Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Committee this Tuesday afternoon, January third. And we are gonna get to h five six six, but first, we're gonna get a rundown and overview of the 2025 domestic violence fatality review commission report. And we'll ask Will Ferrell if you could join us. Correct, Commission. Right, I have the wrong one. It's apologize.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: The correct one is I'll

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: print it.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Okay. Makes so much more

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: That would be my fault, but Nate's fine. I wouldn't think I was like, I apologize, but if you could join us inside. Is

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it online as well?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yes, the correct one is online. All the guidelines that

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: we'll send to you are for today. Alright, so is online, we at least can get started and we will have this print off. Sorry about that. And if you could identify yourself for the record and proceed. Thanks for being here.

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Good afternoon. My name is Willow Farrell. I work at the attorney general's office in the community justice unit, First Division, Prefile Services Director. Thank you for the opportunity to come and speak to you about our annual report, we submit every December and provides a brief overview of the services that we fund. All of the services are statutorily based. But before I get into that, I really just wanted to speak a little bit more to the people who do the work. So there are about 80 people who are supported through the grants that we provide. When I look at budgets, it's more like 50 f full time equivalent. People obviously have different jobs that get matched up with different funding or might work part time. But they're one of the more committed group of people I know who are really passionate about their work, passionate about restorative justice, often going the extra mile in terms of supporting victims, finding that balance of support and accountability for people who commit crime. Although court diversion and pre charge diversion are, I think often viewed as alternatives and they are outside the standard criminal legal system, they are definitely key components and essential to the operation of the legal criminal justice system in Vermont. And every year we do visits at three organizations. We fund organizations and we call these our quality assurance visits. And as part of that process, I ask state's attorneys, the local defense bar, judge, law enforcement, other folks in the community for feedback. And I just happened to get some comments for an organization and visiting later this month, and I didn't get anyone's permission, so I'm not going to attribute them, but I just wanted to give a couple highlights. So a state's attorney wrote about how responsive this organization is to the needs of our community and to holding offenders accountable. We get such positive feedback from victims after completion of the restorative process. And then his next paragraph, he spoke about the timeliness of the work, which I thought was particularly relevant given many discussions these days. The office also works in a very timely manner in each step, timely information provided to all parties to keep us updated, Persons that do not engage are returned in a timely manner. That's all really speaking around the court diversion process. And then pretrial services, which is not a restorative justice program, but a way of helping people defendants get access to services as they're going through their court case. This prosecutor wrote, The services are amazing. The organization is able to keep track of people and keep them engaged in cases I would not have thought possible. Such a help in resolving cases. So I wanted to just highlight to hear from other some direct stakeholders about how these services are valued. There's a lot of details on this report primarily about numbers. I thought I might touch on each of our components we found and just draw out a single point and then sort of leave it for questions. Program I want to highlight is precharge diversion because that is new and was really, I think, an outgrowth of this committee's work. And as of last year, July 1 was the first year that pre charged diversion fell under the umbrella of the attorney general's office. So you won't see any data in our most recent report because it was issued a few months into our starting with pre charge diversion. The legislature also added a position to our office at the September. I had a colleague join me, Kelly Arsenault, who is sitting next to Kim McManus over in Hornet Air. Kelly came to the AG's office with ten years at the Burlington Community Justice Center. She also has worked at the Franklin Grand Isle Restorative Justice Center and the Brattleboro, what was then the Brattleboro CJC. So she has a real depth of experience doing restorative justice practices, but I not but, and she has an experience of systems thinking. She supervised a team of five in Burlington. And I would say I've never known anyone hit the ground so quickly. Last month, January, Kelly visited the last of the sites around the state and the themes that she has brought back are both about the system as whole as well as about what the work of our office can be. And so some of the highlights I really wanted to draw out were how precharges value for being swift. The swift response is really the common theme that people speak about. Really the need of our office and in partnership with providers to help provide standard forms and information and training to law enforcement to explain these new services. There is a strong desire to really uplift the work with victims, and that is a key component that was really strengthened, I think, in Act 180, and so we're hearing the same thing from community providers. Kelly and I and Anne, who works in our office, also have a goal of updated manuals by July 1. We're doing that in partnership with all the community providers, as well as the Centre for Crime Victim Services, the state's attorneys and public defenders, and also the Office of Racial Equity. We are launching a new sort of training statewide meeting flow starting next July and working on new visuals and documents that can be used in different settings to explain the full array of the services that are pre adjudication and supported by the AGO. There's

