Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We are live. All right, welcome back to the House Judiciary Committee this Tuesday afternoon, February seventeenth, continuing testimony on S-two zero eight. And welcome, Falco, Chilling, the ACLU witness chair. Thank you for being here, Felco, for identifying yourself for the record and proceed.

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: All right. So good afternoon. For the record, my name is Felco Schilling. I'm the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, and I'm here today to talk to you about S two zero eight. I feel like we got a really helpful overview about some of the constitutional questions involved in this piece of legislation from both legislative council and the previous witness. So that, I think, goes to a number of the things I was going to speak to, but I might skip them lightly. At a high level, we are supportive of the goals of S-two zero eight. I will say that since the legislature adjourned last session, I think the issue of mass law enforcement is one of the issues I've heard the most about in terms of community concern and a place where I've heard the most concern that there's a hope the legislature could do something to impact how law enforcement operates within the state of Vermont, including both state and federal officials. I think, rightfully, most of the concern came is coming from how folks have been seeing federal officials operate across the country in different situations. But I also know that whenever we talk about this and talk about some of the constraints on the state that you heard from the professor earlier, that this would need to apply to all law enforcement officers in the state. That is something that there seems to be broad agreement about, even though there's less concern that this is a current practice that Vermont law enforcement is engaging in that is troublesome. Folks wanna make sure that those protections are in place and that these are the standards that they would like to see state law enforcement officers comply with as well as federal law enforcement officers. So just at a high level, I just wanna say that that is, I think, part of the motivation behind this bill, that there has been a lot of concern about how we've seen some law enforcement operations carried out. It has been more focused on federal officials than it has been on state and local officials. In fact, I have not heard concerns about state and local officials at this point, but that doesn't mean we should not have regulations and statutes in place to ensure that that continues into the future. In terms of just the reasons behind wanting to make sure that we folks can properly identify law enforcement officers when they're conducting their duties. One of them is that you've heard a little bit about is ensuring that when someone receives an order from a law enforcement officer, they know that that's a lawful order. This is a real concern. We've seen a number of instances where folks have impersonated law enforcement officers, including the very unfortunate incident which happened in Minnesota, which involved the killing of a lawmaker. And just the fact that the identification that we are seeing currently from some federal officials are the types of identification that one could pretty easily recreate. So if you go on Amazon right now and you just search police patch for vest, you can get patches that just say police. You get patches that say ICE. You can get these patches that will provide false information about unless you are an actual law enforcement officer, there's no restriction on who could buy these types of markings or though there's impersonating a law enforcement officer is, in fact, a crime, there's concerns that folks might be impersonating law enforcement officers without more adequate markets, markets, which gets to the intents around the identification requirements section of the bill, less the masking section of the bill. Further, there's a concern about accountability. So if someone does have an interaction with law enforcement and their rights are violated, there's a real desire to have folks be able to know who the officer they interacted with is, what agency they're working for, so that they can move forward through official channels with some sort of complaint, or if available, some sort of action within the civil system to try and make sure that their rights are vindicated based on that action. Without clear identification, that makes it much, much harder for folks to proceed with that type of action. And then just generally, this is one where better clear identification of law enforcement officers helps create greater trust between law enforcement and the communities that they are serving, makes it more likely that those interactions will go smoothly, more smoothly when someone understands that someone is in fact a law enforcement officer, as opposed to someone who they might have a fear is not in fact a law enforcement officer carrying out those duties. And I think also along with masking, is something that just heard a lot of concern about. At the same time, when you look in this bill, I think there are reasons that law enforcement might need to wear masks. And as you're diving into this, I think the Senate started encountering a number of those. So I don't think it would be correct to afford bill that just puts a prohibition on masking in general. We've all just come out of a pandemic and understood the need for masks for public health reasons. And I think you see a number of other reasons enumerated in the exceptions in this bill, which try and get at some of those situations where it would be necessary for law enforcement to either conceal their identity or to legitimately just cover their face for other reasons. So I know that there might be some questions around how the Senate drafted some of those provisions. I think there's a place where there could be some more discussion. And I think it is ripe for more discussion discussion to think about the ways in which those exemptions do not unintentionally impede a law enforcement officer's ability to carry out their duties, whether it's state or federal. And so I came prepared to talk a little bit about, is this something that we can do as a state? But I think that crime was pretty well trodden in terms of the tenth Amendment powers reserved for the states to regulate the health and safety the smooth operations of governing within our state under police powers. Then the next question comes up, does this fall under any sort of federal preemption, whether it's expressed, implied, or field preemption? And we've heard that is not the case. It's not an argument that we've heard the United States government raise in relation to this bill or any similar bills. And then it comes to the question of intergovernmental immunity, where is this proposed regulation trying to control the actions of federal law enforcement officers, Or is it more analogous to something like laws, basic traffic laws, than to something else which might put a real restriction on their ability to carry out their duties? And I think in looking at the fact that what we've seen, there's some conflict around some of the guidance around whether it's necessary that is left up to the individual discretion of officers that ICE has been and Border Patrol have been doing these types of operations for over twenty years, and this has not been a well established practice through that time. I think that the requirement for proper identification and a limitation in when masks can be used is more incidental as opposed to controlling, and therefore has a better chance of surviving a challenge moving forward. And I think rightfully so, only have persuasive information to go off of what's happened in the challenge in California. We don't know exactly how the second circuit would view this, but we're going off the best information that we have. And that's the part of how the federalist team works. And the fact that this would have to be challenged in the courts. And I think most likely it would come down to challenges based on the attempt to apply this to individual officers and whether or not they could claim intergovernmental immunity under those specific situations, and whether there was a legitimate reason that they might need to be masked in that situation. That's likely, there'd probably be a facial challenge first, but then there'd be probably as applied challenges potentially moving forward. So at a high level, the ACLU of Vermont supports this bill. We've heard very strong sentiment asking for Vermont to institute these practices for all law enforcement officers in the state. And I appreciate that the Senate moved this forward on a vote of 27 to two. I will also say that we did not draft this legislation and have watched it through the process. So I can't speak to every single choice that has been made by the previous drafters, but do support this effort and the goals behind it, and think it could have a positive effect for the people of Vermont. So with that, I'm happy to take questions. Any questions, Tom?

