Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Clear luck. Good morning. It is January 16 in senate judiciary. We have the state's attorneys and sheriff's office here, for a general update, and I do first just wanna note that we don't have a quorum at the moment which is my understanding it's procedurally okay. We can still Senator Norris and I can still be here to receive this update. I think we'll have some other members trickling in here over the next five to ten minutes. Yep, floor is yours. Thanks.

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Thank you so much for having us in. Tim Lieder, Sumon, Executive Director of the Department of State Attorneys and Sheriffs. We have that effect up. Quorum is an issue. And also, think joining us on screen is maybe she'll be joining us soon is Kim McManus. He's our legislative attorney to appear remotely. And also in the room, two members of the department. We have sheriff Anderson from Windham County, and we also have our new director of labor relations and operations, Lauren Clemmons here from our central office. So one of the things I was going to briefly do is I gave you reading material over weekend, posted on your website, this presentation, which is a snapshot of the year end for twenty twenty five judicial filings. We've done, for the last three years, we've done a snapshot of judicial filings in May and December. And the December 1 is pretty interesting from our perspective because it's a wrap up on where things stand right at the end of the year, and it also captures what is pending coming into the legislative session. I always find it to be pretty helpful for legislators to sort of hear about filings, because it really drives our entire operations, everything from transport deputies and what they're doing to our deputy state's attorneys, our administrative professionals, our victim advocates, our state's attorneys. And of course, the filings also drive what's happening in our court system. So on your website, you can dig into that. I was going to point out just a couple of things. Trials, the main driver of case resolution. Over the last two years, we've had 107% clearance rate, sorry, 104% clearance rate. Since 2022, we've had 107% credit union. I would like to continue to see that elevate up to more like 150%. We still have about 22,000 pending cases in our system, of which 19,000 are criminal cases. The others are family, juvenile, that sort of. Senator Bolton.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Know we have a backlog. I'm not disputing But I also imagine that we always have some number of pending cases, and prior to the backlog, getting to this point where it was really detrimental, do you have a sense of what sort of the average number of pending cases per year was?

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: So, talking about filings? Because what I have is actually the number of cases pending regardless of year of file. But we file between 12,000 to 13,000 cases a year in the criminal system, and that has been pretty consistent for a while. What changed during not just COVID, even before COVID, was how quickly we were able to resolve them, And as I was saying in,

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: think it

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: was potentially appropriations yesterday, we file more misdemeanors than felonies, but we have many more felony trials than we have misdemeanors. So the opportunities for trial resolution continue to be stat on the felony side. So it's inverse to the number of filings that we have. And so one of the things that's on your website as well is, as of December 24, kind of a snapshot of the accountability docket pilot that we talked about in both government operations and appropriations already this year, but a very, in my opinion, a really great opportunity to see how we can do court differently. And as of yesterday, we cleared 500 cases of this eight ninety that we originally started with relating to about 100 defendants. So that is one way to sort of think about misdemeanors or nonviolent felonies going through the system. Do have a follow-up?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Well, follow-up because I actually wasn't asking about filings, although that is helpful information. What I'm trying to understand is prior to the backlog really exploding in any given year, how many pending cases that they're sort of sitting? Right now we're saying it's about 22,000. I'm trying to understand how much larger that is than what we would sort of typically expect.

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Health and system. So in 2023, we had 26,000 pending cases. So we moved thousands of cases since 2023. We could do a query of like a twenty eighteen or twenty nineteen pending list. Odyssey has happened since that time in between, so I would wanna check with the judiciary staff on that, but I will get back to you on what a 2018 or twenty nineteen case pending list looks like. What we do as well is we don't just talk about criminal because we do the CHINS filings in the juvenile and the YO and PCRs in civil division. So we try to do a full picture for our department, but just get into some sort of contextual pieces. And then Kim, has Kim joined us yet? Yes. Yeah. Kim Vignanese will go over our legislative priorities, which I know is really the core of what I think you want to hear from us today. But the contextual piece concerning data, right? We still have about 45% of our cases relate to people with three or more pending cases. It's a big driver of court activity. We also have, 2023 we had 90 pending homicides at this point, 2024 we had 96 pending homicides, and at this point we have 111 pending homicides. So over a three year window, we've seen about a 24% increase in homicide filings. That's different than the date of incident. Someone could have had a homicide incident in 2021, and it's investigated, doesn't get filed until 2023. But just in terms of filings, that's a major pressure on our court system, and then we have on the opposite end those repeat defendants. They're competing for the same court. Contextually, accountability dockets, what I think should be really the focus of our judiciary, how do we balance major felony time in courts with misdemeanor or non violent felony time in courts, because they shoulder other groups as victims and defendants that deserve speedy justice, and we have seen great success in the Chittenden pilot, so we hope that some of the learning that we've seen through that connection to AHS, connection to those services, and repeat scheduling and flexible scheduling within short windows of time by the judge can help move more cases. In our opinion, we think we should be having more space and more time for the nonviolent and misdemeanor cases so they can have speedier justice. Recently, we've seen that in Chittenden County, state attorneys have looked clear every firearm related incident where there was homicide involved in 2022. 2022 was a high watermark of homicide filings in state history. I believe there was 27 homicide 27 homicide events that year. There was more filings in part because of the residual date of incident, but we've moved those, and now we're dealing with our 2023, our 2024, twenty twenty five homicides. But that shows you it takes three to four years to get out of office once a homicide's been filed and to dispose of that homicide, and those are our most often, some of our most time sensitive cases. So I'll let you dig through the data, and we only have two data sets on your website. One is the judicial filing data for the year. One thing I will point you to, and when I come in front of Appropriations Next, I hope to have a big blow up, but if you look on further

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: down the line,

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I created a map this year. Someone said, should create a map. So I've got exactly what page it's on, but right in the middle, talking about caseloads, just to give you a brief snapshot of that. So we have 300 cases on average assigned to a SAS prosecutor. We have about 600 cases assigned to each of our victim advocates. And administrative professionals are a little bit different, because in some offices they touch every case, and in other offices they might split up by alphabet or misdemeanor, felony, etcetera. But I did my best, we got 800 cases, 790 something cases per administrative professional. We have a group of prosecutors that have, we have 28 prosecutors that have 300 or more cases on average, and they hold four eleven cases on average each. On the map, you'll see there as well number of pending cases, and then homicides as well. I thought those were important pieces, because even in a county that has maybe a lower caseload, then I have a fair number of homicides. And that puts pressure on a county, on a court, etcetera. When

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: you say a fair number, I assume that's sort of relative. How many homicides happened in Vermont in 2025? I know the filings are different because sometimes it takes a while, but I'm wondering how many homicides actually happened.

