 Good afternoon and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. We are going to do a few things this afternoon. The first thing that I'd like to do is like to vote on h195. And Barbara got bounced out, but she's coming back in. Okay, sorry. Okay, so h195 is use of facial recognition take now technology by law enforcement cases involving sexual exploitation of children. Michelle did a very quick walk through this morning. So I'm looking at the draft of the latest draft and any questions and I want to make sure that I have the right number draft number so I'm looking at draft 3.1, that should be it. Tom and Selena. Yeah. I think David's on here with us isn't he. Yeah, he has good. Yeah, just a question I had with Michelle this morning. And for David anyway. I have a question with, if a, if another crime is discovered during the investigation of an exploitation case, and in the facial recognition is used. Can that crime still be investigated. Yeah, I'm going to chair for the record with the Attorney General's office. Yes, it could I mean it. There may be some limitations on how it might be investigated given the trove of images that's there once the investigation becomes an investigation about a different offense, but we're talking about a small very small number of cases really sure. And yes, it would certainly remain a possible to investigate. Thank you. And I'm certainly, I'm certainly glad that can still happen. And the other question I had for Michelle, she had already answered it anyway as far as continuing one of those cases that facial recognition would not be able to be used so. Thank you. No problem. Thank you, David. Selena. Sorry. My keyboard's a little funky so it's just being a little oddly unresponsive I apologize. I am, I support this and I'm glad for the committee's work to narrow the focus of the bill I did want to just call the committee's attention to an email that we received from my district meet with Gina about a related bill that may be of interest to us in our discussion on facial recognition and, and, you know, related technologies moving forward which just looks at some of the inherent bias that can be baked into some of these tools and there's a number of members of our committee who have who scrutiny of these kinds of tools I really appreciate and just wanted to make sure everyone saw that I think it's an interesting bill and it does it does with these issues. Thank you. Great, thank you. Tom, give another question. Okay, that would be no. Okay, great. And actually great I see that Falco is here we I did share with the committee that I did get emails, both from the ACLU and the dependent general's office, stating no objection to to draft 3.1. See you, Falco I don't know. Can I ask you to state that on the record please. Yeah, I'm happy to do that. For the record Falco Schilling advocacy director for the ACLU of Vermont. Just wanted to say we appreciate the quick turnaround by the Legislative Council and the willingness to address the issues that we raised in testimony we, we don't have an objection to the bill at this point in time and you know thank everyone for addressing those concerns that we raised. Great, thank you. I appreciate that. Okay, so I with that I would entertain a motion to approve draft 3.1 of H 195. Second. I'm sorry I didn't hear who was. Oh, that was me I seconded it. Okay, I'm sorry what. Selena. I'll move. I'll move either a first or a second if that's what you're looking for. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Great. Great. All right. Okay, any discussion. Let's have another couple hours of discussion. Who was the sponsor. I'm sorry. Maxine is both of you are. I want you. No, Maxine was with the sponsor. Yeah. Okay, so, Ken, are you ready. Any discussion. It's a clerk shall commence to call the roll. Thank you. Colburn. Yes. Donnelly. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Not. Yes. Rachel. Yeah. Christie. Yes. Yes. Brad. Yes. Okay. Thank you everybody. Let's, let's hold it open for Felicia because I have, I've not heard that she's not going to be here. So. Yeah. So let's, let's hold it open because I know that she, I know she is supportive of the bill. So in terms of a reporter. Barbara, you. Interested. I don't want to. We. Okay. Great. Thank you. And then coach my understanding is you will also speak to the, to the bill. Yes. Okay. Great. I appreciate that. And certainly Tom. If you want to add, you know. Great. Thank you. Well, okay. Great. All right. Wonderful. Thank you. So that is that. We'll wait for Felicia and then. Okay. So H one 28. Unfortunately we voted on the incorrect version. We voted on 2.1, which still had the study in it. And thankfully that arrow was caught. I'm sorry that I didn't catch it. But we do have a 2.2. That has been posted, which is the correct version. And so we do have a, to re-vote to reflect the version that we're, that we're voting on. Is that clear to everybody? Okay. Thank you. So. We do that now. Yeah, please. So I'll need a motion and a second. Please. Motion. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Okay. Great. Discussion. I think so. Do I take the original copy? That we're changing or can I just throw that away? I wouldn't throw anything away. But, you know, I knew you were going to say that. So. So, you had your hand up. I was just going to say I'm really sorry to the committee that I didn't catch this as the reporter of the bell, turning it in apologies for my. I mean, I think, you know, we were all many moving parts here, but just, I think, I think the, the bug probably should stop with the reporter. So. Kind of you, but I actually, I think as chair. I don't, I don't look at something like that as a big deal at all. Selina. It's, it's a saying that I say is the person who doesn't make mistakes as the person who doesn't do anything. So. That happens. It's just part of life. I must be doing a lot. Plenty of mistakes left and right. For all of us. Yeah, exactly. I appreciate that time. Yeah. We're ready. A lot. Okay. Great. So yes, please. Yes. I'm sorry, Maxine, that you want to say something. Okay. Donnelly. Yes. Yes. LaLon. Yes. Felicia yet. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And let's hold this one open as well for Felicia. Okay. Thank you, everybody. Okay. All right. Now let's turn to. Each 145. Please. And. Bryn, I do see you here. Let me just check in with Martin as well. So I was going to ask Bryn to do a walk through. Again, Martin, is that, does that work? Yeah, I think so. That makes sense. And then we could perhaps walk through again. And for discussion on, on each of the changes or where we are essentially. Okay. Great. