone who has some sort of position of trust with an organization. And uses that position of trust to abscond with property or money. And these offenses are, you'll see that there are some specific, there's embezzlement generally, which is a one-year misdemeanor, depending on whether it's $100. This one uses a $100 threshold. If it's more than $100, it's a 10-year felony. And then there's also 10-year felonies if it happens to involve a bank officer or a trustee or a public official in their official capacity. You see those as you kind of go down the left-hand column there. So those, if the embezzlement involves one of those, one of the person who fits in one of those categories, that doesn't matter if it's only, if it's a smaller amount, that for general embezzlement and qualify for the one year, it's always a 10-year felony. But in the proposal, it goes with the tiers. So again, it's particularly with respect to the, the officials mentioned there and some circumstances the penalty would be less than some it would be more. It's always gonna be depending on how much money was involved. Again, buying or receiving stolen property. I think that's an offense that pretty common, commonly, I don't mean commonly occurred, but commonly well understood by the plain language of what it is. If you buy, receive, or possess stolen property, you know that it's stolen, there's a knowledge requirement. That's again, depends on the amount of property involved. In this case, the current law uses the $900 threshold. That's less than 900 or 900 or less, rather. It's a one-year misdemeanor, but if it's more than it's the 10-year felony, but the proposal in H87 is to use the tiered system. So again, if it's in that case, it's less than $100, it's would only be a 30-day maximum, which is substantially less than the one year that you would get under current law. But if it were, you know, say in the neighborhood of, well, actually, yeah, I say $1,000, they still would get you less because the, under the using the $900 threshold, even $1,000 would still get you a 10-year felony under current law, where it's under the proposal, it would be a two-year misdemeanor. So now we're moving on to retail theft. And this is also one of the offenses that can sometimes be used for stealing from a stork and another one that can sometimes, I'm gonna hear, I'm sorry, that's the new one that we mentioned earlier, but we'll come back to that in a moment. Although actually it might as well here as well use it because it's not actually in the chart because this is a brand new offense. And I don't know to what extent represent the laundry, representative not, you wanna talk about this one now, I know we had mentioned it earlier, this is the one place in H87 where there's a new offense as opposed to just reorganizing the penalty system for existing offenses. And this is again is organized retail theft. So it's not just by one person in one instance, rather it's by one person acting in one, in concert with one or more persons on one or more occasions, that's line 15, within a period of 180 days. And my understanding of this was that sort of how this offense came to be proposed was that people were conscious of the $900 threshold in retail theft generally. So people were rather than stealing more than $900, which would take you into the felony category. They might be shoplifting less than that on multiple occasions but each time trying to stand with a $900 threshold, so it would be misdemeanor. And I think the intent of this is to say that under some circumstances, if they're acting in concert, that's the key language in line 15, that's all part of a common plan. And it can be charged with this more significant offense. And that was the part we were talking about the other day where it's organized and they know exactly what they're doing, correct? Yeah, I think that's the in concert language for sure. It's part of a plan. It's not sort of a random happenstance. All this jumping around here is just hard for me to, I'm just having one of my senior moments. Let's just say it's just, we're, yeah. Anyway, all this, nevermind, you know what I'm saying. I hope, I'm confused there. Well, we're moving quick through a lot of different offenses. It's understated. So Tom, did you have a question? Cause I had a question as well after Bob. Yeah, yeah, I did. Thank you. Eric, that section 22, on line 15, in concert with one or more persons, I think I understand that in concert with one person just could be yourself. If say you were organized as far as going in and stealing $899 worth of stuff day after day, that was your plan, is that right? Did you follow my question? Oh yeah, that's a good question. I definitely followed it. I just think it's a very interesting question. It's a good question. I'm not entirely sure whether it could be one person in a, because it doesn't say one or more other persons. So if the way it's written, it seems like it could be just one person doing it multiple times, but I'm not sure if that's what the intent was. That would be a good question for the advocates. Right, well, and I'm the one that kind of pushed this issue if I remember right back when we put this in. And I was thinking more, the definition of organized retail theft is more than one person. But certainly if I go in, if the limit's $900 and I go in day after day after day at 899, I mean, you don't get any more organized retail theft than that. Yeah, it's an interesting question about can you act in concert with yourself? I guess that's the question, right? Yeah. I hope so. So that was a good one. It's a good