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: a lot

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: of work, but it is also very energizing when you have somebody who has new experience. So I would just say for me personally, it has been a little shift in our office. And I think also from what I hear from community providers, really nice, really very nice affirmations of Kelly's approach, style, and knowledge. So stay tuned, next year's report will have a lot more about precharge. A few points I highlighted to just note around postcharge diversion, And I really, this is I wanted to, I don't have the actual words, but Jen Pullman from the Center for Crime Victim Services has really made this point in meetings is that often the crimes that people might call low level do not feel low level to a victim and that the work and support that community providers can give, and it may be they can't resolve, the victim may remain, have their restitution paid, but there's a certain restoration of trust. All of those sort of more emotional needs can can be met to a certain degree by someone who's willing to to listen to you, and that is a huge piece of the support that people provide. An interesting aspect about post charge court diversion is the number of cases that come to us for the crime of driving with license suspended. So about 20% of the charges that end up in court diversion in criminal division or DLS. So it's a phony problem. And those cases often stay in diversion a long time because people are putting aside money to pay for IDLP or a fine out of state in order to be able to get their license reinstated. But the work that diversion staff do is invaluable in helping people navigate the system, it is not necessarily a simple process. And also to help people do budgeting strategize which of these requirements does it make sense for me to satisfy first. Pre trial services, I want to make the distinction, this is separate from pretrial supervision. Pretrial services is initiated when a judge issues a court order asking the individual to a defendant to engage with pretrial services staff, and it might be to get a screening or a clinical assessment for substance misuse or mental health. Pretrial services staff also work with people to remind them of their court hearings, connect them with community resources. Often it's like the recovery center or other maybe less clinical, but equally valuable support services for people as they're going through their court process. Recently, the issues that pretrial service coordinators and helping people deal with around health and economic needs, I think are really have been highlighted through the judiciary's workshops they've been holding around the Sequential Intercept Model and also the governor's PSEP, public safety enhancement team. I think the t is a different letter, which is has led to these situation tables in different cities primarily or larger communities in the state. And it has been, I think, interesting reflection of not overlapping, but interlocking efforts to find the best way to get resources to people and get people connected to the supports they need at the same time as they're being held accountable for the crime they've committed, or many cases alleged. Finally, the Youth Substance Awareness Safety Program, this is a civil violation program. So these are youth under the age of 21 who are referred by law enforcement for possession of alcohol or cannabis, and as of last year, as of July 1, also point zero two violations, which is when a person 21 drives with blood alcohol content above point zero two, but lower than 0.08. We hit the ground on July 1. And so it's been a little rocky in terms of everybody, meaning law enforcement, the judicial bureau, and our grantees knowing, well, what is this new law? How does it work? How does it play out? Have developed curriculum may be a strong word, but a solid framework for how staff work with youth referred for this violation that includes the screening process that we've always done, but also an additional educational component. You've developed a new driving plan because they are under suspension when they come into the program. We have these workshops that talk about the consequences, both to that individual as well as the other society for what driving under the influence. And then youth develop what we're calling a sober driving plan. So for when they are reinstated and eligible to drive again, how will they drive sober? It feels like a feedback, and we're asking staff to ask participants, what do you think about this? And we're getting some useful feedback. That video was too juvenile for me. I'm 20, and that's really geared for a 16 year old, that sort of feedback. So it's a work in progress, but staff are giving good feedback. There are, I think, chair LaLonde knows, some areas of the law that we would like to suggest some changes to regarding the process by which people can contest the suspension, which goes into effect as the law is written now eleven days from the date of the incident. And the way the law was passed last year. For these violations, people have to go through the rule 75 process. So we have some suggestions, and we'll be sending language to the committee soon for your consideration. And then there were a few other more housekeeping related issues, which I won't go into at this point. The final piece I would like to highlight around our work is data. We're increasingly collecting more data. We're working with crime research group. Monica Weaver and Robin Joy added to their existing federal annual grant, working with us to look at our data, what data points we collect, how do we use those to develop meaningful outcomes, and how do we report those? It's pretty intense work because we're trying to be both realistic about what can we be held accountable for, what data can we collect, is it really a data point we need, are we going to use it so that the staff really aren't are spending more time doing work than entering data into a pretty old clunky system? Our goal at this point is July 1 to make some changes. So, the data we report next January, next December won't necessarily include changes, but we might highlight what we're doing in that report so you can see in subsequent reports. Those were the highlights that I wanted to bring to your attention regarding the report. We tried to keep it brief so that given all the reports and documents you receive, you might feel enticed to read it. I'm happy to answer any questions either about the report or information I've shared or anything regarding the work our grantees do, which maybe I should know. There are 12 grantees that provide the full array of services. And this year, there are also an additional four other providers who are just doing precharge diversion in this fiscal year. And in Chittenden County, we're working towards having just one provider for that county.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Angela Arsenault.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Thank you so much, Willette. And I think my question is probably most relevant for the Chittenden County suggestion. I was just wondering

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: if you could

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: characterize the phase.

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: What phase are we in in

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: this transition? Or what's been done and what's left to do? Certainly. So starting in July, we've been having monthly meetings with different configurations of stakeholders, for lack of a better word, within Chittenden County. Those meetings have included town managers as well as CJC staff and either the police chief or a deputy police chief, sometimes both players. We've been in the most immediate sort of stage because of data collection reasons. All of the CJCs include their data in a common Excel spreadsheet, and then the Burlington Community Justice Center enters that into our system. And that is useful not just for data collection purposes, but also for case coordination. And sometimes people are involved in more than one program or sometimes there's another incident that happens, and so that communication happens. But from the beginning of this fiscal year, the conversation has been about the transition because everyone has known that in FY 2027, the AGO will only be funding the Burlington Community Justice Center, which is the current provider for the other array of services. So there have been surveys sent to volunteers and staff. There are two upcoming listening sessions that you may well know of, and there's discussions about a new name. There's discussions about shared governance. What would a new advisory board look like, be composed of? How will information be relayed back out to the municipalities? How will staffing be configured such that there retains a presence in the all the communities where there is one now? And this is, I think, relevant, but not specific to precharged version, but because of other funding changes separate from the attorney general's office, there are not necessarily funds to do some of the other work that can those three community justice centers have been doing, and there are discussions that I I'm part of, but are not privy in terms that it's not directly related to the AGO, but about how might the Burlington CJC provide this service that the other another municipality was provided. So there's the discussions that are happening really are much broader than just about precharge diversion. Oh, as you can imagine, they're challenging conversations as, you know, change of staffing in coming up and it's not necessarily easy for people and change is hard. And I think there's increasingly just a recognition, like, of the value of having these services under one umbrella and that everybody is here to make sure it works for all the players, like for victims, holding people accountable, for law enforcement. And it it has felt, it feels like productive and positive discussions overall in that perspective. Great.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And I think a part of, if I remember correctly, a part of age six forty five. Yeah. 80. At 20. Don't know if this stayed in there. I could just there was that part about the wider conversation and about trying to figure out how services outside of free charge diversions could continue to be provided in those communities potentially with those, perhaps, funding from the municipalities or what have you. So it sounds like that those conversations are ongoing.

