Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: We are live.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Hi. Welcome back to the House Judiciary Committee this Wednesday afternoon. What was it? Fourteenth? April 15. And turning 20 zero to 208, s two 0 eight, we've worked with Ian primarily has worked with DPS, Department of Public Safety and Legislative Counseling, Sophie as well on this next version. Sophie, when you walk through, you just can kinda since we made a few tweaks from what we received from DPS, and if you just highlight those when you go through the walk through. So thank you very much. I you remember, so we took testimony on this a while ago, right before crossover, and DPS said that they were interested in sending us some language. So that's what the result of this. Yeah, that's

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Good afternoon. Sophie Sedatney for the Office of Legislative Council. I just wanted to give you a very quick update. I checked this morning. There's still no decision out of the Ninth Circuit yet on the California case. So if you remember last time, the district court in California had advanced or had said one part of California's bills are constitutional and swept down the other part. That got appealed to the Ninth Circuit, but there's no decision as yet out of the Ninth Circuit. And then in the meantime, since I met last time, three other states have passed similar bills. So New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington. So I just wanted to give you a quick update.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Jersey, what? Where in Washington?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington in March. Alright. Alright. So let me go ahead and share my screen. Get a little bit larger. Alright. So this is draft 1.1 of a strike all amendment to the senate's version of bill two zero eight. And I haven't highlighted the changes because there were too many changes. Sort of tweaking and reorganizing it a little bit. So, again, primarily, this includes the changes that were provided by the Department of Public Safety. And then they had also when they had shared their version, they had also done a bit of re reorganization Before, we kind of had the identification and the mask requirements were kind of all smooshed together, so now they're just in separate subsections. So there's reorganization that way. How's that?

[Speaker 0]: We ever receive the Department of Public Safety

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: suggestions? Yes. That's what this is based on.

[Speaker 0]: Right. We, as a group.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I don't. I don't know.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I would like to see that. I'll put it online.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I don't know why we wouldn't see that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't know. There's no reason not to

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: see that. That's what I mean. Don't know why all of us wouldn't see that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. No. It seems like Absolutely no problem for everything.

[Speaker 0]: The light. Why wouldn't we

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: follow-up with us to see it? Yep.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. So the first change is is this adds a definition of facial covering. There was no definition before, so we just had that list of masks, and some of them weren't really masks. So I just thought it might be easier to have a definition of facial covering that includes masks and then, you know, other things. So this is a new definition. Facial covering means any opaque mask, garment, disguise, or other item that conceals or obscures the facial identity of an individual, including a balaclava, gait, a ski mask, and other types of facial coverings. So, again, that then resulted in some renumbering of the next two definitions, but those haven't changed. And then now we have subsection c. It's limited just to identification requirements, and subsection d is gonna be specific to the masking requirements.

[Speaker 0]: Sorry, ahead. I'm sorry, I mean to put you on the spot with this, but because we haven't seen the language that was suggested by DPS, can you delineate between what was suggested by DPS and what was

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's what I'm doing.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. But, like, can you, like, say, like, this was the DPS suggestion, and this was where the committee went? Absolutely. Because I just I feel like there's I just don't feel like I'm getting the full picture, and that makes me really concerned. I can't do my job.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The new definition of facial covering, that was something I added in just to make it clearer because it just seems to make it more readable for folks down the road. So identification requirements. So again, this is now assume this is Department of Public Safety language unless I explicitly told you that it's not. Okay?

[Speaker 0]: Where was the mass language taken? The way you just said that you added unilaterally, where did that come from?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I created that. That's facial covering. I just added in a definition of a facial covering. And I think that was largely coming from what Washington, the state of Washington had. I did a a state by state survey and looked at language from all the states that have bills, and, again, not all of them have passed. And then, you know, where they sort of had ones that seem like pretty good definitions, then I've used that. So this is based on the Washington.

[Speaker 0]: And by pretty good, you mean university accepted?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, that it was in the Washington bill, and it seemed to make sense to me as a good a good clear definition of what a facial covering is. And

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: and just to be clear, what's Ian and I both agreed that we should put this before the company as well.

[Speaker 0]: Well, that's what I'm trying and it seems like legislative council's drafting policy. No. No. Yeah. If they're not If if it wasn't approval by a legislator, that just seems really right.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And there is And

[Speaker 0]: there was a way out of bounds.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Out of bounds. And that is correct. We we took a work So you

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit)]: signed on everything? That yes. Ian and

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I have signed off on it as Eddie could Absolutely. That deep jazz is. And I wanted to make sure and Sophie is gonna do this is explain anything that we modified to what we got from DPS. So long we're talking some little preliminary thing.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I mean, why why did we decide to go with the statute versus policy through the academy?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we we had discussed that last time. The concern with if you do a policy, just solely a policy. So there is language in here, the same language as before around the criminal justice council drafting a policy to make sure there are common standards across Vermont. If it was limited if it was limited solely to a state policy, it wouldn't address federal officers operating in the state of Vermont.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: But that so that's why we're gonna possibly regulate law enforcement officers' desk thoroughly do.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So this, again, and I didn't go through this because this hadn't changed, but again, law enforcement officer is the same definition as we currently have in state statute and also includes any officer of a federal law enforcement agency or any person acting on behalf of a state or federal law enforcement agency.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. And the only other thing for our process is for anything that was different, but not added in from what DPS was looking for. I am excited to hear from DPS today, having they've gotten this beforehand as well to look at it, and

[Speaker 0]: if they had thoughts on things that we put into the clarification. I understand that, but what you have to appreciate is that for many of us around the table that didn't work with you and Martin directly, this is the first time that we're seeing a language. So we're reacting in real time. It just I mean, none of us were even asked to be part of the process. So that is frustrating to me too. Because I think the chair would appreciate that there are many of us around the table that have a very vested interest. Namely, a number of law enforcement. It just seems awfully rich that we're getting this for the first time.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's also something. Sometimes that's the way bills move along is that we get a subcommittee and work with legislative people. We even to that language. Yeah. It it it is the the chair's prerogative work as far as deciding Right. Just as