one. Maybe Martin's got something to say. Well, I know this specifically came from some concern from some law enforcement where it really was more of like an organized where there were people who would go in and steal under the minimum or not a large amount. And they would pass it off to this middle person who it really was, I wanna say organized crime. But I mean, it was much more organized than a person going in on a day-to-day basis and just taking below $900 of people. Right. I mean, we could get law enforcement to talk about this one, certainly. So right now, like Martin or Eric, right now I'm gonna assume the way that the new bill is written or the new laws written that say if somebody was at that, you know, 899 or under the threshold that they would just potentially be charged with a series of misdemeanors. That's right, multiple counts, but each count would be only for the, yeah, if it were under $900 each time, then it would only be for the smaller amount. Right, and is there, I guess if somebody has a number of misdemeanors for the same thing, is there anything that kind of accumulates into a bigger charge at some point? I don't think so, unless you have, as we've seen going through these statutes, sometimes the penalty increases for a second or subsequent offense. But if they're each one is a discrete offense, then I think they do have to be charged separately just based on the existing penalty for the single act. Right, okay. I'm not looking for any big changes and just explanation, I guess, so thank you. Well, I'll let Bob ask, because I wanted to go to a different section that we already passed, but I'll go ahead. Yeah, Eric, in looking at this organized retail theft, we've taken testimony about there's some entities that don't necessarily take a lot of thought into adding another crime to our statutes here. I personally like this, but in looking at this versus charging individuals individually, I'm just wondering about the elements of the crime on this and the burden of proof for the state is just gonna be so large in this particular aspect. What do you think about this? Yeah, I think you make a good point that they're gonna have to prove acting in concert with one or more persons on one or more occasion within that 180 day period, and that's certainly a higher threshold for the elements of what you've got approved and just your standard retail theft. But as you may hear from law enforcement that when these situations happen that they may have the only in those circumstances, they may well have the factual evidence to meet that burden. It seems like that at least was their thought. But I think you're right, that's much more elements to prove in that situation than there isn't just your standard retail theft. Yeah, I'm just wondering if maybe in the real world they may just cut corners and just charge for retail theft versus this organized retail theft depending on the penalties, which may be invoked on this particular situation. Right, or what kind of proof they have for sure. Exactly. Yeah. Okay, thank you. And as I recall, Bob, this was fairly narrow and specific circumstances that law enforcement, particularly in Burlington is really who brought this to our attention. So it wasn't aimed at really broad behavior. They had some pretty specific situations where something like this would have applied. It's good, I support it. I mean, just the burden of proof that's all I'm concerned about. Yeah, no, that was also I think prosecutors have noted that, not this year, but last year. So Eric, I actually wanted to back up and it's kind of interesting. It's been a while since we've gone through in this detail every crime and it's kind of raising some questions that I've just kind of not really, well, actually I thought a little bit about before and I've actually even asked at the sentencing commission but I do wanna back up to one particular, to a couple of crimes. And I wanna put a big question mark. And this is probably not so much for you. This is gonna be a policy decision but I just wanna flag it for folks before I forget it. And that's backing up to the embezzlement. And the embezzlement crime is really, it's little, but particularly when we're talking about a servant of a bank and a receiver or trustee, the issue is much less the issue of the value as the breach of trust. And I'm really questioning right now and we'll ask witnesses when we have people back in again. I'm really questioning going to the tiered sentence for, it's fine with the general embezzlement. I can kind of straighten out my head and that makes some sense because that already is looking at property value but the incorporated bank and receiver or trustee unless I'm missing something, that's I guess I do have a question there. Tell me if I am missing something, that's not relevant as far as the amount of money. It's just that there's been that breach of trust. And I think depending on what I'm gonna probably end up proposing as an amendment is to actually make that into a class D felony, which is five years, it is different than 10 years. I think 10 years is more, it doesn't make much sense but any of that, I just wanted to flag that. Is that, am I reading that right as far as that it's not relative to, okay, it's not somewhere. No, I think you got it exactly. Okay, so I just will flag that for the rest of the committee as well. If that's something I think we should revisit. Yeah, I'm noting it too. And also I did find out, Robin Joy did send me an email and said that actually a counterfeit, she didn't have any details for me but a counterfeiting crime under