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: In the back of this, you'll see the 2025 data, because it just ended, they settle, and there's some things where they don't know if they're still being qualified as a homicide yet, so we have to wait until the 2025 data settles. At the back of your presentation, there's Nimbers reported incidents through 2024. That data has been analyzed. We have to wait on the incidents, and DPS and VCIC, etcetera, And Vic could talk more about the 2025 incidents. But I don't have the 2025 incident number for homicides yet. But we do have the numbers from 2017 through 2024, which are in the back of your presentation. What we have only at this point for 2025 is 35 homicide filings this year in our courts for pending cases that were filed in 2025. An example of the Bennington case that we just resolved from the 80s, we filed it in 2025. So the incident happened many years ago, but we filed this year and it shows up in this year's filing. And we resolved that case almost as soon as we

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: filed. So

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: filed this year, does that mean it happened this year? Yeah. Okay. Yep. And does that filing number include attempts or only?

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: It includes attempts, conspiracy, dating and abetting. It includes the full spectrum of attempted, as we say, attempted murder. The way we do it is a literal search of the terms murder, manslaughter, all the homicide filings fall under those categories, and so we do include aiding and vetting, accessory after the fact, attempt, that sort of thing. And one of the things we've seen is, and Kim McManus can speak to this at some point, she did an analog look at some of her affidavits for the past couple years, increasing nexus with firearms, and in those affidavits, increasing mentions of drug related activity. So those two pieces, right, and I'll get into some of our priorities for the year on firearms, for example, we've seen that NAFSA has increased and put pressure on our system. The domestic violence homicides are a very important data point. And in terms of the increase in homicide filings, the increase we've seen has been more drug related and firearm related filings. So I will, with your permission, Mr. Chair, there's any other questions, I will be right here, but I will hand it off to, Ken McManus, on the priorities whenever you want that I see a question.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. No, I haven't had a chance to look at that yet, and I certainly will. And I'm just, I'm wondering, sorry to really harp on my own side. Just want to make sure I really have a clear understanding of what happened in 2025, what was an attempt, and and so I'm wondering if it's broken out in that much detail. We

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: can the way it it's it's court gives us the files in an Excel sheet. So what I'll have to do is pull the homicides and then break out cells to see what the actual charges are, but we could get that to you. It'll be a longer document, and we might have to de identify some of it, if it's now like a juvenile case or something like But we can get you to more granular data on homicides, but it does include that full spectrum of and you know what? One of the things it doesn't include, which is a huge pressure on our department, and I'm looking at the chair of Anderson because I know it's impacted his office at times, The unsolved cases that are in the midst of investigation, where we're doing search warrants, we're doing geofence warrants, we're doing forensic work, DNA work. Prominent cases remained unsolved in Rutland, a homicide that took place during the day, and it was like that. Gasselhovn, it's an unsolved case. Doesn't mean that there's not an amount of work happening behind the scenes with the state's attorney's office and with law enforcement. So those are the things beneath the surface that don't show up in a filing, unless you search through search warrants and things like that, which are an important balloonist part of what we do as well, assisting law enforcement in search warrants. Feel free to dig into the data, at some point I can come back and do a more granular, but I wanted to make sure you had it on your website. It's the December 10 annual snapshot that we do. You also have the accountability docket data, which breaks out sentence types since October 20, and I know we can spend an hour doing that, but I'll hand it off to Kim on any priorities and our agenda for discussion.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I just have one question about the filing breakdowns. When I look at that breakdown, can I also see in the filings what actually happened in 2025 and what was filed in 2025, but maybe happened in a previous year?

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: We on the filing data itself, just the judicial filings, it won't show the incident date. However, and it it sometimes an investigation's incident date will like, for example, each law enforcement agency has an incident coding system. Not all of them, I'm looking to the chair as well, like, VSP has a particular incident coding system for incident numbers. They often align to a year, but it's not always it's the year of the investigation. It's not always the year of the commencement of the act that took place. But we you would have to dig into the affidavits for the 2025 filings to see you know, sometimes it's this investigation started in 2022, and after the following steps, we have now filed this homicide case. But we can dig into that and and see if there's a way to analog or pull that out of there. Technology we have today, maybe there's a way to load in those affidavits into some sort of system and pull out a base or something like that. We can we can look into that.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay. Appreciate that. I just really wanna big picture when I when we think about what happened in 2025 versus what was filed because there can be such an incredible lag.

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: There's a lag. Yes, absolutely. And again, the back of this presentation, there's 2017 to 2024 data across a whole bunch of areas based on the NIBRS data. But that's all in there for you, and you will see a lot of Kim McVanisses. I know you already have, and so she's really, this year has been a really important part bringing together, and I'm really happy to share our communications here. Our state's attorneys and our sheriffs have agreed on a unified agenda, which is really wonderful for me, because it means that I can represent 28, or the best of my ability, roughly 28 offices, and there's always some distinctions, as Senator Norris knows, between the different county offices. But with that, Kim, I'll hand it off to you.