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: long as you acknowledge that.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: You're actually saying it's the majority. That's just it just seems very convoluted. Very much the way things operated on here for the twelve years I've been here. We're trying to move things along.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Over to you. Great. So again, subsection C is dealing just legal identification requirements. Subdivision one, the changes in subdivision one are directly from DPS. So a law enforcement officer shall be clearly identified when interacting directly with the public in the performance of the officer's duties. I used when instead of while, but, again, some of some of the tweaks that that I've made between what we received from DPS and are in here are because they conform with our drafting manual in terms of stylistic. But that was a change that was requested by them. So the officer's name this, again, hasn't changed. The officer's name or the officer's unique radio or badge number visibly displayed on the officer's person. And the officer's agency or the initials of the officer's agency visibly displayed on the officer's person. So they added in the initials of the officer's agency, was the language that was added by DPS. Subdivision two is new, and this comes from language that was in New Jersey, the the statute that passed in New Jersey. And this just provides that a law enforcement officer shall verbally disclose in a clear and audible manner the officer's name and the official name of the officer's agency when detaining or arresting an individual. So that was not language from DPS. That is new. Subsection three goes through the exceptions to the clearly identified requirement. And again, some of the numbering will have changed from DPS. Just I'm not gonna go through all the the individual changes, but this is generally following they had this under subsection two. I have it under subsection three. So notwithstanding subdivision one. So, again, that's the visibly displaying your your agency, your name, etcetera. An officer is not required to be clearly identified in the following circumstances. So the first one under a is active undercover operations, including official duties requiring anonymity to interview, survey, infiltrate or otherwise investigate criminal activity. I reframed it slightly. DPS had asked for an officer engaged in active undercover operations or who engages in official duties that require anonymity to interview, criminally investigate, conduct surveillance, infiltrate organized crime, or obtain illegal goods part of a criminal investigation. So I just tried to trim that down a little bit to make it more direct. Does crowd control? Crowd control is not listed in that But

[Speaker 0]: could that not be taken as if there's criminal activity happening in a large crowd, or if they're supporting federal law enforcement operation,

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: why wouldn't that be captured by this? So we're gonna be going through this is just Subdivision A. There's gonna be additional ones as we move through. So subdivision b is plainclothes operations. This comes directly from, again, just some reorganization. I didn't put Vermont in front of all the departments. But, this is pretty much what DPS provided. So, plainclothes operations by officers employed in the Department of Liquor and Lottery, Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Office of Professional Regulation, Office of the Attorney General. So that is new from last time.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I just noticed that those are all basically state agencies. There's all the local agencies also have plainclothes people doing things that aren't wearing uniform.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Again, this was the language that I was

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

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Came from the I thought I

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: was just throwing that in.

[Speaker 0]: So so need for local. So we need

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. So c, wearing personal protective equipment for crime scene processing or exposure to hazardous materials. And again, that was what DPS requested. They just had some additional language at the end that said, exposure to hazardous materials that prevents display. But as this is already listing out, when you don't need to display, I didn't replicate the prevents display language. Subsection b, responding to exigent circumstances, either on or off duty, including situations involving imminent danger to persons or property, escape of a perpetrator, or destruction of evidence. And, again, that's essentially the same as what they had. They had they had just rephrased it. There was exigent circumstances involving an imminent danger to persons or property or the escape of a perpetrator or the destructive evidence, including if the officer is responding to these circumstances while off duty. So I put either on or off duty, again, just to make it a little more readable. Subdivision e, an officer performing tactical team responsibilities when assigned to a tactical team unit. Again, slightly different. They had an officer assigned to a tactical team unit and actively performing their tactical team responsibilities. So mind seven sub session d, either on or off duty, who added that? They had including if the officer is responding to those circumstances while off duty. So they had both on duty and off duty, but theirs was a wordier, longer one, so I just switched it to putting either on or off duty to cover that. Thanks. Alright. F, engaging in executive protective operations where the display of identification would compromise the safety, anonymity, or tactical effectiveness of the protection detail. And that is essentially identical. Again, they have theirs with an officer ahead, but we've got that language at the top. And then finally, g, meetings and interviews with victims and witnesses. And, again, they had law enforcement officers who are participating in meetings and interviews with victims and witnesses. So, again, some of these are just reframing, just to be consistent with how we draft legislation. Alright, so that's the identification piece. And then moving on to subsection d, facial covering requirements. So a law enforcement officer shall not wear any facial covering while interacting directly with the public in the performance of the officers' duties. There was a small tweak there that's consistent with what the Department of Public Safety requested. The original one that came over from the senate said interacting directly in person with the public, and they've taken out the in person. And then subsection two, these are gonna be the exceptions to the not wearing any facial covering. So a respirator or medical grade mask worn with the intent to prevent the transmission of airborne diseases. That's the same that DPS had. A mask, a facial covering designed to protect against exposure to smoke via projectiles or retinal weapons. I added in the retinal weapons based on what other states have had. I guess there are lasers and things that have been used against law enforcement officers, so I added that in. They they had DPS had requested the other elements, but they didn't have the retinal weapon, so that was added into this. And that came from Maryland, we were keeping keeping score at home. Alright. C, a facial covering necessary to perform duties during a water rescue operation. That's the same. D, a facial covering related to protection against exposure to biological or chemical agents during an incident where these agents are likely to be present. The change there was the are likely to be present. The DPS version just had may be present. B, a mask designed to protect against exposure to cold.

[Speaker 0]: Can you tell us effectively, Sophie, legislatively what the difference is between those two variations likely to be present and may be present?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, May is more hypothetical, a likely, I mean, it's just a question of the probabilities. May is a lower probability than a likely to.

[Speaker 0]: Who's making that determination?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this would be the determination, I guess, on whether somebody has violated this statute, if this becomes law, this statute. If a deter if at at some point someone's questioning whether or not they were wearing a facial covering and that they're going through some kind of process, then that question would be raised. It likely they were going to be exposed to a biological or chemical agent, or may? I mean, may I mean, I guess one theoretically could be exposed at any time to a biological or chemical agent. And that would then that would then yeah. That would then eliminate sort of the whole point of the statute.

[Speaker 0]: I think likely too. If I think that something's likely to be present based upon prior experiences with crowd control, I can make an argument that that could be any protestor process in the block.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. And that's gonna come down to whether if someone's in the going through a process for violating this. I mean, it's unreasonable, if someone's supposition is is unreasonable, then that wouldn't apply.