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I think you said you're in support of the exemptions, which there's two drug task force and sexual exploitation. It could be potentially be in favor of any more exemptions because that's really narrow.

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: Yeah, think that's a legitimate concern that that exemption might be a little too narrow for I mean, I could go And wearing a disguise as necessary.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Crime or, you know, a car theft ring or human trafficking, you know, a lot of serious things that law enforcement may need to keep their identity.

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: Yeah. I think it relates to undercover operations generally. I think that there might be situations beyond just drug related operations sexual exploitation. I could see other situations where that might need to apply. So that's something that the committee could look at. But I don't think you need to draw on hard and fast line at just those two that are in

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: the bill currently. Great, thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: The other questions come. Why are

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: the bulk of the rioters wearing masks?

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: The bulk of the rioters?

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Protestors. Well,

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: I can't speak for them individually. I think that there's many different reasons why people might wanna wear a mask. I know in many of these situations, there have been chemical agents dispersed within crowds where folks might want to have some protective equipment, some PPE to protect themselves from gas that might be put out to the atmosphere. I think folks have concerns about general facial recognition technology being used and surveillance. But I will also say that the folks who are protesting are folks who are not sworn law enforcement officers who do not have the ability to arrest individuals, detain individuals, and are not deputized by the state to carry out those functions. So I think it makes sense to treat law enforcement officers differently than folks who might happen to be on the street exercising their First Amendment rights and might choose to wear a mask for whatever reason. Even though they're wearing them for the same reasons. I can't speak to that. I think it's

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I'm just asking if you had a position on that. So with that being said, do you think it's fair

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: to cumulatively hit a law enforcement officer twice with disciplinary action if they violate this? I think it makes sense to have a civil penalty that applies to all law enforcement officers, And that I think that also the criminal justice council makes sense for them to have jurisdiction over violations by state law enforcement officers and to be able to take

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: With a civil violation? Because that is not under the Vermont Criminal Justice Council.