[Kim McManus (Legislative Attorney, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Thank you, Tim. Good morning, everyone. I apologize I could not be there today in person. We have a little situation at home I need to deal with in about thirty five minutes. So I will keep my remarks short for you all. As Tim of well, Tim alluded to some of our priorities already, given the data that he was running through. And if you have looked at our priorities outline, I'm actually going to run through it in reverse. So if you're following along, just so that I don't lose you, I'm going to start at point 10. We have 10 priorities for this session. The first one, as Tim mentioned, was the backlog. And I know that's important to this committee as we were just discussing the backlog in relation to the Speedy Trial Bill just the other day. As Tim said, we are committed to looking at legislative and administrative solutions to this backlog, and we would highly encourage the committee to dig into the accountability docket data that Tim has presented and, again, maybe create some space and time for us to talk specifically about the success we're seeing there. An important update that I just heard on Tuesday is that as of Tuesday, January 13, five zero nine dockets have been closed out of the I believe it was eight zero three that the group started with. And the prosecutor also conveyed that there were four or five plea agreements that are already organized and ready to go and that'll be finished by the end of the month. So we, again, want to press upon this body that when we create this dedicated space for these misdemeanor cases, these cases get resolved. And so if we can collectively keep thinking about how we can make this happen, again, legislatively and or administratively, we will be supporting those efforts. Our next priority and one that's already started to get discussion in house judiciary is fixing the definition of recidivism. And this goes to just better data across the board. Currently, the definition in our statutes for recidivism is tied to an incarceration period of a year. That is the starting point. So then if you re offend, you're re incarcerated actually, that counts towards our recidivism definition, which is definitely not how we, among stakeholders, are discussing recidivism as far as somebody re offending after having contact with our justice system. This was raised last year. We had brief testimony on it in the House. It has already been brought up in the House in Bill H-four 10. I know there's a similar Senate bill. It looks like we are going to greatly edit the current four ten and bring you a much simpler bill, but just starting with redefining recidivism and potentially just changing the name that currently is collecting that reincarceration data. That data is important. We just don't think it should be called recidivism. So we think there's some simple fixes there to work our way towards better data. Our next priority is the expansion of the hearsay exception, which is h five. That has gotten days of testimony right now over in house judiciary. So we're looking forward to that hopefully being discussed and voted out relatively soon. What that would look like for you all is you are likely aware that, rule of evidence 804A, excuse me, allows children 12 and under, allows that if they've made a disclosure, prior to a legal proceeding, that those disclosures can come in as a hearsay exception during a trial for an abuse to a child, generally sexual assault, but also any serious bodily injury to a child. H5 seeks to expand that to add 13, 14 and 15 year olds. And our department supports that expansion. Next in our priority list, and this has actually been voted out of the house and will be coming to you soon hopefully, is there was an issue that was raised last year when we were discussing bail revocation. And the issue was essentially that the legislature did not want to define certain terms that the judiciary should be defining through case law. And that's a simplified explanation. When we were discussing it, we realized that the way the bail revocation statute is currently, written and the appeals that are attached to any appeals around bail, it was actually unclear whether the prosecutors could appeal the decision when a judge denies a motion to revoke. So we've asked for clarifying language on that. The house passed, h four zero nine, just last week of or sorry. The committee voted it out. And so it'll be working its way through the house. And we hope that you will consider that and give prosecutors the ability to appeal those revocations largely so that we can get more case law on this. We need to know where the limits are for when we can ask for these revocations and when we cannot, and it's a little unclear right now. Any questions so far? I apologize. Moving quickly.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: No. Nothing I'm seeing.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay. Our

[Kim McManus (Legislative Attorney, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: next priority, which is always a priority, but this year specifically when we look at centering victims in our justice system, we would like to again review, midpoint review for probation and discuss the efficacy of it, whether or not it's actually working the way the legislature intended it for for it to work. And if you wish to continue with the concept of midpoint review, we would strongly encourage that, a conviction for a violation of an abuse prevention order not be be included in the exception list, but that should not be an offense. That should be eligible for midpoint review. Next in our priorities, we have about a five page DUI drug enforcement recommendation, which has currently been encapsulated in H637. As many of you are likely aware, we are seeing more and more drug cases for our driving impairment cases, either that they are exclusively drug or alcohol and drug combined. We're seeing less and less alcohol specific driving under the influence cases. And with that, we need some updates in our DUI law to make sure we are appropriately being able to enforce and prosecute drivers who are driving under the influence with drugs in their system. I will admit this is a complicated area that we will bring in our traffic safety prosecutor to discuss. So if you have any questions on the specific areas around that, we definitely need to set aside very specific time for that. And I would bring Dennis in to walk you through on our suggestions. All right, moving along, we are seeing more and more cases involving firearms in our state, as Tim alluded to. And Senator Vyhovsky, I know I owe you an email. I've been trying to clean up what I want to send you so that it makes the most sense. But as Tim mentioned, I took a look at all of our 2025 filings for anything homicide related. So homicides, attempted homicides, conspiracy related to homicide. And what jumped out, and this is the twenty twenty five filings, is that of the and I apologize, I have too many screens up right now. But again, senator Vyhovsky, I will give you the very specific numbers. But there were but when I did the poll, if there were 27 filings, three of them would be considered domestic violence. And of those, only one was intimate partner violence. And all of the others had either gun and or drug and gun related incident around it. So either somebody owing somebody money for drugs or a gun being used in some tangential way that there was a drug offense and or the other remaining ones had a mental health component to it. So we are seeing more and more gun related homicides not tied to intimate partner violence. And we have a few firearm pieces of legislation that we are supporting. The first one is you are aware that there is the prohibited persons. If you have certain convictions, felonies, and or DV related convictions, or you have certain pending charges, you are prohibited from possessing a firearm. We would like that prohibition to be expanded to persons who have been found in need of treatment under Title 18 and or have had a hospitalization order or non hospitalization order issued. We would like that expansion to take place. We would also like to make the theft of a felony sorry, theft of a firearm a felony. Currently, any theft of a firearm, the charging decision is based on the value of the firearm. We would like to move that away from the value and just the essence of what it is, the firearm, making that a felony. We also are aware that there are some other firearm pieces of legislation coming out from the house that we haven't fully dug into, but we will do that. But we are aware of those two pieces and we support those as a department. Moving on, along with the increase in firearms, we are seeing an increase in organized crime in our state, And we believe that Vermont would benefit from having its own RICO statute so that we can get to the heads of these criminal organizations and not just picking off the bottom. We believe that these criminal organizations are using our most vulnerable people in the state and are getting away with profiteering off Vermonters. And we would like to have our own RICO statute so that we could go after the heads of those organizations. As this group is aware, there is a gap in our system between our mental health system and our criminal justice system. Excuse me. I apologize for my voice this morning. We strongly believe that the state of Vermont needs a forensic facility, a forensic facility that would aid defendants who have been found incompetent and help them restore competency so that they can see through their trial and have an end to that process. We also believe that we require a facility that if somebody has been found guilty but insane, and they are still posing a risk, a substantial risk to the public, that we need a secure facility for those persons. There are a number of bills, one on the Senate side and a few on the House side that are looking into this area. I know it's a conversation that has been discussed for many years, but we do believe that this is the time for this body to seriously discuss these issues and see what we can create here in Vermont. We suggest that we start with our most serious offenses, those who have been accused with an offense that could have a life offense as the consequence. That is the smallest group, but the ones who pose the most risk to our community, and that that would be a good place for us to start to have these conversations about the benefit of such a facility.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Murphy, and then I also have a clarifying question.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: It's possible that this is a better question for legislative counsel who's not in the room, but because you are, I'm going to ask, could you remind me what the offenses in Vermont are that carry a potential life sentence?

[Kim McManus (Legislative Attorney, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yes. And Tim, feel free to help me out if I don't have the exact list in front of me. But our homicide cases, so first degree, second degree murder, sexual assault has a life offense, Max, kidnapping. Might be it.

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: There may be a couple other more obscure ones that are less charged for tariff and the tariff statute that may have one, but we could give you the full list with the life of defense and punishment.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: That's very helpful.

