Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Real life.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Good morning. We are in senate judiciary. It's January 30. We're taking up a new version of SB two zero eight, and we have the council be with us to to listen to Wong Fu.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. Sophie Stanti for the office of legislative council. Do I have your permission to share my screen? Yes. This is a strike call amendment. I did it as a strike call because there were no changes, and then I know that there may even be further changes, so it seems like the safest way to go. And on this version, I've highlighted where the changes were just to make it a little bit easier to to follow. So first of all, in section one, the professor from NYU had noted that we're not granted Vermont isn't granted power by the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment is recognising that Vermont already has his power, so I just changed the language there to reflect the the one would be exercising its power as recognised by the tenth amendment. Top of page two, there was testimony regarding adding unique radio number as a possible alternative to a badge number for a law enforcement officer. So that adds that language in, and then adding the agency as well. So in terms of identification, a law enforcement officer would be identified by their name or their unique radio or badge number and by their agency. And then moving further down in subsection three, this is talking about the exceptions to the prohibition on wearing masks or personal disguises, and this combined what originally was a and b. There was a surgical mask and an n 95 respirator. And so this added a now adds both of those into the single one, and let me numbers the subsequent paragraphs. There was concern around the previous language that talked about you could wear a mask to protect against the old if that was declared emergency and sort of how that would be defined. And so one of the suggestions was to look at what the requirements are for the emergency housing program shelter program. And so this is the current language that's used, which is between December 1 and April 1 and when the National Weather Service is forecasting duration of cold weather at or minus 10 police verified, which includes with the rain show. My

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: initial thought on this is well, first, I I appreciate finding the specific there for that and putting that in. But I'm I guess I'm a little concerned if, you know, it's negative eight degrees and you know, or something along those lines and you somebody, if you're still out there for a number of hours, certainly for a locked tiger is, gonna be there's a chance of getting frostbite still. My yeah. I was wondering if there's a way to look more great. I don't know, maybe to what was that?

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Like a search and rescue function?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. There's search and rescue that we could put in, but I'm wondering if for this specific section, perhaps doing some sort of reasonable person standard or saying, you know, there's a substantial risk of physical safety as a result of dangerously low temperatures and and if there's some way to incorporate the reasonable person standard then, you know, there'd be less of a chance that there'd be an argument that, well, it's 50 degrees, but I would give a risk for me and, you know, allowing somebody to wear a mask then. But, you know, in the reasonable person situation, if it's, you know, negative 10 degrees and you're on the side of a mountain for three hours looking for somebody, that's a reasonable person who would probably say that that's substantial risk, and you can wear a mask to avoid frostbite, or perhaps we could cover it just with certain raspy.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, one thing I would just note about allergies is that there is language in here that the prohibition is the law enforcement officer shall not wear any mask or personal disguise while interacting with the public in the performance of the officer's duties. If you're doing a search and rescue, you would only be interacting once you found a person. You won't be interacting as you're out of mountain. So I think that's what I have on that.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: It's a good point. So I hope I was speaking with you.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: And my understanding too is is we mirror this language after the cold weather exceptions. So this is when they would is that correct? It's mirrored up in the cold weather exceptions for people who are experiencing homelessness. Right. That was the language I think. Okay. Yeah. The same language we use to say that actually people should have shelter if it's what's this called. This is yes. It's This is the the experimental weather of sheltering by the mice that use it does change periodically. And then this was the language that the time frame they're using and the temperature that they.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I will just say that is that

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: a mask can be worn

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: above negative. Mhmm. And

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I I get Nader's point about, you

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: know, setting a number and having to argue above or below that and just making it the reasonable person's standard.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Because I was looking up,