[Speaker 0]: So DPS had May, then you changed it to that?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: That's, yeah. I asked it to be changed, though.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. All right, so the cold, as you all remember, this was one of the more challenging issues. So on the Senate side, they had used the emergency shelter provisions. So it was between December 1 and April 1, when the forecast is minus 10 degrees Fahrenheit, including wind chill. So I did look at what other states have done with weather, and, generally, it's like a declared weather emergency. On the senate side, they they just felt that was just happened so rarely in Vermont. We have severe weather, but we don't have declared weather emergencies. So DPS had proposed a marks designed to protect against exposure to cold. I added in the language, weather conditions, taking into account the actual temperature, wind chill, and length of time of the exposure, because I think that was an issue that had come up when the committee was discussing this last time. It makes a difference if you're just, you know, hopping in and out of a vehicle between a vehicle and a building. And if you're out on the beat, you're gonna be out for some time. So, again, that's something for the committee to discuss, but just as a way to try to put some parameters around it. F, a mask or face covering a face or head covering if one is an approved reasonable accommodation under federal or state disability or religious discrimination laws. This was changed a little bit. DPS had asked for a mask or face covering if it constitutes a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. When I looked at so when I looked at other states, there would also be provision for religious accommodation, you know, if somebody has a face covering for that. What the DPS had recommended was under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but it would also state law would also you would need to comply with state law in terms of if someone has reasonable accommodation under our state laws. So I tweaked it accordingly to say it's an approved reasonable accommodation under federal or state disability or religious discrimination laws. And then under the DPS version and and again, this is the way we had it framed before, and I tried to make this a little more better organized than perhaps it was when it came over from the senate. So they had a separate subsection with some other additional exemptions, and I've just incorporated them in with the other list here. So these are the same ones. They're just organized in a different way. So h is a disguise worn by officers engaged in under undercover drug interdiction assignments, and they had law enforcement officers working with or in conjunction with the Vermont Drug Task Force or who are otherwise assigned to an undercover drug interdiction assignment who participate in active undercover operations or assignments may use a personal disguise where necessary to perform such operations or assignments. So, again, I just was trying to streamline this and make it clearer. But again, that may be something the committee wants to look at. I know on the senate side, there was a big concern they were the ones that were concerned about including specifically language around the Vermont Vermont Drug Task Force. But I know in this committee, there was reference to the fact that a lot of law enforcement agencies in the state do engage in their own drug enforcement stuff. So again, that may be something to look at. A disguise worn by officers participating in active undercover investigations relating to child sexual exploitation or human trafficking. And again, that came from DPS.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: The tactical And did I miss that one? We do have that somewhere

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: else.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit)]: G.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There was an additional one on tactical mass joint tactical operations. I thought that

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: was in. G line 16 on

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: page four. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Sorry. I missed that one before. And that's yes. They had tactical service unit team or other tactical units. May use gear necessary to protect their faces from physical harm while performing tactical responsibilities. So again, I trimmed it down a facial covering designed to protect tactical unit officers from physical harm, but that's something, again, the committee may want to consider. No changes to the statewide policy. No changes to the penalty. The only change on the judicial bureau was just because of the reorganization, so it now has sub subdivisions, subsection CMD before it was referencing, you know, under the previous version, and that is the changes.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Page two, line 15. What was that? Page two, line 15, which I must say agree with. However, there

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: are times when you don't get a chance. There needs to be some sort. I'm not gonna yell my name at somebody when I'm chasing them down the sidewalk, then you walk chasing

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: them. Right? Yeah. We could ask some other witnesses if they have other ideas for that, how to get at that point. Alright, so any other questions about the language? And we've got witnesses. Who all do we have here right now online? Because I know that have Jimmy here.

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: Jimmy also is in contact with Ben Herrick, we

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit)]: can probably get Ben in here too.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I've got a note that says Ben Herrick is in the waiting room waiting to be admitted. I don't know if it's on my screen. Do want me to admit him?

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Oh, yes. You're just fine. Okay. Perfect.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right. So we'll go with Ben Herrick next then. Ben, if you're available. Ben, are with us? And if not, can go with Jimmy instead. Okay. I see Ben just unmuted. So we'll go with Ben first.

[Ben Herrick (Witness)]: All right. So I apologize. I did not know that this was happening today.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Oh, okay. Well, we're gonna be coming back to this again and we can schedule you for the next time to make sure you have enough time to kind of look at what we have here.

[Ben Herrick (Witness)]: Okay. Yeah, I wasn't sure if there was any change to what had been between the last time I testified and today to what was being proposed. Yeah. I tried logging in, and it it just it it wouldn't let me into the meeting until just like, you said my the first thing I heard was my name.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Okay. Mitch. So we'll we'll bring we will reschedule you to to sometime probably next week. That would be great. Okay, great. And go over to Jimmy. Are you ready to be testifying on this? I wanna make sure that you're Yes. Okay, all right. All right, so go ahead and identify yourself for the record and proceed. Thanks for being here.

[Jimmy (Vermont FOP National Trustee)]: Thank you. And everybody can hear me. Correct?

[Speaker 0]: Yep. Yes.

[Jimmy (Vermont FOP National Trustee)]: Okay. Well well, again, thank you for the invitation. First and foremost, I represent the fraternal order of police. I am the elected national trustee of the state of Vermont, and we have a seat on the I have a seat on the National Board of Directors of the Fraternal Order of Police, which as a reminder is under 400,000 members nationwide. As a reminder, I'm the designer of the Los Angeles Police Vital Signs Monitoring Program, and I'm also a September 11 Ground 0 first responder. I've dedicated my life to researching matters of police health. And this is this is what I do. I'm a I'm a subject matter expert, in fact, as defined by the United States Department of Justice in the area of police health. Now, as a reminder, I testified last time, my work helps governments save money. As an example, Los Angeles and other municipalities save approximately $5,000 a year for every healthy police officer, physical health and mental health placed on certain programs. Now, I have reason to believe that the latest wording of this bill, as I just heard, still potentially has negative impact on the physical and mental health, not only of our officers, but also their families. I saw and I heard nothing about any any any testimony to modify to help the families of our officers. Now specifically, there's there's no research. There's no primary data that's gathered from interviewing any officers. Not that I know of. No officers in the state of Vermont have ever approached me and stated that, you know, this committee or or any other committee has performed outreach to to learn a little bit more about police operations and what is necessary. Okay? That's concerning to me because to make laws or to propose laws without getting the proper input from the people who it impacts, there's just something wrong with that. The FOP is expecting that, you know, should something like this pass, there should be contingency plans in place for any ailments or injuries, a health fund, if you will, at the state level to cover families and loved ones of police officers. I'll I'll I'll, again, elaborate in a moment on this. Items for vote, they they they should advocate for the officers, for the significant others, for their children, for their families. And what I mean by that is let's take germs as an example. We we we don't see anything in what was proposed that says that that says, basically, if if if a police officer dons any protective gear, And and and and this protective gear, in many cases, does not always have direct officer labeling on it. This could be shared gear. At the time of an emergency, we at the Vermont Police Academy are taught that in time of we are basing our judgment at the time and place of occurrence. What you're proposing here allows somebody to litigate hindsight, twentytwenty vision. This is something that is against everything that we're taught at the Vermont Police Academy. What about the officer with the cancer scars that testified last time? You know, what does this do to help that officer? Nothing. These proposed changes are not helping. There's no provisions that were added for him, and he wasn't the only one. And I mean, this is a matter that concerns their personal health ailments. As I mentioned to you, police officers in general, they may be afraid of losing their job. They may be afraid of any implications. They may be afraid of so many things that they would consciously decide to not don certain protective gear. And as I mentioned, germs, they can be passed on in their emergency vehicles. They could be passed on it's like sidestream smoke. It can be passed on to people that are innocent, people that don't even know that it's there. It could be sent to people's homes. I have to advocate on behalf of every child, every sniffle. I wanna be the the group, the advocacy group. The the FOP wants to make sure that nobody gets hurt while performing their jobs. We as police officers feel a necessity to be protected by our employers. And this legislation does not allow our employers to go and protect us and our families from any such emergencies, germs or otherwise. We're just trying to do our jobs. Has anything been done that's different from the last testimony I gave to this latest iteration that allows the interests of the families, loved ones, of police officers to be protected? I don't I don't hear it. I don't see it. Was I wrong? Anything change? Can somebody answer this for me?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So Jimmy, worked with DPS and Vermont State Police reached out. They actually suggested they'd be happy to help. And so we took them up on that feeling certainly that that brings us closer to actual law enforcement trying to help figure this out. So I'm trying to look at what their suggestions were and related to what you're talking about. I mean, we already had in there the, as far as the masking, and there's several places with the masking that it's certainly allowed to prevent the transmission of airborne diseases, or if there's gonna be exposure to biological or chemical agents. I guess my question is, is your question more on the identification part and that they may need to wear a certain kind of uniform that prevents them from being able to identify themselves as law enforcement? I'm trying to make sure I'm following where where we could look at to make sure that we've got this covered.