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. Good afternoon, Bryn. Afternoon committee for the record, Bryn here from legislative council. So you should all have drafts 2.1 of each 145. On the committee webpage and let me know if you'd like me to share my screen. I'd be happy to do. Can I remember which committee looks to do it which way? I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I think they don't really, we like to do whatever makes ledge council happy. So. So. Does anyone, does anyone want me to share my screen? Cause. Yeah. Okay. Barbara. Yeah, Barbara's raising her hand. But it's okay. I'm the only one. The only one just ignore me. It's fine. It's easy for me to do. So I would really just like to do whatever is best for the committee. Okay. So. Let me make it a little bit bigger. So committee members, if I don't see your, if I don't see your hand, please just. Jump on in. Okay. So. Draft 2.1 at 1 53 PM should be up. Everybody can see that. Okay. So changes are in yellow as usual. So the first change is in section one, the standards, and the standards. And then you, if you remember, you've been, you worked on the definition of chokehold in the last version in this one. There was some, there was some concerns about, because the former version required that a part of the officer's body had to be around the, the subject's neck. That may be too narrow. And so we've changed it in this version. So now we're kind of combining the original. The original definition of chokehold in the last version. And then we're going to move on to the Massachusetts definition. So it now means the use of any maneuver that employs a lateral vascular neck restraint, carotid restraint or other action that applies any pressure to the throat, when pipe or neck. In a manner that limits the person's breathing or blood, blood flow. So kind of tried to thread the needle on that one. So I'm going to scroll down now. And then we've added some language here that was in subsection C in the former version. And that is the requirement that law enforcement. Has a duty to intervene. When that officer observes another officer using a chokehold. And you'll remember that the committee discussion was. To move that requirement for intervention to the use of force section, as opposed to the use of deadly force section. Since the use of deadly force section has that provision that allows an officer to use a chokehold. If it's necessary. To preserve human life. So I'm not seeing any. So I'm going to keep going. And then, so now we're in the use of deadly force section. And subsection six, this is the provision, the new provision that you looked at yesterday that law enforcement. Has a duty to intervene. So we've added the use of chokehold. Unless deadly force is justified. And we just swapped out lethal for deadly since that's what we use throughout the standards. And then we make it apply to. All those subdivisions one through four. So all those requirements and the standards for the use of deadly force. That precede subdivision six. So if you want to take a look at those. Subsection six is only justified in using deadly force. It's necessary. And then subsection two puts some parameters on what necessary means. And that is when given the totality of the circumstances and objectively reasonable officer in the same situation would. Conclude that there was no reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force. And then subsection three says law enforcement shall stop using deadly force. Subdivision four. As soon as the subject is under the officer's control or no longer poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. And subdivision four. Provides that law enforcement shall not use deadly force. Against a person based on the danger that that person poses to themselves. So all of those standards. Apply to section six. All of those standards have to be met in order for it to be possible to use deadly force. So that's the definition of choke hold. I keep scrolling here. The rest of the changes are just to replace the definition of choke hold that you saw in the prior draft with the new definition. So here's the law enforcement use of choke holds crime. And we've swapped out the definition for that new one that we just talked about. Any maneuver. Language. And same thing in title 20. So I'll stop there. I'll wait till you're done. There's just one change in here that, that is missing that I probably. Forgot to move on to you, but go ahead. I'll wait until you're done. Okay. Can I break in here, please. Going, going back to. Line six for law enforcement officer shall not use deadly force. This is. In the part where the person poses. To himself or herself. Where I'm getting to his line eight reasonable. Objectively reasonable officer. I don't know how I didn't catch up before. That doesn't. Anybody. What page are you on? I'm sorry. Page five. Section four or. Section four. Line six. Number four. And I'm where I'm really going is on line eight. Objectively reasonable officer. When the lawyer care that one apart. So that is the standard that you're using throughout the standards. It's a reasonable officer standard. So this subdivision four is just a. It's an additional requirement that law enforcement not use deadly force. So that person poses. The only deadly risk that the person poses is. A risk to themselves. And again, we use a reasonable officer standard. It's a reasonable officer. Would believe that a person doesn't pose any imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury to the law enforcement officer or to another person. So this mirrors the language in. And subsection. See, I believe. The reasonable officer standard. Which is also in subsection B. The reasonable officer officer standard is also used for the use of force, just regular use of force, not use of deadly force. Okay. Thank you. Right. It's before. It's the other place that uses the objectively reasonable officer standards. Thank you. So that's about, that's it. I'll just quickly go through the other definitions. So entitled 20. This is the. Officer misconduct. 2401 definition of chokehold. We've also swapped out the definition there. And that's it for the changes to this draft. So, so here's the change that I neglected to pass on to you from the testimony. And that is an effective date. Line nine. I'm sorry, page nine, line seven. I believe that there was a suggestion. And not that we've accepted this yet because this is all proposal, but, but I think the suggestion is to have the, that be September 1st, 2021. It already is. If you look in the effective date section, which falls on line 13 through 15. It's just a little confusing because we have to amend the effective dates of the justifiable homicide statute. That's why that section six is in there. So the changes to the justifiable homicide statute are, are taking effect the same date as the standards. Yeah. Thank you, Martin. Cause I. I was wondering the same, the same thing. I know that we had discussed that quite, quite early on. So, okay. And thank you. For that clarification. Let's see. Again, I can't see everybody's hands. Any other questions for Bryn about this, about this draft. Not seeing any. I do want to note for committee that major Jonas's testimony, she did submit it in writing and it, it has been posted on our, on our website. Okay. So Martin, I can turn it over to you now. Yeah, sure. I guess, I mean, I could certainly want to. Discuss each of these sections, but I just want to kind of. At least give my viewpoint why I'm putting this proposal forward. Overall. Certainly we passed this out last year. And the, the objective was to. Really have this operationalized in the policy, the policy really to implement the standards on the ground, so to speak, put the details into the policy to implement the standards and such. And we heard from law enforcement. As far as as they continued as a, we're working on the policy and they continue