[Kim McManus (Legislative Attorney, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: It's a relatively small list, and yes, happy to give you an exhaustive list.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: You. Tim, my question So I feel like maybe three years ago we passed a forensic facility bill and I must be misremembering or forgetting something. Mean what I thought happened was that some beds were added to the Berlin facility. Did that, it made like literally just a couple of beds, I think. So is the suggestion now that we have to expand that and build a whole new hospital? Is that what the suggestion is?

[Kim McManus (Legislative Attorney, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: So the suggestion from our department would be that this forensic facility be under the Department of Corrections. And we have been informed that there is potentially, I believe, a wing in the Southern State facility that could be potentially used for this. In other conversations with folks recently, I was told that DMH potentially has a facility that could be secured, but I do not know enough information about that. But our suggestion is that this actually be under DOC with a medical provider inside the facility instead of under DMH trying to create a secured facility. And by starting with only life offenses, we project that looking back the last few years, the number of individuals who would qualify would be about four to five at any given time. So we do not contemplate needing to build a facility.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Okay.

[Kim McManus (Legislative Attorney, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: If DOC could, in fact, refit this space down in Southern State.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Got it. That's helpful. So it's more revisiting what the rules are for who can be placed in one of these facilities, but also authorizing DOC to potentially turn one of the wings of Southern State into this facility?

[Kim McManus (Legislative Attorney, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I say yes with the qualifier of that. I'm not sure of the legislation that you referenced from three years ago. My understanding is that there is no current forensic facility. There's no space where we are doing competency restoration.

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Well, and if I might just jump here one second.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I

[Kim McManus (Legislative Attorney, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: apologize. This is for folks who do not have a hospitalization order. So folks who have a hospitalization order, I believe, senator, and again, I don't have the language from three years ago. I believe that's the beds that you're likely thinking of if DMH has a hospitalization order and can hold somebody. These are for individuals who DMH deems are not eligible for a hospitalization order but who still pose a substantial risk for the community and are either incompetent or insane and have been found guilty.

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I was gonna mention the hospitalization piece because I think one of the important, and Jim and I are obviously in the same context, because one of the important pieces that we're seeing is that the gap is when there's no hospitalization order or when there's, we even see many cases where there's no ONH, an order of non hospitalization. So the true gap is where someone and where there's victims in the community or the public is concerned, but where there's been a violent offense, where a life offense is the potential punishment and the individual is deemed not fit and there's a technical term that will lead AHS and the administration to fill in the gaps on those. But where they're not going to be hospitalized and the ONH, and maybe they don't get an ONH, that's the true gap. But even for some of the ONH pieces, there's concern. And for example, if an individual is accused of killing their family member and this is just something we've seen play out, and the judge says that the individual will not be hospitalized, and perhaps the best option is an ONH, that is also a gap, right? That that person's gonna be returned potentially to the same home on an ONH. That's another gap. But that's actually not even we're talking about, for the most part. We're talking about people that are truly in the gap of, in between, and they have, and here's a great example during World War II, an individual who was engaged in propaganda with German access, an American was engaged in espionage, catastrophic levels, and was deemed incompetent. And fifty years later, they were found competent and prosecuted. The liability, with respect to that's not even a death case, so to speak, if it had the effect, the liability related to these cases never goes away for life offense. And so that's why I think the life we believe, the life offenses is a really important conversation, because they could be found competent twenty years, thirty years after the offense, and then they're right back into it. So if they're going to have that liability hanging over their head for the rest of their life, we do think Vermont needs a space for them to be able to defend themselves as well, restoring their competency, understanding the court system. And as we all remember, just as a basis from that testimony three years ago, competency is fluid. So if you commit an offense on a Monday and you're found incompetent, you commit an offense on a Tuesday, you're presumed competent again. Insanity is what can be deemed at trial as as a defense. Competency is whether or not you can engage with the system at all, and that that's the two different pieces there. And so we do think that this conversation is important, and we've been very appreciative of the of having this ongoing conversation, particularly with the governor's office, about how do we start with this? Because I just looked at the number of pending cases where there's a mental health element in terms of our system, and all of the dockets in the systems, maybe they shot some people, these are cases where the individual's inactive, so they've probably been found potentially incompetent, or there's a mental health piece that's pending. So inactive case is still a pending case. 1.69% of all the dockets. Three thirty two total dockets relating to 47 people. But it shows you that those 47 people, they have very serious cases attached to them, and you all hear about it, we all hear about it, the victims are very engaged on these issues as well. So we're trying to fill that gap without overshooting the mark, I think. That's our attempt, I think. Sorry,

[Kim McManus (Legislative Attorney, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: No, that was wonderful. Thank you. And as some of you may be aware, just want to highlight that this is not our department's event, but we will be there listening on Wednesday, January 21. Kelly Carroll from Vermont Voices for Vermont Victims is holding a public hearing at the State House at 2PM, and there'll be she has four other individuals who will be speaking with her. They are all victims who have been involved in cases where the case has not been able to go forward because the defendant was incompetent and or that the defendant has been found guilty but insane. And I think those stories will be very powerful and interesting, to this body. So we would encourage you to attend or to listen. Lastly, last session, there was a tremendous amount of discussion about our juvenile justice proceedings, particularly or specifically, I should say, around our older delinquents, our 18 year old delinquents and our YO proceedings, and concerns about whether or not we are able to hold these older it gets very confusing, the child or youth. So I'm going to say youth, though that's not the right definition legally. But for these younger adults who are in our family division, holding them accountable and actually being able to provide them the services that they need continues to be a struggle. And we want to continue that conversation this year with you. There's a few specific things we would like to move. Some of the delinquencies that are eligible for 18 plus over to WIO. DCF has repeatedly said last year they are not well equipped to handle 18 and over probationers, so to speak. They do not have the ability to make them do anything. If the delinquent does not wish to engage in the services, there's no consequence that the DCF can provide. And with YO, we at least have the combination of DOC and DCF, which provides a bit more accountability. So we would like to have an ongoing conversation with you about what offenses, and we are looking particularly at aggravated domestic assault, aggravated stalking, certain sexual assault charges that are not currently in the big 14 that we think would be more appropriate as YO cases, not as delinquency cases. We also want to discuss when a youthful offender is not engaging at all and is not showing up for court, how we can move that case back to the criminal division. Currently, if a useful offender does not show for even if they've reached the point of a revocation of their youthful offender status, if they don't show for that hearing, the revocation cannot happen currently. And we think that is something that we can address relatively easily with due process for the youth, but we need to find a mechanism to bring them back in and have them reengage with us and potentially go to criminal court if they are not able to show that they can engage with the youthful offender status. Lastly, and very importantly, we are having different decisions from judges about whether victims can be heard at the consideration hearing. When we are deciding whether a case should go into youthful offender status, youthful offender tracked, there is a consideration hearing. We believe that the law currently states that the victim has the right to be heard at that hearing. We have some decisions coming out of various courts denying the victim's ability to represent their thoughts and feelings about how this case should be handled. And we would like to clarify the language in 33 VSA five thousand two and eighty eight on that to make sure that victims are heard and considered.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any questions? I'm not seeing any. The full list