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: Yes. So you want both? Yes. And I think as you raised earlier, I think that's a concern about applicability. And I think what that criminal justice council penalty is exactly could be up for debate and how they might address these violations. But I think ensuring that there is a civil penalty that is applicable to all officers helps cut at the intent of the bill and is the more important component in my perspective. Is there a civil

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: or criminal penalty targeted at any other professional regulation that favors them up? Such as a doctor if they do something or a lawyer I believe that they can get a ticket for?

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: I believe there are civil violations for other Specific? I don't have citations to one right now, but I'd be happy to find some. Civil violations are things that we use for conduct that we don't think reaches a criminal threshold. Don't think this reaches a criminal threshold.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: They're issuable to every correct?

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: I believe that there are certain situations based on conduct.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: It's by conduct, not by profession. What does this civil violation do?

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: This civil violation is based on the conduct of law enforcement officers carrying out their

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: So it's targeted only at law enforcement officers?

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: That is the purpose of this bill. Yes.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: And no other civil violation does.

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: I'm not saying that. Don't have a comprehensive list of every single civil violation by I'm the state of happy to look into that and follow-up on that.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Other questions?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Did you take any position on whether it should be a criminal penalty and not just civil penalty? Well,

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: I think the civil penalty makes sense at this point in time. As I just say it, I don't think this rises to the level of a criminal violation. And also, as you've heard me on the stand here say multiple times, that we are generally concerned about creating new criminal violations since we think that much of the conduct out in the state is already over criminalized. And so we're fine with leaving it at, in support of leaving it at a civil violation at this point in time.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You know what the ACLU supported the criminal violation in California? I

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: believe that they did. I not opposed if the committee went in the direction of a well, I guess it would have to depend on what that criminal violation looked like. The idea of criminal violations is not one that we would automatically say no. But as with any other new criminal violation that's put on the books, it's something that we have to consider in context and how it's applied. We've come in here many times with concerns about new criminal violations being created, and there's other times that we have not weighed in

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: just

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: because more appropriate under those situations. But support the bill as that penalty section as it passed the senate because and I think in terms of the the dollar amount, it feels like it is sufficient to deter the behavior, but not overly punitive to the point where so it's not overly punitive. I think that's what the goal they were trying to get at. Folks can debate whether that is the appropriate penalty amount, but I think a civil violation makes sense with the bill is drafted.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any other questions for Kenneth?

[Rep. Kenneth "Kenny" Goslant (Clerk)]: I think I heard Is it there a law against a person, law enforcement officer already Yes. And then you said something about patches. Is there a law against somebody wearing a patch that they're really not a law enforcement officer? Is there a law against them?

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: We'd have to look at the specific statute, and I think quite likely there could be, depending on how they conducted themselves and what the markings look like. But I don't have that statute in front of me. So

[Rep. Kenneth "Kenny" Goslant (Clerk)]: I'm I'm going into a little bit of area where Tom was, but it it seems like to me from whatever you wanna believe or can believe with the with the news that's out there, it seems like there was a lot of actors that were brought in to cause more of a problem out in Minnesota. Would you agree with that?

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: I can't speak to that.

[Rep. Kenneth "Kenny" Goslant (Clerk)]: But The people, or a lot of the people that are going to do and they're protesting and all this up, they're allowed to wear masks for their protection. But what this bill is trying to make it for for whatever reason is law enforcement can't. But and I'm quite sure I just heard you say that that that the protesters could wear masks for, you know, in case there's gas or, you know, bad gas or other things there to go and kill people or do something like that. But law enforcement wouldn't be allowed to do that under this. Is that correct?