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: you know, this brought by

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: a curve or something like that.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: And then there was around the exception for law enforcement officers participating in anti COVID drug related operations, and then it was to include if they're operating with the Vermont Drug Task Force, which is one of the requested changes. And subsection d is new, and this provides for the creation of a statewide policy, and it sets the time as 01/01/2037, the time for the policy to be developed and provides that the Vermont Criminal Justice Council would establish a statewide policy governing the standards that would be applicable to the law enforcement agencies. And then the final section, the change under the penalty provision, and I know there's still really too much around penalties, would be able to to take out that certification, you know, before there was language, you know, about whether you have an officer who used that social personal licensure. So, I appreciate the policy change. I've already had some conversations about very explicitly naming that that policy should address misconduct and needs or duplication. So hold on one sec. So that currently I I did look into that. And currently, existing law. So this is the unprofessional conduct provisions that's under the criminal justice council. And there was a talk about category b, and that's a rule book failure to comply with state required policies. So if you have a statewide policy that's required by the statute or something violates that, they would be subject to a categorical misconduct.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Just a quick question. I mean, I like this to I do have a question on page three, line six, works in law enforcement with the Vermont Bureau of Task Force. I don't have a problem with that. Is that being too specific? You take larger municipalities like Grolton, for instance. I know Salamis has I can't see them working without working in conjunction with, but they do have their own task force. I'm just wondering if that would be if this redefined the way that it is, that's good, but

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. We are reaching out to somebody from the drug task force to figure out more specific language. If Yeah. I I don't want to disrupt the task force that may exist outside of North Carolina. I've been up in the encouragement. They all work in conjunction to some degrees. But there are embedded officers, Burlington, Vermont like that, work with members, things like that. So I'm not sure what the specific language would need to be just to make sure that we're covering the basis for that category of exceptions.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I'll hold this up just for that one exception, I don't think that they lose the end of conversation with their passwords and periods that

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: are either Bill or Hobbes at the New York. And I'm wondering if think one of the concerns raised by Senator Baruth was the notion that at least on the federal side of things, they'll just say that everything is a drug related operation. Related to anything that they're doing. And thus they could wear a mask. If we didn't have the Vermont drug test was lying on everyone.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I don't want to take it out. Swans out or any other agencies that have their Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Wondering if we put law enforcement officers within or working within or in conjunction with task force.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I don't think there's a lot of them. Yeah. But there may be that, like, they're the wrong turning on starting to do a self pro. I I don't know if they're dead or fast. I know that the city has two, three black who work Yeah. Who did, used to work the drums. I think they reached out there and walked North North West. There's a lot to live with them just in case they didn't Yeah. Oh, I think that was good.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Do you have any thoughts?

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: I think certainly at that time, I wish that makes sense. Okay. That's easy to add. I mean, you still have to ask any question around the penalty. So I also have a question around effective date. Just in the event that we're to move forward, whether it would be effective or passive or effective, 07/01/2026.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: My preference would be that it takes effect on passage and that we but we give the justice council some time to establish a statewide policy rather than yeah. Yeah. But that one says on or before 01/01/2025 assessment. So that would presumably, get them a thousand six months. It sounds like they've already been working on it.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. It sounded like the law enforcement advisory board has been working on it and so it's under the council. I

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: am so, yeah, that so that that's my opinion on the effect of dates.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Well, like any other Yeah. I do, man. I don't have any problem with effect of upon passage, but should we give some points an opportunity to at least be aware of this their days or something? I mean, where is there a violation that you know, the law just passed, they would say.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, mean, it presumably wouldn't pass until sometime in May or June. Okay.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: They're all in the middle of this new law. So what you're saying? And I'm just looking at I don't want to unintentionally be a violation of the policy or the the new law.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Lois. I mean, sorry, Senator Lois. Well, I was.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: I know. We look so much alike. I think this has gotten a fair amount of media coverage. And so I would imagine most people are aware that it's moving through the process. And I would certainly hope that the the folks that are, you know, the from all of the folks that have been in here are communicating to their networks that this is is moving. But I certainly think we could also, you know, as

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: it gets closer to passing, put out some sort of