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: is on your website. Great.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Thank you. Senator Norris. I do.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: It's not necessarily a question, Tim. Well, in speaking with state stakeholders in the three b project, what I'm hearing is, and you've testified, and this appears to be a very successful adventure that we entered into here. And I'm sure there'll be some interest from other counties to also do this, but I don't think what I'm hearing is one of the reasons that it is successful in Chittenden County is because of the resources that are available within Chittenden County. I'm not sure that all the counties have those same resources. So, Tuttle, what would be you don't have to answer this today. What what I'm interested in, what would be the potential cost drivers on this for the space attorneys and sheriffs? And if it won't work county to county, I wonder if anyone has an entertainment who's been regionally going towards this. Need your opinion on how we're gonna

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: put this company. Yeah. No. And I will I will actually send you a a bit of a thought piece, if it's okay, mister chair and mister vice chair, on what that looks like with the key element of replication is not gonna be a copy and paste of of Chittenden, like like you said. And I think, yes, regional or another approach should be floating. So right now, we have a unified treatment court judge who travels the whole state of treatment court. Senator from government operations and myself were talking about this the other day, and there was some pushback initially, and I actually engaged in some of that pushback. But judge Griffin has done a really excellent job of thinking through the consistency of dropping into counties, and we could take a similar approach with maybe a couple floating judges and maybe even a couple floating, I would say, service related folks. The key elements that we've seen, flexible court time and space, keep hearing that. And the second piece is access to services right there in the courtroom, or right out at the courtroom. Would be no shock to you all on this committee that people often were engaged in this behavior struggle after they see the judge to go connect with services if that means they have to set up an appointment or even walk down the street. When I was in Washington County, I was quickly alerted to the fact that it was difficult to get from the courthouse on Main Street to the diversion office also on Main Street, maybe 200 feet away, 300 feet away, and people were not connected with diversions. So having that gap, right there, closed in the courtroom is gonna be key. You're looking at a place in the Route 7 Corridor in and around Chittenden County, there could be some great synergies taking that same stuff we learned from Chittenden, popping up to Penguin down to Addison. Good. Robins has has an interest in the counties. I'm just gonna say on the record here that I really think you should consider now. Rutland, Windham, Franklin are some of the ones that come to mind to me, and Washington County as well. With lots of cases coming in, lots of volume, some access to services where we can pick up. Key element, we're talking about transports earlier, access to a facility close by has really helped with the Chittenden program, particularly for the Chittenden facility, And the mail facility up in Franklin's not terribly far away. So Rutland with Marble Valley right there would be a fantastic place to see how this plays out. Windham has it you know, Sprinkles not terribly far away. Washington is in a bit of an interesting desert with no facility. You gotta go to the Saint Jay or Springfield or Chittenden or Franklin. And so even though it's a high volume location, you'd have to sort out how the transports would flow. And I will last the public record because sheriff Anderson and I have talked about this at great length. Right now, we have 21 filled positions for the transport deputies. Have 25 FTEs, but there's about 600 detainees and there's 7,000 felons. The math does not work out to have 21 people transport that number of people if you're gonna have an explosion of accountability dockets. So everyone's gonna have to pick up the slack, all law enforcement agencies and DOC and the rest of the people that are able to transport to make it work in some of those other counties. And I think we should always exercise existing resources first, exhaust those resources, and then move on. But I'm happy giving my thoughts on what it looks like. And the last piece internally for states attorneys, admins and victim advocates. Turning around court filings and notices to victims, when you have court hearings every week as opposed to thirty, sixty, ninety days, those requirements speed up quicker and quicker. And so whether it's overtime dollars or whether it's boosting our admin paralegal and victim advocate staff, which is cheaper than our deputy state's attorney staff, that could help get stuff out quicker with the accountability dog. It's a great question. I'd love to come back.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I imagine more ability to transport people would not just help within the accountability group, but would help across the board with the backlog. You have a sense of what a healthy number of transport deputies would be?

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yes. Mean Are you

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: allowed to tell me what that number is?

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I'm squirming here. No, will say this. Last year we asked for six. We got one unfunded, and deeply appreciate this community support for that. A funded position, Senator Norris and Appropriations has been deeply helpful in that. But we've also struggled because our overtime budget has been cannibalizing the rest of our budget, so to hire for those positions, we probably need to boost up our overtime dollar because the courts are the ones that set our schedules. And when we have a hearing at 8AM, someone's gotta leave at four, sometimes at five. But I would say for both debater felonies where people are detained, we need more transfers to get them to the court. And for accountability, if someone's having a $200 bail, let's get them into court quickly. It's gold ends of the spectrum, just like our court time. I would say right now we have 25. I would love it if our department had 30 transport deputies with maybe a floater that we could send. Urgent accountability case coming up, gotta send them out. That would be healthy, think. Wouldn't we, 40 would be great, but 30 is a number I think that our department has really settled on as not being insufficient at this point.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So you may or may not have done the math on this, and perhaps my logic is odd, but logically I would imagine if you had an adequate number of transport deputies there would be less overtime and thus overall would cost the system less.

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: If we could get the judges to engage and block scheduling between ten and two, that will cut back on our overtime. Also better for the defendants to have certainty of when their hearing's gonna be. So yes, plus better scheduling from the judge. Yes and. Okay. Yep. And we're working on that. Seven of our counties, including Windham County, are now engaged in conversations and they're going to do it in the new county. So Sheriff Anderson can sit here in maybe a month or so and say how some of that's going in.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: And I would also imagine that clearing of these dockets would decrease spending in all kinds of places because we'd have less people to stay, we'd have less.

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Okay, you'd see other parts of the state budget would be alleviated of some of the pressures, for sure.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So an investment in five more transport deputies is a cost savings investment.