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: They are. Yes. Yes. Because most of the community justice centers have municipal funding supporting them to some degree to do other services. So I think those are the local conversations happening. It's like, if we have these resources, where do we what's most important and what do we wanna be funding?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Thank you, mister vice chair.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Found any of you.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: How many actual pre charged counties are have pre charged up and running?

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: We did not fund two counties this year, Rutland and Orleans. So the pre charge that was happening there is only youth pre charge under their DCF funding, so not a lot. All the other counties who see funding from our office do either continue its pre charge that is already happening or to start, and I could get you the actual list, but about half of the counties had enough pre charge that they already had identified staff and systems in place, and then so that leaves these are really, like, four or five counties where it was really starting from scratch, and that those their hack is happening. It's starting. All the state's attorneys have policies and spoken with their there's conversations locally about how this is rolling out, but it is varied the level of amount, if you will. Of recharge.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: And how many or not how many, how is engagement most effective, where are they coming from, how they hear about it?

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Really just law, I mean, well, I should say in some counties it's the state's attorney who reviews a law enforcement officer will send a case to the state's attorney's office and may recommend precharge or may not, and the state's attorney that is making that referral pre charged, not filing the charge. In other counties, for example, Chittenden County, where it's the most pre charged in the state, it is law enforcement officers who are sending the referral directly to the Community Justice Center.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: We've Bypassing the state's attorney?

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yes. Under the state's attorney's policy. Oh. So each state's attorney has indicated whether they wish law enforcement to send those directly to the provider or whether they wish that to come to their office for the state's attorney to make the decision, whether it goes pre, post charge or prosecution.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Is that because they have their hands full with the burglary stuff too or something?

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I think it's probably a multitude of reasons for their policies.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: My only question, actually two questions. One, am I doing pre charged diversion when something is Okay, this should go to diversion, file it with the corp, and then show I have an arraignment, and my great diversion guys are around the corner. Defendant says, yeah, I'll take diversion, and we never actually do the arraignment. Is that still is that considered precharge, or is that still?

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: That's post charge.

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yes.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: This is partially because I wasn't here when we did all of this, so I don't quite understand this.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Give you a tutorial.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah. Okay, that was my one question.

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Actually, if I may interrupt, we have a new vision in the draft stage. So if you'd like to give us some feedback, we would love to.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yes. So that was my one. That's very helpful. And then the other one was just 20% of just pre charged diversion?

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Post charged. Oh, post charged diversion, yeah,

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: are DLSs. Is it an effective way to resolve those cases, given how many? Because I imagine some of those are DLS second, subsequent, three, four.

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Instructed is an interesting word. I would say it's more effective than somebody being convicted and given the fine,

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: which

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: is probably the outcome, the alternative. I do frankly worry about the consumption of diversion resources, and yet, and I talk to staffs like, oh, you've had the case open so long. Should be moving cases quickly through diversion. And people legitimately, and I have to agree with them, it's like, well, if I can help keep this person on a payment plan and they can pay off the thousand dollars they owe Massachusetts and then they're eligible to get their license back, that's a good outcome. And I have to say, yes, it is. It's, know, my druthers is people weren't charged with crime, but that is the reality. And so it's it's affected to the degree that a person has enough resources and enough and few enough crises in their life that they can stick to a plan to for the most part, it's saving money Yeah. So that they can pay the IDRP fee or pay off another state fine because this committee has done and the chair LaLonde really has led a lot of that work to really limit how much this is, you know, people get inundated with fines and how to make it, to make it possible for people to keep driving legally. That wasn't the best expression of what I'm trying to say. No,

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I totally get it. Yeah. No, that's helpful, thank you.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: That number increased The percent?

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I'd have to look. It's probably comparable. I mean, it it's def

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: At some point, it increased.

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yes. I I I'll look it up.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Do you think that's in part by the way we handle our traffic justice system up until you become criminally suspended?

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Meaning that you have three civil before you get criminal?

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Well, you

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: have civil tickets, but you also have It's not as strict as it used to be. We removed suspensions for paid paid fines and all sorts of other things. There's less risk when going out on the road to

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Put your license in jeopardy, so to speak, and then all of a sudden you're

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yeah. I I don't know the answer. I think because I've seen diversion work with DLS, people charged with DLS for eighteen, nineteen years now. My sense is it hasn't been a big like, think the reality is people drive, they lose their license, and they keep driving, Mhmm. You know, regardless. I don't think most people know what the penalties are Gotcha.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Till they receive one. Right. So do you anticipate that we're gonna expand to Rutland in Northeast? Year? I've already informed the program directors in those two counties that we will be funding at least a half probably a halftime position in those counties. Not all counties receive funding for full time based on various factors. But yes, they will be receiving funding and they know that.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: And can I anticipate that this equivalent data that you're gonna be having as far as the number of or precharge referrals and success rate and those kind of things?

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yes. And we're also adding data by crime type, gross referrals by crime type. And this, we're also with precharge diversion. I don't think we put it in the report, but we could if people wanted do it by law enforcement agencies so that we can send that to each law enforcement agency so they can see the number of cases stemming from their agency and what was the outcome. I mean, they'll get those individual notices of successful completion or not, but it would be a way for them, work with the police chief also, to see that aggregate data. We've Makes sense,

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I would think.