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: I think there are legitimate reasons when law enforcement would need to wear a mask to protect themselves from things like this person will have chemical agents and other things like that. I think that'd be a legitimate exception for law enforcement to use a mask.

[Rep. Kenneth "Kenny" Goslant (Clerk)]: But protesters can just wear a mask whenever they want.

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: Yes. It's protected First Amendment activity. You can go wear a mask outside, walking around and doing whatever you want. We don't have prohibitions on masking. And I think generally, I think especially coming out of the pandemic, people for a lot of reasons found masking to be helpful both to protect themselves from transmission and also, folks are sick. They don't want to be going around spreading germs, things like that. And there's also similar exceptions in here for law enforcement officers if they are experiencing illness or they don't want to transmit

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: an

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: illness. So I think that there's a reason this is not a blanket ban on law enforcement ever wearing masks. I think there are certain situations where it makes sense. A number of those are enumerated in here, and I think the committee could spend more time thinking about are there places that need to be adjusted. But I think that is something They're a different situation. These are not people just out in public exercising their First Amendment rights are not sworn law enforcement officers who have the ability to detain individuals and to arrest folks.

[Rep. Kenneth "Kenny" Goslant (Clerk)]: But would you agree that law enforcement is out there to actually protect innocent people also, correct? Mean, you want to have a protest, you can have a protest. I mean, you don't have to get into physical altercations provoke something and all that stuff. Certainly, we've seen plenty of that on national news and on social media and on on

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: on on the, you know,

[Rep. Kenneth "Kenny" Goslant (Clerk)]: the night news or morning news or what news. News in general. And the and the thing that that concerns me is is we have law enforcement that's out there doing their job and stuff like this. And it's just like we've we've gone through training here, with protections, about us as legislators and stuff like this. And I frankly, myself, I could care less, but then I go and I think about it. And if I'm out there and I'm driving my vehicle and has a state plate on it, and I have my innocent granddaughters with me or somebody like that, and they want to go after me, that it's like, okay, well, here I am. But in this situation, law enforcement that's trying to do their job and quite possibly are wearing a mask for their identity, but when they're done their mask, so they're wearing their mask when they're done with their job, when they go home, it's protection for their family too. Does that make any sense with you?

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: I'm trying I'm trying I don't know if I followed all of that, but I think as the bill was drafted and as others before it, I think there are legitimate reasons for law enforcement officers to be masked at certain times or to conceal their identity more generally, which is also what this bill gets at. But if the general purpose is so that they are not able to be identified by the public and they're conducting the regular duties. I think that raises a lot of concerns for people, and rightfully so, because people want to know that it's a legitimate law enforcement officer that they're interacting with, and they want to have transparency between themselves and law enforcement about how they're carrying

[Rep. Kenneth "Kenny" Goslant (Clerk)]: out their operations. So regular duties, I get that, but there's nothing that's regular duties about what's going on in Minneapolis or what is still going on, and then all the other stuff that we're hearing even besides that. Would you agree with that?

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: I don't want to characterize everything that's happened in Minneapolis under one large brush. But I think that there are parts of how folks were conducting themselves in Minneapolis, which would be considered regular parts of their duties, where they might not have been identified in the ways that this bill envisions that would be positive for community trust. And I think there was also regular situations which might fall under some of the exemptions within this bill. And I think generally in terms of some of the conduct happening both from law enforcement officers and from folks who might be protesting their activities are questionable and raise concerns. And I think you've seen that happen on both sides. There's folks engaged in ways that we would certainly not recommend that they engage with law enforcement officers. But then there's also officers who've engaged with the public in ways that is deeply concerning, we think violates folks' rights. When that happens, those folks should be we should know who those individuals are, and there should be the ability to have proper recourse either through administrative channels or through potentially courts.

[Rep. Kenneth "Kenny" Goslant (Clerk)]: Do this you law this bill here, if it becomes law, do you think this will hurt potential law enforcement wanting to work in Vermont or stay in Vermont?