to work on the policy. As far as a few areas of what they felt were ambiguities and wanted some clarification. And that led to the bill that was introduced with. With three of the clarifications that were requested. And then during testimony, it became clear there were a couple other areas that there was a request for some clarification, but also I think what we found out is, is some of the issues that we had in the bill as introduced. I think the clarifications hopefully came out through the testimony. Because we are not proceeding with, for instance, the without the benefit of hindsight, for instance. And I really felt that during testimony became clear that. That at best that was redundant language. And at worst it caused some confusion. As far as whether we were backing away from what we were talking about in the definition of totality of circumstances. The same general idea with the proposal that we had during testimony with respect to be five, asking for the language to the extent feasible. I think that was really explained that. That's really covered in another provision as far as feasibility and that adding. Adding language courts look at every word that you put in there. And if we add some additional words, is it doing anything to further clarify? And I thought really the testimony said. That it was not so thus in this proposal, I don't have those two suggested. Or those suggested. Language changes from law enforcement. And I think it's a little bit different, certainly with respect to choke holds. I think as we got into it further and further, I think law enforcement definitely made a very good case. That, that the law we passed last year was in need of some clarification. We already provide, I think we provide. Actually. The ability for law enforcement officer who has used a choke hold for this bodily injury. We provided the opportunity for there to be. A rationale for that having been used a defense for that having been used tying back to the use of four standards by way of the justifiable homicide statute. But that's a little indirect. And I think what we have here makes it very clear that in the very limited circumstances where. The use of deadly force is justified, meaning that it had to be reasonable and necessary to prevent the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. That there couldn't be any other reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force such as a choke hold. And that, that deadly force such as a choke hold would have to be reasonable and necessary to prevent the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. And that would have to be reasonable and necessary to prevent the deadly force such as a choke hold. Seize as soon as the subject was no longer a threat. You know, so it's fairly, it's limited. But, but we heard testimony. From law enforcement officers. From law enforcement that there are situations where. Law enforcement officer. That's really the best alternative. And it's better than requiring them to use their service revolver. So, I think we'll clarify that we are talking about choke holds. As I've myself mentioned before, I felt that prohibited restraints was. You know, not necessarily the language that's used is a little confusing. Let's talk about, you know, let's use the words that refer to what we're talking about. And I think that we've gone through. Where we have the appropriate definition of choke holds, at least from my perspective. I think the overall structures is correct as well. We're not talking about intent in any manner. Within a choke hold the choke hold is the maneuver. It is the action that leads to. Limiting the breathing or flow of blood. And what we're saying is that kind of action is not to be used. Unless there's a lethal force or deadly force situation. There's one other point I just wanted to make, and then certainly want to hear where other people are on this, obviously, is with respect to the conversation we had about intent. The other day. And certainly, Brent can comment on this as well, but, but the bottom line is, you know, when, when our goal is to prohibit law enforcement from using choke holds. That we're not justified, you know, pursuant to our use of deadly force standards. Then an intent element is really not necessary. This is not a strict liability crime because we have that connection. To those standards for use of force. You know, if the, if the, if use of deadly force, I should say, if use of deadly force is justified and I won't go through those standards again. Then, then a choke hold can be used. If, if the use of deadly force standards are not met. It is not to be used. So, so maybe Bryn wants to comment a little bit more if people need more information on that concept of intent. But it's certainly something that I pondered as well and thought maybe we should look at a little bit further, but I've certainly pondered it some more and don't think that we should put an intent element in there. I think we're covered with that. So that's, that's where I am. I, I, hopefully folks are, are on board with this. I, I know folks, I know Tom in the past is not like, does definitely doesn't like the law that we passed last year. But I think what this particular amendment does is it makes that law better for from the perspective of law enforcement. I understand it doesn't go as far as they would wish. But, but I think that it does clarify some areas that I've also had some discomfort with related to the perspective of law enforcement. So I will turn it over to other folks to, to weigh in. Actually, before we do that, I think it would be helpful if you could talk about intent and. And that issue. Sure. So, um, I think that representative alone put it, put it really well. I would remind the committee, the committee members that were here last year that you spent quite a bit of time on this question. When you were working on S1 19. And it, it may be helpful for everybody to refer to S1 19. It's kind of a tricky because it doesn't appear in this bill, but the just fab a homicide statute has to be read in conjunction with the crime. So it's very important to go, to go, to go together. So if you have the time to take a look at one 19 from last year, or I can share my screen with you now. The, the just fab a homicide statute provides that if a law enforcement officer kills or wounds and other. They are guiltless. If they did so in accordance with the, with the standards that appear in this bill. It's very important to look at the crime in connection with the just fab a homicide statute. So there was quite a bit of time spent on the intent issue. With one 19, but because you've had that just fab a homicide statute and the ability to kind of read it together. I think the committee really came to the place of understanding that. Adding another element to the crime was not necessary because. There is another statute that provides that law enforcement will have no criminal culpability. If they do injure a person in accordance with the standards. Great. Thank you. Any questions on that issue for Brent. Tom. I'm not necessarily for Brent, just a general. Comments, I guess, if, if now is the time. Sure. Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It was a good segue because. Because Martin brought up my name and. Yeah. I mean, I'll just start out by saying that. I'm not going to support the bill. But, but I do want to say that I do appreciate the. The time that's been given to this. You know, you know, I want to point that at you, madam chair, and certainly I want to thank Martin for all the work he's done. You know, it did move in the right direction. You know, and. You know, for me, it didn't move far enough. Like Mark said, you know, mentioned, you know, the law enforcement agency or the sheriff's or whoever, you know, certainly would have liked more as I would have liked more. And with that said. I know last year I spoke against the bill on the floor. And in my main reason is I didn't think the time. Was spent on it that I think we needed to spend on it. And that to me, that is not an argument for anybody anymore. You know, the time was spent. You know, some changes were made in. And I really do appreciate that. You know, the work that we have done on it. And, but. Thank you. Thanks. I just want to clarify. I know it. I just wanted to make sure that the agenda does say. Possible vote, but. Possible is there for a reason. So. Right now I really want to hear where people are, or are at. And I think that Martin, I think that's your intention as well. Right. If we need more testimony, we certainly can get more testimony. Okay. Selena. Yeah, I am, I'm confident in most of the bill and really appreciate that. And I just want to go back to the bill and really appreciate. Those who testified and I think brought, brought it further along and all the changes that have been incorporated. Where I continue to struggle a bit. Or maybe even maybe it's more fair to say substantially. After all our discussion about use of the word substantially earlier is. So in the current draft, it's on page five. It's. Section one C six, I believe, or subsection one C six, I should say, and that's the. The lines 14 through 16 that say a law enforcement officer shall not use a chokehold on a person unless deadly forces justified pursuant to subdivisions one through four of this. And then the subsection. And I heard. Two witnesses the last time we discussed this, both of whom are here now. Testified about that section. I found both perspectives compelling. And that was. Well, the white and the ACLU. And the ACLU's position was. I don't know if I'm saying correctly here, but was that. The, the carve out here essentially is X is. That they support it in that. There are many instances when a chokehold. Is a better alternative to something with. Even greater risk of lethality, such as the use of a finer arm. As a response to the potential for deadly. Force. And I guess I'd be curious, curious to hear from. Both witnesses and anyone who wants to weigh in. I mean, I'm wondering, I guess it causes this question for me and then I'm like, why are so why are we only carving out an exception for that and not other kinds of. Restraints maneuvers responses that might otherwise be. Kind of outlined and described in the, in. The sections. Subdivisions one through four that are that are referenced and sort of lay out these general principles for what's acceptable in a response for use of deadly force. I'm just, I'm just really trying to figure out where to come down on this provision and would appreciate any other thoughts that witnesses might want to lend to the discussion at this point. Okay. So I do see a follow you. Turned your camera on is that an indication that, and there's will do so both of you are, are welcome to weigh in that. Okay. I realize that somewhat putting you on this spot, but certainly do. If you are prepared to at this point. Welcome your testimony. So if it's all right, I will speak first just because our testimony was referenced and I'm happy to pass the mic over to Wilda for her perspective. But from my perspective in terms of looking at the use of the use of deadly force. And that is why having the explicit exemption, allowing for that use of force under that situation seems appropriate as opposed to specifically speaking to other uses of force. And in the situation. A firearm would be acceptable. Many other uses of force that could amount to deadly force would be acceptable. And this is still a use of, I think this clearly classifies. The use of force as deadly force. And I think it makes it clear that that is the only time that that would be used that that is a. A, a, you know, a. Restraint that would only be used in the last resort. It is the equivalent to an officer drawing and using a firearm, but it also could be less deadly in those situations. And so that is the perspective that we brought to this, but I also certainly respect the perspective that others have brought to this and their concerns. And that is why we're talking about the use of force. That would be used in communities and how they're perceived. So I just wanted to offer that. So I think you correctly summarize our position on, on that point. And that we don't, we don't object to this inclusion of this and the allowance for that as a. A use of that restraint in situations where deadly force would otherwise be warranted. Okay. Thank you. Selena. Do you want to follow up with a question or should we go to the next slide? Okay. So. Bill is substantively weakened without that provision. I mean, I think it's the, it's the intent. It's what intent. This committee has is that a situation where they want to prohibit that use of that restraint and all situations. I mean, this isn't a call that we changed that we asked for specifically. But in response to requests from others, felt that this was a reasonable change that we did not oppose. So I think that's a good point. We'll do. Welcome. Thank you. So my testimony on this provision was very personal and really reflected my experience as a black Americans and the relationship now. About chokeholds being a form of terror. And so I thought for me personally, it would be difficult for me to send this mixed message that the bill does on the one hand. I think it will help save lives. I think it will help save lives. I'm not saying it can be used in the use of deadly force. So, but, and I tried to underscore that this was very personal to me. However, I like so much about this bill. And I think it will help self save lives, particularly for communities who are both black and perceived as having a mental illness. That I, I support the bill. I want to say that I do support the bill. But it's in the spirit of compromise that I support the bill, right? Because where I sit now, I can have the intellectual purity and integrity that I want to have. But as legislators, I know you have to compromise. And I think this is a decent place to compromise because it's important to law enforcement. And like I said, I value their lives as much as anyone's lives and they have the right to use any maneuver they, they can to save their life. And I think that's a good point. And I think that's a good point. And I think that's a good point. And one of the things that Mr. Shilling said. I wanted to correct for the record because I said, I would allow the justifiable homicide statute to do the work. And not, not affirmatively say that it could be used. And Mr. Shilling said that the justifiable homicide. Statute only applies in homicide. It applies both for wounding and for. We're death results. And while I'm on the subject of the justifiable homicide statute, I think it's worthwhile for this committee to, to take a look at it because I do think because you're adding that new subsection subdivision six. That the justifiable homicide statute will also have to be amended because right now it only includes. Subsection C one through four. So I think it should probably amend it to say, you know, subsection C one through four and sub subdivision six. If you want to pull in the choke hold exception. So I hope that's helpful. Yes, very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Barbara. So my question is for both. I'm wondering if our choice is between passing this. Or leaving the law as is. Which would your recommendation or preference be. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. I mean, that's, that's a good question. This is not a bill that we're not allowed to move forward. So I think that's a good question. I think. A call for in any way at the beginning of the session or said, that was necessary. We think the language as past last year is sufficient. But would not be opposed to moving forward with this bill. So I think that's in the discretion of the committee. I know there are some places that have been some clarifications that others have thought helpful. But so this is, I think we're fine with existing law, but also would not oppose this moving forward. So I. Yeah, I don't, I don't want to run the risk of not having this approved, right? But I guess if it's not approved, we go back to the old language. What's already in, we're not, we're not repealing the old bill. But this is a much improved bill. And I agree with representative verdict. It's a much improved process. So. I support the bill. Like, I think it's much improved. I think that's, that's what I would say. Thank you. Looking for other hands. Tom. Yeah, just one more thing that I wanted to say. When I was speaking earlier is that I'm going to guess, and I'm probably going to be reporting this on in my caucus. And one of the things that I do intend on saying is that I can understand if, you know, somebody who was a no last year. I could understand if they, you know, if they went to a yes, just because of the improvements. And I just think it's important to point that out to my caucus. Okay. Thank you. Bob. Yes. Well, I might as well chime in here a little bit. There hasn't been a lot of work done on this bill. I think there's been a lot of work done on this bill. I'm reference to. House 119. I wasn't here for that one last year, obviously, but, but I am for this one here. There has been a great testimony. I think that both the committee and witnesses have made some very strong points. Unfortunately, I can't support the bill as written. I think there's some areas of concerns. We've addressed many things from witnesses request to. We've addressed a number of things. We've addressed a number of things from changing the name of the prohibitive restraint to chokehold, which was good. We didn't address there was some key areas. And I know Martin will say it's kind of repetitive or whatever. The law enforcement did request such as. Without the benefit of hindsight, which is the first one that comes to mind when we took testimony from Ms. Shriver, who obviously said that as a prosecuting attorney. She thought that that was very important. To be in here as far as the use of benefit with hindsight. We've had a great time. And that's why we're here. We eliminated to the extent feasible. It doesn't seem as though we've gone quite far enough. And I think we can get there. I like to bill as proposed for the most part. I don't think we're that far away. But just a little tweaking. I guess like you see done. Prior to. This passage, but I don't have control over that. So thank you. Thank you for your feedback. Tom, I think your hand is still up from, from before. Okay. I'm wondering if you could could just bring us up to speed on justifiable statute and the need for cross referencing. Sure thing. Yeah. So I think what I'll do is pull up. I'm going to share my screen and pull up S 119. If that's helpful. So everybody can look at that statute and we, you, the committee can decide. I do think it makes sense to cross reference. The, the new subdivision six, which prohibits the use of a chokehold and less deadly forces necessary. So why don't I, why don't I pull that up so everybody can look at it. Okay. Does everybody see section nine effective dates? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Great. So this is actually, I made the change in the bill. So. The draft is now 3.11, which is a typo is 3.1. I'll scroll up to the per hit the justify the homicide statute. Just here in section four. So, as I, as I discussed before, 23, oh five, 23, oh five, just five, five, oh homicide. This is the, these are the changes that were made in S 119. That don't go into effect until September 1st of this year. The first part of the statute was amended to update some language. And make the requirements of the statute clearer. Subsection three is the part that applies to law enforcement. So if you read the first part, if a person kills or wounds another under any of these circumstances, he or she shall be guiltless. Subsection three provides in the case of a law enforcement officer. Using force in compliance with 20 VSA B two four and five. That's the use of four standards. The relevant parts of the use of four standards. And then. Subsection six is the use of four standards. Or deadly force in compliance with. 20 VSA 2368 C one through four and six. So that's what you would add. This would be the new language would just be that subsection. And subsection six, that would be the only change made. To just fab a homicide. As it passed in 119. So it's only a use of four standards. And it's only a use of four standards. No. It's only a use of four standards. So it's not difficult unless it's in compliance. With C one through four. Thank you. Question, Selena. Don't have a question about this, which makes perfect sense to me why we would. I need to amend that, but I'm wondering if I could ask a question of representative alone. I apologize because I know we've talked about this again and again, but as we're getting closer to the vote, this is just that my place that I'm clearly, clearly grappling a little bit. So why, why looking at this now and really noting that language of wounds or kills, really going back into the justifiable homicide. Why, what, can you just tell me again, because I'm sure I've heard it before the argument for not just allowing that statute to do the work and the, I mean, I think, I think the potentially implicit there but let's, I'd like to hear your thoughts on that just as the I guess I have a couple thoughts on that. First of all, again, it is. It's not the smoothest way to get to the point where a law enforcement officer can feel that they are able to use a choke hold in those life and death situations. It's, it's there I agree, I agree that that that defense is there but I, I think for purposes of law enforcement and the feedback we've received they've wanted this to be clear. So that's one thing. The other thing is, you know, I'm not sure that this bill really goes ahead to the floor frankly if we don't include that. I just, you know, I would