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: With a healthy, until we get the scheduling sorted with a healthy overtime budget as well, I

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: would say.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yep. Both, both, yep. Thank

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: you so much. You very much for having me in. Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Since you're here, did either of you folks want to testify or just come to have come to have you been with some

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I don't know. I'll ask you. Mister chair, I'm happy to answer any questions, but I was not coming to provide testimony today. But since some picture brought up, I'm happy to at least mention things briefly.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, just wanted to see if you wanted to be

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: sitting here. While you've gotten the sheriff here, you can put it

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: in the chair as well, especially the sheriff of the county.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the community of judiciary. So the record, my name is Mark Anderson. I'm the sheriff of Windham County. Ditto.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: And so we started block scheduling in Windham County, working with the court administrator's office, specifically with the court clerk, court operations managers and the judges to set up a more efficient schedule. This was actually not a new process. We had it running in Windham County in 2018, 2019. And so there are some things that did cause a shift at the end of the day with the partnership, with the cooperation, with the understanding of the bar and the judges, we have started on January 1, one was the second, the block scheduling Windham County. We're delivering prisoners from 10:00 till 03:00. And at 03:00 we head north. We're doing this as a method to manage our overtime right now. But again, it's something that we used to do. So it should not be too much of a upset. And it also means that attorneys can meet with their clients, enough time for like a 01:00 hearing. What we frequently ran into is we will be scheduled for an 08:00 hearing and then the hearing wouldn't actually happen until 01:00. So my deputies are waking up two, three in the morning to pick the person up to have them at the court at eight in the morning to not have anything happen until one in the afternoon. Then they have to go back to wherever they came from. Another issue, again, we've been working with Department of Corrections on this, but it all has to do with efficiency. We are told that the day before the person is at Southern State Correctional Facility. That's a 30 mile drive from my team, one wife, so 60 miles round trip. We get to Southern State Correctional Facility for the 08:00 year and find out that they were moved to Northeast Correctional Facility and now we're driving to Newport. So just added two hours onto the trip, if not more, in just one direction. So these are all just pieces that we work through conversation to make things more efficient and to reduce over time. Speaking for myself, I would like to see the Department of State's Trace and Chairs have 56 transport deputies. So I mean everybody talks and says we want this, we hate this, whatever. Where I'm saying that's because we're operating on our regional correctional system. In my county I have the Brown War Retreat that deals with not only the private patients but also the state patients in the Department of Mental Health's Custody. My County uniquely handles that. In Chittenden County there is the Chittenden Correctional Facility which handles female populations. Chittenden County specifically deals with that and supporting other counties in the state. So as we look at the regional system, we start finding counties that are supporting a regional need. That is a statewide solution. And so it somehow falls on the sheriff's head to support this and then not having any control of the overtime because we have no control of the schedule. It turns into a problem we're trying to solve for reasons before the legislature. The block scheduling, in summary, does a really good job of allowing us to manage what's in our control with cooperation and understanding of the other partners. But it's always an opportunity for education and identifying new ones. Well,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: thank you very much. Good to see you. And we do have Christopher Mattos. I had

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: a quick question. So I've been an advocate for law schedder for years. Obviously, no more coverage down the table. I'm not gonna tell anybody. Who who runs rough job as independent judges, or is it? Judge Zomit, will construct? Who has that final determination? It's a relationship between the court operations manager and the judge over the docket who are supervised by judge zoning and so formally it's the judge of the docket. We worked with Judge Keenen and Judge Treadwell and Judge Barrett to say, these are the issues and these are very real issues. If we do not solve our overtime problem, we will not have transport deputies to do this because we don't have the funding to support it. And then they said we understand and we work with them. So at the end of the day is the local docket and they've been incredibly supportive and appreciative of our ability to work with them as well. It's not a hard and fast rule. We said we understand there will be exceptions and that's a two way street. So this is by no means us just demanding our way and no other considerations we have. It also just briefly will note that the block scheduling applies to what I'll call the standard issue hearings that the court has. It's not dealing with things around trials, jury draws, suppression hearings, and I believe there's one

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: other hearing that I'm Like a a rule 24, someone who invokes their twenty four hour sorry. The twenty four hour rule, that's not something it's the defendant's right to wait. And so that's something we can't control either.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: So we are certainly working with all the things that exist as as understood, but as a general practice, it's not time to ten to three in my county, and it's going well so far. Two weeks in here. Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Appreciate it. It's always a good see it. Likewise. You. Meeting

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: with

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Good morning, director Patel. Thank you, very much for all your flexibility. I appreciate it. My understanding, bill, our city did have some questions, I believe, regarding the Criminal Justice Training Council as it relates to 02/2008. And as even noted in some correspondence, it does include licensure which know falls in your realm a bit. So I just wanted to give you the opportunity to share any thoughts that you may have and also provide the committee an opportunity for any follow-up questions regarding the donors.

[Christopher Brickell (Executive Director, Vermont Criminal Justice Council)]: Absolutely, chair, and thanks for the opportunity. For the record, my name is Christopher Berkel, executive director of the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, also with the Police Academy. I'll be brief because this bill, s two zero eight, really impacts the council in one significant way. It's really at very through the bill on page three line 18 under the penalty section, which proposes a monetary fine of not more than a thousand dollars or a loss of the officer's professional licensor or certification. That becomes problematic for us simply because, as I know that you're well aware, the council is the body that, provides issues or issues certifications to all law enforcement officers that grants them their authority. We do not regulate or certify federal law enforcement officers, so that's the first problematic piece. And we also have no authority to sanction them. And so in this process, there is what we have already by statute outlined on how we sanction law enforcement officers for any violations of their certifications. They're broken down essentially into three categories of category a, which is around criminal conduct, category c, which is really around, the counsel processes, and then the one that this would normally fall under would be a category b, which is defined as a willful failure to comply with a state required policy or the law enforcement officer's code of conduct. Those are sanctions that would be possible if this bill moved to be, created as a policy rather than a bill. There's a couple of other issues that I see in here as far as challenges, but they don't directly impact the council. So I think it's probably in the best interest of your time if I am here to address what questions you might have around the certification piece or anything else related to the bill.

[Kim McManus (Legislative Attorney, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Yeah. I think and

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: this is just my own perspective on this. The more I've thought about it after doing some research, my suggestion is going to be entirely removing the the officer losing their professional licensure certification, if applicable. And I know that as it's written, it wouldn't apply federal officers. However, as it's written, it could also be construed in such a way that would, in my opinion, weaken a defense ifwhen the state were to be sued as a result of the legislation. So, I guess my follow-up question to that is if the penalty were only a thousand dollar civil fine, essentially a traffic ticket, is that something that would prompt the justice counsel to initiate any sort of investigation or misconduct, yeah, misconduct investigation?

[Christopher Brickell (Executive Director, Vermont Criminal Justice Council)]: It would not, Senator. It would not have any impact if this was solely changed to a civil violation. I do see handful of other concerns or problems with that process, but it would not impact the Council at all.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And I heard yesterday that the Council is developing its own rules around the topics discussed in this bill. Is that right?