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: We've already shared that with police chiefs in Chittenden and Kathy, and got some feedback about how to change what we report.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Okay, great, great, great. Angela?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I have a thought on that same vein. Looking at page five of the report, the referrals by race for court diversion free trial services, Would it be possible in future reports to add a column that shows the total cases, I mean, eligible cases? I'd be curious to know what I think referrals column is just the straight number of referrals, and the percent of total is the percent of the total of referrals. Yes, correct. So I'd be curious to know what percentage of the total eligible cases or offenses are being sent to court diversion or pretrial services, sort

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: of thing? So the challenges there is we don't have those data. We don't know, well, how do you define the eligible? That varies by county's policy, and it's also, I think any state's attorney would say, and it does, it depends on the individual. So like, take this charge is not always equated to this charge. So it's hard to like have a definition of eligibility. Plus those are data that would be held either by the court or for post charge, and they don't necessarily have race data, or I think those race data are law enforcement based and we do it based on reporting. So there's, from a researcher perspective, I don't think we have the, well, don't have the data and I don't think we have the sophistication to know how to present it in a way that would be meaningful. And even the data we do submit, I call it a bit of fruit salad because I'm using some court data and then I'm using some of our data.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Because

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: we've done it for years and things stay about the same, I feel like there's legitimacy there, but it is not And that's why you see a number of data caveats in the report.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Right. I read the data caveats. I didn't see this answered in there. But do you know for the pretrial services, just looking at the difference, the numbers by county, it makes me wonder how much these numbers depend upon the availability of services, or

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: is it pretty relatively equivalent throughout the state? I would say it's relatively The availability is equivalent in that each county has somebody assigned to do pretrial services, and they are in courtroom during arraignment. So whether somebody is issued a pretrial service order depends on a number of factors. Sometimes prosecutors recommend them. Sometimes judges do it based on a recommendation. Sometimes judges do it based on their own, like, a recommendation. I do think probably there's local variation based on oh, it's a new court. You know, somebody new being hired. Somebody may wait a bit to get a sense. Is this person as good as the last person before I start to notice? I I mean, I feel like I'm just adding to the caveats, but there is so much human variability in this work that I believe the data are important and can tell us things, but they're also,

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: you know, their limits.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Well, thank you very much. So we're gonna move you off for a moment and have a walk through of five sixty six, and then we'll bring you back to testify on that. But thank you for the updates and the overview of the report. Appreciate it.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: We're getting that bill passed out right now. Thank you for being here, Michelle. Nice to

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Thanks see

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for inviting me in. For the record, Childs, Office of Legislative Counsel, and we're taking a look at H. Five sixty six related to ceiling post charge court diversion records upon successful completion. And I'm going to do my little caveat, which is that I don't think I've worked on diversion for more than a decade because that falls into our third judiciary portfolio. So I'm kind of pinch hitting now where we're getting Hillary up to speed on things.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: You are an expungement expert, though. Sadly guess I am.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I can discuss that. And I'm so grateful that you just heard from Willa. And so there's a

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: lot of things that I probably won't have to

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: go over, which is the differences between pre and post charge diversion. So this bill is only dealing with post charge diversion records, so not the pre charge. So there's no changes to that. So you remember with the pre charge, because the post charge means that there's been a charge filed and there's been probable cause found by the court for those cases. When you're talking pre charge, that's something that can be done by the law enforcement officer or the prosecutor, but it's not yet gone to the court. So it's an earlier stage. And so for those, we're not talking about those records. There's an existing provision and the provisions are the same in both the juvenile and the adult diversion programs in terms of what they do is that on a couple of years after successful completion, those records that were held by the law enforcement agency, by the state's attorney, and then the attorney general, those are deleted. And that's the term. So they're gone as if they never existed. Remember, it's never filed. So if there's a successful completion. But with the post charge, there has been a determination of probable cause. And so with that, there's this record in the court with the attorney general's office, with the state's attorney's office. Law enforcement will have some records. And under the current law, there is a process that says that those records upon successful completion, like within two years after successful completion, that those records are expunged. And this committee knows that there's a big difference between sealing a record and expunging a record. Exposing a record means it's gone, can't access it under any circumstances. But what you did with the sealing bill last year is you changed the general statutes with regard to sealing and expungement to make the vast majority of offenses that you have under the qualifying crimes to be eligible for sealing, not for expungement. And we made a policy decision that it was important to retain those records for certain purposes. And remember that subsection C of 7,607 that you spent a lot of time talking about who access to those sealed records and for what purposes? Big difference between expungement and sealing. So right now it's expungement. And I think this issue came up in the context of your discussion of that bill last year. And you decided, well, you know what? We're going to wait. We're going to hear a little more from different perspectives, get a report, talk to folks and figure out whether or not it makes sense to extend that change from expungement to ceiling to post charge diversion records. And so that's just what this bill does for both the juvenile and the adult work programs. And so I'll walk you through quickly. So Section one of your bill, and this is just we didn't put in most of the statute because it's not changing anything but with regard to the records upon successful completion. So you'll see in Section one, this section is dealing with the Juvenile Court Diversion Program, their post charge diversion records. So within thirty days after the two year anniversary of successful completion, the court is to provide notice to all parties of its intention to order. And now you see everywhere that it says expungement, it's just switching it to seal. So for the intention to seal all the court files and records, law enforcement records, fingerprints, photographs, anything that is in the criminal justice system that has some type of record relating to this particular charge. It's not changing the criteria for the expungementceiling. It's the same. The state's attorney has an opportunity to come before the court and contest the ceiling if the state's attorney wants to do that. But the court is to order the ceiling of the records if it finds that two years have elapsed since the successful completion of the program. The participant has not been convicted of a subsequent misdemeanor or felony during that two years since they successfully completed, and there's no pending charges. And the participant has taken care of any restitution that was ordered. So again, no changes here. The only changes in here are talking about the expunge or DCL. There is some language on page two, subdivision six, that's been repealed because that is talking about some retroactive application of expungement that is no longer necessary because of the direction that you're going. You look at page three, there still will be an index. Right now, there's an index of expunged ones. This would be for field documents about who can access that ceiling. I did have a question just because I can't remember. I think maybe I picked this bill up after it had initially been drafted or something already by Ben. So I wasn't involved early on in this. Is the access to sealed records in 7607, so who can access under what circumstances applies in the same sense for this or no? Yes. Would assume that it would, but I wasn't sure. I was thinking about it and I'll have to go back and look at it and wonder if maybe it's helpful to put in a cross reference or something there. Just because they're in different titles, I don't necessarily think that you need it. But let me take I'll take a look at that.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: That was the intent, but obviously That's we can have a