[Jimmy (Vermont FOP National Trustee)]: Well, there there there I I should have clarified. Two separate matters altogether. Sometimes we need to don protective gear. Sometimes because of lack of funding, agencies, especially smaller ones, won't have the funding to issue individualized gear that has labeling of of identify identification labeling. That's one concern. Separate matter altogether is, I'm I'm still under the impression that this casts doubt, and it it it has the capability to to to, allow legislation to fight against our bare bone education. We have very minimal time at the time and place of occurrence with whatever facts and and and scenarios are available to us at the time to utilize our judgment and to take certain actions. With respect to this litigation, I am under the impression after hearing and also reading it that it would allow a committee to question based on twenty twenty hindsight our on scene and our on-site judgment. If an officer needs to don a piece of equipment for any reason, this may give a committee an ability to question them further than a a baseline investigation. And the way that it's written, these officers may stand to suffer many what I feel is injustices, including the loss of their jobs, potentially. You gotta understand something that a police officer cannot do their job if if they feel encumbered in any way. And and it further adds stresses. There's tremendous amount of stresses that that we have on a daily basis without this added, you know, without this added legislation. We I don't see anything here that protects the officer. I don't see anything here that protects their families. You know? The FOP, in my strong opinion, would have to go ahead and start advocating for the behalf of the officers and their families. You know? And and what will the state of Vermont do if such information is brought to the attention of of this committee or of the state that says somebody was harmed? Germs entered the household of of an officer. Some officer was on a scene, went back to their car, contaminated their steering wheel. Another officer came to drive that car the next shift, brought home a disease, impacted their families. How does this how does this help? I don't see it helping. We we have to end this. This has to be you know, there's nothing in here that helps any of us. There's already legislation in place for any misconduct. I don't see this as helping in any way. Legislation that's in place is already through the Vermont Police Academy, through fair and impartial policing. We have this infrastructure built for the reason that you're looking to create a law for. Let's use what we already have. No need to re reinvent the wheel. Let's just make the proper additions to FIP, fair and impartial policing. That's

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: what

[Jimmy (Vermont FOP National Trustee)]: we feel what we will be best for the interest, not only of the police officers and of their families, but of the citizenry and the residents of the state of Vermont. Allow us to do our jobs and allow us to do them properly. That's what we ask.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Appreciate that. Thank you, Jay. Questions for Jimmy, other questions? No, I'm good. Thank you. Thank you very much again. I have one question for you right here. Jimmy, go ahead, Tom. Yes.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Yeah. I'm just wondering that from what our alleged counsel had said, there's three other states that have passed similar laws, and I I don't know if the FOP had been involved with those with those three laws with the same, safety concerns and that type of thing you were talking about?

[Jimmy (Vermont FOP National Trustee)]: As a matter of fact, next week, I'm due to attend the National FOP spring board meeting. Going to take place in Anaheim, California from the twenty second through the twenty sixth of this month. And I'm going to be receiving updates on all of those states. And I would gladly you know, I'll gladly share them if, you know, I I would have no problem sharing those updates. But, yeah, I mean, they're actively fighting on behalf of exactly what I've been bringing up in the last testimony as well as today's commentary. Yeah. The that we we are we are actively, trying to make sure that their interests are properly represented of the officers and their families.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Yeah. Thank you.

[Jimmy (Vermont FOP National Trustee)]: And I do have just I do have just one question. With all that I brought up last time, I don't hear anything that was being done for the physical health, the mental health of the officers nor their families. Is there any reason why? Nothing was taken into consideration. I mean, all I see is that, you know, there were some new provisions put in for undercover special ops, you know, drug interdiction possibly. But I don't see anything for the officers nor their family. I mean, this is important. I ask that you guys compassionately you know, it's a big responsibility that that I'm going to, you know, hope that is placed on your shoulders. But, yeah, you have to be compassionate toward these these this matter. It's very, very crucial toward us to to enable us to do our jobs.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Right. I appreciate that. I guess, I mean, it it seems a little beyond the scope of what this bill is trying to get at, which is just identification is really the crux of this. And I do wanna make sure that we're not, as much as we can, that what we're putting into place is not gonna hinder law enforcement, so state law enforcement.

[Jimmy (Vermont FOP National Trustee)]: Just trying to let you know that it goes deeper than Sure.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, absolutely understand that. Understand that. And service support, making sure that we're providing those kinds of services, but this isn't necessarily really the bill for that. It's gonna be on the scope of this bill.

[Jimmy (Vermont FOP National Trustee)]: But the FOP does have a responsibility. We are going to have to advocate on behalf of our officers Absolutely. Their

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, and I definitely appreciate that you're doing that as well. Zach and Tom.

[Speaker 0]: Jimmy, I just wanna let you know that your concerns were not met with deaf ears. Some of us definitely heard it loud and clear, and I think the lack of compassion for law enforcement is a concern that I shared. Thank you.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: So this is directed at federal law enforcement, but we're putting local and state law enforcement in there just because we have to to be able to do that. I just wanna make that clear because, you know, you don't wanna put that in there because it's out of scope. It doesn't have to do with this. Well, we don't have anything to do with this either. It's a feather.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit)]: Can you say that if I can't spell it?

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: We don't have anything to do with it. It's an attack on federal law enforcement, which is fine if they want to do that, but it's including state and local police officers because they have to. When we already have system for our own penalties and procedures for, you know, penalties. So when we violate our SOPs and our FIBs, everything like that, that's how we're regulated. This is a statute directed at the federal government and we're included in it. Why? Because that's the only way they can We have to be in the same law for them to do it because it's supremacy clause.