that offense has recently been charged. I don't know what recent is but it's certainly in the last 10 years. So it'll be interesting to kind of find out a little more about that one we can as folks, that's all I have. Yeah, I'd be interested to hear the facts of that case though. Yeah, exactly. All right, so where we were moved on, we got through the, oh, retail theft is where we were. That's right. We get through the $900 is your general. So interesting that he has some specific retail theft offenses you'll see involving UPC labels, which are the barcode labels that you see on some products. And they have a more significant penalty than your standard retail theft for if you alter a UPC label, but you see that that's a two-year misdemeanor. Well, as your general retail theft has uses that $900 threshold. And if it's 15 or more altered UPC labels, then it becomes a 10-year felony. And the proposal from the sentencing commission is to keep those penalties at least in terms of incarceration the same. So for your single UPC label, the two-year misdemeanor stays a two-year misdemeanor, the fine category goes up. Same for 15 or more labels, the 10-year felony stays 10 years. It's, but the fine increases. And again, as with so many of these criminal offenses when you see something specific like that, it's in, I certainly wasn't here when it happened, but whenever that statute got enacted, it was probably in response to some either rash of crimes involving UPC labels or perhaps a criminal enterprise had grown up around that. They're probably historically it would be interesting, but that tends to be why the same with the credit card skimmers or investment related to particular office holders, some of those will have common response to societal development, things that are happening out there in public that are responded to legislatively. So this was, I thought this was an interesting one as well and it sort of connected to the UPC labels. There's a specific in the retail theft chapter. Again, probably in response to a particular rash of crimes or illegal conduct that possessing tools or devices that shield merchandise from theft protection devices, very specific. So I don't know what those tools or devices would be. You're killing me, Eric, I was gonna ask you. Oh, you were? Yeah, I needed a little explanation on that one. Yeah, I don't know. More than myself needs an explanation. This statute, I don't think, I think just described it generally, but it's kind of pulling it up here, it's after that, but it didn't, I don't know, we're into the theft of services, I don't know how that kind of gets up fast, but I'm not, I'm wondering if our resident sheriff has had any dealings with that in his multi-decade career. I'd be interested to know what those devices were. And I think I wanna flag that one as well as just to get a little more information. Again, I'm happy that we're diving as in depth into this, because I think a couple of these things we overlooked or maybe we did get answers for last year, but I would ask again, because having that device, it sounds to me like what the issue is is really having the possession of that device at all, much like you say, the card skimmer. Yeah. And I don't know how that really fits, frankly, with the value of the property, because somebody could have that device, it's an illegal device is what it presumably sounds like. We'll have to find out a little more information and who knows if it's been actually used yet or maybe it has been used and nobody knows what exactly has been stolen because they were able to get around those theft detection devices, any events. So I'm just gonna flag that and to ask some further questions of some folks. So while you were chatting there, for example, and I pulled up the underlying statute and there appears to be at least one example, it's similar. So in this is, looks like it was dates from 1977. So that's when this was added. And it's, if you manufacture, sell, distribute, possess a laminated or coated bag intended to shield merchandise from detection by an electronic or magnetic theft detector. So that's one specific, and then in addition, any tool or device designed to allow or capable of allowing the deactivation or removal of any theft detection device. So some device that allows deactivation or removal of any merchandise. I don't know, maybe it would be like, sometimes in a store they have those, yeah, attached to the clothes, those things. Yeah, yeah, so I mean, maybe this does make sense. Maybe whenever they make an arrest that where they're dealing with this, it's involves the underlying property that's been stolen as well. But I think that's just a question, probably for all enforcement or prosecutors, really. Interesting. Yeah, definitely. Those things are impossible. Something like that, if you're gonna have tools or devices, I mean, you certainly stepped up your game in the retail theft world, I think, in being able to walk by the detectors who knows how much somebody could have gotten or plans on getting. So I can understand it being a little stiffer penalty. But then I also have another question just generally for Eric. Do we have other places and statutes where simple possession of tools that are usually used for burglaries and such carries a penalty? I think there is. I think there is too, yeah. Yeah, I think it's in the burglary statute that in fact, it might even be called something like that, tools used for burglary or something of that nature. Okay, so it would be consistent with something like that, so. Yeah. All right, thanks. Yeah. I'm glad there's an