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: public statement to let people know.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, it is the responsibility of counsel for whether it's the Department of Public Safety or Municipal Attorney. Follow these things and I'm I'm sure that they are following events and they'll be aware that it would take the facts of passage. It's yeah. That that's my initial feeling on it.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Well, I don't know if we're here when I post that question as far as being if they can affect my passage. I have a problem with it. Just wanna make sure that they, I guess, it Yeah. Just takes while they they don't unintentionally not be able work unless they push it to July 1. It's not what I'm saying. Yeah. Making sure they're all looking at it. Mhmm. Was it did you make a proposal to change it to a certain date? I just said thirty days. Just just something to give them Mhmm. Two weeks to I I don't care what it is. Just a lot of things. Make sure that they're aware of this before they have attention. And violation of the person.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I mean, what's what what is the shortest amount of time we've seen bill take effect after a signature?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Well, yeah, on passage would be. Well, yeah, aside from on that. Yeah, maybe three months. Like, so if it's signed in I mean, sometimes it says September, October, something like that. But I guess I tend to agree with the idea that it's probably easy enough to understand and well known enough that it's going to be done if the governor signs it, I think, the bonds will be in office. That's fine. I just I just wanna make sure that Yeah. Yeah. So took my money to go to. So Right. Right. Okay. Senator Baruth. I senator Baruth's point. Let's put my pen at a 110.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Baruth, there was also a proposed change on page three regarding one of your concerns. The violent drug test versus Yeah. And the issue with, at least as it relates to the federal government, that's saying that everything is drug related, therefore you can always wear a mask. And Senator Norris brought up the point that there may be members of local police departments that have their own task force, but from my very general understanding, I'm under the impression that they all work together in some capacity or other. That'd be a mistake, but we are waiting to hear back from the panel or captain or captain

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: or or I can't remember. But

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: the proposed change that I offered was making it law enforcement officers working within or conjunction with the Robonta task force, which I think kind of brought them a bit of it. It's there's a Burlington PD officer in their own little, in their own task force in Burlington and there's some overlap with the Vermont Drug Task Force, then I think that it would cover that as well.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: And that would also be true maybe of federal law enforcement who are working with the test. It would be.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: There Which I would be fine with. Yeah. There are federal aid, the DEA officer would be working in two jobs with the vermont.com. So it broadens it in some way, but also keeps it narrowly focused to working under that category.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: No. It looks good to me. I see the piece about the the weather.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. Yeah. I can revisit that one and a sign again.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, that looks fine too as well. My concern there was just that I didn't want to have to be, you know, up to the law enforcement officer themselves to say, well, it's a little cold today, I get the verapax.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Sarah Mattos?

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I've just backed up the PD there for the does that bring up any discriminatory concerns? Like, just allowing a Vermont law officer doing a drug related activity? It's a good point.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I wonder oh, actually, Legis Council was here at Vontgenheim.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: He's concerned that there's a different situation with federal and state.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Yeah. Kinda like what happened in California.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: mean, it says law enforcement officers leave people on Drug Task Force. So, again, if there's federal officers that are working with with the Vermont Drug Task Force, that would be they would be covered by that as well. So I don't think it's singling out, you know, distinguishing that way. It would just be excluding officers that are not working. Know, undercover, some drug related resolutions. So would

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: that make it discriminate for a

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: 100%.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: No.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Because it allows a Vermont law officer or a federal law officer working with Task the Vermont Force, but if a federal agency is not working with the Vermont Drug Task Force, they are not allowed.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: That's what the district authority by.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, that all the law enforcement officers, whether they're state or federal, that are working with the Vermont Task Force would be public guidance.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: No, I get that. But if you're saying that you have to work with a Vermont Drone Task Force if you are a federal agent. If you are a federal agent, not working with the task force, and not Right. But same with the state

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: law enforcement, that's not important with the county. Any law enforcement officer will not work with the Vermont Judge Fast Force. They tend to done as well.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Okay. It just raises, like, some Yeah. Of

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: No, I just I was gonna make that same point, Sylvia, does the exception applies universally to federal and state, but I don't see the discriminatory aspect. As long as you're working within the Vermont test. Right. But every exception applies that way. It is as it applies to federal and state as long as you're doing the thing named.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I guess it's not understanding what it is. I'm saying a federal agency does not have the same protection working on a, drug related operation as someone that is working under the Vermont Drug Task Force.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. But a federal agency that's working with the Vermont Drug Task Force does, so it applies universally to the federal and local state and state police.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Karma didn't work with the Vermont Drug Task Force.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, but the exception applies universally. I don't understand. I understand what you're saying though is that you have a federal officer that's working on undercover on the drug issue in Vermont, but it's not working with the