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

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Well, to me, that's discrimination because I already have a way of being penalized. Understood.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right. So we'll go to, let's see, I think we, are we having the commissioner? Is the commissioner gonna be available? Sorry, she wasn't able to make it today. Okay, that's absolutely fine. So we'll go with you Lieutenant Colonel, please join us.

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: Good afternoon. My name is Sean Long. Lieutenant Colonel. I'm the deputy director of the state police.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thanks for having me. Thanks for being back. Great to have you.

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: And thank you for the committee to being open to discuss this again. Thank you for of our suggestions. There's a couple more things I wanted to talk about in the form that it's

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: at. Yep.

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: Great. But just minor issues. One of the issues was brought up earlier, which is c c two.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Just Do have

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: a page? I I don't because it's a it's a verbal one. Oh, it's a I think. Online one. But it's the section where where it says that the Verbally disclose. Verbally disclose. And my Can I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: only line go to Thank you?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit)]: Much appreciated. Thank you. Brought up. Maybe It came

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: from another meeting, and I didn't have a copy. I apologize. Yep. So the the issue with this one is is ancient circumstances. So my concern is if we do put it into statute, that if we're in a situation where we walk into a room and we have an active crime going on, we we may not have time to identify ourselves. And I'd hate for that to be the reason the crime has dropped. You go into domestic disturbance and you're actively dealing with somebody, we may not have time to identify ourselves. We're clearly identifiable. You know? And the idea is that we're not having to stop, say who we are. Now on a traffic stop, that's commonplace. You have the time to do it. So if we're gonna keep that in there, if we could add something about exits and seats.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Unless there's exit Yeah. Because And it's well known and understood what those kind of circumstances are from what are. Yeah. Definitely. Thank you, Saul.

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: Yeah. And I mentioned this before, and I just to rewind a little bit. I mean, we would prefer it was a model policy than a statute because it's more there's more ability to change it on the fly when we find there's issues that we need to add things to it. But we understand that it's moving forward as a statute. So I just always wanna say on behalf of DPS, we prefer a model policy. However, we understand where we are, and we wanna work on this. So the other section was

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: pull it up here.

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: For the exposure to cold and weather conditions, I wondered if the community would be willing to add to exposure to weather. And this goes back to my earlier testimony. For me personally, you can see, my face is scarred up. I have a pretty significant history with skin cancer. And it gets back to the idea that when we're interacting with the public, obviously, our face is it shouldn't be. That's just general respect. We take our, you know, take our mask down, and we speak to the public. But if I'm standing on a scene, I need to have my face covered. It's a medical condition, but it's not one that I get a note for. It would be difficult, but I have a significant issue with with skin exposure. So adding something about inclement weather is great, and I appreciate the cold weather. But can we talk about can we think about wording for just weather conditions that could negatively impact a person? I'm not sure the language here, and this is something I've been trying to think about without just making it sun because me personally, sun is an important part. But I don't know if there's other reasons to to add to that section. Yeah. No worries.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: This is we're on page four lines. Sorry.

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: I I just finished my yeah. Understood that we need to we need

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: to capture that. So I want to think about how how to do that.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: K.

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: Those were the two that we brought. It it's short testimony. The commissioner didn't come. She had another meeting, but, we had talked beforehand. These are the two that we wanted to address. We again, we appreciate you taking the time and going through the edits that we've provided, and, hopefully, we can find a common place in this.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Questions for the. Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. But the the rest of

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: this bill, you're okay with?

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: I think it should be a model policy. If we wanna if we want law enforcement to be identifiable, and I I don't have an issue with having identity open in a uniform situation, I think a model policy would be ideal, similar to our fair and impartial or abuse of force policies. But then that's what

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: we hear. You already do that from from from

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: what do I call them? Representative Oliver? You mean the identification? Yeah. I mean I mean, that's that's already policy. Right? For it it's not a policy. It it's per department. Like, for us, if we're in this uniform, we must have a badge on. We must have our our name tag on. We must have a jacket that says the name of the agency.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So I I get all that. That's that's that's common sense. It's been that down for forever. Right? But isn't this bill putting law enforcement and their families at a greater risk? And I'll wait for go ahead.

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: No, I was gonna ask how so, just I'm looking for the direction of your thinking. It's just,

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: it's making it harder for you to do your job. It's making it more so you're already doing all this stuff. I mean I mean, honestly, this bill is is is is just another one with the with the feds, with the with the ICE and all that stuff to me. And it's like, I appreciate law enforcement, and I appreciate what everybody in law enforcement puts their lives on the line for, but this is just more unneeded restriction as far as I'm concerned. Let me ask you something, when you go onto a scene like this here, for lack of better words, you're protestors, you're instigators and all this stuff. Is it mandated that they identify themselves and take their mask off? Because we know they're all doing it, or not all of them, but a majority of them.

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: So you have to do it, but they don't? Yes, sir. That make any sense? We follow rules set by the state, and we have to follow those rules, and those protesters do not. I I can't comment on whether it makes sense. I can only follow the rules that are given to me. In a situation like this, I think a model policy saying that all departments should have some sort of logo I get that.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I I don't have a problem in the world with that.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit)]: I'd I'd like to know who who I'm dealing with to make sure

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: it's legit and all that stuff. But it's like this is way overreach. It's it's like this is putting by doing something like this, to me, is putting more public in danger because it's restricting the job that you can

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit)]: do. That's how I'm looking at this. I can understand that.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Thank you. What else I was gonna share? I'm coming back.

[Speaker 0]: Are you done?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: It's not

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: a problem.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I don't know because I forgot what I was gonna say.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So we'll come back when you think of it. It's nice to see you again, the Trenton Kern office. Appreciate your testimony on this. And I would say when I think of the broader landscape of public safety and law enforcement in the state of Vermont, the thing that I hear very consistently, regardless of where I am in the state, is law enforcement isn't asking for much, but they are asking us not to make their jobs any harder to do.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So I would just throw that out there.

[Speaker 0]: One area of concern that I have is specific on page four, lines seven through nine, which comprise subsection B. And we heard legislative council mention that they made modification of where these agents are likely to be present instead of may be present. And I'm curious if you can talk about really just the broader protest landscape, if biological chemical agents are being utilized, if you think that slight modification could potentially put officers in harm's way. I think the reason why we used May

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: was a situation like a protest can change very quickly. Right. And we saw that recently. We saw what was very gentle, you know, people collecting about a certain topic to violent clash. So I think one of the issues is if we if we say May, our thought was we can be prepared, and we can prevent instead of respond to Right. Something like that. So that was our use our reason for using the word.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. And I'd just say unequivocally on the record that I would far prefer to that to be changed back to May instead of likely to be.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: For the record.

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yeah. Ken, do you

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I'm sorry. Remember, recruitment, getting more people involved in law enforcement and all this. How do you think of an addition or a bill or more laws. What do you think that does to people that wanna get involved in law enforcement?