[Christopher Brickell (Executive Director, Vermont Criminal Justice Council)]: The council is not specifically around this. The council does have a seat on the LEAB, the Law Enforcement Advisory Board. I've heard some suggestion that there might be a potential for the advisory board to take that up. If so, I know that there was a discussion at our meeting last Monday where there was positive feedback that should this come to LEAB's way, that they would more than willing take it up.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Do you have a question?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I don't know if it's a question so much as well, maybe it is a question. So I'm gonna preface it with a concern, and my concern is that I actually think this type of behavior behavior should be able to be considered as misconduct. And so I'm wondering from you what would trigger that type of investigation? Because I assume law enforcement officers are not supposed to break the law.

[Christopher Brickell (Executive Director, Vermont Criminal Justice Council)]: That's correct. But if this is not a law that, penalizes a criminal offense with it, then that would take it out of the category a realm conduct. And this category a conduct is very strictly defined already in statute by what offenses, it does cover. The category b conduct does cover a willful violation of a statewide policy. So if there was a statewide policy and it identified the behaviors that were, not desirable of Vermont's law enforcement officers and there was a willful violation of that, that would come directly to the council.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay, but in order to be under category A, it needs to be a criminal offense, not a civil offense.

[Christopher Brickell (Executive Director, Vermont Criminal Justice Council)]: That's correct.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay, thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Great, that is helpful. And I know you mentioned you had a few other concerns. There were also a few other pieces that I wanted to get some better language on, but yeah, be happy to hear your concerns first.

[Christopher Brickell (Executive Director, Vermont Criminal Justice Council)]: Well, my concerns were just around the piece that I heard about it becoming a potential civil violation, which would then be, you know, heard in traffic court essentially. And those folks that issue civil offenses are law enforcement officers. So, you know, essentially what you would be setting up a process to have happen is if this was a civil violation, you would be having officers issue civil violations to other officers for a violation of that. That seems problematic. There's a a large amount of, and rightfully so, discretion issued to officers who see violations on whether or not the the sanction should be a civil violation, whether a warning is appropriate. I don't know that there would be a way to outline a mandatory enforcement mechanism if this was a civil violation. You would also be pitting law enforcement against law enforcement, essentially. I think that would be problematic.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any other thoughts or concerns that you wanted to outline?

[Christopher Brickell (Executive Director, Vermont Criminal Justice Council)]: As far as thoughts, I do believe that I honestly understand the intent. I think that I'd like to say based on what I see for violations that come before the Council on Law Enforcement Officer conduct that Vermont law enforcement officers take all the things that are ongoing in today's climate very seriously. And I do know that I believe senator Vyhovsky was one who witnessed or identified an issue with a Vermont law enforcement officer that was wearing a mask and called it out, it was appropriately dealt with. That's not a normal practice. But having said that, I do think that if this were to go to the LEAB, that that's something that would be taken seriously as to what the intent of the law was and that I think Vermont law enforcement understands that masking themselves or not being able to identify themselves is not the way that they hold their relationships with the communities that they serve.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I appreciate that. Hear where you're coming from and I understand what you're saying. I public's put out

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: there

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: is general speaking. I don't think that it is really part of the ethos that I've seen in these local and state and deputy office law enforcement to engage in, you know, generally engaging in anonymous, masked law enforcement. I don't think that is a regular occurrence in Vermont but as you mentioned, you did highlight the general intent and what is happening around the country as well. Yeah, just final general comment. Do see Senator Mahosky put her hand up.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I do. So I have a couple of things. I think that, you know, with the status quo, we're kind of asking individual LEAs to develop policies or to deal with it, which seems like a piecemeal way to do it. I'm wondering, with some changes, I we're all aware that some changes in this bill need to be made, it would be feasible and possible to pass this law and have the LEAV develop a statewide policy, correct?

[Christopher Brickell (Executive Director, Vermont Criminal Justice Council)]: Yeah, absolutely. If the legislature wanted to as well push it to the LEAB, the LEAB could, in addition to statute, create a policy that did impact all of Vermont law enforcement officers, yes.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: And what do you think the timeframe is for that? What's the quickest that the LEAV could do that?

[Christopher Brickell (Executive Director, Vermont Criminal Justice Council)]: My guess from prior participation is, I would say, six to seven months, for conversation drafting. And then once that policy was in draft form, that process would then be, clearly it would it would be reviewed by the Department of Public Safety, the Commissioner of Public Safety, and then it would be provided to the council for the council to review that draft and then vote to accept that as a statewide policy.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Awesome. Thank you. I appreciate that. One of the things that sort of come to mind for me that I think having a law like this creates, in addition to transparency, accountability, and and and, you know, in enhancing public trust, if we have a law that says law enforcement should not be doing this, if someone is doing this, the public has a reasonable sort of space to be like, that might not be a good actor. Right? Like, because one of the concerns in addition to police to police doing this is people who are not police doing this, posing as police to act poorly. And so I as as I look at this, it protects police and the public by saying this is not behavior police should be engaged with.

[Christopher Brickell (Executive Director, Vermont Criminal Justice Council)]: I I think it it yes. In a way, it codifies the behavior that you already see from Vermont law enforcement that they don't do things that hide their identities. But the certain exceptions and carve outs that I think everyone could understand that would be reasonable. That said, yes, I think that you could accomplish both of those tasks, whether law and or by policy.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any other questions? Okay, great. Thank you, director. Appreciate your testimony today.

[Christopher Brickell (Executive Director, Vermont Criminal Justice Council)]: You're welcome. Thanks for the time.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Have a good weekend.

[Christopher Brickell (Executive Director, Vermont Criminal Justice Council)]: You too.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So regarding this bill committee, do you have any thoughts, concerns, other witnesses that you want to hear from? Think we have it for markup on is it Tuesday or Wednesday of next week? We got it for Markup at some point next week. Tuesday. Tuesday. Thank you.

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I'll start.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I don't like the military. Okay? And I think we all know the intent of the bill. We can say whatever we want.