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: for a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Yeah.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I guess that would be the same.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would make that assumption, but

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Never heard I'd very clear.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As an issue as I was looking back at this one. So I think if you move on to page four and you see subdivision nine, starting on line six, and this is so the process of automatically sealing records. So only apply to those persons who completed diversion on or after 07/01/2026. And so that is, I assume, intended to match up with the ability for starting to do all of these ceilings and so starting with the effective date of this act. So we're not going back. So folks who are in the process now will be operating under that existing.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I just want to make sure I understand that previous point. So you're going to cross reference to what can be done with CO documents. Is that what

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I was understanding? The access. Access. Access.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: By who. But I don't

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: necessarily mean that I just brought it up

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: as

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a point because if I had the question, just reading it through as somebody who knows very little, honestly, about the diversion in the last ten years, then it may not hurt to put a little pointer because, again, you're in a totally different title.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Right. But how those sealed documents can be used would follow the same that we spent all that time in the last. Correct. Okay, that's where the crosswalk is. Yes. Okay, I just want to It wasn't following you at the moment.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, and I can share that if your question is, Barbara, I don't mean to cut you off, but it is, what did we just do? Because I had to go back and look. No, okay, go ahead, sorry.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: So before we get to the

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: adult part, I just want to make sure I fully understand. So let's say somebody at age 15 went through this process and their record got sealed. That index will exist for all time. If that person does not get into trouble with the law until age 30 or something, they will be able to see that somebody at age 15. I think that's the way it currently works, there's no change to that. Fully appreciate that or not appreciate that.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It doesn't mean they have access. Yes, there's only limited people who have access. If you look at the index, so, it has limited information and if you see it's seven c inspection of the sealing order and the certificate may be permitted only upon petition by the person who is the subject of the case. The chief superior judge may permit special access to the index and the documents for research purposes pursuant to the rules for public access to court. So I think you probably need to hear from the witnesses about how they access it. If it's sealed and it's a sealed law enforcement, how they specifically are It's kind of under the older Under the bigger system of how are they accessing sealed records.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I'm sure I had the very same concerns when we did it last time, but just in terms of our juvenile justice system and rehabilitation. Thank you.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So Section two is the adult court diversion program, and it is essentially the same changes. Although I will note that on subsection A, on the purpose, there is an expanded purpose. So you see Subdivision A2 is that right now it's to provide a resorptive option for persons alleged to have caused harm and violation of a criminal statute, and then it's adding or a municipal ordinance. So some towns have the ability to be adopting a municipal ordinance that would fit the criteria that might otherwise be a criminal offense or something similar. And this would include those as well. So again, the changes are just to the same thing. If you look at page six, changing expungement to ceiling. No changes to the criteria. So the timelines are the same. So it's two years have elapsed since successful completion of the diversion program. They haven't been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony during the two year period, and there's no pending proceedings regarding another criminal offense. I did have a question there about whether or not since it is because with the addition of the municipal violation, whether or not any kind of I'm not making a suggestion that you change it, but whether or not there's a different analysis on minus one.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Where did the municipal ordinance addition come from? We have witnesses, though. Yeah, to speak to it.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Again, the changes are the same with regard to just changing expungement to ceiling. There's still going be an index. And you look at the last page on page eight, subdivision nine, the process for automatically ceiling applies to those who complete diversion on or after July 1.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Any questions? Do you have a question? Not seeing any. Thank you so much, Michelle, and invite Willow Farrell back.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: For the record, Willow Farrell,

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: attorney general's office. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on h five sixty six. I thought it would separate my comments out around the expungement ceiling change and then municipal ordinance. I will say that in general, the ability to have one successful diversion record expunged is very appealing to individuals. It is a motivator and it is significantly different than sealing for people and for how people view their record if they complete diversion successfully and have no further criminal involvement. That's how we understand that, prosecutors and law enforcement and others see value in having access to sealed records. And we understand the move last year to to move towards the ceiling provisions than expungement provision. The other piece I wanted to note is within precharge diversion, there is deletion of records other than what is in valcor. So expungement would be very different post charge diversion than deletion in pre charge diversion. So I do think that moving to ceiling does align pre charge and post charge diversion record retention in a better way than what currently exists, where under the current system, precharge case is not totally gone away. We still have the Valcourt record that law enforcement have access to, but a postcharge diversion case would be completely expunged. So the move to ceiling, I think, creates more of a alignment, if you will, between pre and post charge record retention.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: So, Karen, quick questions. I thought state's attorneys also had access to any records they may have received in precharge. It's gone through the state's attorney, not directly from the law enforcement. We can, Kenneth Ganis, if I'm interested