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: I couldn't speak to that. I think with the exceptions put in there, I think it tries to get at some of those concerns. So I can't personally speak to that.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thomas, that does.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: You said something about not wearing masks for identification purposes so people will know who our law enforcement are. I would say the mask has nothing to do with that, the badges and the names and that type of thing regardless of the mask. And gonna get into a little story that there's no question at the end. Just say we agree with. Yeah. But Kenny brought it up when he brought up officers concerned about the safety of their families and have personal experience in that. My son's a law enforcement officer in Seattle and and lived in Seattle during the summer of love when they were burning the city down. The the peaceful protest stuff there. And and then I won't even get into the situations where his friends were hit in the face with bricks and frozen water bottles, broken arms and shoulders and things like that, that's a peaceful protest. But he

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: lived in

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Seattle and there was one councilwoman who was in agreement with the protesters. And she lived about two blocks from it. And they found out where she lived. And they went and and protested at her home. And she was fearful. She was afraid for her and her family. And it got my son thinking being on not his words were not that I'm anybody important, you know, but being a law enforcement officer, will they come to my house and protest if they find out who I am? And the long story short, he moved for the fear of his family. And and and I I think, you know, to to maybe authorize, you know, badges or something like that is one thing. You know, people may have to go through a little work to find out who somebody is, but to unmask somebody who has a family. And and you know what? Not and my son will say it. And and and I'm sure Tom might might say it. Not every cop is upstanding. And and and and we've seen a little bit of that in Vermont. And and and and certainly not all the protesters are upstanding and and are are look for situations like that to find out who people are and possibly harass them. And who knows down the road, maybe even harm them. And and again, going back to my personal ex my son's personal experience, which is my personal experience, that I think we need to take a step back and maybe in situations protect our law enforcement, not even our law enforcement. They know what they got into. And I'll guarantee, I won't guarantee it because I don't know it, but I'll bet you most of those people are doing it not for themselves, but for their families. And I just think it's a travesty to put, potentially put their family at heart with some of the the organized paid, taking care of protesters. It's not your average Joe that comes out of his house to to join a protest because he, you know, doesn't agree with, you know, the way immigration is going. But but it's these the people that are paid, and it's been proven that there's a whole network that goes on. And those are the people that are gonna, you know, do the investigation to find out who people are and potentially do harm to them. And again, to put people's families in harm, somebody might say,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: well, that's what they signed up for, and

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: they know that, but to take a step in the direction of putting fans in their arm is just ridiculous, I can't believe that. I hope that it came up in the Senate, I kind of hope it didn't because I can't believe that people, some people would have supported it if they, you know, had detailed information about, you know, fear. Fear for a wife, fear for our children.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Going back to the California thing, yeah, they had tried for a criminal violation. I don't know where it's gonna go now, but it was in lieu of having a policy department, I think you know where I'm going.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I think it's fine to have

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: some type of regulation, be it civil or be it some professional regulation, we have that in place over to the law enforcement here. Category B violation is very severe and will impact the officer's career certainly. There was more than one violation. So going forward, don't you think having a statewide policy would be sufficient to regulate this from happening given what's already happening in the state of Vermont? Or could you forget one or the other? And so there is not a double checking. I

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: think having just a statewide policy raises the current concern that you spoke to earlier, where the criminal justice state criminal justice council has no jurisdiction over federal officers, which is one of the major concerns behind trying to move forward with this bill. So I think that my answer to that is I don't think just having the state policy would be sufficient. And then I think it's important to have a penalty that applies to all law enforcement officers equally. Think open to talking more about what those criminal justice penalties might look and if there might need to be adjustments versus a first or second violation, other things like that. But I think for me, the more important thing is having the civil penalty on the books for all officers. So why not just have

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: a civil violation and not an Academy by a criminal statute?