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Vermont Bureau

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: of Pathways. But I wouldn't again, I don't know enough about how different I mean, it sounds like you'll be getting a testimony on partners or hearing from folks, but I would just you know, that they there would be some overlap there. That again, federal officers, whether they're with the DEA or whatever, would be working or working at the time.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. If that's if that's true, that's a

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: total body path. Should move. That's not a problem for that visit. And then the other thing is this will go over the other bodies, and they'll get all of these questions again. Yeah. So and that will come back to us. So we'll we'll have time, but I so right now, it seems like it's what we call it, Senator Hoskey universal exception? It's a universal exception. It applies universally. This is Tom. I'm asking for Steve. Thanks. Very good exam. So I don't even know if it's the correct punctuation. It's all we got.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Cold weather, except when we wanted to bring that up.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Oh, I was just saying I like the language that's been put in there because it's not leading into a possibly overly broad reading of, you know, any time there's something that was called cold weather, needs passed to up. This is pretty specific. Mhmm. Thank you.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: And I do appreciate that it's longer than a declared weather emergency because that would have excluded almost every instance.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. A point I had raised previously is

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: regard

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: to you know, let's say it's negative nine degrees and you're out on the side of a mountain for three or four hours looking for a long piker, you're still susceptible to getting frostbite. But then, like Malcolm mentioned, this is when you're interacting with the public And the performance of your duties, right? And so, yeah, if you're searching on the side of a mountain and you finally find the person, you're gonna have to take your mask off. Yeah, could But, you reclarify or review that point again so that you fully understand what you're thinking?

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: So, I mean, the current language on the prohibition is that an officer won't wear will not wear a mask with personal disguise while interacting with the public in the performance of the officer's duty. So if somebody's not actually interacting with the public, don't think there would be a Yeah. Prohibition on wearing a mask. It really about identification, so people know that if you're searching rescue, where we imagine someone being very bad for being found, and

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: they know that it's a different time to rescue them.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: So And

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: and I think, you know, even if it were, let's just say, 10 degrees and, you know, somebody just walked on the feet or whatever, somewhere in, you know, with his gowns and it's middle of the night and it's not be there, they can wear a mask. But if they find somebody and they want to talk to them, regardless of how cold it is, let's say it's 20 degrees, they'll stop to take the mask off and so the person can know who they're talking to. Like, I think is that correct?

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. The other alternative would be to increase the amount. I mean, you know, and this is what was what was requested, but, you know, I mean, just, know, couple of the worst, you know, the past week, I mean, that's very cold to my extent

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: With the windshield. So, again, the committee doesn't have to use minus 10. We could use a higher amount of that. What

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: okay. I saw your hand up earlier, and then, senator Norris. I I like your idea of a reasonable person test because,

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: like, I'm thinking today, I don't know what the wind chill is, but it's, like, three degrees out. That's pretty cold. But the reasonable person test, and like you just said, if you're walking to the back on Burlington, but down Church Street, and you're walking along and there's the public around you, does that interrupt interacting with the public if you're not saying something? Yes, I would say. Right? So if you have a mask on, then you'd be outside of the guidelines of this if it's, you know, negative five. But I think a reasonable person would say, you know, if it's negative five, it makes it nine, whatever the degree it