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: in that. I remember the retention within VALCOR, but yeah, not positive. Certainly, the most important considerations for people about records is I'm sure you heard last year. I was not here for testimony that you heard is around housing and employment, and ceiling provides great protection for people in order to to get jobs and housing. So in short, I guess, I I wouldn't suggest any changes to the this part of the bill. I do think the as Michelle suggested, adding a reference to what ceiling means and how, you know, what the who has access will be important for a person just reading the statute to know where to go. And while this may not be something it's not a legislative fix, I do think from a standpoint of plain language, when I read that statute, not being a lawyer, I have to go ask lawyers in my office, what does this actually mean? And I I think it would really be helpful if state government, whether it's whatever whatever part of state government, could really explain to people what it means to have their records sealed in plain language. As we routinely get questions about what does expungement mean? If I wanna go to The main questions we get, if I wanna I wanna go to Canada, what does that mean? And you know, military military recruiters see my records, etcetera. And so we send information off, and I'm saying, I don't know because I can't I don't really know. So I do think as much as we can tell people and be clear about what is it they need to be sealed and who has access would be a good service to people.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Karen, and then LaLonde.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: With the assistance of legislative counsel, I got the answer to the

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: question that you were looking for earlier.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And so it is for precharge, it is records held by the law enforcement agency in the state's attorney's office of public records held by the law enforcement agency in the state's attorney's office shall be deleted. But then its records maintained on the VALCOR database or other similar nonpublic databases maintained, those can be kept for criminal justice Yes. So that's the difference, is what is public facing and what is that they just have for their own. Which now I remember we had that in-depth conversation.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: That was kind of in-depth with the So I guess the question Well, I'm

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: sorry, Angela. Ahead. Oh, I was What you

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: were just saying a lot about just having a standard definition or clear description of what ceiling is, what it means and what it doesn't, and all of that. Do you suggest that that's here in this

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: title? I think that might be a question from the legislative council whether that's appropriate. Is that something one puts in legislation? I'm not sure. Mean, guess Where I in

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: which like in where? Where in which title? You

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: should put it in 163, 164, in three, and either cross reference if all of it applies or cross reference the subsections. I'll take a look at it and see if there's things that are already because remember in what you have in Title 13 in that chapter is you have one statue on effective expungement and another statue on effective sealing. So, it goes to the general stuff that we all kind of mean by heart which means you know expungement means it's gone and sealing means this. I'll send you a link to that statute, if any of you want to take a look at it, then we can come up with something, and it can run by welding.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: So would we use then on page three, the bottom of page three, lines nineteen and forty twenty one, and then go to page four, would we just do a cross reference instead of

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think a cross reference is not, but I'm gonna double check on 7607 to make sure that there's nothing in there that of conflicts or can get confusing to be read to instructions. So

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: presumably, the effect of sealing, want to

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: have consistent flaws, different places to seal. It's true. I just clarify, though, that you are supporting the cross reference, and you're saying even with the cross reference, it's not easy to digest. Is there a way we can put more digestible information in here? Which I don't know if we've ever done or if that's a thing.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I don't know why, for instance, going to Canada, that's federal law. Don't know that we have much to say on that. Maybe if federal law will change, but I understand what you're saying.

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Right. And I I don't think that's necessarily what one would put in legislation. Right. But I do think, and I'm making more just a statement, that there could be parts of state government who could provide because that information would change, and I think that information could include things as I understand. This applies to Vermont. And I don't think like, what does it mean if it doesn't necessarily apply in other jurisdictions? Think I mean, this is what I'm just and maybe I'm going a little off.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: No. No. That makes sense.

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I just don't know if we direct somebody to do that or if we ask politely. I'm amusing the opportunity to put an idea out. Yeah, and I think

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: it's really helpful, because what you're talking about is these things that we talked about in theory here are used by practitioners in the real world, and that's a really important part of all of it.

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: So we're gonna Go ahead. Just speak about the municipal ordinance addition. This span the catalyst for this was work happening in Burlington, and I think many of you may have read about city circle, which is a option restorative justice option for within the city of Burlington for police officers to refer people for minutes of ordinance violations to restore the process. And the Burlington Community Justice Center approached our office last summer and said, we're do we're planning to do this new initiative in Burlington. May we do it under your grant funding? So I and others, many, you know, a couple of lawyers in the office reviewed the statute and what was being proposed, and what our office said was we think what you're proposing meets the spirit of the law, but maybe not the letter of the law. You would have to make sure it meets with your state's attorney's policy. And if if your state's attorney agrees to that, we're willing for you to do this as a pilot this year, providing you have capacity and you collect data, and we will bring this to the attention of the legislature. So hence the introduction here to put before you the idea of adding municipal ordinance violations within the scope of recharge diversion. This I would make a suggestion that the word criminal be added to this because there are also civil municipal ordinances, and this statute really pertains to crime and and sort of recourse if somebody is not successful is prosecution and criminal court or family division. So I would suggest narrowing it to criminal municipal ordinance. And I do have that concern about capacity, would just put out there, I think it meets the intent of keeping a low level offenses out of the system, having a speedy restorative response is of great value, and to me, the priority really should be behavior that is more like a crime that would end up in court and keeping those offenses out of the system.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: How was the vanadium?

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Can you give me an example of a governmental ordinance violation?

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: So in Burlington, I think there's certain, I'm trying to think of the exam, but I will tell you today, I think they've had one referral, so high capacity concern maybe, it's not as high as it was when I first heard about this, and it was somebody, it related to a dog licensing issue and dog behavior. That's

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: a criminal.

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: There was something that fit within, I don't remember, But I did I do know, for example, I live in a small town and I went on in Fairmont. My small town has some criminal municipal

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Public immunity maybe?

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Maybe.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I can't think of anything, though.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Everything else would be a misdemeanor.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Did they just change that in Burlington? Yeah. Oh, there you go.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: City Circle is coming to share, but I was part of Burlington CJC.

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Oh, okay. So we'll be able to ask.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Right. We can get that question asked about.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So just sort of I don't know how to make this a question, but I won't take credit for this because I just texted one of my town attorneys because I was really curious about this. I didn't realize that they could do criminal municipal ordinances. An interesting thing about this is, pursuant to 24 BSA nineteen seventy four subsection D, is that enforcement of criminal ordinances is actually done by the town attorneys. And so I'm curious, does that mean that we need to have them in to discuss this and not actually like, for specifically sealing and not expunging those records, like how they're brought?