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: We don't have if we wanna

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: have the LEA be comfortable with policy and put Vermont law enforcement, I can support that. Doesn't happen rarely in the state of law enforcement. But I think the underlying current here, we're not targeting for model law enforcement. They're targeting federal. And I don't think that that should be in our particular area,

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: can be doing just that.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: We can kind of support them all law enforcement, if you want to control that, that's funny, but I'll like to leave this right and keep the right things too. And we know that even if they have a policy, we have to put it in statute with both the federal and local, because California's going through that right now as far as discrimination, part of the supremacy, because they're claiming that they're being discriminated against because they didn't do all of it. What else is gonna happen here to happen? So I'll let

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: the bill agree. Got it. So just to clarify, this does cover all law enforcement. It doesn't focus specifically on the federal law enforcement.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I know that. Okay.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Maybe I misunderstood what you said.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: No, I said I agree with the policy through the LEAD for Vermont Law Enforcement. That probably could still happen, but we're still gonna have state statute that says all law enforcement purposes, and I think there were over 700 boundaries. My personal opinion. Ted Bell?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. So I've heard some compelling testimony that there's some language changes that need to happen, and, you know, particularly in some of the exceptions. And I, you know, I I recognize that at this point in many spaces, we're sort of in uncharted waters, but the testimony from the constitutional law professor was fairly compelling to me that this is defensible. And I feel pretty strongly that it should apply to all law enforcement operating in Vermont. I do, however, support including that perhaps a more extensive policy by the LEAB or more fine tuned guidance might make sense in addition to the law on the books. The other reason I feel like the law, having the law on the books would be good is I just feel like given everything that's happening in that fear within our communities, that six to seven months for some type of response is too long. But I do feel pretty strongly that anyone that could operate Vermont should operate under these procedures. And, you know, I the the constitutional law professor gave me a fair amount of comfort that it is it is defensible that we are not targeting federal law enforcement. We are saying this is this is what Vermont expects of all law enforcement.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: No pressure.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: No, just trying to think about how I want to word it because

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: Commissioner Morrison came in and said, with all the exemptions that are out there, and I brought it up to what's weather emergency, cold weather emergency, things like that, and when those exemptions and how it works with the LEAB and the Criminal Justice Council as it pertains to Vermont law enforcement. And I really do have bigger concerns about what the state can do with federal agents. And I have more questions on when you have to identify yourself. And I know there's videos out there, but we don't know when the videos were started. Did the officer say it right before and say it after? I know when it's safe to do so, does that mean when somebody's in the car, they can identify themselves? I have no idea. So there's a lot of gray area to me in how it would pertain to the federal agencies. And like Commissioner Morrison said yesterday, having that talk already with the LEAV for state law enforcement is a great start. Sounds like they're gonna go down that road. Timing wise, yes, we don't always get moving on as fast as we want, but I wanna make sure we get it right. I really don't like doing something for the sake of doing something and then a year later coming back and trying to fix it.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So we'd love to see

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: what the markup is. I know we're going to add probably some edits to that next week, like we said.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, so those are all great points. Mainly to the issue of whether we can or can't do this, is my own perspective. And I'm fully comfortable and confident with the rights that are provided to us under the Tenth Amendment and with the testimony that we've heard so far about our ability to exercise our sovereignty and govern how police operate internally within the state. For me, in my own opinion, that's not an issue at all for me. I do agree with you on the rewording of some of this. It's like the cold weather exception. A number of these are, at this point, sort of placeholders to cover the general topic. There are plenty of instances where you're looking for a lost hiker or looking for a lost hunter and it's negative 10 degrees and it's not a weather emergency, you can have to wear a mask so you don't get frostbite. But then also, on the other hand, it's the phrase, you don't want the exception to swallow the rules, so it's, you know, you're gonna make this long list of exceptions and then make it essentially a nonexistent rule because of all the exceptions. So that's one of the things that I think we're going to have to hash out. And one more point. Can't remember what it is, but Did I see your hand on it?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: We do, yes, but my common attraction was among that.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Sounds good. Think that really is just everything right now. Generally speaking, is there anything folks want to talk about, discuss?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member)]: What are we doing for 209, the location of

[Timothy Lueders-Dumont (Executive Director, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Orange County?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, that one is still a bit further behind. We still got some testimony. I think we have some testimony scheduled for next week. We're going to have some markup and discussion on that one. There's still more work to do on that one, I believe. Right? I know. And personally, I would like to add churches and places of worship to it. That's my own opinion. Yeah, that's where we're at on that one, but it's a bit further behind the I next one

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: agree with adding churches and places of worship, and I know that there's probably some testimony coming in surrounding some of the definitions and potential to see other patients. I did wanna just let you know that Tennessee has a bill introduced that does include churches. So there is, I mean, it hasn't passed, but it is introduced. There is some other conversation in other places about churches, so it's not totally unprecedented.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And I think the other piece was also, remember in 2009, is getting a definition of schools. We're going have to define it. I believe there is a definition in the 2,200 series, I'm pretty sure, and I can ask Beth St. James. And then also further defining what a community based shelter is.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: One was a worship. Churches and indoor places of worship.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, that's the Yeah, there's it to do with, remember the full definition, but sincerely held spiritual or religious beliefs is how it's one of the elements for, you know, what is a place of worship. There's some case file out there. I just don't have it, so it's something that we'd have to hatch out and make sure we actually have a enforceable definition.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: When you have a copy of the 2200 series definition, I'd love to take a look at it because I'm making an assumption as to what it probably includes and I'm not entirely sure that it's going to include everything I intended to include. Okay. Because I actually fully reflect these students as for it to cover child's care. Great.

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Nice translation.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Going back to general conversation. Nominees, we're going be getting some witness testimony Thursday and Friday of next week. And the nominees will have the opportunity to respond that day. And if there are any witnesses and you folks here about, you know, let memory and myself know and try to get them on the schedule. Repeated multiple times, you know, what the guidelines are for witnesses, and I'll repeat it again. Yeah. Yeah, I think what you're

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: actually have a question about this, and it's sort of tricky. So, I have had people who have reached out out to me who want to speak but are afraid of retaliation, should the judges make it to the Supreme Court. I'm wondering if there's any way for people to submit an honest testimony, cause or, I've had a bunch of people who've reached out, and it's just this conundrum that they're in there, like, yeah, want to say something, but here's all my concerns and why I feel like I can't.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, no, well, no to the question of anonymous testimony. I've been grappling with that myself, with the fact that it's an awkward position overseeing this because there's a reasonable possibility that in the number of years or whatever, I could be in front of the nominees in the Supreme Court arguing a case outside of the legislature in my professional life. So, I think, this isn't legal advice, but I do think there are

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: You're not going charge me, so.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Maybe later. You know, I think that the possibility of requesting a specific Supreme Court Justice be recused from a certain argument is a possibility if somebody wants to testify. I don't know. That's my initial thought, but the answer to

[Senator Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: the question of

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: anonymous testimony is no Okay. Regardless of whether it's positive or negative.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Okay. Yeah. I just I I have heard that concern from multiple people, so I wanted to put that. Yeah.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I I get that concern. It's we haven't allowed anonymous testimony and not planning to allow. Alright. Well, if that's all, I think we can adjourn early, and Anything to do that? Everybody.