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: is. Yep. I mean, as I yeah. The the reasonable person piece was without my understanding of, what Sylvia had just described earlier with, you know, let's say it's 20 degrees and you're not interacting with the public, you can still wear a mask. That's cold food. But the whole point being if you're interacting with somebody, if you're around the public, they wanna know who who the police officer is, and at that point, they'll ask. So walking up that church street on a beat, it's zero degrees out daily today, Hill Mass.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I could see going to zero.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I don't know where it's in the Sorry.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I'm for the number. I like Yeah. I'm just gonna jump on or find the. Like, the original look crude. Yeah. Temperature, please. They also need minus nine degrees here, so now your violations are typically I think we need to be reasonable here. This is this is I look has enough guideline to remind mine, and there are some various I would say, this. To go on the way. I knew. Okay.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Barnes.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: So I would be more open to using the reasonable person standard if this was a criminal offense, But who approves that it's the reasonable person standard if it's just a civil offense? Is it just up to the objective or subjective view of whoever may or maybe isn't issuing a civil ticket? Like, that to me would really only come into play at this work. Facing sort of the corporal judgment. I'm much more comfortable just naming on the paper this is

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, think, well, you know, there's two points. You know, there's this is where officer discretion comes in. I mean, honestly, I think if it's negative five and somebody's walking to be I don't mean I don't think they're gonna put officers out there walking around so magnified, but but either way, hypothetically, if that were to happen, somebody's wearing a mask, another officer sees that if they do have the discretion, say, you know, not gonna write a ticket to the officer to walk with me. They're wearing a mask. Yeah, other people can see them, but they're not interacting with anybody directly. I'm not gonna write them a ticket. I think that's where officer discretion comes in. And I had a second point, which I forgot, but she got it. They come back to me. Oh, the reasonable person standard, know, Draft ticket can go to court. They can be conducted, and the judge would be the one to determine. Maybe, we'll get. But either way, I don't know who the judge also the fact that probably if a person

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: would be. I think we're. I couldn't pick the insurance. I understand.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: But you're happy with the way it reads down? Yeah. But negative 10? So are there That

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: is. Yes. I'll wait for a moment on it.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: Really? It's sheriff in perpetuity ever, like, forever, like senator, once a sheriff, once

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: sheriff, once a All right. They say Once I clerk at the committee, you have it.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: Ah, well then I'm still clerk too, if

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: you're So the only change that we have right now is on page three, line six, where we're saying working within or in conjunction with the Velosteric Path of

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: the Yeah. Change. That's just in case there is. I mean, I'm not saying there is, like, larger than this, it's like, well, it sounds like they may have their own, they're but gonna work together, right, unless you've been on Work to leave, Sarah. Yeah. That sounds good, Jasmine.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Sarah, well, it's good to speak.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I still think this should be the criminal penalty, and I'm waiting to hear back from the cotton log professor. As I think I mentioned before, I recall her saying that was more defensible, but I am waiting to get verbal confirmation.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So criminal is more?

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: I believe so. And so I reached out and asked to confirm that and then also asked for her to expand on why that is in fact her view. Mhmm. But I have a whole host of reasons, but I don't wanna dive into them until I have that confirmation, because if I am misremembering Yeah, I don't wanna misquote, so I'm just waiting for that response. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: There's a chance I, oh, sorry to read about this.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: No, was gonna say one of the other options is you could have it be a civil penalty for like a first or second violation, and then it could become a criminal offence if somebody is looking good for you doing it, that is an option as well.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. And I may be misremembering it, but from what I have recalled, it was that it wouldn't make a difference in defensibility as whether it was civil or fentanyl. But again, could be best remembered. I I can see from the other standpoint, if you're the government arguing that this interfering with your ability to form an investigation, and it would be a witness misdemeanor from the criminal. You're talking about arresting an officer in violation of this, if it's their second or third offense or whatever it may be, as opposed to writing a ticket, which, you know, doesn't strain your liberty this much. But I don't know if that's the reach of an argument, but sometimes we see arguments that are breaches.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: And that's why I just wanted to flag that. I'm still waiting for that response. Yeah. And if it's in a state where it is, the language just needs to be tweaked a little bit, because right now, the way it would, we, because it's a criminal offense, sort of means it's related to suicidal thoughts.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I thought we okay. So we didn't

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: change change that. Okay. Got it. I just took out the language around the loss of certification or licensure.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Okay, so I guess, do you have a follow-up?

