Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Committee this Thursday afternoon, February fifth. We're turning our attention to h five six six, which we've gotten some testimony earlier this week. And we are joined by Rachel Jolley. Thank you for being here. It's been a while. Good to see you.

[Rachel Jolley, Director, Burlington Community Justice Center]: My pleasure. Thanks for having me. And I'm sorry I couldn't join in person. I would love to be there, and I'm sure I will before the session is through. For the record, my name is Rachel Jolley. I'm the director of the Burlington Community Justice Center. And cutting to the chase on May around the ceiling and expungement issue, while expungement has felt more definitive and clear for us to communicate to our participants, we recognize and appreciate that ceiling will provide same protections for collateral consequences such as housing and employment. I did end up listening to Willow's testimony yesterday and, have to agree that some kind of one pager or plain language document would be really helpful for our staff and our participants to understand who acts has access to their records and when. But I also understand that's not for the statute, but I just thought I would say it here. So in summary, we're in support of of that change, to ceiling. And then unless there's any questions about that, I thought I would move to the, civil the municipal piece of this of May.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Please.

[Rachel Jolley, Director, Burlington Community Justice Center]: Yeah. So regarding that amendment of the court diversion program to include municipal ordinances, I thought it might be helpful for the committee to hear our experience with City Circle, the program that the name of the program at the Burlington CJC that we're calling referrals for civil criminal municipal violations. So we did hire a staff member to coordinate that pilot program. She was she started in November. She trained and onboarded six volunteers, and she launched the program on January 5. So it's really just been going one month. Thus far, we have received six total tickets from BPD for four from Burlington Police Department for four individuals. The municipal criminal violations have been related to open containers and trespassing. Two individuals participated in the program. I should say we have received six total tickets for those four individuals. Two individuals received two. And the municipal the two individuals participated two total individuals participated out of those six tickets in the program. Three tickets were addressed. One let us know that they were choosing not to engage, and one did not get in touch with us. So proportionally, we feel like we've had a fair level of engagement. I would say that unlawful mischief, graffiti, disorderly conduct, and public illegal drug use might be some of the other violations we expect would pick up as the weather warms. And criminal and municipal violations would otherwise go to criminal court. So civil violations would require repeat offenses to become criminal, just to kind of repeat some of what you might remember from our description of City Circle last year. And as I said, I've watched Willa's testimony. I've listened to some of the questions. I would just like to say that I do believe that this does save the state resources and keeps things upstream. And I'm also cognizant of the fact that when times are tight financially, the tendency is to stay more in one's lane perhaps and not think about investments in upstream. But I do think that regardless, this program is saving the state money in terms of things going further down and escalating into more of a court backlog and other collateral consequences that spill out when somebody does go to the court process. But I thought I would just keep it short in terms of summarizing what's happened so far with this program. But then, of course, I'm open to questions.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So question is, who's funding that position now? Is that being funded from the city of Burlington?

[Rachel Jolley, Director, Burlington Community Justice Center]: That coordinator of City Circle is being funded by the Attorney General's office. I should say that in its totality, it's a precharge position. So it's working on the precharge diversion program, including our other criminal precharge referrals that come from police.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I because that was kind of there was a couple issues with with expanding to the municipal ordinances. And and one was an understanding that that's really not necessarily the state's attorney. In some circumstances, it can be. It might be a city attorney for a municipality that would bring such a case and therefore would would be the entity or the person who would have to okay a pre charge going directly from law enforcement. So that was one concern. Perhaps that's not a concern specifically with the Burlington pilot as I don't think it is. But that was a concern for having this kind of as broadly. I mean, we would really need to dig into this a little bit further. Yeah. The second is just that there that it's not I'm not going to call it slippery slope, but where do we draw the line as far as municipal? I know that in South Burlington and the other Chittenden County CJCs, they take on cases that aren't going to be in free charge. And there's been an issue of who pays that. Could be just two neighbors, know, that kind of thing. Sure. This seem more like that? I don't you know? And and should the municipalities individually need to agree that precharge should occur for those ordinances and also fund those? So those are kind of the two questions that are out there.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Yeah. And that's I appreciate