intent element of this one though because it reminded me an anecdote that I accidentally went home from colds over the summer and it had a piece of clothing that still had that plastic thing on it. I didn't realize it. And it's impossible to get that off. So I had to bring it back to the store and when I went in there, the person standing right there, it obviously, I was not the only person who had ever brought a piece of heat and it was exactly what to do. So I guess I was not inadvertently violating the statute because I did not intend to deprive a merchant of the lawful possession of it. So that's a relief. You were going in the wrong direction, it sounds like, so. Right, yeah. All right, so that takes us into theft of services which is a different sort of theft as you can get a sense of from the title on. That one is an interesting one, I cut and pasted some language from that so you can see what that is really referring to. You see what services includes there. This is line 17, labor, professional service, transportation, public services not provided for otherwise, accommodation in hotels, restaurants elsewhere, admission to exhibitions, amusements or recreational facilities, use of vehicles, other movable property. So those are services. So if you purposely obtain services that you know are available only for compensation and you obtain them by deception or threat or false token, again, that's a false documents, by other means to avoid payment. So you try and avoid these services, obtain them falsely to avoid payment, that's what the crime is. The retail effect of services is what that's known as and that follows the same $900 threshold that we've seen a lot in the property crime. So again, if the services that you've illegally obtained are less than 900, then it's a one-year misdemeanor, it's a 10-year felony, if it's more than 900, and you'll see that the tiered proposal was what H87 recommends. So again, some instances, last some instances is more depending on how much is involved. Although I see it wouldn't ever actually be more in terms of incarceration, because it's never gonna reach that 10-year maximum, five years the maximum under the tiered system proposed in H87. You also have, and you go in and do different types of property related to theft, we just talked about services, there's also a theft of rented property, for example, in rent to own situations or when you're renting something, this is other than a car because you'll see there's a specific statute related to a theft of a rented car will come to next, but any property other than a car, similar situation, follows the $900 threshold in current law, the two-year misdemeanor for below 905-year felony for above, and the tiered proposal was what's recommended in H87. And in that case, actually, the maximum is the same, because you see the second offense, more than 900 maximum of five years is also the maximum that you're gonna get under the proposal, because that's that class D felony for more than $100,000 maxes out at five years. This next statute is the one I just mentioned. You're failing to return a rented or lease vehicle, this again would be intent to, not just accidentally, has to be some intent there to, to pry the owner of the vehicle. So, I'm sorry, can we go back? No, go ahead. So the theft of rented property. Yeah. And I'm looking at page 21, line two, shouldn't that be class D misdemeanor? I mean, well, let me see class, no, I'm sorry, class C, class D. No, no, no, I'm sorry, I take that back. I've got it. Okay. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I was misreading it. All right. Sounds good. So, excuse me. So we are two minutes away from when we are supposed to adjourn. And I know that we also have Robin as a witness. And I know at least some of us have meetings coming up. Yeah, we definitely need more time here with you, Eric. I would think to, to go through this and have questions. And I'm sorry, Robin, that we, that we didn't get to you. So. Well, we got through a good chunk of it. I think we're through 70% of it or set three quarters. So I can come back in any time to finish it up. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. And yeah, Eric, any idea how much longer just in terms of scheduling purposes? How much longer? Oh, that's a good question. I would say, you know, half an hour, maybe 45 minutes to be safe. Better to have a few minutes extra than not enough, I guess, right? Right, right. Okay. All right. Well, that's helpful. So we'll, we'll get back to it next week. Just trying to stick to our time since, since these are long days and books and they're not over for the most of us. So anyway, so any, before we do adjourn any, any questions for Eric or, or Martin? Anything we should, I think anybody wants to bookmark or note for when we come back to it next week? Well, thanks for everybody for hanging in there. I know that was, that could be a little dry at times. So I know it was long. So I appreciate your, everybody's attention and good questions. So thank you. And Eric, I thought it was awesome. Yeah. No, it was great. Great. It was great. I'm gonna, I'm gonna nickname you the Professor Eric because. Okay. Thank you. Great. Yeah. Well, thank you so much. And then, and then we'll get Chris in also to help us understand how restitution works in the victim's compensation program. And we'll get, we'll get Robin back and get through it. So all right. Thank you. I guess we can adjourn now. Eric. Oh, it was, it was so good. I had to do it twice as you could see from the screen. Well, that's a nice compliment coach. Thank you.