certainly see an amendment I think there's going to be a lot of support for for for that provision to clarify and, and, and frankly I'm not sure that it's right. I'm not sure that this bill would have my vote without that. And I think these are goes to the concept of compromises that we have. And I think what we're significantly gaining the biggest thing that I think we're gaining with this well there's a couple things. What's not in the bill is an ongoing. And this should be there already what I'm about to say but but put that aside, is an ongoing really collaborative effort with law enforcement to try to get these things working right together, the policy on the one hand, and in the statutory standards on the one hand, and I think in good faith we're trying to do this and in good faith. I've, I don't agree with a couple of their other suggested changes if I if I thought it was really going to help in developing their policy. If I had been convinced by that I would have certainly supported that but I just don't think that's the case. It's specifically in the language that we gain is the definition of chokehold I think it's a better definition of chokehold it's it's easier I think for to prove to show that that's a maneuver that has been used, particularly getting under the language of flow of oxygen and blood to the brain that as will the white wisely testified that is an element that would make it a little more difficult to show that this was an improper use improper restraint or chokehold. So those are my main goals for why I think we need to have have that provision there. I don't know if will can can chime in because I know in the past, talking to will. That's been a concern that, you know that clarity of the use of the chokehold and that life and death situation has been something that I know that you and I've talked to will that you've heard from from your police that that's one of the major problem areas with this bill. Sorry to put the, you know, you don't have to respond will you don't have to choose to be an irrigated but I am so. Okay. Thanks. Yeah, no, we'll consider it a friendly interrogation. I will say that I did hear before we started to discuss this bill and earnest I did hear from the Rotland city police chief, and there was real concern about the language that was passed last year. And was it reading the reading the previous bill in the face of it. It really read to some interpretations like an officer might be charged if they were to use a chokehold, but in the same situation could pull out a gun and fire it and be be fine. And it seemed, it seemed to defy common sense that if an officer could take someone down who was threatening their life for the life of someone in the vicinity with a with a chokehold for a brief moment as opposed to feeling the need to use their firearm for much more damage to that to that person that it the preferred choice would be to to to employ a chokehold briefly. And the worry was that the language did not have the previous bill did not make it clear, and that an officer who could have perhaps use the gun in a situation and been found to not violate the law. The found in violation of law in the same situation is a chokehold, and you know we we we can argue back and forth about whether that actually would have played out because that hadn't been enacted yet. But that was the concern I heard was the lack of clarity in the language is what I heard on the ground for my PD. And I do think the changes made to this bill. So far as the clarifying language and the showing of where the lethal use of force can be used to a limited degree by a law enforcement officer. I think it cleared up the concerns I heard about from my police department. Thank you. I just want to look I don't see the commissioner here I know he was he had been here. Ken, are you looking for comments from everybody. Any, I'm sure if you'd like to absolutely again this is committee discussion. While we did have well listed possible vote. It's emphasis on the possible. I think it's important to have a discussion and see if there's anything we need for more testimony to to more time. Well, I think it's everything's been said, it's it's improved from last year it's still not we're where I'm comfortable with it so I'm still going to be a no the same as last year and I'm honest I'm not sure that really anybody's mind is going to be change just to cut right to the chase. And I think we all know what's going to happen when it goes on the floor so there's no problem with voting on it personally. Thanks. Thank you. Will. Well, you know, I just want to say that it is worth noting that the bill we passed last year exists whether we vote on this or not. There are the law there's a law that the reflects lethal use of force. It's on the books. And it's going to be enforced. And this vote this bill doesn't change that what it does is it clarifies the language that the law employs, and I'll just say you know I voted for the bill last year so I feel comfortable voting for this one, but even if you even if someone was opposed to last year's bill. I mean there's reason, perhaps to support this, because what it does is add clarifying language. We're not really debating the original bill or what was put in the place we're talking about clarifying it. And I think that's to the advantage of law enforcement to do so. Thank you. Martin. Yeah, and I was just going to add just from what will just said that I'm hearing from folks like Selena and I've heard offline from from Barbara and Kate that there's some discomfort with how far we're going. And now I'm also hearing from other folks there's discomfort that we're not going far enough, which to me says that maybe I found a, I'm not going to call it a sweet spot because it seems more of a sour spot for a lot of people. But frankly there there is the risk and if there's enough people on each side of this, we're going to be stuck with the bill that we have, or the law that we have right now. And I think the folks who are thinking about voting no, even though they see the improvement on this should think real hard, but you don't vote your conscience. Was that a guilt thrown at people. I think it was a guilt it was a kind of the reality of the situation. You know that that's, you know, that's kind of. I was not sorry. So I have just reached out to the commissioner because he's not, I know he's been on and off and he's not here. I, I'd like us to wait to vote on this. Kate, I'll let you. Yeah, sorry I didn't mean to interrupt. I'm just tossing people's names out there left and right since my name got, got terrible. Bring my voice to table, you know just to clarify the conversation I had with Martin was essentially that I would support the bill I think some of the concerns that I have. There are not of other things in terms of implementation of this kind of law, you know, I think, I think there's a lot of concern that law enforcement is not held accountable, even when they do engage in activities that might go against the law. And so I think, you know, throughout the course of like taking testimony there was some conversation. It was from one of the attorneys that was like, you know, there's this sort of like beautiful dynamic where we look to our community to sort of enforce the law and I think that