[Rachel Jolley, Director, Burlington Community Justice Center]: them both. I guess, one thing, one thought that comes to mind is in terms of, the jurisdiction, this has been clear, and I could share actually, I maybe should have shared in, advance the City Circle memo that went out from the City of Burlington Attorney's Office, as well as our guide for volunteers and the public, really, about the way the program works. But really, these are for violations that could become criminal, sometimes with repeat offenses of these violations or others, but are not going to the state's attorney, are going to the city's attorney. And would has that individual you know, the attorney's office has discretion around when to further prosecute or to send to superior court. So it could be and and our attorney has let us know that, you know, right now, the only thing that the individual is getting is a ticket, a handwritten ticket. However, that would you know, could if the attorney was wanting to go further with the prosecution, that would be changed to an affidavit. So I understand the slippery slope kind of fear or certainly net widening. I do think these are violations that are criminals municipal and could be turned into criminal. And so to me, it fits the definition of precharge and what we're what precharge is about, which is a timely response, an upstream response, a response that can include the victim more quickly and directly. So I don't know if that responds exactly to your second question and a little bit of your both questions actually. I'll just say I appreciate the concerns and the idea of that slippery slope. To me right now, we're only one month in. We don't have really any trends to look at or any patterns of the data to examine, to talk about how I mean, we do plan to further this continue the pilot through the end of the fiscal year as it was designed as a pilot and an experiment. And I appreciate you trying to draw on other perspectives, the Vermont cities and, you know, the league of cities and towns, etcetera. But I guess that's just where I sit in terms of Burlington's experience with it thus far and the intention that went in with our attorney's office.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So perhaps we recognize that this pilot is ongoing and is going to be part of the pre charge. It seems like that's already happening. And we wait to get a little more information from that and dig in a little more deeply on this to expand this kind of thing statewide. Because I really think there's a lot more process and such that we have to dig into. Because again, it needs to be the entity that would be taking that to court or not, be it the state's attorney in some instances, be it the city attorney in other instances, I think we have to have mapped out what kind of process for either of those entities to have a policy for what municipal violations go directly from law enforcement. I mean, so that's and I think that we need to that's gonna take a little bit more than just being able to resolve it right now. But the pilot will go on. We'll learn more information. I don't think we need to do we need to have some languages somewhere in here saying that this pilot is occurring or is that yeah, Karen.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Yeah. I think we and I can do this. I can check-in with Willa. But I my assumption is when they started this pilot, it was because kind of assuming that the language did allow for this.

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: Right.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: And I was like, well, how about we make sure the language allows for? And that's where this proposal come in. So now that we have this debate, I wonder if that will inform the attorney general's office like, oh, maybe this pilot isn't allowed.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So why don't we draft provisions that recognizes or, you know, approves or whatever it is the pilot so that that because it would probably be good to learn and that this situation helps working. But I do think we need to dig into this more deep if time permits to really have it statewide. At least that's my view. I'm happy to take different viewpoints of that.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: I think that makes sense, and I like the piece about being able to confirm that this pilot can continue.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Is there any downside to putting it in? Might be. There might be. I mean, we just need to more fully vet

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: it than the opportunity. Because I would hate work.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And let's learn from this pilot, too. That should tell us some information for expanding it.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: And I think along that line of questioning, Barbara, is there a downside? I think at least if we're the inclusion of some enabling language or I don't know what to call it, but reaffirming language that what's going on is good and should be going on and we can learn from it is helpful. I think it still holds up what's happening without trying to get into things that are other things that are happening that we aren't familiar with or clear on.

[Jennifer Pullman, Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: No?

[Rachel Jolley, Director, Burlington Community Justice Center]: And I'll forward the two documents that referenced before, just in case those are helpful in any way.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. No, please. Any other questions for I have

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: a question that I've Rachel, I I apologize if this is the very first thing you said and I missed it. But I was wondering, we heard yesterday, I believe it was from the defender general, and we know we understand the defender general's position is is in favor of expungement oversealing generally. But he spoke specifically of juvenile records. And I wonder if you have any thoughts on I'm not even sure if this is I guess everything's on the table. I don't know that this is on the table. Would you see the need to maintain an expungement process for juvenile records, or is sealing sufficient?