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: I I think that to some degree, they can be negative and positive. I think one of the things that we talked about originally was I I when I testified originally, I was not a fan of the fine for it. I think that was something I was concerned about. Originally, it had a crime. It was a crime to it, which has been removed. I think that as law enforcement, it's probably a strange thing to say, but we are attuned to following direction given to us by the state, by statute, and by by policy. So the policies are set forward. They're gonna be followed. Does it change recruitment? I I can't answer that because we haven't seen the effect of it recently, but it is something that we watch. Right now, our our recruitment is in a positive, which is great because I think we're seeing us come out of a slump. And there's a a drive to be a civil servant again and to be a police officer, especially a trooper. So we're seeing our numbers come back up, which is a really exciting thing for us. I'd love to maintain that in any way I can, but I I don't know if this this particular bill affects that yet because it just hasn't gone anywhere. Like, it's not public to anyone in the recruitment process. Sorry. I know that doesn't help, but I'm just trying to Well, we're I mean, we're in

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: a in a political building, and I guess I fall under that political person. And it's like, this is just so far reaching that it just impedes what all of you are trying to do with public safety. That's keep us all safe. I just think it makes it so much harder for all of you to do that. And I don't wanna put you on the spot, but I think you agree. Or maybe you can't and it's Tell me.

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: I can't answer on behalf of my agency yet. That that would be a difficult spot. Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any other questions for the to colonel? Yeah. So I thought they all

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit)]: fit into the room.

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Okay. So if I if I break this bond at work intentionally, unintentionally, I'm responsible for the civil violation. When I think honestly, I'm at work, my employer should be bearing the brunt of that. So why wouldn't it be the same thing for the federal government, I guess? Do you have any opinion on that? Sorry. I'm violation. If you have an equipment issue or something like that, then you don't write the employee either. The department would get the ticket.

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: I mean, was why I I preferred the idea of a policy, a model policy. But knowing that it is a statute trying to find some common ground, that's where we ended up.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I ask Julio that question too. He might have a

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: test last night. Yeah, go ahead. I mean, you guys are under so much jurisdiction or whatever the word is that I'm trying to find here, it it's like if you don't dot your eyes and and and all that stuff. I mean, what is what's it called? The gigolo gigolo and all that other stuff is it's like it's like, I mean, how much more do you have to be regulated? I mean, I sure. There's bad apples in in in in everything, but to me just seems so far reaching that it's unacceptable to me.

[Speaker 0]: Thank Zach? I just have two additional points too. Well, first, I just wanna thank you and the department for coming to the table and really acting in good faith with the negotiating party, which I guess was two members of this committee, on recrafting the language and integrating those changes for the best benefit of law enforcement. Because I think there's a lot of times where we get a controversial piece of legislation, and those that are being impacted just either throw a fit or they storm in, storm out. And I just really appreciate the very patient and deliberate and thoughtful approach that you and the commissioner took on this. I think to opine on one of the points that representative Goslant, I think is getting to, maybe I'll be able to crystallize it in a different way, is in the world that we live in, it is a hyper litigious landscape where protesters are looking to instigate conflict and potentially for either financial benefit or to at the detriment of law enforcement. And I think that is really when I look at this bill and what it is seeking to accomplish and what the unintended consequences could be, is that it could create a landscape where you have people, the bad actors at a protest. And like we said, in the recent examples at Doris Street, it was very peaceful until it wasn't. And if you have bad actors coming into one of these situations and intentionally instigate from prime officers just trying to get a violation of the newly passed piece of legislation, which they are keenly aware of and following, that is what I have a real concern about. And so again, it's not really so much a question, but I just really worry about the landscape of public safety and the benefit of our officers that are responding on the frontline to keep our community safe, being penalized for the sole sake of trying to make a virtue signaling against the federal administration. It just really grinds me up,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: but it is what it is.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: So I just wanna thank representative Harvey for putting in words that I couldn't put in because that's that's exactly what I was getting.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Thank you very much for your availability and your work on this as well. We'll hear from Julio next.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you for being here, Julio.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit)]: Thank you for the record. Welcome back. Thank you for inviting me again. For the record, again, Julio Thompson, attorney general's office, civil rights unit. I think I was here last before the committee on roughly analogous bill S two zero nine that had to do with civil arrests and sensitive locations. And I talked about the federalism concerns that arise when any state or local government issues laws that may affect federal actors. So today, I'm going to talk a little bit about how that fits within S-two zero eight. And I think back in February, I think February, a couple of days after Valentine's Day. Yeah, it was a question. Federal actors? Yeah, federal employees, agents of the federal government. I spoke to you early in February, a few days after Valentine's Day about a pending California case that challenged two California laws, two different laws that basically are or some elements of which are embodied in S two zero eight. One was an anti masking law, and the other one was an affirmative duty for law enforcement to wear identification and identify themselves from carrying out their duties. So when I was here last, the district court had should back up just to be clear for those who might be watching the testimony and didn't have a benefit or burden of my prior testimony to recall that the district court there ruled on a challenge to the California laws by the United States, government claiming that it violated the supremacy clause, which we've mentioned today. The district judge declined to block the state law that required all law enforcement, state, local and federal to identify themselves subject to certain exemptions, but did agree to block the no masking law on the grounds, principally that it discriminated against the federal government because the no masking requirements applied to all federal law enforcement anyone acting on behalf of the federal government, but did not apply to all state law enforcement. There were exemptions for state police and state record control and the like. And the court blocked that part of the law saying that the constitution doesn't allow states to issue laws that discriminate against the federal government, and seeing that the duties of federal officials and the exempted state officials were roughly analogous in many instances that the judge found it discriminatory and blocked California from putting that into effect. And the last thing I said on that subject back in February was that we couldn't expect an appeal from the federal government about the federal ID law, and that we should hear from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals fairly soon about that. And in fact, we did hear, or we did see the Department of Justice, this is now following my testimony in February. They did go to the Ninth Circuit and ask for an emergency order to block the ID law until they could have the Ninth Circuit decide their appeal of that preliminary injunction on the merits. And in February, the Ninth Circuit issued an emergency order called an administrative stay that blocks the California ID law from going into effect until it decides its appeal. And now that law is kind of frozen in place. It hasn't been applied. And now the parties are briefing the appeal on the merits as to whether it's unconstitutional or not. A little less than a month ago, DOJ filed its opening brief. California's brief in opposition and in support of its ID law is due April 21. So it's act of litigation. We don't have a final ruling on the preliminary injunction, but just to be clear, the Ninth Circuit found enough basis to freeze it at least temporarily until it could allow the parties to brief the appeal before it. So that's the state of the law there. I want to point, so when I talk about some of these federalism issues, I'm going to revert back to that appeal in a few minutes to talk about some of the arguments that DOJ is making that I think relate at least the issues to discuss or consider in light of the bill and also in light of some of the revisions in version 1.1, which I had the benefit of looking at today and hearing some of and hearing Legis Council do a very helpful walkthrough. But when we are looking at those federalism issues, there are two, again, buckets we look at. One is preemption. Is there a federal law that expressly, and Congress has said states can't regulate in this area, or we don't want you to regulate in this area. And with respect to the locations of ICE arrests, when I was here earlier in the month, I pointed out that there was no legislation on that point. And that is also true with respect to general operations of federal law enforcement about identification. There's no law that Congress has passed that says federal law enforcement have to identify themselves. In all of these contexts, there's one law that was enacted a few years ago that related to requiring identification of federal officers in the context of crowd management, a demonstration and a protest. But there's no indication at least on the face of it that Congress has said, know, this is exclusively an area that we can address and no one else. So we at least know that Congress has bitten off a small piece of that. No telling whether of course we'll say that's enough to say it states should back off. But as a general matter for day to day operations, most law enforcement officials at the federal and state and local levels don't deal with demonstrations. They're very, very rare relative to the millions of calls and responses that law enforcement make every year. But there's no federal law that this directly bumps up against. In February, I mentioned that there might be a slight bump up against the federal ADA when we were talking about people who have or might need facial covering for disability related purposes. And I noted that legislative council has addressed state disability related needs for masking in the version 1.1, which I think reduces that kind of conflict with the federal ADA. The other bucket that we spent a little bit more time on, and that has to do, it's got a clunky name, it's called intergovernmental immunity, and it's basically a two part rule that says one, you can't, as a state or local government, you can't directly regulate the federal government, and two, you can't discriminate against the federal government. So if federal employees are similarly situated to state and local employees, they can't be disfavored because they're federal employees, state and local can't be favored because they're state and local. So the California case was somewhat of an easy case the judge thought because there was. It's like, if you're a federal, all of you have to wear masks unless you're subject to some exemptions. But there was entire classes of state employees who were totally exempt from the law regardless of the circumstances. And the court said that's discrimination. We'll have none of it and and agreed to block that. California has not today appealed that. I think California's intent, at least stated publicly, is they're gonna go back to the drawing board and come up with something better rather than fight that point. They're not conceding it, but they're also not opinion officially. The big question, the