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: I think it's worth discussing, but also at the same time, if there is a state statute on the books about this and you have someone who is violating it and potentially violating it repeatedly, I think that is a concern that could raise disciplinary issues beyond just what the civil penalty gets at That might need to be taken into account with other behavior that the officer may or may not have engaged in at different points in time to give a holistic picture about whether they should continue to be certified.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Which has everything to do about the federal gun violence in your mind?

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: You can see it accurate. I mean, I think in terms of we want to capture all law enforcement officers,

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I think ensuring Sorry. Everything we do is on body, generally in the state of Vermont here. So identification and what happened should be kept. And the federal government is not saying it. Is not so worried about identification. Anyway, that's one more layer we haven't talked about.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Right. It applies. Yeah.

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: I mean, think to represent Burditt's point, I think just honestly, for me, the identification piece feels more important than just the masking piece. Think as you look through here, there's a number of different reasons someone might need to wear a mask. And I think the fact that someone's face is covered is less of a concern than you just can't identify who that officer was conducting it, who was involved in that situation however it went.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Angela, then Karen. I just wanted to make sure to state for the record that a mask related to protection against exposure to biological chemical agents during an incident where these agents may be present is one of the express written exceptions for times when law enforcement officers would be permitted to wear masks. I don't know if this was a question for you, and I'm also confused of when this came up, so I don't even know if it was during your testimony, so I apologize. But it's on this piece of the double what do you call it? Double Double jeopardy. The two ceases of

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Plice to me. Jeopardy for me, plice. Okay. But I understand. It's not the legal term, don't you?

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes. We're talking about the same thing. Consequences. Thank you. Two consequences. So I've been trying to think about that because I think we were trying to say, like, are there other examples of where that comes up in law? And I'm so I'm just putting this out there to try to explore so I could try to understand it. But wouldn't it be like with a bus driver who gets a DUI, and so they have the DUI, but then we're also not allowed to drive or they're on some disciplinary option for that. And they also put just in our animal cruelty bill, somebody could get charged for animal cruelty, but another piece of it would be the not no longer able to have animals. So I feel like we do this, there are criminal actions to things, and then it's also like, oh, and if you happen to be working in a field that's connected, then you also could have some additional disciplinary pieces of it. So I just wanted to throw it out there. So again, I apologize. I don't remember who was part of your testimony when were talking about it.

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: Yeah. No. I think that's correct. And I think you gave some really good examples. For instance, as as an attorney, if I was engaged in conduct which racked up a whole bunch of different civil penalties or involved in criminal matters, I would be held liable under that. But then the Board of Professional Responsibility could open up an investigation, which could then lead to a number of different consequences in terms including no smoking of license or other things. So there are other places where folks might hold professional liability as well as civil and criminal liability. I think this happens with doctors and others where if they engage in criminal conduct or probably gross civil misconduct in ways that you have a real concern about their fitness to continue to engage in their profession, then that can lead to professional sanctions as well. Yeah.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I'm not sure if this question for you or for our legislative counsel, but since that civil penalty is assessed, does that mean that law enforcement has to issue a ticket, or if some other that a could all kind of be assessed?

[Falco Schilling (ACLU of Vermont)]: That's a question I have. Well, my reading of it, since it does not explain any other mechanism for doing that, I assume that that would have to be a civil fine that was issued by a law enforcement officer. They don't designate any other state officer who's going to do that, which, to be honest, is a concern about enforcement. I think you've seen some places where you have law enforcement saying they're not comfortable or unwilling to do this type of enforcement. So if the concern is one law enforcement officer having to serve another officer for this, It's a place where the committee could think about, are there more effective enforcement mechanisms through the attorney general or some other body that the state might deputize. But maybe a better question for legislative council on exactly how that would happen. But I'm unclear on the exact mechanism. I think it's the short answer.

[Rep. Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Any other questions for Felco?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Natsini, thank you very much for being with us. Thank you so much. Appreciate your testimony. Good questions and interesting. Which we will pick up some more tomorrow with a number really heavy on hearing from law enforcement, actually, and then also from the director of civil rights unit of the office of attorney general. So we are adjourned