[Rachel Jolley, Director, Burlington Community Justice Center]: That's a good question. From my understanding of what ceiling provides versus expungement, from talking to one of our colleagues who worked in the judiciary for a couple of years, expungement still is technically like it is still recoverable by certain entities. And so I'm not convinced that sealing is that different from expungement at the end of the day. So I guess, I haven't given that enough thought or spoken with our youth team around that, around youth records, but my initial thought is that I'm still comfortable with sealing.

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: Okay, thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Anything else you want to share? How are things going generally in the Burlington CJC? Yeah,

[Rachel Jolley, Director, Burlington Community Justice Center]: I know you heard a bit from Willa. I do feel really positively about the time that we were given, thanks to you and the AGO around this kind of grace period of a year to work on the transition in this county. As you can imagine, there's lots of different stakeholders and things that need to be thought out before just rushing into it. And given the year, I feel like we've been able to make good use of the time. We have two volunteer sessions coming up tomorrow and on Monday to hear from the volunteers of all three CJCs. The town managers will be at each one. And I think we have important context to explain because it hasn't been so clear about what's happened or what is happening and what the vision is. Then I'm feeling good about a collaborative visioning session around creating this new soon to be named perhaps Chittenden County CJC entity. And I think I do believe that we'll have the possibility of continuing really a lot of the good work that has been done, if not more, and keeping the localized nature of it, keeping our bricks and mortar locations in different towns, and maybe increasing those, given that these other CJCs haven't held the diversion contract before, so volunteers haven't been present at some of the diversion panels, or the Tamarac program restorative processes. So hopefully this will present some opportunities that hadn't been realized before for localized justice.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's good to hear. It's great to hear. Thank you for your hard work on those efforts to call me CJC up and running. I really appreciate it. Thank you very much. Anything else? Thank you again for being here.

[Rachel Jolley, Director, Burlington Community Justice Center]: Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right, so Jennifer Poland, you join us, good timing.

[Jennifer Pullman, Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: Apologies that I missed my colleague's testimony. I felt like I had to park in East Montpelier, and then getting through the security was a little something else.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Day. Great. Just

[Jennifer Pullman, Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: get a plan for it from now on, But I've gotten back of somebody in line who had a lot of stuff.

[Rachel Jolley, Director, Burlington Community Justice Center]: Just a lot.