when we're talking about these kinds of issues. You know, we're talking about like fundamental reform to a system and so it's, it's tricky when you're talking about like objectively reasonable officers and when you're talking about juries like, I think when those that kind of language gets used when you're talking about a system that needs to be transformed. For me it always makes me feel uncomfortable because we're, we're, we're trying to figure out a way to, to change something and we're relying on definitions that are rooted in the past which, which is just always a little bit concerning and so I'm getting a little too nuanced here but I just want to sort of flush out the conversation I was having with Martin which was really, you know, I think this particular bill that's in front of us. It seems like a good compromise is when I feel comfortable supporting and I think the concerns I have are more borne out in terms of like what then what happens next what happens in terms of the policy that gets developed how do these things get implemented to do the courts and so I think the conversation that Martin and I had was really, you know, around assurances honestly of like well let's keep paying attention to this let's keep let's keep coming back to the table let's keep an open line of communication with law enforcement let's let's keep working to make sure that you know what what we're hoping for and what law enforcement, you know is asking for that we can continue to work towards finding a healthy compromise that ensures ultimately the safety of the people in our community so that's where I'm at with it. Okay. Thank you. I did just hear from the commissioner he can come on in about five minutes and so I would like to hear from him. So, I'm going to pause on this since we have Felicia so we can close out our votes on 195 and and 128 so Good afternoon Felicia so. So 195 is use of facial recognition technology and it's unanimous so far and I wanted to hold it open for you so can can record your vote. Lefler on 195. Yes. Great. And then in terms of 128. We realized that we voted on the wrong version draft we voted on 2.1 which still have the study in it. And I didn't catch that I'm sorry so. So we voted on 2.2. La floor. Yes. Thank you. Great. Thank you for holding those open for me I greatly appreciate it. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay, and here is, here's the commissioner. Just give him a minute to. Okay, welcome commissioner thank you so much for, for your flexibility and availability, but I did one new opportunity to speak. So thanks for having me and major Jonas I think would have been here to do this herself but was encumbered elsewhere as well. Sorry I'm not on video I'm on cellular service I'm trying to preserve the connection. I just want to reiterate what some of the other folks that I've only been off for about 15 minutes so I've heard most of it. Appreciate all the additional work and testimony that's gone into this. This bill we do see it as improving on the work that was done last year as, as will the white testified very articulately I think this is a better bill. As I mentioned by a couple of representatives we do think there are a couple of small nuances that could make it stronger for law enforcement in particular as it relates to our ability to have clarity in how we're training the roughly 1200 folks more than a few include the part time officers in use of force and as an extension of policy and those two areas are as the prosecutor Shriver indicated that the language around without the benefit of hindsight. I know you've heard testimony that it's redundant. I'm indicating it may week in the bill. We don't necessarily think that either one of those is the case. Well you could infer that that hindsight is contemplated in the totality the circumstances specifically calling it out is that we think is an is really important for clarity right up front so that we don't have to wait for that to be that section to be litigated to gain a foothold on on the understanding there. And same without going in without being repetitive the same with the language that we'd suggested around to the extent feasible relative to special populations again we think that maintains the spirit clear intent that that should be taken into account, but removes any ambiguity if an officer doesn't know how to alter a response based on subjects behavior that it's clear that it's to the extent that an alteration of their reaction is feasible that that creates that clarity. And I just want to be really clear it's not that we don't offer those an intent to water anything down just to create that requisite clarity to be able to further develop finalize the policy and then develop the full array of training. But again as as many have indicated. Well we think it's imperfect. It is, it's an improvement and we do really appreciate all the work that's gone into it so far. Thank you that's that's helpful so. As is it's still, you know, without the, without the two things that you had just referred to. It still isn't am I correct that that your position is that it still is an improvement over the, the laws that exist now that we passed last session. Yes, absolutely. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your, your being here just want to see if anybody has any questions for you committee. Yeah, I did I did have one question in. And it's going back to probably some testimony that that you may have provided or Jen Morrison may have provided earlier. It's with respect to the, to the extent feasible language. What we've tried to do certainly in this provision is to leave the flexibility to how to put this into effect to law enforcement in their policy. You know that's why you know it's, it's states that you know the law enforcement is fine language so I'm not just bear with me for one second. I think I would know this by heart by now that the officer shall take the information into account and determining the amount of force appropriate to use on the subject that that really is leaving to law enforcement to develop those different, perhaps appropriate responses and that that is in fact, part of the rationale that I gave for really pushing back on the disability rights proposed amendment that that they were being too specific as far as what should be done by law enforcement when they know about a subjects impairment. But the point that I think was made one point is that you would want to make it clear for law enforcement officers about the issue of feasibility and presumably that can certainly be made clear in the policy that is being developed. And, and I think what we had mentioned at the time is that well, it's you really have to look at in conjunction with before, which talks about totality of the circumstances and feasibility of alternatives etc. And the pushback was that well we want to make it really clear for the law enforcement officers well. I think it's the policy that's making it very clear for the law enforcement officer certainly is intended to this language in here the combination of b4 and b5. But yeah is certainly to guide that policy, and then just as critically is to guide any court that happens to have to be looking at this or a prosecutor before we even reach a court, or, or a disciplinary board, and those