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: kind

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit)]: of open question among the courts, because we don't have many of these cases where states are seeking or have laws that affect federal employees is whether this directly regulates federal employees and what counts as direct regulation. And there's some difference of opinion among the courts and academics about whether if it has any effect on federal operations, that's enough, even if it doesn't burden it. But if it does directly regulate it, that's enough. Other and other court there's language in Supreme Court and other courts that say you need to show that it does impair or interfere with federal law enforcement. Now, respect to the issue of like, we were talking earlier, people were talking earlier about federal immigration agents and using masking. It was pointed out in the California litigation, and I don't think disputed that for most of its history, immigration officers didn't wear masks. Doxing has been around since the late 1990s. Airborne pathogens have been around longer than that. So the argument made, and I think that did not bear a lot of weight with the judge was like, this doesn't really interfere. And in fact, as a matter of federal law, DHS only offers its officers the discretion to do it. It doesn't require it in any particular situation. At the same time, on the other hand, The United States position is, and it's the position they've argued now in this appeal, is that we don't have to prove that it burdens us. You just can't write laws that tell federal employees what to do, period, even if it's easy to regulate or not. And this is different than traffic laws that apply. Everyone has to follow a stop line. This is a stoplight or a stop sign. This is a law that actually names federal authorities and says they must be doing these things and not doing other things. And so that's gonna be the question that the Ninth Circuit is gonna grapple with. I think both sides have fair arguments to make. I think they're good arguments to make on both sides. But that's where the debate really is joined. There is no other, at least in the context of laws like this, there is nothing else out there that would provide us any guidance. We expect that a lot of the case, that California case, which is really this appeal is about ID. And that law doesn't discriminate. The same rules apply to everybody. The United States they're saying you've listed a whole bunch of rules for our personnel to follow, and states and local governments don't get the right personnel policies for the federal government. And so that's where the debate is going to be joined. And like I said, I think there are good arguments for both sides, I don't think an easy way to say which way that one is going to go. With respect to version 1.1, I did want to make a couple of observations, not so much about the operational details, because I don't think I'm the right person as a civil rights and constitutional lawyer to talk about as opposed to the law enforcement officials who have more insight on the day to day operational aspects of things. But I did want to point out, there have been some changes here, I think, that will, I think, implicate if there is a legal challenge to the bill, let's say if version 1.1 were to become law, I think there would be some additional issues that would come into play that the committee may wanna consider and again, interact with people who work in the field about how things work, and that really refers to page three. I do have a copy of it. Page three lines one through four in subsection B, capital B, which provides a complete exemption for specified state officials. Viewing this case in line with the California decision, I think this is going to draw a lot of attention from the federal government because this exemption for plainclothes operations, which is kind of a plenary exception, doesn't apply to the federal government. And so we could expect section one of the government's motion to block it to highlight the section that carves out a favorable treatment for state officials that federal officials don't enjoy. And so I think that's part of the discussion in terms of evaluating this. The question really is presented, is there a practical alternative? Is there a way to define plainclothes operations that would sweep in both state and federal officials providing various duties? Because there are many thousands of FBI agents, for example, who do their day to day work in plain clothes. They wear a suit, maybe they have an ID badge, but not always. They don't always show that. So I don't know what the immediate solution is. I toyed with the idea of plainclothes operations unless you're part of an arrest or a warrant service team, because I do know that undercover or plainclothes officers, if they're going to enter a space where they're going to arrest somebody, they get a warrant, they get a team together. Under those circumstances, more for personal safety, I think, than for purposes of specific state laws, they will wear identify. They'll have a badge medallion, they'll have a wave jacket or some other identifying information. So when they enter into an unsafe an unknown space and in a context of warrant services, that's usually synonymously with unsafe space if you don't know what's on the other side of the door for the entry. In those sorts of operations, they do have ID, whereas they might not otherwise, if they're just walking around the neighborhood asking people, hey, what do you know about this house? It seemed to be like cars stopping in front of it. That's a different kind of plane close operation than actually doing a warrant entry. So that's one possibility. I don't know if it really holds up, but it was something that in terms of the carve out for state officials that caught my eye. I think that from our office's perspective, we do have plainclothes folks who work in the area of child sexual abuse materials and other who are law enforcement. And so I think that, and you can talk to them about wording in particular if they think it goes far enough, if it's clear enough. But I think that it certainly benefits our folks because they do work often in that plainclothes space. But that's not really the question for a court. The court is going to be, why did you leave out federal officers and there was no way to include them? Is that improper discrimination? So I think that's an area of focus to think about, and there may be a solution there. I just I didn't come here in short time notice with anything in mind. So I've been talking for a while, maybe too fast. So I'll take a breather and ask if there are any questions. Otherwise, I'll just have a couple more remarks.