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Could do that. I mean, we do have I'm hoping that we're gonna have chief of police, and maybe they could get part of the answer to that. But I understand the town attorney if they want to wait.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: My thought just being your point, like, that they need to talk to the state's attorney about their process for doing precharge diversion. Do they actually? Because it's not really the town it's not really the state attorney who's gonna bring the charge.

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: The way we read the statute was that precharge diversion falls under the policy of the state's attorney, the county state's attorney. And so that a county state's attorney might say, yes, this fits within my policy, in which case in Chittenden County, the state's attorney said yes. But I think possibly a different state's attorney might say, the way they limit some this is not, I don't have a good example, but a state's attorney may say now, I don't want any offense of this nature referred pre charge, and they might include, exclude municipal ordinance violations from their policy.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: And that

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: would be within their purview.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: It's within their purview even though it's not within their purview

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: to actually bring that charge. But to exclude? I'm not just

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: this There's an interesting, like, kinda intersection between Right.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: No. No. I mean right. I I would I try not to pull away the discretion of the state's attorneys, but I don't know if I necessarily wanna expand it Yeah. And oversee what city attorneys could do. And it seems

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: pretty clear that they don't, in these cases, have any discretion. It's totally outside of their review. Right. So we would need to cure for this.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: You have one that you can find, Yeah. I'm just throwing

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I think if one of these goes under pre charge, it's gonna leave the state's attorney and it's prosecuted by the city attorney, it's gonna leave the purview of the state's attorney. And there will still be a Valkyrie record, but there won't be a conviction there that they can enter anywhere in that system because that's entered by stage. So Would be a similar tradition. Right.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: So this may be more of a can of worm than I had thought. We can't, yeah. So we probably need to talk. Is there an association of Or do we talk to the League of Cities and Counts? I think

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: the LCT makes the most sense, probably. And I will say, just the other thing is that it can be brought by other person designated by the legislative body of the municipality. So there may be someone to charter who says, also, the state's attorney can bring criminal But I think the Brattleboro is charming doesn't have that name. And I would be surprised if others did. Just to your point, it's not ever leaving the state's attorney's purview. It's just never in their purview.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I'm wondering if we had City Circle come in and speak to talk about how they established themselves and got it started. Maybe they're guests as well.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: That's fascinating.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: You can write an ordinance violation in a town on a VCV bill on a regular traffic ticket.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: my I guess, my question could have also is, is this if the municipal if a if a municipal ordinance criminal municipal ordinance charge well, pre charge or or charge, I guess. How is is it a question of whether the attorney general is funding that component of the CJC of the of the services? Is that really why we need the language in here?

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: That was the catalyst because we were asked, may use court diversion money for this work?

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Because I also I this is kind of blending into the concerns that I've heard of Chittenden County as far as the the CJCs wanting to do other things, and that could be just labor disputes or any number of things. This is kinda closer to that. Yeah. And if the municipality wants to use the services of the restorative justice, I think it should go through that route rather than through here. It just you know, an individual municipality can decide whether they want to provide whatever funds that CJC wants to do that part of the work. Because otherwise, I think it's really it is gets yeah, a lot more because now we have 14 state's attorneys that get to decide this. How many city attorneys are there? It's pretty fun though.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: You gotta do it. My

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: suggestion is that we have a little bit more. I'm leaning towards taking that out. And letting Ian put in a bill for next year if he really wants to talk to how many town attorneys there are. That's kind of where I am, but we'll hear from more witnesses, but my initial

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: guesswork. So, I don't know if we're done with this topic. I would say we've beaten a dead horse, but that would not be. So when you talked about the confusion that people have, I know that people have, when they fill out their college application, they're asked if they been convicted of a crime. Do you feel like there are clear answers that participants have when they ask that? On an employment application, what are they supposed to answer?

[Willow Farrell (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I think it really depends on the wording of the question. So, if they're asked if they were convicted, we'd hope people know you were not if you went through diversion successfully, you're not convicted. But we do have a document we send people, but then at the top, we say something to the effect, there's the Internet. Because people may go through diversion successfully, people may have their record expunged, but if the newspaper or the police blog named them before they were arraigned or referred, that still exists. And we have had individuals who went through diversion successfully, who've said, you know, emailed me or whatever, why didn't how did they find? And that's why what do do is I put their name in the search engine and I find a news story and I say, this is probably how that employer found out about this. Well, I mean, that's that's just part of the full transparency that we try to provide and include, like, just the all the cabinets. Not not to be the ceiling is huge, I mean, really because most employers I mean, most people don't end up in the news, but some people do. So

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Any other questions, Foula? Thank thank you very much for the testimony. We'll go to Kim McManus. Do you know if if we're gonna get, who else do I have? Sorry. Chief Merk is gonna be at times? Do you know Nate, have have you

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: some for today.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Well, that probably means likely. All right, thank you for being here.

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Thank you for having me. For the record, Kim McMillan, Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs. We were delighted to see this bill, H566. This was not a point that we wanted to push last year when we were working through the ceiling bill, but we had, I believe, testified that we do believe it's important to have these records sealed rather than expunged for criminal justice purposes and largely for the data piece, for knowing what's working and what's not working and losing that information after two years. We do not have any longitudinal information to see when we send that DLS to diversion. Is that helpful? Is that effective? And we would love this information to be available for those purposes. So we support H566. I had one drafting piece that I think it's just an error that I wanted to point out, But I'm also happy to answer any questions. I think you solved some of the questions that came up already. On the municipal ordinance, it is by each municipality as they create it. Some of them do allow state's attorneys to file municipal criminal violations. But you have to comb through and see who can do that, who can't.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Can just ask a question on that? I'm completely fine if it doesn't survive. I think we've put

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it in Let's see where it could go.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Just you saying that some allow for it. Could it be like in cases where the state's attorneys are allowed to? Like, I'm just saying that there could be a path for it. So I appreciate hearing that that is allowed in some of the charters.