[Jennifer Pullman, Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: Hopefully, he's not watching this. So for the record, I'm Jennifer Pullman. I'm the executive director of the Mott Center for Crime Victim Services. And thank you for asking Ian to testify yet again on the expungement versus ceiling paradigm. Maybe one day it will go away. Yeah. It'll get sealed. Well, we'll see. But it won't it won't surprise you that the center does support 566. And for those of you who've been in the room for countless testimony from the center, again, that's why I say it will not surprise you. What's been spoken to over the years that I'm referring to is that in many ways, this is a distinction without a difference. And I say that because what we've heard over the years is that the main policy goal is to make sure that people have a second chance. We don't want to get in the way of people getting a job, getting housing, those kinds of second chance pieces. And I completely understand that because most everybody is going to be out. And the most important thing is to provide successful opportunities for transitioning and for people to have those supports. So I do support that completely because representing victims and survivors, we get what happens when somebody doesn't get that. And I think for me, yesterday's conversation was interesting timing. Because again, I say that right now it's a distinction without a difference. Back when this paradigm was set up decades ago, it made sense because the internet, social media were not in our face all of the time. So we could expect that there'd be some level of privacy, some level where people wouldn't find out about everything that you had done. As Matt Bolero testified yesterday, privacy basically is a reason. That's not a thing anymore. So when I look at the bill, more so now, more than ever when I've testified, it's I'm going to go out there and say it's a legal fiction because we can find this information out about anybody at any time. So for the policy goal initially, and has been testified to over the years, ceiling does only allow limited access for criminal justice agencies. And that's important to understand, because there are certain things about that that are really important for the constituency that I represent. First is, when we think again about I'm going to invoke Matt Valerio, he's a friend of mine, but we can't expunge the Internet. So what are we actually accomplishing by keeping expungement there versus what are we getting away from. And as I've said before, from my constituency's perspective, the record should get as close to reflected in the act as possible. The legislature has established predicate offenses for a reason, because we want to think differently about somebody who's coming back in with a similar offense. Also talked about in the past that with expungement in diversion cases, there could be cases, and Tim Liger Zumant spoke to this very well a couple of years ago, where someone is repeatedly going to diversion, but nobody has any idea about that. So those are considerations that would not be at play if we went to a ceiling regime in these cases versus an expungement piece. And then there's this other backdrop. So within the past couple of decades, the internet has changed our lives. Not really perfect good. Social media is in our faces. But during that time, we've also changed the face of what happens or what crimes are eligible for diversion. So we need to really re explore the notion that it used to be that diversion is only for low level cases. And I always have an issue with what's defined as low level because it's not low level for the victim survivor in many cases. So I'll put that aside. Just want to state that again. But we've also made some changes because we're trying to create an alternative system that maybe is not as punitive about in space. So for example, Act 11, we passed that a couple of years ago, which allows domestic violence and sexual violence cases to go through diversion. We've expanded the pre charge program as well, which gives state attorneys the ability in law enforcement to set up their own policies in terms of what's available. So I'm thinking about two recent examples that I just want to highlight when we're thinking about being expunged. There was a case in Bennington for an attorney two years ago Well, it was in 2019, but it was irrelevant two years ago, where the attorney general's office was prosecuting that case. And it was a sexual assault, But the case was The charge was pled down to I've got the article in case you want it. But it was pled down to an L and L, a straight L and O, so that it could go to diversion. Think our communities want to know that. I think our communities want to know that an attorney abuses power, And I think that's important to know. And while we're not talking about deferments, I don't want to go that road today, but there was a case in Madison County where the sheriff had allegedly sexually assaulted, and that was the initial charge. And that was placed under a deferred sentence, and that can be expunged as well. So sharing examples of what can be expunged now, because it's serious, but I think our communities do want to know. And it's also important to realize that the resources for supervision in these cases are not there. They are not there. You know that diversion is not funded in the way we would like it to be. Even on deferred sentences, if you were to ask corrections what they do, it's pretty minimal. So I just want to, again, have us reframe when we think about what's going through diversion, because it's not the same as it was years ago. And I'm not saying that's a bad decision. I'm not at all. Because there are lots of good reasons why something wouldn't go. And sometimes it's victim choice. But I do think that having law enforcement be able to access those records when they're serious crimes, I think, to the center, it's a really important piece. And if the difference is a legal fiction now, because I can look up anybody on the internet to find out what they were doing. So if it's a legal fiction, then I think it's important to have resolution reflect the charge, reflect the act as best as possible. I'm not foolish. I know what happens with plea agreements. But again, I think that having some access to that information And then just logistically, for the center, as many of you know, we operate the Victims Compensation Program and the restitution unit. If it's a sealed record, we have access to those files just for purposes of being able to enforce a restitution order or being able to provide victims' compensation. As some of you may recall, we keep we're probably maybe the only state in the country that keeps our planes open until a victim has maxed out their plane, which means that they might not seek any expenses for a couple of years because trauma looks different along the course of your journey. But if it's expunged, we can't provide any support whatsoever. So for us, and then with restitution orders, it's the same thing. And this body has done a great job in statute in terms of elevating the fact that these should not be expunging cases where restitution is owed. I'm here to tell you that mistakes do happen. I don't want to shock everybody, but mistakes happen. We had a case where 30,000 in restitution was ordered and the case was expunged. There's nothing we could do about that. Logistically from where we sit, is a distinction with a difference. So I really do support these bills very strongly for a lot of different reasons, policy wise, logistically. I think times have changed, both in terms of what people can access and what the times are that we're looking send through an alternative process. Which, again, I've testified many times in support of that process, but I also don't want to see there being consequences that a victim is survivor and also that law enforcement people, we have a predicate offense for different places for a reason. And when that's gone for good, it's gone for good. Thank you very much. That's all I had to offer. I was briefed today.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't see it. I think fairly straightforward. Appreciate your testimony as well.

