SmartTranscript of Senate Judiciary - 2025-01-29 - 10:05 AM

[Chair Nader Hashim ]: Morning. We're back in senate judiciary. We're going to be taking up s seven and possibly voting on it. I'm gonna send out invitations to Adam and Chris and then Jamie Feehan to come by, provide and testimony if they want to. And, again, this is quite similar to what's pretty much the same as what we voted out last year, which came out on a five zero zero vote, I believe. And yeah. So before well, actually, yeah, committee, any thoughts, conversations, or any changes that folks think we should make for this? You know, we've emailed Bill just letting them know. Yeah. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Thank you. Senator Wilson. Sorry. We'll, of course, continue to some brand still red, but I do still think it's pretty concerning to me that we haven't updated the coverage requirements. Sounds good. I think that [Chair Nader Hashim ]: The cup which which part [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: I don't remember the insurance terms, but my understanding is what is in the bill is the sub subrogation, but not the increase in mandatory coverage minimums. Mhmm. And, you know, given that I haven't been updated since then, I did, I think that is problematic, but, of course, we'll support any movement forward that we can can make. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: And I remember some Just if [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: you could, just I remember I remember the bill from last year, obviously. Can we just quickly go over anything, if anything that has specifically changed from the last time [Chair Nader Hashim ]: that we voted out? So the kind of the limitations are not in there. Several of us knew this is arriving. That's there. So I don't believe anything else has changed compared to how voted it out last time. And and I'm gonna look to Adam, and, you know, your he might have some information. Do you wanna did you wanted to provide a few quick clarifying questions? [Witness Adam McCrassen ]: Adam McCrassen, McCrassen Group, Vermont Association for Justice. Thanks for the question, [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Might I Barbara, are there the? [Witness Adam McCrassen ]: And just double checking that the date for implementation was pushed out a year, which is something that the committee worked on. And I and I see that it is. The idea here being that, you know, you're not trying to impact, and Senator Reid kinda brought this committee last year, any existing policies and give me time for the insurance world to adjust their fine print and have it started going forward after the price, current policies have kind of run out. So seeing that ledge council picked up on that, rest assured, this is the words that left the senate last year on voice vote unanimous, anonymously, five o, and just refreshing your memory and for your benefit. And you really went pretty under the hood on auto insurance market. And and what we all find there is that this is very different than, for example, health insurance or much of [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: what we know of [Witness Adam McCrassen ]: of as insurance because it's a phenomenal for profit trip collector, which reminded this weekend watching the NFL games, every other ad, the auto insurance company. Senator Sears talked about that a lot just as a way to signal. They really, often, in case major companies, GEICO, take our premiums and invest them and make huge, huge, hence, and tens of billions dollars here in profits. We embrace that scrutiny and hearings along the way. The rest of the state house, [Chair Nader Hashim ]: unfortunately, last year, it just got caught up in [Witness Adam McCrassen ]: end of session falling through the cracks. [Member Philip Baruth ]: Just [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: I just do wanna mention, I believe that overtaking testimony when Jamie was here, but I brought up the opportunity to come back with a bank with green digital warehouse on the middle of our campaign on that. In fairness to So as far as the policy [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Yeah. No. I was I was thinking of that throughout this, and I know that we just put this on the agenda literally twenty minutes ago because we had a lot more time than Mhmm. A lot more extra time than we thought. So I I would like to provide Jamie the opportunity, provide any follow-up language, provide us with any follow-up language. And just, you know [Witness Adam McCrassen ]: In good faith, mister chair, where where I know the area where [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: Yeah. You [Witness Adam McCrassen ]: know, their interest is against this. And then in the alternative, you get into the language. And this committee last year also double checked and let council to make sure that the language doesn't create an entitlement to your underinsured motorist coverage. You have to have the damages to warrant this. Remember, the big piece of this is going from gap to floating layer. Mhmm. So I bought two hundred, and if I have astronomical damages, I get my full two hundred. That would mean bad drivers coverage being deducted. From what I'm getting, it's that simple. And, you know, there were we we were open minded saying, well, you know, if you have a different way to write that sentence to put some suspenders on the belt, and we see there that not entitled to [Member Christopher "Chris" Mattos ]: the award that you deserve. [Witness Adam McCrassen ]: So, you know, I we we wanna earn this on the merits and have all of you feel good most important because it is people are suffering, and this is the spelt way to get some more coverage at [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: the table for people. So [Member Philip Baruth ]: since we did pass this out with so much support last time around and Jamie was also the applicant on the other side, It seems that we could vote it out now, and then if Jamie has an amendment that we [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: agreed with, we could put you on the floor. So [Member Philip Baruth ]: it seems kind of like six of one top dozen of the other. We're early with this bill anyway, so there's no rush. And yet, I don't think they were being on this. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Kayla, have you heard anything from James? [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: I did. And his response It was he said he had nothing significant to share and that he will follow-up later after he lit up the possible vote. Okay. Alright. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: Well, that gives me a [Chair Nader Hashim ]: bit more confidence voting on this now. Any any other conversation, thoughts, questions, points? [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: K. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: If you would entertain a vote, sir. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I wouldn't entertain a vote. [Member Philip Baruth ]: I would move that to the s s seven out of the paper. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Senator Mattis? Yeah. Senator Norris. Yes. Senator. Yes. Senator. Yes. Senator. Yes. Senator. Yes. Senator. Yes. Senator. Yes. Five zero zero. Yes. Who would like to report this? [Member Philip Baruth ]: Who would report it last year? I was wondering. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: I [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: should all be just warmed [Member Philip Baruth ]: up and ready to go. Yeah. Sears. Oh. What? [Chair Nader Hashim ]: It was report it on the chair because [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: one chair. Sears. Okay. Copy that. Go ahead. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: Sure. Sure. Meeting today. Sounds good. So [Chair Nader Hashim ]: if I I believe that if we were to take it up today, it would be reported on Friday. No problem. If you want to pick it up tomorrow, report it on Tuesday. That might be confusing. That's fine. Great. Congratulations. That's our first bill. Alright. [Member Philip Baruth ]: Nice. Well, I feel better [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: with the opportunity of Juan, Jamie, and that's significant. Yeah. Your idea as far as putting amendment in. If you did come back with anything significant, that's good. I feel better after you responded just in all fairness. Yep. Cool. I agree. Alright. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Great. Still got plenty of time. So I got no. Well, thank you both for coming in on short notice too. So yesterday, we had testimony from the administration about the closest omnibus bill. And I want to try getting some general thoughts from the committee as to how we would like to proceed in addressing some of the policies that were submitted, I think, yesterday. We don't have a draft yet, although we do have the the draft that was provided by the administration. I I believe we may be receiving some bills that address some of these policies. So, yeah, we'll we'll have this as more of a informal discussion amongst the committee as to generally how we'd like to proceed. You know, we've spent the last couple of weeks getting introductions, getting ideas, and getting deep reach about how they are positioned with the lease and, you know, free trial attention works, [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: heard from [Chair Nader Hashim ]: the make sure our DOC. So we'll just open it up now, and then, you [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: know, we can find as a rest. [Member Philip Baruth ]: Senator Ruth? Well, it it seems like the core of what the governor's interest today has raised the age. And I know you had been in talks with Sharon Lalonde about that, about and also with. And so I suppose in terms of raise raising the age, if we go add in some way, we'll kind of get to where we got last night, which is the deadlock. So I would be interested in in I'm not interested personally in repealing Raising the Edge, but I am wondering if there are proposals on the table from the house or elsewhere to achieve some kind of middle ground with it, which given the realities of where we are now since, [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: like, probably the the way it goes. Mhmm. So [Member Philip Baruth ]: I'm not sure what what you're thinking, mister chairman. Raise the age. Is there another option besides where people [Chair Nader Hashim ]: that you're considering? I would say I mean, yeah. In in my talks with the chair of the house committee, my sense is they're going to arrive at much the same place as we were last year, which is to not repeal it, but to once again delay raising the age. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: You [Chair Nader Hashim ]: know, the from what I recall, the testimony we got last year, the addition of nineteen year olds did not cause a substantial impact on the workload. However, there was concern raised about adding twenty year olds to it, and that would have an impact on the workload. That's as best as I can remember from the testimony. That's the wrong. It'll be corrected, but, yeah, that's that's my initial position. You know, I I hold I mean, I I I take people at their word when they testify that, you know, adding more to the workload at the moment is, you know, something that's going to work for them. And I take that same I hold that same approach, you know, when it comes to even marketing and recherences. You know, that can be heard from the commissioner that there is a hundred and thirty percent. We're at a hundred and thirty percent capacity in our jails, and, you know, we're we're sending people out of state. You know, I've I've seen a lot of correspondence from CEOs who are struggling immensely with with how things are going at the jails. So if there's some initial thoughts, senator Rose can [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Yeah. I'm share senator Rose's noninterest with repealing Raise the Edge, and I actually got concerned with delaying Raise the Edge. You know, we saw from the Columbia report that it does exactly what it's intended to do, which is ease the burdens on the system, you know, increase public safety in our communities by giving young people the support they need to not further engage in the criminal justice system, which is sort of a pressure release. Like, at some point, we have to do something different if we expect something to change and continuing to do the same thing. And in different results is I think Einstein said that was the definition of insanity. And so there's a space for me that says we know this works. The Columbia research shows this works. Other states are starting to implement this because they have seen it works. And so to continue to not do it is is a disservice to our young people, to our communities. You know, if we are truly committed to public safety, we have to do what works. And what we know is that by providing these interventions outside of the criminal justice system, young people are less likely to spend a lifetime in the criminal justice system, which is, again, better for them, better for public safety, and economically better because of the cost of the imparsorative system. So if we don't want a hundred and thirty eight percent in our personal system, we've gotta do something to get people out of it. So I don't even support delaying it again. [Member Philip Baruth ]: Yeah. No. I I would say that that's roughly where I am too with the understanding that sometimes you have to compromise. And so I'm open to the idea [Chair Nader Hashim ]: of a [Member Philip Baruth ]: delay as opposed to repeal. But, frankly, for three years, they came in and told us that they were committed to the policy. They just didn't have the resources to to staff. Now they wanna repeal the policy and talk about it being you know, Jay was very unvarnished in how she described the thinking behind it. So it it sort of leads me to believe that they never really wanted to to have it become current practice and were slow walking. Now it's just openly asking for repeal. So had we had reports that showed it was not achieving its objectives or it was too expensive or it was straining the system in some way, but that's not the the report that we got. The report we we got, the comprehensive report was pre I thought it wasn't rosy, but it was what you want in a in a positive report about policy maybe passed. It it showed that we were positively affecting the system and those individuals. So like I say, I I go back to and I think this is gonna be true for expungement and sealing as well. And that is compromised probably preworked out by chairs of the committee and then brought to us to to kick around. But, you know, we've deadlocked on both of these things for years now, three years or four years. So I agree with senator Hovski. Do we do the same thing, or is there a way to jump start this policy, to jump start moving to a single track of ceiling by just taking a different approach. I I can't say what it is, but [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: I'd be really curious to hear the so we asked for some reporting on what measures we're going to take them to actually build the capacity to do this. So I'd be very interested to hear from them as well what they've done. Right. And my understanding on this particular issue is if we do nothing, we are doing something different than what we've done every other time. And so I this is very rare it come out of my mouth, but in this moment, I'm actually most supportive of doing nothing. [Member Philip Baruth ]: Because it would automatically [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Because it would automatically move it forward. And I just I I don't feel like we are negotiating in good faith to your point that we have this sort of repeated repeal return delay delay delay. Oh, repeal. And and that doesn't feel like a good faith negotiation to me. I and I generally don't like to enter into negotiations that has been proven to not necessarily be a good faith. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Senator, how many other states have the same ACH nineteen to twenty year olds with family court versus? [Member Philip Baruth ]: I'm not sure. I don't know. It's pretty large. Yeah. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: I know many states are working on it. I actually had a meeting with Bar Street around this issue and others a couple of weeks ago. And so a bunch of states have looked at the data from Vermont to say, hey. This is the thing that they we should we should move forward. There's a pilot here. [Member Christopher "Chris" Mattos ]: Yeah. Because over the years, I've always struggled with getting the argument and having to raise the age on something. Like, tobacco use, raise the age from eighteen to twenty one. Person's brain isn't developed enough. Lowering the age of voting, make the same argument. A person's brain is developed enough so that they can vote at sixteen. And I have a really hard time always raising the age, lowering the age, and always making the same exact argument for doing so. And I've seen it, you know, plenty of times over the past years that I've been here. So I really wanna understand what this including these nineteen and twenty year olds in the family court is, you know, you hear things about exploiting these nineteen, twenty year olds because they won't be tried as an adult. So that's a worry that I have. And then also just the fact that having many different agents of what we constitute as adult depends on what we're talking about, but still use the [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: same argument. One of one [Member Philip Baruth ]: of the things for me that has always pushed me in this direction is the world we live in now in terms of the Internet. So family court sealed for these you know, if they if they are on the juvenile track, their records are sealed. And if they're not, it's, you know, it's out on the Internet, and it affects the rest of their life. So that was always a piece for me that if it wouldn't overstrain the system, if it wouldn't result in you know, you hear these anecdotal stories about gangs pressuring eighteen or nineteen year olds to commit the crimes so that they will have an easier track if they get caught. I've never seen real hard data on that piece. We have seen our data on the first phase of this, which was the eighteen months. Okay. And so yeah. But but, you know, the hard reality is you have a government that wants to reveal this program, and you have an agency and an an department that are not, you know, clearly not behind it. So that's not a you know, [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: it's very [Member Philip Baruth ]: tough to force that administration to do something that they don't wanna do. So I would I would love to work out an understanding with them. If if it was a matter of resources, it was a matter of something else. But it seems now like it's a more just ideological difference, so it might be hard to get to a compromise. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: And one thing I can say is, you know, the data I don't think the data will exist because of the confidentiality that exists. But, yeah, I can just say, generally, as a practitioner myself, it is something that I see younger folks being used or exploited for some of these fences that we have on the books. So but that's just anecdotal. [Member Christopher "Chris" Mattos ]: Yeah. Do we have data on, like, what this population kind of what their encounters are with law enforcement in nineteen twenty? Do we have that data? Like I said, the population is a onesie doozies? Yeah. I'm not sure. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Perhaps we have that. I bet yeah. That I think that would be a good question for the state's attorney. Mhmm. I'd probably get that from Tim. And [Member Philip Baruth ]: just in general, we don't have big populations for anything. Right? Right. And I'm always amazed, like, when we were talking about getting rid of life without parole, we were talking about, like, AP who are, you know, incarcerated without the possibility of parole, and they all committed, you know, and were convicted of kind of the egregious offenses. But, you know, imagine if you're in California or Massachusetts, you're talking about you know? Yeah. Probably. So but I'm sure they could guess the universe kind of a breakdown by area of mind. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: And we'll all I mean, I was looking at the house committee's agenda. I mean, there's for the last month, it's been all raised to the age testimonies. I'm sure we'll be getting lots and lots of data, but it's it is good to just prep our brains for this Yeah. Set [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: of hosts. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: To answer your question, I did a quick research, and it looks like the current states that include eighteen and or nineteen year olds are Vermont, Michigan, and New York, and Connecticut, Missouri, and North Carolina are in are on the path to implementation. So they're doing what we did, which is a year by year bringing in new ages. So there are some states that are doing it or in process of doing it. And I also think they're one of the really important pieces of data to show is that people under the age of twenty five who are brought into the criminal justice system as opposed to the juvenile justice system are thirty four times more likely to recidivate than they are being treated in the juvenile justice system. [Member Christopher "Chris" Mattos ]: Now is that because they're in juvenile justice system, or is that just the the nature of the person? [Witness Adam McCrassen ]: Or I'm not sure what you mean. Or Yeah. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Well, Well, I mean, I think when you look at data like that, when you look at it at juveniles treated in the adults or young emerging adults, that is the generalized language. Emerging adults treated in the criminal justice system versus the juvenile justice system being thirty four times more likely to recidivism. It's pretty astounding data to show it's not an individual issue. It's a systemic issue. It's it's, you know, backed up by the brain science and the ability to navigate cognition and the need for those support services. [Member Philip Baruth ]: Yeah. That that report that came back, I'm just remembering. Maybe could we have the the, was it the crime? [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I think it was the crime research group that came in. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Could we have the call back? [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Or was it yeah. I mean, yeah, I mean, we'll be taking a whole lot of testimony once once the house sent us their bill. [Member Philip Baruth ]: Because I'm remembering her presentation, and she was she was very upbeat going going through the data. And, again, it's you know, data isn't always the only thing that passes a bill or prevents a bill. And and I know the public's saying sentiment is very strong, and it's easy to hear that any piece of criminal justice reform is gonna make things worse. But to senator Pawlowski's point, that report seemed to suggest we were making things better. So, you know, it's a it's an uphill political push, I think, but I'm more comfortable pushing if we go back through that data and and see what you know, to the extent we have some scientific approach to it and see what that says. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Yeah. No. And and, sir, I I absolutely respect, understand, and and agree with, you know, the concerns around public safety. I think it's really important that we do look at the data as what is working. And if I I think it was twenty seven Yeah. People were treated under this youthful offender statute in in twenty twenty four. I think that's what the judiciary's data showed, but I am trying to dig it out from a week or so ago. And it you you know, if twenty seven people are nine or thirty four times less likely to recidivate, we have made a significant impact Mhmm. In public safety. Okay. [Member Philip Baruth ]: Yeah. And some of these, the the real issue was, you know, with the administration, the last especially last year, the year before too, when I was questioning that when they were testifying, it was it was it seemed to be relatively obvious that they no longer supported the program. We're just hoping to get the delay, and that's not gonna work for anybody either. I'm kind of forced or half hearted implementation. So it's it's a little murky, but I I do believe that you and representative Veron and the work in this committee and work in that committee, we can maybe get to a a place that's less unsatisfying to everyone. So that way [Chair Nader Hashim ]: What was it Senator Sears used to say if not everybody being a little disappointed in a bill, then it means everybody's a I I can't remember the exact date. [Member Philip Baruth ]: Yeah. So you hit the sweet spot. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Yeah. Yeah. Something like that. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: I don't know if I agree with that. But Yeah. [Member Philip Baruth ]: We do we do pass things that everybody likes, but the pension deal that we came to, That's the only veto override I've ever seen that was unanimous. Like, Halsted, all three parties. There you go. You know? That was historic. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: I believe that was the only unanimous veto override in Vermont history. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: I I mean, it's hard to even imagine a subject where everybody agreed. But So you see, I did reach across the audience. [Member Philip Baruth ]: I'm good. That's what everybody says. Bob Norris, you made that happen. Oh, I [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: know I hear it all the time. So it hit my point. [Member Philip Baruth ]: Everybody's Bob Norris at home. Do they call you, Bob, Norris? Well, they don't call me like [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: a second. So listen. I wasn't here when you all passed this. Let me. Yeah. Okay. And I realized the governor was on board with it at that particular point in time. Even though he was in law enforcement, I was not. Okay. So that's the one time I was gonna go against the governor. Okay. And but I I obviously, this latest override is the right one that wasn't. But I think more importantly is is how you phrase this. Our children are are nineteen year these are young adults in my point. They know the difference between. Right? And that's that's all of us to I don't know what we hope to accomplish. No other state has implemented this. They're looking at it such as senator Holesky has said. I don't know where this data all comes from. You didn't know the state has implemented this as in yet. They're they're they're basing this up. Well, I don't know. But the governor came forward. He said, listen. I heard. I mean, basically, okay. I was my decision. I made a mistake, and the human factor comes into play there whether or not you disagree or agree with his administration. That's not something to do with this. I'm not saying that I'm not being open minded about this, but I have to be convinced just the other way that you do as to this is something that's beneficial for our constituents and those individuals because I believe we still have the ability on the youthful center youthful offender status to stay certain petitionees and doers go back to paying the court. Am I am I wrong in that respect? [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Yeah. Yeah. [Member Philip Baruth ]: You're not wrong. It just it takes a while. And to to my earlier point about people's information going out on the Internet, it gets treated differently until it isn't [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: I guess you tend to show me that the present mechanism is broken at ten o'clock. Okay. We we have the ability to send them to family court, and they're the ones dealing with them. The defense attorneys, the states attorney. They're the ones dealing with them. So I still wanna be hastily in our decision as to which direction we go in here. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I mean, there there's two points I'll say to that and then send them a little to you. You know, the the mechanism to do that Yeah. It's and one one of the things that we keep hearing about, you know, is is the backlog, the amount of work that the parents are doing. And, you know, after this last year, I can tell you that I know what you're talking about. The amount of administrative work and motions and, you know, how you move one case to another docket among the hundreds and hundreds of cases that are years old is extremely time consuming. And so and when when things become more streamlined and automated, that's extremely helpful. So that's that's one point. The other point that was brought up was about public accountability in terms of I believe it was actually was the AG's office, I think, that mentioned it, which, you know, having the public have information about who is committing what crime and what is happening with that case. I mean, you know, there's a reason that courts are public. The criminal court is public. It's just a reason that anybody can show up and watch a proceeding, whether the person is twenty years old or sixty years old. And it provides that community with the opportunity to see what's happening when it comes to how a government is choosing to hold somebody accountable or not hold them accountable based on how the case proceeds. So just two interesting points to consider. Senator Berlofsky? [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: I just wanted to, again, highlight the brain science. Yes. When someone is sitting in a room having a measured conversation without pressure in nineteen, twenty, twenty one, twenty two, someone under the age of twenty five gets perfectly capable to say this is right and this is wrong. The last part of the brain to develop is the prefrontal cortex, which deals with back cognition. So when you're under pressure, there's a lot going on. You just make a decision, and it is round because that part of the brain is not fully developed. Generally speaking, to about twenty five. And so there is a difference between sitting and having a conversation or making the decision casually to vote for someone than there is in stressful situations. That is the last part of the brain to develop. And and so that is where the brain silence really shows that, actually, no. People under the age of twenty five generally are not capable in those really stressful spaces of thinking through the consequences and long term impacts of their actions. And further that they are most receptive to rehabilitation and most influenced by trauma. And we I don't think we can argue that the carceral system can be pretty traumatic and is not rehabilitative. And so we are doing a disservice to the public safety of our community is by forcing people into a system that is more likely to make them lifetime criminals. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: Did we get I I seem to forget. Did we get an opinion or a rule from the agency's office as to [Member Philip Baruth ]: what their finance was on this the last time? [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: We will. We will. We will. I can't remember [Chair Nader Hashim ]: can't remember what it was last time, but I [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: but I I feel [Chair Nader Hashim ]: like they test the finance camera, but what their position was on that means. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: Well, listen. I mean, Bill, the senator folks need you know, she stated generally speaking of a. I think we all know where we stand on this. Like to remain open minded about it. Mhmm. But I'm not ingrained in stone here, but I guess I am to the point where you'd have to convince me that it it is beneficial. Yeah. No. That's where I am, [Member Philip Baruth ]: I guess. And that's as it should be. I mean, I mean, senator Hashim talked about taking the agency, the administration at their word. I you know, I'm happy to do that that they don't believe they have the resources, But we we asked them twice, you know, when we made the delays to say, okay. Don't have resources. How would we get them? Will the government put it in this recommend? Will you move resources internally Mhmm. To do that? So maybe back to senator Michalski's point, having them in and asking them what what have you done. If nothing else, that will tell us whether they're making good faith efforts to to get somewhere with the. But at the end of the day, it's it's it's a reality that they have staffing concerns, resource concerns. So we just Okay. We need to dig into that a little more. And it depends very much what the house is gonna do because, you know, this is the reverse of the normal situation. If we don't act, something goes into effect. And so it matters whether they're on track to produce something or Right. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Or perhaps they'll send us a perfect bill that we all agree on it. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: That would be great. That'd be your first? Yeah. I mean, so the center certainly might say he's right on pins and nails. Right? That bill's coming to [Member Philip Baruth ]: the house. Okay. But I [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: think in reference to what you were saying, you know, we talked about disservice, whatever else. Or the administration, I [Member Philip Baruth ]: don't know what to do [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: with workers. That's why I heard from from the laborers. I heard from people, professors. Put somebody, whether it's their HRs, into a program or the it would almost be a disservice, I feel, to them. In fact, they didn't have the resources to deal with that particular information. And we're concerned about that and [Member Philip Baruth ]: looks like a lot of [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Yep. Yeah. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Ceiling and expungement. Okay. Why don't we we're gonna be spending a lot of time tomorrow talking about that. But just as we get ready for tomorrow's conversation, it's gonna be a longer I mean, we're gonna be getting a lot of testing on this. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: It's gonna be one of [Chair Nader Hashim ]: our bigger bills to work on. Thoughts on what we've heard so far and how we wanna proceed potentially. Sorry. [Member Philip Baruth ]: So the piece that bothers me the most is giving access to OPR, office of professional regulation. So these people committed a crime, then they have to serve the sentence, then they have to wait a certain statutory period. And so we're talking ten, twelve years since they committed that crime. We've said that the crime fits into a category that we think should be expungible. Right? Now we're gonna if it's expungible and they get it erased completely, it can never affect their job seeking. You know what I mean? They're never gonna have an employer say, you can't get this job because you committed that crime. That's the way the law is right now. They can get it fully expunged. But if we go to a single track of ceiling and we say that the Office of Professional Regulation has access to that, along with all of these other agencies and actors where we are continuing a a situation where their employment opportunities are always gonna be effective until that additional ten years runs, and then Novak has the super seal. I mean so to me, it's just overkill to ask somebody to serve their whole sense, create a statutory period, then wait another ten years. In other words, increase the statutory period by an additional ten years, and then say, at that point, twenty five years after you committed one of these, you know, offenses that we agree should be expungible, It it just seems at that point like you're not doing what you set out to do, which is return them to a place in society where they're able to make a living and get past the mistake. Yeah. So that's I'm I'm all over the single track. It's costing us way too much money to respond, just contributing to the backlog backlog. But at the end of the day, they just larded it up with so many people who have access that you can't even call it ceiling. It's like Swiss cheese at the I I [Chair Nader Hashim ]: agree with that. I mean, I I I feel like yeah. I mean, the part of the purpose of the bill is, you know, if somebody has been on a good track for, what, ten or fifteen years, and, you know, they haven't had, you know, continual run ins and so on, that they can that they can go get that job that keeps them out of poverty, that keeps them, you on a good track in life. And and so, you know, looking at it [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: Yeah. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: With just that lens, I I don't see how that is something that, you know, is impacting public safety. I do see how prohibiting access, you know, for state's attorneys for law enforcement purposes could impact that. So that's yeah. But, I mean, that's all to say that I generally agree with that idea. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: Yeah. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: I reluctantly support a single track. You know, I generally struggle with the idea of taking things away from people that they've come to expect, but I do think that the senator Verifah, if you're a point, senator, they will scope of who can access it is way too broad. I do have still sort of significant resistance to only sealing the things that are no longer primes. Yeah. I do actually think that with the exception of the person who to consent, I do I do hear your point about the persons who was involved in that sort of state sanctioned whatever should have access to it, but I don't think anyone else [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: Yeah. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Should have access to a record for something that is no longer upright. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Yeah. I I was thinking about that the other day too. I I think that and I'm just gonna go back to that same annoying talking point that I repeat all the time, which is if government's taking action against the person, it's gotta be documented. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: And but, [Chair Nader Hashim ]: you know, if that person is the one with the records, you know, that that I think that makes sense. That's a workaround. But the actually, yeah, what did you have a follow-up? [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: I did. I wanted to be clear that that I have actually come around in my thinking to agree with you that even being the record intact is valid, but only literally the only person that can access it being the person for whom the [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Yeah. If it's no longer a crime. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: If it's no longer a [Chair Nader Hashim ]: crime. Yep. [Member Philip Baruth ]: Right. I'm not a judge. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Right. Well, [Member Philip Baruth ]: I'm just I'm just thinking [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: one of [Member Philip Baruth ]: the things we talked about originally with Senator Sears was that these things would be sealed, but people would have to go to a judge to grant access. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: In in the instance where it's no longer a crime, I don't see the I don't actually agree with anybody ever being able to have access except the person from whom the record pertains. You know? I I think there are some of the places in here where I could get on board with sealing and a judge being able to grant access in certain circumstances if that's still a crime. Yeah. But if if it's not a crime, then [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: Yeah. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: If I did the exact same thing today, there would be no records. So I just don't think that there's any valid reason that anyone should have to that except for the person who was subject. [Member Philip Baruth ]: Yeah. So that would be expunged in effect. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: In effect. Because, initially, what I had said, you know, last week was that that should absolutely be expunged, but senator Rasheem raised a point that I gave a lot of thought to and came to just decide that I agreed that that that person should have access to what they wanted. [Member Philip Baruth ]: Fair enough. So does [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: that include all the divisions who [Member Philip Baruth ]: are gathering statistics and then so on and [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: so forth also? Because you said, one, just the person who's record the system. Yeah. But we made [Chair Nader Hashim ]: it I think I think there is a way for them to still I I asked that same question, I think, a week or two ago when we when we first talked about this bill, and I don't remember the the details, but my understanding is that there's still a way for somebody like the crime research group Mhmm. To get the data without any identifying information to just say, yes. In such and such year, a dozen people were charged with this crime that is no longer advised, but they don't have any other information as to No name. There's no Yeah. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: There's a lot of decisions that have to be made on this. Basically, an expungement bill. You may find this, I think, like, the one track system here. I'm not sure as to just how many misdemeanors may or may not be included in this. But having said this, I'm still trying to wrap my head around why a patrol law enforcement officer needs to have Yeah. Access while he or she may be heading to a company. I know I'm just surprised. That is so true. I'm trying to and I'm not saying they don't. If they need to convince me that they do, I can understand judicial review. I can understand, you know, because we bank and insurance wants to get into everybody wants to get into this. I think there should be a funnel where they have to not just have to give them complete access to this. Whether it's judicial review, whether it's office refresh regulations that they go they all go through them. I don't know, but I don't think that we should open this up so that nothing many individuals can have access. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I I agree with that. I have some thoughts on it. I mean, my you know, like, if you're roadside doing a DUI, you know, you're gonna get the background put into the case, you know, seeing that somebody had an expunged petty larceny from fifteen years ago isn't gonna make a difference in that investigation, in my opinion. If you're doing a cold you know, if you're trying to resolve a cold case that's twenty or thirty years old and somehow the brand promise leads you to have a idea that there might be a charge or a conviction from twenty or thirty years prior that might have some additional helpful information, then I think one of the worst able to get the permission and explain, you know, as they do with many other things that, you know, here's why we need access to this information. And then the judge can I'm sure they know they can sit from the judge to get them. [Member Philip Baruth ]: What about the situation where I'm looking at [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: the timelines here as far as if the personnel DOIs, DO one, DOI two advanced. They're. [Member Philip Baruth ]: How much access would they would would [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: they need it in who will get paid for it? I'm looking at the years involved in this. The charge in with, like, DUI two or DUI three. Private defense. Right. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Yeah. I think I asked that question again. Yeah. How many years [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: Will be available for law enforcement. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Right. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: And then doing a a Yeah. Twenty nine c or a records check on [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I can't remember the specifics for that, but it took a lot of finagling to get to a place where it apparently made sense. I just can't remember the details off the top of my head, but that is It's a rare exception, I think. Yeah. Yeah. And I I I think also, predicate offenses generally can't be expunged except for some certain circumstances. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: I I [Chair Nader Hashim ]: don't wanna give incorrect information. I just can't remember off the top of my head. There are predicate offenses that can be expunged if you take a deferred sentence. But that has to be so the court, you know, at a sentencing, the judge can't say. But depending on what the offense is, there are certain offenses that can't be expunged in a deferred sentence. But if the state's attorney allows a certain offense, like a listed offense, for example, to be included in a deferred sentence, then it can be expunged upon the completion of the deferred sentence. So that's my understanding of it. I mean, we can we'll be having the state's attorney center tomorrow. Yeah. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: I mean, they would still have to go to simply say, well, this is gonna be a DUI tree DUI tree logs they still access to. But my question at what point does that go away? Right? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: And then [Chair Nader Hashim ]: that's a Yeah. [Member Philip Baruth ]: And that's a that's a fair fair point. I agree with senator Norris. The the other than OPR, the other piece that concerns me is the roadside stop piece. In other words, situations where somebody's quick, being quickly prejudiced against the person because they see this piece of information from ten years ago or fifteen years ago that no longer really has an impact because right now, it would be expunged. It would be invisible literally to everyone. So I just think we have to be really careful swapping that out for something that leads to a worse reality for people who committed crimes that we agree should be expungible and who have done the time that they were required to do, and then they've gone through the statutory period. It just seems super unfair to change the law now so that those people are subject in a roadside stop to having a cop quickly have access to that thing. Or they go to get a license, you know, as a as a whatever, and they get denied the license because [Chair Nader Hashim ]: senator Wilson? [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Yeah. Yeah. Your point, senator Perez, I I agree with what you're saying. And one of the things I find myself regularly counseling people on in my practice is the impacts of our own human behavior. When we expect something to go a certain way, we often act in a way that helps it to go that way. And so if you're going in with that prejudice, you you know, things can escalate, and it it's not unique to any one type of person. It's just what we do. You know? If I come into a conversation and I expect it's gonna go badly, my guard's gonna be up. I'm gonna react. I'm gonna engage in a way that is more likely to make that go badly because the person I'm engaging with is like, hey. Why are you so why are you acting that way? [Member Philip Baruth ]: Why you acting as though I'm gonna do something wrong? [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Exactly. And so I I do I I want to make sure we're looking at the the data and the science to see when that chance of recidivism drops significantly so that someone is no more a danger to society than someone who's never exhibited a crime and use that to inform that time frame. But I agree that there are just that I understand the importance, like, the the burden of the two track system, but I don't want people to to lose the protection of exclamation in in terms of both public safety and administrative. [Member Philip Baruth ]: And, you know, to go back to things that automatically happen if we do nothing, similar instance here, this has crashed and burned three times. And in my opinion, it's because the administration has sought such broad access. Senator Sears tried to reach compromise with them and couldn't. And then they crash and burn, and they're left with an expunged burn, which is a hundred percent of what they don't want. So I've I've been a little amused at the administration's inability to see if they don't meet our concerns, we'll leave expungement in place, which is costing, you know, huge amounts of money to the system and time to the system resources. So we're we're saying we wanna meet you halfway, but, you know, the access for OVR, the access for DCF, the access for roadside stops, you know, that's what's hanging us up. If they would move off of that, I think pretty quickly, we'd hit a place where we could all agree. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Yeah. Yeah. The the OPR stuff, it it doesn't make sense to me as to why we need them. You know, why somebody's trying to get a job fifteen years later. Right. You know, the the other piece I wanted to also mention that you touched on briefly regarding the workload that this imposes on court staff to actually go through this and literally delete everything and, you know, go change record. It takes a lot of time. And, you know, based on what we've heard plenty of times without the backlog, I I feel like doing what we can to reduce the administrative workload in such a way that it doesn't weaken the the efficiency or, you know, the the proper correct completion of the work. I think that's an important thing to look at as well. You know? And and and also on the other hand, you know, when we're talking about giving this giving opportunity to the state's attorney to, know, access records for legitimate law enforcement purposes, whether it's to resolve a major, you know, violent felony or a court case. You know, there's also the defense side of things, which I I think I mentioned this already, but one of the things that I heard the most about from defense attorneys is that this the current system that we have needs to be changed because it's extremely problematic for a variety of reasons. You know, for example, when I started off, you know, I was I was trying to figure out, you know, how to access different motions and different cases in the past, see, alright. You know, what what works? Where is you know, what re what legal research can I do to figure out how to help my client here? And Yeah. There was there were so many times where I couldn't find anything. And then I'd reach out to other attorneys and say, hey. I heard you worked on a case, you know, however many number of years ago. Can I get your old motion to figure out, you know, how to do mine? It's they would say it's it's expunged. You're not gonna get them. And so that's a little frustrating, but, you know, that's a that's a smaller nuance and a bunch of bigger picture. You know, there's other pieces as to, you know, defendants realizing ten or fifteen years later that perhaps they had ineffective counsel. You know, their defense attorney just Yeah. Wasn't doing the right job, and they realized that they had a material impact because of that negative material impact. There could be instances where they realized ten or fifteen years later, the prosecutor was corrupt or that law enforcement mishandled their case. And they could be excuse me. And they could be seeking that information about their old case. Just try to I'm losing that noise here, so I'll just pass it to Sarah. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Well, so I wanna respond to that. So this is sort of, I think, some of the conversation I know I've had both when I was in the house and in the senate last year around switching for ease of workload, say, to a one track system, but a system that would provide what I think you previously called, like, sort of, deductive expungement. It would not provide access to anyone except the defendants. Because I think in all the instances you name, if if the person who was charged with a crime still had access, they could give it to their attorney. They could access it and say, oh, hey. I want to bring this forward because I had an effective counsel or prosecutorial misconduct. And so, you know, the the sort of space that that I sit in is moving to a one track system for the workload's sake makes sense. But anything that is expungable now should be under that same protection that that the person who has access is the person whom the record belongs, and then it it creates the same benefits and protections as the expungement system while building the workload ease of a one track system. Like, I'm worried about switching to a a a one track system under the idea that it's easier, but it's also actually taking away I don't know. That privacy and protection. I [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: mean, what if [Chair Nader Hashim ]: the only people who can access defenses that are currently expungeable and if, hypothetically, we're we're to move into this one track ceiling system, if the only people who can access it are state's attorneys for legitimate law enforcement purposes or defense attorneys, I'd have to figure out how to word why they would wanna access it. What negative impact could that have on the on the dependability? [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: So I guess the space that I'm standing now is today, if I have an expungible in advance and I get that expunge, it's gone. If we're moving to a one track system and the reason we're stating that we're doing that is to streamline the workload, I should not now suddenly have more people have access to the record that today will be completely gone. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I don't think I think streamlining the workload is one piece of it, one of multiple pieces, at least in my opinion. It's one of multiple pieces. I think there are other aspects to it as well, some of which have already been outlined. [Member Philip Baruth ]: And I I see what you're saying about someone having access to their own records and being the only person, but it would be an odd situation, I think, if the state were in the business of preserving records that judges couldn't order access to. Because maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like judges always have the ability, you know, if if law enforcement came to them and said, we think there's a sealed record. There's a, you know, danger to this individual. We need to get into that. It seems like the judge could then order access to the record, or am I wrong about that? [Chair Nader Hashim ]: That, I don't know off the top of my head. [Member Philip Baruth ]: I mean, I guess if you if you bound the judiciary, you you suddenly know when you can get into it. Personally, I I like thinking of it the opposite that, you know, originally, senator Sears was pursuing a compromise where a judge would control access, and people had to make an argument to the judge that they needed access. So state's attorney had to make a motion to the judge. I like that, but I can go as far as saying state's attorneys and defense attorneys can have access to it and a judge can have access to it. Yeah. But for me, that's that would be where it would stop. Yep. And, like, Bob, I'd have to be convinced that anybody else needs it and that their need overrules what they're giving up when they give up an expungement receipt. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I think on following that and this is a very specific circumstance, I think. But, you know, in the instance that we're talking about somebody realizes ten or fifteen years later that they were prosecuted by a corrupt prosecutor or their defense counsel was ineffective, their new attorney down the road would want to have access to all the other cases that that prosecutor may or may not have prosecuted it properly or all the other cases that the police officer didn't investigate properly or all the other cases that the prior defense attorney just I [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: think that's didn't [Chair Nader Hashim ]: do the work on, which resulted in other people being, you know, unjustly sentenced. So Thanks. Senator Boseman. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Yeah. No. I'm I'm appreciating the the challenge to sort of my my thought that yeah. I'm not totally connected, and I see your point. And, you know, as you started down that path, I I still felt like the person having that to do it with the picture with the with that broader picture. Like, I can think this is worth conversation about where it makes sense, but I do think it's a just we the individual who currently would have expungement is not voluntarily giving up expungement. We would be forcing them to, and so I wanna be really careful about how much they lose in that process. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Wait. Say the last sentence again. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: So senator Bharith had had said, you know, we would wanna be careful about you know, to think about what what a person is giving up with a with giving up expungement. They're not deciding as an individual. Like, oh, it's fine. I don't want it. We are deciding for them. And so I think we have an an obligation to be really careful about how we thread that as we take away a protection people currently have. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: I just had a question for you. Yeah. Defense attorneys and state's attorneys now. If the state's attorney has access to the records, they have to go back to discovery. So I think they have is the real defense attorneys. Right? But but if that's attorney goes in and said, I want access to this case, do they have the same obligation to give that information to the state's attorney? [Chair Nader Hashim ]: For a sealed case? [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: For a sealed case. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I'm just trying to get back [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: to the case case of okay. Upon request with defense attorney to a state's attorney Mhmm. They can ask for access to [Chair Nader Hashim ]: a sealed record, and then the court decides to give them that. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: But The state's attorney has it, and [Chair Nader Hashim ]: the defense attorney has it because discovery provision placed it. I believe so. I think the issue the issue is with expungement where where the record doesn't exist anymore and the defense attorney in doing their job goes to the state's attorney and they say, hey. I wanna get the discovery from this old case that this officer investigated because I think there's a pattern of dishonesty or a pattern of misconduct. Not trying to throw oh, So but then the state's attorney will say, that record doesn't exist. And the defense attorney will say, well, I'm pretty sure it does because, you know, I'm representing this person, and I've been looking at all the other cases that have been, you know, interconnected with it. And, you know, here's the docket number. And, you know, the state's attorney still has to say no such record exists. Yeah. That is correct. All because it's been exposched. We're trying [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: to get away from that process at the start of the week. [Member Philip Baruth ]: Keep slow records, actually. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: Is that something that VCIC keeps, or is it? It Yep. That's I [Chair Nader Hashim ]: think in part, VCIC and then in part, the court The court itself. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: Not state's attorney's office, but the court. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I believe so. I I the state's attorney will keep records. I mean, this you know, I don't wanna speak for particular stakeholders. I know that they'll be tested by them tomorrow, but, I mean, they keep certain records as well. The specifics of it, I don't know off the top of that. Yeah. [Member Christopher "Chris" Mattos ]: Sorry. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: I have two questions. One of them is for you, and I think you'll know the answer. And one it's kind of a broader philosophical question. And so in an instance like you're describing where we've moved to a one track system, the defense attorney requests records because they believe there was cross border misconduct. Assuming like, that's there's an assumption sort of that there would be something to be done and a case might be brought against that prosecutor, at which point they become the defendant and all those records are available in discovery. Yes? [Member Philip Baruth ]: But tell [Chair Nader Hashim ]: me if it would more so I mean, in this hypothetical, it wouldn't I guess it would depend [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Okay. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: On what the prosecutor actually did. And if the person is suing the state or if it was so bad that they get through the immunity and can go personally after the prosecutor. Correct. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: Okay. I [Chair Nader Hashim ]: do know the answer. It it depends. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Of course it is. That's it. The law is often about as clear as mud. My other question. So currently, if you've had a record expunged and you are stopped at traffic stop, you could and they ask you, you know, do you have a criminal record? You can say no. The same is true and employer who are asked. Do you have a criminal record? They can say no. If we move to a ceiling system and a bunch of different people have access, who does the person have to say yes to versus no to? Is it that you can say yes to an employer, but if you get pulled over, you have to know that you have to say yes. Did you have a criminal? Do you see that in the future that that actually [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: the same way well, go ahead. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I think that when you get to the superceiling phase where it's just the state's attorney, just the defender can have access to it, then I think that you should be allowed to say no. I have no criminal record without any repercussions. That's after a certain timeline. But I think we have to figure out what you know, who has access to what during that non superceiling period, which is what I think the prior ten years. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: Yeah. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: It just seems to me that it would create an incredible amount of confusion if you have to tell an individual, well, these people, you can tell that you don't have a criminal record, and these people, you have to tell you do have a criminal record. And in these circumstances, do you see what it's like the the confusion that creates? You know, I certainly know of at least one individual who had a record expunged, but it hadn't properly been expunged. Got pulled over and said, nope. Don't have a criminal record. And the police officer replied back, are you sure about that? And they had to call their defense attorney and say they shouldn't have access to this record. What's going on? Yeah. And so I just I worry about the confusion for a layperson that this sort of multi like, we've taken away the multitrack system behind the scenes, but created one for someone who now has much less ability and understanding to navigate by a new one. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I mean, when I look at the multitrack system we have now and I'm trying to explain expungement ceiling to people, honestly, there are moments I get confused, and I have to say, hold on. I need to double check a few things here because of how complicated it is. I think that there could be a way of making it at least more clear than it is now that, you know, the ten years after this gets sealed, a couple of entities will may have access to it depending on what the offense is. After ten years, beyond that, the only person who can access it is your lawyer or the state if there's a legitimate law enforcement reason. And you have to have a good cause for you and go to a judge and say, here's why. We think there's evidence of a cold case or there's evidence that this is part of a massive, you know, criminal conspiracy or a criminal organization, and, you know, there's evidence in there. That's my thought. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Yeah. I just wanna make that a word on creating additional confusion by sort of telling someone, sometimes you can say this, and sometimes you can't. Mhmm. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: I think that once you have filed and your record has been sealed, you are under no obligation if someone says you haven't. That's what they have sealed the record for. I mean, [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I'm I'm all in support of that. If [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: Well, then you should review us first. But, I mean, as me as an option, you have to do it. But you can't eliminate the note. Okay? The press. Common knowledge from people talking. You can't you can't eliminate that. So it can't be there, but I don't think you're any under any obligation because you're referencing. Mhmm. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I would agree with that. Lawyers. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: All these people who are employers, whatever else. We don't have to give it to anybody else, and they they don't have access to it. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Unless there's a reason We don't wanna do the super sealing and just gotta be super sealing from the start. Yeah. I'm certainly not opposed to that. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: I can certainly get on board with that, I think. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: I would wanna listen to that. Yeah. Coming from my look. Yeah. I'd wanna listen to that. Okay. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: And I have a because [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: I'm I'm right off the bat, I I don't really understand the supersede process here. Okay. That's just in the way that I don't know where you're at. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I think that that was something that we talked about last year as one potential solution where, you know, there's ceiling, just regular ceiling for a certain number of years, and I think part of it was, you know, law enforcement on the roadside could access it. Employers potential employers could access it for a certain number of years. But then after that certain number of years, it goes to superceiling, which is the closest the next closest name to it's responding. So I'm not opposed to just having it be superceiling from the beginning and just calling it ceiling or something. Whatever we're we're gonna pick the name later. Yeah. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: I don't wanna hear from all parties as you know what process work on that. I'm sure it'll be varying comments. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Senator Madhouse, how do [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: you or [Chair Nader Hashim ]: is it taking all that? [Member Christopher "Chris" Mattos ]: No. Senator Mihozi made my point from [Chair Nader Hashim ]: the other day about my biggest thing was, who do you what do you say to [Member Christopher "Chris" Mattos ]: To who? Yeah. What do you say to who? You know, you have an officer at your window or you're gonna run-in with an officer. You can say one thing, but [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: if you're talking to your employer, [Member Christopher "Chris" Mattos ]: you can say another thing. That that was something [Chair Nader Hashim ]: that I was struggling to wrap my head around [Member Christopher "Chris" Mattos ]: because it wouldn't if we make it easier behind the scenes, but then it makes it harder [Chair Nader Hashim ]: for the actual person that's records get sealed. I don't think we're really doing anything to help the public. Yeah. I I think, I mean, one potential solution is, you know, also putting in statute that, you know, if your record is sealed and ten years later, you get pulled over and you say, no. I don't have a record. That statement itself, it's not going to make you liable for false information to the police. Or if you're testifying, you know, you're not going to be hit with the perjury charge. So, I mean, I think those are some potential workarounds to it. Yeah. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: But I send a book you were saying. [Member Philip Baruth ]: You know? Well, unfortunately, a lot of [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: the times that says, the animal criminal market. And he has come he should have knowledge of this. Why are you asking to begin with to place yourself in a position where you would purge yourself by denying this? With that, I don't agree with that. I mean, if the person has knowledge of the. Two years ago, I know that they have. Why am I asking you this? Good question. I mean Plus, they have to. Like, you were insinuating. Okay? [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: But Well, I I this is a, you know, personal not my own experience, but someone I know that had this exact experience. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: And Unless this [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Good question. I I also wonder why they were being asked that given that that had been expunged and they had been pretty [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: then why you ask me. [Witness Adam McCrassen ]: I I agree. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: Yeah. I can see a situation where somebody's asked, you know, you have a criminal record. They say no. And they ask, well, have you ever been arrested? They say yes. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: I don't know. Answering I think. Who's gonna ask that in a different sense? [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: What happens? [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: I mean, [Chair Nader Hashim ]: you Or or they could say, have you ever been arrested? Yes. Okay. What what have you been charged or convicted with? Nothing at all. It's I don't know what you're talking about. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: What the point is, [Chair Nader Hashim ]: if they had knowledge of this, you know, [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: why they ask you? That was my point. I was joking. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: Yes. I I yes. I agree. [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: And there may be an explanation for it. I don't know what it is. [Member Tanya Vyhovsky ]: In this particular instance, it was a nineteen year old who was scared and nervous and didn't know couldn't make this the Mhmm. Logical decisions in the moment, and that is why they were talking and answering questions. So, yeah, you're right. They shouldn't have fenced. Alright. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I think we can wrap up here in a second. Any parting thoughts, closing comments? [Vice Chair Robert Norris ]: I'm sure it's gonna be a very difficult road, but I'm sure it's usual. This committee will come to some form of a compromise, a bit, bad, or indifferent with best engine departments. [Chair Nader Hashim ]: I agree. And, knock on wood, I think I think we actually might be able to come to a reasonable solution for, sealing and expungement at least. Then this is the workload, accomplishes the goal of the actual, you know, idea of sealing. And

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of Senate Judiciary - 2025-01-29 - 10:05 AM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: