Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Welcome back to the Health Judiciary Committee this Thursday afternoon, April twenty third. And we're gonna turn our attention for a little bit to S209 and then we're going to hear about the firearms relinquishment study and recommendations in advance of possibly looking at language coming from the Senate at some point. But figured we'd just get that kind of background introduction. But let's start S-two zero nine. The main thing is that I kind of wanted to go over some of what I thought I would suggest to our legislative council to have an updated version and wanted to walk through what I think that we should have them do. Then we can also kind of open up some talk about if other people have some other ideas as well. So just kind of starting, I really think from the testimony I've heard and from comments from members Dispassed. Yeah, it's passed by the Senate at this point. That there is an issue, I agree with this as well, that the concept of traveling to, entering, or returning from some of these various locations is really amorphous and really kind of open ended. And what I would suggest through a legislative council is that language could apply for courts because it has applied that way for law, but also for schools, for educational institutions. Because I think it can be pretty clear when we establish. But for all the other ones, that the protections would extend to the premises, So the place of worship, the healthcare facility, etcetera. So that's kind of one of the suggestions I'm going to make. So the other thing is I have talked to Rick offline on this a little bit further on basic worship and whether a definition is needed. And we can hear from him again. He really feels that this is an established term in our statute and in case law. But we can hear from him again on that. But actually backing up the subdivision D, I'm gonna suggest that we make clear that the last phrase, establishment distributing food, that we're talking about food pantries there. We're not talking about grocery stores, just to make that very clear. So let me see what else I had as far as just suggestions. Those are the main ones. I guess there's a couple of questions as far as additions. I really think we should add libraries. I think that was fairly compelling that that should be a protected place. And I do also understand that there are folks that really think that we should consider state buildings or buildings that are under state control that have a forward, I guess, how would I put it, provide services to individuals who come to those locations, I'd certainly like to hear input on Karen.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: So with that, I don't know if we're gonna take testimony because I have I would like

[Speaker 0]: to take testimony. This is just to have a version that does these things that we

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: could then take folks' testimony. Because I have been specifically asked about libraries and state buildings as well. So I feel like if we're coming up with a list, I would like to be as inclusive as possible.

[Speaker 0]: And just actually I mean, so I can have that put on for this next version so we can have it for discussion purposes and see if we can get some pictures coming in on that. Going to put a question mark on polling places. I know we've talked about this. So I'm kind of putting a marker by that, whether we can try to narrow that, maybe hear a little bit more testimony on the live. We did hear some testimony but maybe a little bit more on that one. So that one's kind of, I'm suggesting that we keep it in for now but with a question mark by that one, what we're gonna actually do with that. So I think those are the things that I had, but I also, if anybody else wants to weigh in, I know some people don't like this at all, I understand that. But just to kind of move this along, I think some of these changes does narrow this. Understand adding a couple things obviously does narrow it.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Who is this applicable to? This is only for civil warrants. Correct.

[Speaker 0]: So it doesn't count if there's I mean, it's an exemption if it's a warrant or a warrant. And we did hear from Julio as far as does that take away the discrimination So

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: this was created because of ICE, correct? What's that? This was created because of ICE, correct?

[Speaker 0]: I assume so. This came from the Senate. Just dealing with Well, we've

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: already got it on record before now anyway.

[Speaker 0]: I think that that's probably seems to go right.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Are we going to have any kind of discussion about it? Yeah, yeah, please. Probably not a surprise, I'm not in favor of adding state building, but regardless of that, how the senate feels about a state building since they pulled it.

[Speaker 0]: Do you mean why they did?

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: I feel like I would like to hear your testimony to understand. Like, if there's a good reason not to, that would be very helpful.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: No, no, I understand.

[Karen Dolan (Member)]: That's where I'm coming from because I feel like I don't have an argument right now of why why not? If we're including all these other things, why not state buildings? And I don't feel like we've heard any reason why we shouldn't include one. So that's where I am.

[Speaker 0]: The argument that I've heard for including it is that this is the one area where there's case law that is found that you can do this as a state building. Frankly, I don't think that's the best argument for why we should put it in here. I think it should be the logistics and the practicality of whether it makes sense. So, yeah, I needed some testimony on it. Overall,

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: on all the additions, when we it'd be years ago probably, that we did it for court buildings, court proceedings or whatever, and it was courts only, and I remember what a heavy lift that was in here just to add quartz and that was it. And it's almost like, I almost get the feeling by adding all these other pieces that the mood, I guess, this is just me, the mood in the room or the vibe, I guess, it isn't that big a deal to add all these when I distinctly remember adding the original bill of court was monumental, it was monumental, something that

[Speaker 0]: had never been done before.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: And to expand it like this is,

[Speaker 0]: don't know if there's

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: a word I can use but it makes it bigger than fundamental. Never I think. 's why I had the problem of expanding it so much all at once. The history that I have in the committee and what we've done in the past. And if I remember I voted toward expanding it to courts, But argument, and I didn't think it was that bad of a thing. To go to something that makes it all day, every day, in normal life, that certainly was not even close to her intent back

[Speaker 0]: there back then.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: In normal circumstances, you know how I feel about it, but in normal circumstances with the ICE issue aside, the immigration if she was hired, didn't would we be doing this? Don't think so. When people are going to court, I can almost see it being acceptable an exception, a legitimate exception, because they're going to court, and they're going to clear up a legal issue. We're talking about people who have a warrant for them already civilly or criminally or something. Right? But if they're going to court, they're attending to their business. And even if we stop them and they have something, well, we'll give you that right there because that's what's gonna happen when courts open anyway. Alright? Vermont law enforcement officers don't make arrests on civil arrest warrants anyway unless they have the warrant or the order. They're not gonna make one without probable cause being found by a judge yet.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I I

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: it's an ICE issue. What else? We're just we're we're giving we're giving people potential alibis to stay fugitive, if you wanna call us a fugitive battle plan. And

[Speaker 0]: that and that's his

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: They're very ingress too. You know? We don't We don't know what folks have for there there's no reason why I would even be aware of somebody's civil warrant or non civil warrant that ICE is looking for. I I would have no idea. Don't I know how I would know if that person was wanted by ICE without a warrant on a civil violation. I have no idea how I would even know. So I'd be having a legitimate law enforcement contact if I made contact with somebody, and that would be end of it. I'm I'm just no. My feeling. It just doesn't make sense to me at all. It's not gonna happen.

[Speaker 0]: Right, definitely. And I think I definitely took to heart what you were saying about the issue of the travel to the front and all that stuff. So I know that's not far enough for what you want, but hopefully that is at least somewhat helpful. Anything else before I have Todd just kind of weigh in the one attorney general component of this, which we haven't heard from

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: him yet? Yeah,

[Speaker 0]: take it.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: So I just, it's just like on on the good bookstores because I can't pronounce that. The what? The bookstore. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: And so I think we should expand it.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: No. It's like we're just creating more and more and more safe spaces, and and it and it concerns me. And it I think it's out of control. I I we're just, it's like we're controlling more people's lives all the time. And, and we're putting good people more at risk. Like there was just, there was a woman in Virginia that just came up and this is real that I know nobody wants to hear about ICE, but this person looks like a sweet person and everything like this, a murderer from another country. And, like, all of a sudden, go here, go over there, and put the the average person at risk. I I have a huge problem with this, And we've done it. I think we're creating more of a problem to continue to go down this path and it goes against what I think.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I'm not gonna gonna do it.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I also have one other concern that I think it's very disingenuous. I think we're giving people a serious false sense of security with with, oh, I can go now, and then they get picked up. Where are they gonna look at? Us. If you have issues, we should take care of them. That's what I thought. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: What else before we have to talk over? We'll have more discussion when we get to next week, so this is going up. Why don't you join us and just address the page three line from eighteen seventeen, the Attorney General. How does that whole this comment? That was kept. Page 38, Thompson, a second. Good afternoon. Good

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: afternoon. For the record, Todd Daylose, assistant attorney general. Good to be back with you all. And to the chair's point, I'm happy to speak. I think Julio Thompson from our office has come in to talk to you about this bill. He's out this week. Otherwise, I'm sure he'd be more than happy to talk through some of the civil rights constitutional issues. I'm not fully prepared to answer those questions. It also sounds like everybody kinda knows who they are. So the only thing I I think the chair asked me to come speak about is the existing civil action authority that the AG's office has. This is the ability of the AG to bring a civil action on behalf of Vermont for injunctive relief, meaning you guys equitable relief or declaratory or declaratory relief if there is a reasonable cause to believe that a violation of subdivision one, which is the sensitive locations of this section subsection c has occurred or will. So this really is an opportunity for the state to take action through the attorney general likely to halt an activity that was deemed in violation of this or reasonably would be in violation of this or potentially to seek damages around it. One thing I would just flag there on the damages issue, in other sections and other statutes, damages are actually stated. So by way of example, totally different world, but it's one that I operate more in, in the consumer space, there are sort of set damages for violations of Consumer Protection Act. In the tobacco space, something else we're working on, there are set damages if there's an unlicensed sale of tobacco products. So that would be something to think about. We're not advocating in any particular direction, I will say, from a litigation standpoint. The litigation would then be if we were seeking damages for a violation, it would be demonstrate that there's liability by the actor, whomever it is, whoever unlawfully executed a civil arrest at a court, which is the current state of the law. Then what those damages would be will be up to a jury at trial, and that could take quite a while. And I'm not sure what the legislative intent there is. So I just put out there that in certain other circumstances, the legislature has seen fit to provide a figure there. Again, we don't take a policy position on it, but

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Do you want to take a stab at a constitutional position on that provision or overall that?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Sure. What's the question?

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Well, it would be just regarding the finding yesterday, the ninth circuit, you're gonna be able to bring damages or other all the remedies, they are listed here, civil action, so to us, but not to the federal officer. And that's the reason why we did this. And so that sort of seems like a missing cloud issue.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Certainly, I think that would be a defense to any action that was brought by the state. I would anticipate if it were a federal officer, right? I mean, I think state officers would be pretty straightforward. A federal officer, I think there are a number of different defenses they could claim. I would say based on the Ninth Circuit's decision, as I read that decision, it's an expansion of existing case law. I think it is also focused on the operational control that the Ninth Circuit saw was being applied to federal the federal workforce and federal officers, not simply the discrimination part, but the actual I can't remember the word that the Ninth Circuit uses there. But it's really about reaching into the control, not simply saying, everybody's got to make a right turn in the same way.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Therefore, the federal government does.

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: I think this falls, arguably, somewhere between those two, because I don't civil process and civil arrest, I think, is a broader concept than masking by law enforcement agents. So I would not be confident in saying yes or no to that question, but I do think it's not completely on all fours with the Ninth Circuit's opinion. And as you all know, we sit in the Second Circuit, which is the controlling precedent

[Speaker 0]: for Vermont. We'll have Julio in next week to address 208 and 209. Rather give them the Ninth Circuit opinion as well. Well, we don't

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: As you know, the Montlanc police officers don't make arrests unless they have a warrant for a civil violation. So then what is the purpose?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: I think I would have to look more into I think there are other avenues for civil arrest beyond law enforcement.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Beyond law enforcement?

[Todd Daloz (Assistant Attorney General)]: Yeah. Like, let me If I find it, I'll get back to you. But if I have a vague recollection of other processes that can be served outside of the law enforcement context for civil unrest.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Of arrest? Let me check.

[Speaker 0]: I think Julio didn't touch on that when he was in. He was in on this already once, so we'll have him back.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Oh, okay. If it's not a law enforcement officer, then wouldn't be applicable.

[Speaker 0]: It would be in the rush.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: If I find it out, here or something.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. So we'll wait for we'll go we'll go off live until Carolyn gets here to and if you could pass out the that report so everybody has it in front of him, but we'll go off live