[Jennifer Pullman, Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: You for asking me in.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Yeah, as

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I see you. We'll probably see you next week. We're probably gonna be reaching out to you for Tuesday for quick overview on the budget request that you have for program.

[Jennifer Pullman, Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: That's great.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Hopefully

[Jennifer Pullman, Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: the parking's a little better.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you, thank you. So we'll definitely join us. Thank you. Stay,

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: It'll be a second. Martin, okay. Martin Are you dressed?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Hello. Welcome back. Thank you. See you again. It's nice to be here again. I guess you're not listening today. Oh, me. Okay. I

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: appreciate the opportunity to testify on h five six six. I'm here to support the bill's move from expungement to ceiling for successful post charge diversion cases. And a lot of what I was gonna say has already been, I think, addressed in the most recent, version of the bill, because I was gonna ask you to amend the bill to the effect of ceiling language because it's still red like expungement rather than ceiling. But it looks like you are doing that in the way that I would have proposed by reference to the effects of ceiling in Title 13. I'm supporting ceiling because I think it protects second chances while preserving the truth. Ceiling is a practical main policy because it removes the public barriers to housing and employment, two of the biggest reasons people seek relief from a record. But I support ceiling for an additional reason, because expungement can erase evidence that later turns out to matter for safety, oversight, and good policymaking. I've seen this firsthand In one situation involving a psychiatric survivor who was assaulted by a nurse, the record was later expunged. When policymakers, this committee in fact, later debated stronger protections for healthcare workers, there was no record to point to, so the incident did not make it into the policy conversation. The default assumption became that patients are the ones who assault healthcare workers. The missing record mattered for two reasons. One, healthcare workers can also assault patients. And two, the survivor was not believed until video evidence surfaced and expungement erased the video evidence. That experience is why I believe sealing is safer than expungement. Ceiling can keep records out of public view so people can move on while still preserving an accurate history that can be accessed under strict rules when it truly matters. I still I do support having making sure that prosecutors, attorney general's office have access to sealed sealed records just to make sure that if a person is arrested again for similar that we have a record of that, because it could mean that certain conditions need to be in place to protect victims, particularly in domestic assault cases. I know last year when you took this up, the Department of Public Safety presented statistics that were pretty sobering about the number of repeat offenders in domestic violence cases, even in diversion cases. And so think that's why I support the effect of sealing to include access for law enforcement. I disagree with the blanket statement that expungement and sealing is a distinction without a difference. I think I've laid out why I think there's a difference. Expungement destroys the record while ceiling keeps it nonpublic but available. Even if an Internet, trace lingers, expungement and ceiling still matter because they determine what the government itself can disclose and use. And I think that's really important. So that I think it I I the only other thing that's not addressed by the amendment that I that has given me pause and is on the inspection of the sealing order and certificates where I think it limits it only to the defendant. I mean, you don't define who the person is the subject of the case. I mean, some victims may think they're the subject of the case, but I think you're really thinking to limit the ceiling order to the the defendant. And I have a question about whether that's too narrow. So where where are you looking at in I'm looking at page three, lines five through nine. And again,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: this is in draft number 2.1.

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: Let's see. Yeah. What draft am I looking at? Two four two four. Looking at draft 2.1. Yep. See it. Let's see. So I do think that victims should have access to that. I know one of the scenarios I'm an attorney, so I'm always thinking about kind of the worst case scenarios. And so one of the scenarios I was thinking with expungement is a person gets their assault case expunged, a victim, you know, and they get a high profile job or something, and person stands outside their work with a sign saying this person assaulted me. Now in an expungement case, you know, you argue that it never existed. And so technically this person could sue the victim for defamation and have absolutely no record to prove the truth of the offense. And as you all know, truth is a defense to defamation. And so there could be similar reasons why a victim would want to have access to an index that proves the truthfulness of their accusation, or just for records purposes, for restitution, or you never for something they need to prove in connection with that. And so for that reason, I'd like you to consider, I ask you to consider perhaps including victims in some way, access to that index. Thank you very much. Appreciate

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: Thank your you. I appreciate that. It's something I hadn't thought of before, the victim piece of it. And I think for me, gets who identifies the victim. Is it clear? Because I know I forget what it was that we were just looking at a law where people could not self identify themselves as victims. That's what I'm worried about is like, just opens up. Like, I was traumatized by this or emotionally harmed by you know what I mean? Versus the direct income victim that was involved in the incident.

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: Have the same question to myself, which is why my, it's not fully fleshed out, the question to you about whether victims should be allowed to and how do you define victim? I know that there's certain parts of the law that do define victim. I mean, I think there are very few crimes that are victimless in our books. There are some, but there are a few that are. So I think it's not a problem without a solution. Yeah, go ahead Ian. I

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: know who this is a question to, but I'm pretty sure we put some exceptions to accessing sealed records for attorneys outside of a criminal context, like in a civil context. That I think would maybe be a relief in the exact example that you're using. So they can petition the court to have access to that sealed record for an affirmative defense or a defamation suit. And so I'm wondering, does that alleviate your I know that's the worst possible example, but I think there are at least some avenues to get access to it, at least in a civil context.

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: Well, like I said, I haven't I just got handed you this, and so I haven't really cross referenced it with Title XIII, and so I'm not sure. But I also think that your example assumes a person has an attorney, and attorneys are very hard to come by. In Vermont, find it even with money, it's hard to find an attorney to represent you. And so I would prefer in the best of all worlds that a person wouldn't have time in attorney to get access to the record.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Go ahead, Barbara. Yeah, was just looking at Do you know what I'm Yeah, I'm looking at it right now. Don't remember. I, too, am intrigued by

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: the examples that you gave about why this is really important to the victim. I'm wondering how to safeguard giving the victim access and not undoing what the ceiling is trying to accomplish in terms

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: of the second chance. Yeah, I see the second chance as being able to say no, like if you have a previous conviction. So it doesn't mean I think people who do their time and complete their sentence, they shouldn't be like prevented from getting housing and employment and all of those things. So that's why I like the idea of sealing it for those purposes. But I don't think the person necessarily should be protected from all consequences of their actions. And that is a victim speaking out. That's just, you know, they should have a victim should have the right to say whatever they wanna say.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: But your example of the victim, like, going to the workplace and I was just thinking that would be hard. I mean, I get. It's

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: happened. I remember the basketball player, Quintin Daily, graduated from USF, was accused of rape while they were at school and pleaded out or whatever, went away. And first time showed up at NBA game, nothing but protesters out there with signs. We had a very short lived career in the NBA. So it's not it happens, and we have to live with the consequences of our actions. True. I mean, it feels He could still get housing in employment.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: And it's not like right. I get the public safety concerns. I get the trying to not make it harder to convict somebody of a future crime. I just I'm trying to figure out how to like, what you said was very powerful. Like, stealing is good because it's the second chance and the truth. And I was like, that is great. How do we keep both of those?

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: I think this bill gets really close to doing that. I mean, just frankly don't like destroying government records.

[Rep. Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: I don't like destroying it.

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: I mean, I'm not a hoarder in the that I'm a digital hoarder. I mean, I don't really throw much digital evidence out because you never know.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: You just

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: never know.

[Jennifer Pullman, Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: I ask one more question?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, Karen, you're an agent.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: So my piece with it, just for context. So this bill is just on the post charge court diversion. And so I feel like if we were to look at this question that we need to look at it with the full ceiling regime, not just with the post charge. So I'm hearing this, and I'm hearing a need. I'm just wondering if this is the vehicle or we need to look at some other vehicle to address it more fully. What have I

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: heard this before? This is bringing me back to h five.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: I know. I was

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: like, do I wanna be the one to save you?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Somebody else said that instead of me.

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: It was going to come from you. I hear you. I don't know what your vehicle is, but I do hope that someone drives that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Angela, then you.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Well, was going to go further down this road. Just curious to I'm not sure that I understand what you envision the victim use of the records would be. Like what would the

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: Establishing that it occurred. If there was anything having to do with restitution or sometime down the line where they might have to prove they had been victim of a crime. Like special School employment, or whatever, missing work because of a flare up or PTSD or anything like that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, thanks. Yeah, don't think we really haven't covered yet, so we'll need to look at it again. At least I have my quick review, unless I miss something.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I think their TBSA is 7,607, subsection for exceptions. Subsection, yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah, that's a good section,

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: but it has some It's not perfect, but I think that in at least that extreme example, think that in a civil case or no, in a criminal case, too. I think that a defense attorney or a civil attorney could access a sealed record by petition to utilize in something like a defamation suit or something like that, or in other But it's in court, and I agree with you that that doesn't cover some of your other thoughts around a bit to maxing the record. It does open up a big can of worms to be able to let bit to max as a sealed record and not undo some of the second chance benefits that you get from a sealed record. So I don't know. Think you'd have

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to But if it's in a court I mean, if it's in a case, if it is actually narrowly for a defense or something like and requires the party to actually seek to have the sealed record used, which we kind of have that part.

[Rep. Ian Goodnow (Member)]: That makes sense. I think I understood the testimony to be you want an applicant to just be able to have access to the record no matter what.

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: Yeah, I think, yeah. Was my broader point was you've limited to the defendant. Why aren't you including the plaintiff or not the victim? I was a civil trial attorney. So how can we get And then I gave you the example, extreme example, admit, but not out of the Yeah. So like I said, you just incorporated so that Title 13 provision and I haven't looked at it in-depth, but I support the bill, I like the direction it's going and I appreciate the changes. Thank

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you very much. Thank you. I appreciate it. So I'm going to the last order of business today. Well, actually, let me just ask. So so for this bill, we have just the additional language for the pilot. And I'll try to get that out to everybody today so that people have it overnight. Are are there other people we need to hear from? Anybody else we need to hear from on this, or you think we'll be ready to vote tomorrow morning? I think this is the only thing we're gonna need to vote on tomorrow. Just really quickly, what my thinking on if you're gonna we have

[Unknown speaker (attorney witness supporting sealing)]: this before you move on? Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah.

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Member)]: No. It's just that and I know that it wasn't here, but we had two different we have a strike call, and then do we have a preference or Strike call.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I think it shows up like a strike call. Right. So I just wanted Suggested to that to her. So seven forty four Act relating to procedures for arrest without warrant. That language is gonna go into the miscellaneous bill unless it's I didn't get the implication that anybody was opposed to that in here, to that solution that we had. And the same with was the one That was the one line we were striking. Striking in, yeah. Also, activating to permitting public access to electronic criminal case records. I didn't see any controversy by witnesses or opposition in Gears. I was thinking on that one, putting that in for the miscellaneous bill as well. Part of it is that means fewer bills. We don't freak out our friends in the Senate and judiciary of how many bills we're sending to them. It will be like two less bills. So tomorrow, though I know which Anne you're

[Jennifer Pullman, Executive Director, Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services]: talking about.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We're live. Yeah, know. We're in After the floor, we're gonna have a little time to take up another bill. Five, Let me see what the number is. It's another fairly compact bill. Just bear with me for a second. I'll tell you what it is going to be. It's a misleases changes to the abuse protective first statute 8628 and of Michelle and Charlie and maybe Kim and we'll maybe need some more testimony after that. But that's also one that might be so compact and uncontroversial. I think we'll find out tomorrow that that one might go in the miscellaneous bill or or we'll deal with it separately. But that's after the floor tomorrow. The one other thing is next week is looking like it's gonna be a very busy week. We got a lot of looking at budgets requests of all of the various entities that we deal with, the Attorney General's Office, the Justice Council, the Center for Crime Victim Service, Mott Network, the federal generals, state's attorneys, sheriffs. So we're fitting that in, also doing the public safety hearing on Wednesday morning and starting with some of the bills related to public safety. That would be pre trial supervision and the Yochul. So I just wanted to flag that that I was also thinking to fit one more person in tomorrow at 01:00 for a half hour. Go over and and that would be big department, heavy her back for her to and them them to sorry. Them to focus on on their budget request. So if if they are available, we'll be doing that tomorrow at one, but it'd be a short short afternoon. Unless people wanna stick around and talk about animal cruelty goes. We'll go out live and we'll be back as soon as I can get Anne Donahue and Michelle over here.