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: I did have a follow-up question, and it's for you or maybe Senator Sheriff Norris, and that is if it is absolutely going to happen every time someone commits a misdemeanor, that they will be arrested, or can they be cited and not detained? Do you, like

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Do you know what I mean? Create I know there are some violations where if it's observed, shall write a ticket. I think ungrateful tickets are like that, where if you encounter, you will write a type of type of thing. Well, yeah, that's the answer to your question. So is it possible to make it a mandatory enforcement?

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: No, that's not my question. My question is, is if someone, I don't know, broke a window, and it was a thousand dollar window, are they absolutely going to get arrested, or could they get a summons to court and like, yep, you committed a crime, but we don't need to take you in.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, depends, that goes to rule three, which outlines when somebody's gonna be taken into custody, so, like, with a witnessed misdemeanor, you can take somebody into custody. You don't necessarily have to code write them the citation, but that is something that comes down to officer discretion.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Well, and I think that that was sort of where I was getting at to your previous point, is there are instances in which someone commits a criminal offense that they are not arrested And and taken into so there is still some discretion there, even if this were a criminal offense, to not to write them a citation.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yep.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Alright, so I guess generally I'll just ask what is the committee's initial response to the idea of having her first offense, a civil ticket, and the second or maybe a third offense being a misdemeanor offense.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Is that a group? I like that idea. I guess I would rather have it be the second offense becomes a misdemeanor because if if you get to the third, you're dealing with somebody who's in pension. In fact, I I think if we get to the second, somebody who's intentional will be allowed in the system. And what I'm thinking of here, I know I sound paranoid half the time, but the Trump administration has made a policy of if they don't like something, they ignore it. And if they ultimately get fined by a court, money floods in to pay the fine. So often people are held harmless by, you know, anonymous donors who pay fines like this, where people do go fund things to pay fines like this. So I I like the idea of having the second being a misdemeanor because a thousand dollars sounds like a lot but if you're talking about ice to take one example of who's covered in this. They have very deep pockets at this point and might just assign it to the hospital business if they're not sent to give out masks.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: So. I appreciate this as a sort of midpoint compromise, especially purely being civil and purely being criminal. You know, it's not exactly what would be my ideal, but I can support it.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Support which specifically? The second What's the offense being criminal and the first being civil.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: Like I said, I I would prefer it just be a criminal offense, but I feel like this is a midway point that that I could support as a compromise.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Senators? Well, as you well know, I prefer the simple fence. Think looking at this down this road, I I don't really have a second offense to criminal offense. I couldn't kick around the idea of a third offense being a criminal offense, but not the second. Mhmm. That's too close to. I don't like the criminal offense to get involved, so that's for me. Okay. Okay. I guess if you get to it Norris and I are you're kinda dealing with somebody who's looking near and dying sometimes. I'm not even observant. Yeah, I don't like the criminal. I was fortunate. Anything I could entertain, I guess, the possibility of, because if you got a person who has now violated twice and found that he or she wasn't violated, it would kind of establishes a pattern here, such as our DUI locked in the conviction of the third opinion. What about if we had first two being civil, but the second has a higher penalty than 1,000? I'm fine with that. And that way, you've got a graduated response with a third being an agreement. But you have to keep it below, what was it, the box of $2,000 reports of criminal defense.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. If it's a civil violation, you can make it. There's CDL violations that are thousands and thousands of dollars. Yeah.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So maybe it's 2,500. I can say

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I think I said I'm

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: gonna say $500 each violation, but, I mean, 2,500. Well,

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: I I was gonna suggest 5,000 for a second violation.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Sarah Mattos, do you have any I'm flexible on the numbers. Any thoughts on that?