entities are going to look at the complete language of the related provisions, they don't need the redundancy in a separate provision, they're going to lead, they're going to read all of the language that's what that's what courts and prosecutors do. They're going to look at the totality of the circumstances and the fact that it very clearly says facts known at the time. I'm hoping still, and this is where you know I guess my question is that really you know that the policy that you all are developing is going to be able to make this very clear for the law enforcement. And that's really what I'm hoping to see and I just don't see how those language changes, change what you're doing as far as informing and training the law enforcement officers as opposed to really informing, ultimately the decision makers, the court and the like. If you can comment on that I'd be happy to hear you. I'd be happy to and I appreciate where you're coming from with all of those things and I think the intent of what you've described. The bill gets most of the way there but I would just observe that when the policies developed and the officer follows the policy. As you rightly observe going to take into account all of the various statutory constructs and policy together, and I can easily foresee arguments being made that the policy was an error no matter what we write, because there remains some ambiguity in this particular action relative to the extent feasible that it's not clear in what way or how we are supposed to alter a particular response of just use a real world example of a person, moving up and down the church street marketplace taking metal furniture and swinging people. Turns out after the fact that the person was having a mental health crisis, and they were actually subdued by a bystander. So it's not a perfect example, but if the officer had been the first one there prior to the bystander in what way is the officer supposed to alter their response to that that section leaves it pretty ambiguous it states that we're supposed to do something but it's unclear exactly how and the language that we're suggesting is designed to ensure that when taken in context with the policy that we're developing that it is clear to a court and it's clear when we train not only on the policy but on the statute because we will do both. That it is to the extent feasible you should alter your response when you're facing a circumstance with a person that's got an underlying condition of some sort absent that I fear the only way we're going to get clarity is going to be through very expensive litigation cost to taxpayers. So my concern. And first of all, I just don't, I just do not see how adding the language to the extent feasible to the beginning of B five alters anything that you just said, particularly when right before that the sentence before that talks about feasible reasonable alternatives. I mean, it's it, that's where I guess we've really left to the policymaking to lay out, because we don't want to get into the details because that's where, you know, the expertise is with the law enforcement of that situation that you mentioned. What what are the proportional uses of force what are the other actions that the law enforcement officers should take. You know if we tried to spell out those situations here. You know this would be a much longer bill and probably incomplete. So any of that so I appreciate your input on that though I do understand your frustrations but just don't quite agree with them but thank you. Let's make one last comment. The two sections well they exist contemporaneously it's not clear that a court would would interpret that one modifies the other. They could be interpreted separately. And having spent hundreds of hours on the stand. I can speak from experience that it is not often as clear as we think it is on a page whether it is statute or policy. So the more clarity we can create. Not specificity I do agree that the details that the subtle nuances should not be more realized in statute because circumstances change in the policy should be able to evolve but there's no guarantee that those two sections are going to be taken together in a courtroom. Thank you. Yeah, no I appreciate that. Actually, I'd like to think about that. Thank you. Okay, well thank you again for your for your availability. Anybody. Any other questions. Okay. All right, so I am going to put a pause on this. After town meeting break luckily we do have that week when we when we come back. I do want to just review in terms of kind of where we're at and again this is where I see this is my little wall. So, so in terms of what we've been working on and what I'd like to get to when we get back after town meeting week which is crossover week. So certainly this bill. I'd like to finish it up and vote on it we have 133 which I also would like to vote on and 87 we're still, we're still working on on that. So the corrections, the section of the corrections committee bill that we're waiting for some language from from some of the witnesses we also have the hate motivated crimes bill that we worked on yesterday, and it's actually more the reporting study piece of it that we're waiting for language on. And then also would be great to get an update from Felicia and Barbara on for for chair. So I don't know if I'm missing anything in terms of what we've been working on I realized that there are other bills that we haven't taken taken up and there may be bills coming from other committees at the last minute. But that's, that's what's on my list. No doubt for one second did you say the malicious that getting rid of the hate crime I didn't catch if you. Yeah, that's I refer to it as. Yeah, another committee bill but yes, thanks. And that's why I really think the, the study the reporting language is what needs some work and hopefully the Attorney General's office in terms of their bias incident reporting, as well as the state's attorneys can can come up with language reflecting what what is possible at this point. So, so before we go before we adjourn and go off. Oh, Felicia, yeah. I just wanted to chime in on the quick update right now where Barbara and I are on the asset for your bill is we are looking to set a time with Bryn to go over drafting. So that we can have something to present to everybody and if we have something to send out. I want to speak prematurely but I would be looking forward to sending that out before we get back from time eating break so people have time to look over some of the language, if we have a draft ready. But we still have to sit down with Bryn and get that all sorted out. Great. I also, well, I am, I'm assuming until corrected that Ledge Council and our committee assistance have the week off. But I will let individual Ledge Council state otherwise but I think that should be the, the guiding principle. I think your hand was up. Nope. Really I was just going to call attention to Kate's question in the chat about each 183 and whether that was also in your. My gosh, thank you I'm sorry. Yes, absolutely. Yeah, that definitely do want to get back to that and thank you for Michelle on that because there are certain certainly differences of opinions there so we do need some more discussion and work on that but yes I'm hoping we can get that one out. Sure. Okay.