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: Good questions so far.

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Go ahead, Kenneth. Well, I mean, would you agree the level of poll testing in the last ten, fifteen years has changed drastically. I mean, how the lack of respect for law enforcement and and laws and all this stuff has just just changed drastically. And it seems like well, it's it's it's it's just like my I don't think we prosecute enough. I don't think we hold accountability enough. And I think and I think this is following following right into that, where where law enforcement is trying to protect the general public, and they're not allowed to do that. Do do you see anything in this bill that

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit)]: sets our alarm off to you? I think you asked two questions there. The first one was, do I think demonstrations today are different than they were fifteen to twenty years ago? I think the only thing that's different, at least from my limited knowledge about that, both subjects, because I don't work in law enforcement, is that what might be different about now versus then might be the availability of telecommunications by all people in the crowd, both law enforcement and the public, in terms of communicating where people would go, both from law enforcement to communicate with each other in terms of where to devote resources or where additional resources are required, or from people in the crowd who might be either documenting that's different than we didn't have that twenty years ago, where we have hundreds of videos of events as they unfold and people can communicate with each other. But I think the perspective on that question seemed to be in terms of the respect for law enforcement. That's hard for me to say because I'm aware of, say, the 2,000 World Health Organization protests in Seattle, so that's twenty five years ago, was much more violent and involved hundreds of arrests. It was nothing like we've ever seen in this part of the country, I think, for Vermont and Upper New England. So I don't know that there's anything new about people contesting with law enforcement. Think about the anti war demonstrators and the like. Just five, six years ago, many urban areas were protesting the murder of George Floyd, many, many large protests involving lots of destruction of property. Vermont was lucky among the lucky areas that did not experience that. So that's hard for me to see a generalization. Think with flipping back the pages of history, I think we can identify plenty of other periods where we've had punctuated tensions between some communities and law enforcement, and that carries with it risks to law enforcement officers as well as community members, depending on who that law enforcement agency is. With respect to whether this impairs the ability of crowd management by state law enforcement, I'm not the person to answer that because I don't know what the training is in Vermont state. And so I would defer to their judgments about that. Just on the face of it, I don't think that, at least from my perspective, and this is more of take it for what is worth just the perspective of somebody who's lived here for twenty plus years. I don't see Vermont law enforcement wearing masks that often. And so the extent to which this, you know, prescribes or limits or codifies existing practices, I'm not sure. The bill does include a model policy provision. I agree with Lieutenant Colonel Lone 100% that to make sure things are really trainable and you hold people accountable. There are a lot of rules for law enforcement to follow, a lot of policies they have to follow to have something that is for the benefit of state and local officers to be spelled out in a teachable, workable way, I think is really important. So I hope if the bill proceeds, that part doesn't drop out because my experience is that often the legislature will pass a bill that is three to five pages long and it results in a very nuanced, thoughtful, kind of well contributed or broadly contributed policy that comes out of the criminal justice council that might be 15 pages that thinks about scenarios we haven't even begun to imagine and time doesn't permit law enforcement to lay them all out. So I think feature will be very, very helpful. Well, you're actually helping

[Rep. Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: me because I'm not very good, obviously, at articulating really what I'm trying to get at. But it's like now, it's much more organized, you know, with the with the phones and everything. It's it's like and I think there's already indications out there or or knowledge out there that people are just waiting, and then they just call in their people to to get more of a protest going and more of an uprising going and and more of a dangerous situation that puts everybody in in a a bad situation that that could arise. And I mean I mean, we're not really talking about this right now, but it wasn't so long ago we had a a a border patrol agent that was just full blooded, murdered on the side of the road. And, you know, when law enforcement is called to action anywhere or they're walking down the street or whatever, they have no idea what they're walking into, should be prepared for that total situation. We had it, I think, years ago, right across the street here on a on a ball field law enforcement was was chastised for for a situation you you just don't know. I mean, we're going through it. I mean, here here we are with the lawmakers in this building. And, I mean, we're being protected more inside this building because we're we're going to, you know, detect the doors or we're not, but the the general public is, and this is where people sell. So it it just seems like to me, like, this is so double standard. It's it's like it's like, I'm no more important than the average person walking down the street, but because I'm a legislator. Right?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit)]: You know what I'm saying? I I hear what you're saying. Yes. I do. If there are any Just one more thing

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: to go on about your model policy part that I like and not necessarily having a statute. I mean, if we if we all start doing everything in a uniform way, pardon the pun, I guess, and that's our state appearance, the way we do things, The feds in the area are are gonna take notice of that. I'm not saying there's a sort of peer pressure amongst the groups, and it may be more effective than this guy.

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: That's your stuff off.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So continue with those last couple of points.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit)]: Sure, just a minor point. And this is something I think I, it may there may be a common understanding, but I'm not I'm not sure about it, and so I thought I would raise it. So and this has to do with that provision that was a discussion earlier about biological or chemical agents. And I wasn't really here to sound in on the may versus likely question because I think that is something that law enforcement probably has has, you know, practical examples they can present for you to consider. My question really was what just to make sure I understood everything in that section, what counts as an agent or not, whether that's whether that's a man whether that's a manufactured substance or whether that's natural. Like the easy example would be, is spit a biological agent, or is pollen a biological agent? I'm not sure I know that, And so I wouldn't want people to get hung up. Or if the criminal justice council has to articulate a policy, it's hard for them, I think, to offer examples and maybe training situations where they're not sure what is meant by agent. It could be that there's an understanding that's from other parts of state law that's possible. I haven't done that research, but it was just something that I had a little bit of a question last time because I think I did talk about people who wear I do know Vermonters who wear masks, just members of the public, in springtime, probably within a month, you may see people riding their butts with masks because of the pollen content in some parts of the state and maybe their underlying From health somebody

[Lt. Col. Sean Long (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: with allergies to pollen, it's like a biological aid, it really is.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit)]: When I'm thinking about that, the last person I saw riding a bicycle, I think it was in St. John's Ferry a couple of years ago, and

[Rep. Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I've seen people riding bicycles since then.

[Speaker 0]: People riding bicycles in the past. Sorry.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit)]: A masked person riding riding a bicycle after COVID, but thinking of that was a little odd. And my first thought related to COVID, and I thought open air, safe space. And then I went back to my car when the windshield was yellow with pollen. And I thought, oh, that's why we're doing it as opposed to and there's not a lot of motor exhaust in the area I was in. So that was a question I had other than that. Was just my final thoughts.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Any other questions from the end? I'm

[Speaker 0]: not seeing any.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Tomorrow morning we have witnesses on an updated version of 193. I've been working with Eric and Karen Dolan to hear the R and P on that. So we're adjourned