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: One, two, three strikes, you're out, I guess. And graduate to Hawaii.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. So a thousand, then 2,500, and then a This one. Thousand dollar misdemeanor. That's their. So

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: the fine goes down for the first time?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. If I get charged with a fine.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: And they're all types.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Is that when it starts to go felony or

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. The amount? Yeah, it's at $2.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: We keep the misdemeanor fine at the state, that's the Oh second, if that's no, it's not above 2,000. Right.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So we're gonna go a thousand, 1,500, then a triple. I thought it was a thousand, 2,500. Is that correct?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Doesn't really matter. Mean, think if you're getting charged with a crime and the potential penalty is $1,000, you know, you'll get fined probably I I don't want to respond. Let me actually resolve the case, but you'll also have a misdemeanor on your end.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I think these are up to, right? Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Okay. I think the current nine

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: carries more weight in the monetary value of the BMI. Yeah.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, preference would still be that it'd one and two as a compromise, but it's not a hell I'm gonna die on today. Okay.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So, I've been writing.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: So lots of memories. Yeah, yeah. My land posting bill. Probably going with that. Okay.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So it sounds like at least with the penalty then, we're on the same page that, or we agree with the bill, if it were first, second, and third, first offense being $1,000 second offense being $2,500 and the first two still being a civil picket, third offense, 1,000 misdemeanor.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I can I can well, think, well, I think it's been low?

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's been low.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So it compromised. Right in the point.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. Well, let's let's get that. Yeah, so, yeah, we can make the changes to it. And I know we also There was an invitation extended to the Montbrot Task Force, and our captain's come and testify next week. I also reached out to the Office of Racial Equity and they mentioned they wanted to testify on it. And the AG mentioned they a quick testimony on it as well. So that's lined up for next week, and then I think that'll coincide with the changes that we've requested, and then hopefully this will help us out.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: So do you want the changes, I guess you want the changes ahead so people know that they're reacting to the most recent version, right? Yeah,

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: that would be good. Okay. And

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: then

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: should we come up with anything on the task force, or would you want

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: to just leave that as is? The change I proposed was law enforcement officers working within or in conjunction with and then we will get a from, I'm hoping to get a response from the drug task force.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Then We don't

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Then he didn't propose any to be talked about it. He didn't pose any changes in the cold weather section. Everything else looks good. But I think, yeah, those changes will revisit it soon and then just take that additional testimony. Sometime next week. Submitting anything else on this bill. Any other witnesses that we need to hear from that want to hear from? That's it. Alright. Thank you for coming in. Thank you.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Natural Resources was dealing with SOAP, so I wasn't on yet.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: SOAP? Yeah, SOAP, yeah.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: I just wanted to give the committee an update on S-two zero nine. I met with three of our legislative council attorneys this morning to dial in the language. And what we sort of landed on is language around the state, city, and municipal buildings that are used to conduct business with the public to really hone it in on, like, paying your taxes, paying your water bill, going to a Mhmm. Select board meeting. So I I haven't obviously seen the language, but I I did have that meeting, I just wanted give the committee that update.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I'm just wondering I mean, know there are some state buildings that are essentially defined, what we all know, but in general, the state buildings are conducting some kind of business, it's operative to know.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: So they were gonna we went through what we basically went through is sort of what we're trying to get, and they were gonna sort of tweak the language, but they felt fairly certain that that would not like, the job is potentially a municipal building and that that would not include, like, dropping off your trash, like, sort of, like, more official business. And, again, I haven't seen the language, but I just wanted to give the committee the update of that's how we we sought to narrow that into those more official and and not the salt shed, not the dump, not Sandy Barb. It's a beautiful place. It is a beautiful place. But I I that was that was my attempt to try and read the concerns, and and I really look forward to seeing the language, but I wanted to give you the update.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, thank you. Yes. Well, okay. Any other points of business?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: How are we doing? Are we in for that confirmation?

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: I believe we are actually gonna do it Yeah. Friday. I've been prepared to do it many days, and then for whatever reason, it did not happen.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Well, we we usually hold them till Friday. So Yes. They're just Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Just looking at her build real quick.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: Provided I don't wanna fall down the stairs and break an arm, I'll I'll be there to do it.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Well, I saw some hues of yesterday coming down the stairs by, the lounge.

[Sophie Stanti (Legislative Counsel)]: I fell down those stairs once and smashed myself up pretty good.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think we're done for today. So happy Friday, everybody. Okay. I move to adjourn. You can go

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: up