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Also, and I'm happy to do a little further digging, I remember I was researching municipal ordinances because I was teaching a class. I had to look up what falls under municipal ordinances. And so I just remember combing through Burlington's The bailout? 95% sure, but I'd want to go back and read it. But I don't know how many violations the state's attorney is filing in Chittenden. So I can ask and see just to see what sort of scope you would be getting

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: from the state. So I'm happy to follow-up on that.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I like that idea. I mean, we can save this by municipal ordinances prosecuted by state's attorneys. It's just this working.

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Allowed to be prosecuted because these, again, would be

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Don't they use the city attorney to do something, though?

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: The city attorney, that's primarily Well, gets that gets weird a

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: bit.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Yeah. That's what I mean. They do both.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Keeps So sometimes it's sometimes it's by the city attorney, sometimes it's brought by the district attorney. It's an option to consider. State's attorney, then it should be if it well, the thing

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: is it's the same charge.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: It's precharge. Well, the precharge is different. This is this This is not pre charged. This is post charged. So, yeah, it's academic

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It would

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: have to

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: be filed with the court by somebody, either the state's attorney or the city or

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: town attorney.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: But you create a system where basically the access to it being sealed versus expunged would depend on whether the state's attorney or the municipal attorney brought it. And there may not be a policy where it's certain types of crimes. It might just be like, they're so busy that now the municipal attorney's going to do it, and now suddenly that's an expungible offense and not law, not sealable.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Maybe there's cases where it's just very clear.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: But then just you see that Oh, yes. Yeah, yeah.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I'm just trying to find a path.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Or maybe let's hear from cities and towns, and maybe it's not an issue. Maybe whoever processes needs it should be able to sign a conversion. Right, okay.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Yes. So, sorry, I'm still hung up on this here. Can you share with me how state attorneys in juvenile cases, all the time cases, use the file, like the importance of opening up a sealed juvenile file for a state attorney. Like, what difference does it make in terms of what kind of charge?

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I think it would be more The scenario that popped into my head was you can think about some of the driving offenses. If a juvenile, site 16, has been sent to diversion for the 0.02 ticket, maybe had more than two, and then at 19 or 20 as a driving under the influence. And maybe that county would generally send that first offense to diversion. But if there's two sealed DUI cases, that may not be the right approach in that case. And I would bring in our traffic safety prosecutor because that is a particular type of case where we see when teenagers are involved in driving under the influence, it's highly repeatable as an adult. I don't have the exact numbers, but Dennis Wigmans has said that previously in this room, and I know he could come in and discuss that. So that's something where we're seeing a pattern of behavior that, again, it just may not be the appropriate choice, but it could be depending on facts and circumstances. And I'm going to double check this just to make sure I'm saying this correctly. But as an adult comes in and there's a criminal record check, the juvenile record doesn't appear on an adult criminal record check. We don't see juvenile sealed records on that adult criminal record. But you have access to that. May be aware what I'm just saying is just picture, just so that you know. We'll see adult criminal sealed, the words in sealed, but we don't see a juvenile record whether because juvenile records are confidential.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So why then do we need

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: So if this but yes, so if we are aware Johnny's had three DUIs already, he's a juvenile, then that may be part of our decision for charging or for what we think is a good outcome for that case. And maybe there's information. And there's a lot of maybes there. And it, again, has to be for a criminal justice purpose. But it's just that the information isn't gone and no longer available. So again, the uses are not going to be all the time or relevant, but potentially it's very important information.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But who decides if the uses are all

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: the time? Well, under the For this ceiling statute, we have to have a criminal justice purpose. And if we wish to, remember, we can access it, we can see it. But if we want to use it, we need to ask the court to use it. So there's that gatekeeping.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Do you have a question? It's okay.

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Just one question. Just one

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I don't know if I was

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just reading it, one of

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: those moments of if I'm reading it funny. On page six, line 20, discarded sealing of sealed records, it says the court may seal any records that were sealed. And so my guess is more a suggestion might be just records that were sealed pursuant to the subsection prior to 07/01/2018 remain sealed or something to that. We don't have to ask the state's attorney to seal something that's already sealed. I think there's just a quick correction there.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: That what

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: you're telling me for?

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yeah, think that was a find in search of, because all the expunge ments got sealed or expunge and seal, a find and replace. That just has a funny effect in that sense.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: That sense. That

[Kim McMillan (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: was the only comment. Otherwise, again, we support the expansion. I'm happy to get a little bit more information from the municipal ordinances. I

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: was just doing a quick search and I can't find like the official version of it, but just looking at like the Burlington City, there's not many at all that are criminal and tend to be on subsequent offenses. So, indecent exposure within six months. Third, urination or defecation in public in six months. Third, noise violation in 24. I just want say, I mean, a quick scan, I'm sure you you'll have folks here for making about two, but it doesn't seem as though it's to be a lot.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: They are saying.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just mean in terms of it's not a lot of statutes or ordinances themselves. Okay.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: All right, Well, I guess that is it for today. Tomorrow morning we're gonna have some fun. Page seven forty four. May look at its face that it's not gonna be fun, but it's gonna be fun. So that's the rule change that we took over from the White Commission rules about the devil. State security is a way to help on the China's thing. It's important stuff, and we'll see you everybody tomorrow morning. We're adjourned until