Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: We are live.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Alright. We are back at the senate judiciary. It's February 4. We have ledge counsel here with us to discuss the newest draft of s two zero eight.

[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: Sophie Sedatney for the office of legislative council. Do I have your permission to share? So we're looking at draft number 2.1 dated 01/30/2026, and I'm just gonna go to where the changes are if that's okay unless anyone

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: wants some additional background. Okay. Go go ahead.

[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: So this is under the exceptions portion of the bill. And it provides that notwithstanding subdivision two, which is the requirement of prohibition on masks and disguises under subdivision B, it adds law enforcement officers working with or in conjunction with the Vermont Drug Task Force to address a concern that came up last time that maybe people that aren't directly with the Vermont Drug Task Force but are working sort of in conjunction with them. And then the final section, E, the penalty. The committee was interested in having a civil penalty for the first couple of violations and then a criminal penalty. And so the first offense involves a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 The second offense is $2,500 And then the third and subsequent offense is a fine of no more than $1,000 which does look a little odd because you're going from $2,500 for the second down to $1,000 But the difference is that the third and subsequent offense is a criminal offense. There was some conversation around that. Apparently, it can be higher. I think there was a concern about whether there was a cap on how much for a criminal offense it could be. But apparently, it could be higher than that. Elsewhere in statute, I believe there are criminal fines up to $5,000 So that may be something the committee is interested in considering. And then because of the civil violation in civil penalty, it adds some language here just to make sure that the judicial bureau would have jurisdiction over those violations relating to the standards for law enforcement identification in the bill.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Since we're already on page four, were you able to catch yesterday's testimony

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: from I did. Yes.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I believe he had mentioned there was some concern about the criminal offense being in there as it was in another state. I can't remember if he cited California. In Iowa and California. Yeah. I I can't I can't remember exactly which states, but probably. And I think he had mentioned there was concern as with with the criminal charge potentially being one of the issues that was raised in the lawsuits with those. Do you have any thoughts on that? Because I know we've gone back and forth about civil versus criminal.

[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: The only thought I have on it was the testimony from Professor Goldman Postman, who, because originally this was the bill only had a civil penalty. And her testimony was that it didn't really make a difference whether it was a criminal or a civil. But I haven't done a separate deep dive on that. And I know William Thompson sent a number of additional materials yesterday. And I started looking through them. But I haven't I didn't come across anything specifically on the criminal piece. And that's certainly something we could look at for you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. I that would be great. I know I mean, ideally, I would like to make it as defensible as possible. And if we're getting testimony from Julio that there could be

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: a

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: concern regarding it being a criminal offense, this I I don't wanna disregard that. So if if we're able to get a little more clarity on that one, that would I

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: look forward to the clarity. I also haven't had time to read the additional documents that were sent. It is the so the sound is less garbled, but it is now very quiet. And so it is still difficult to hear many people in the room.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We have IT in here on top.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I figured I would I sent a message, but I figured I would also add that it's hard for me to weigh in because I missed a lot of the testimony still.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We were just discussing just the clarity around the criminal offense, and and so I I I think you got most of it

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: from Okay. I I will take a look at the documents that were sent by the attorney general's office, And,

[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: yes, we can

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: kind of go from there.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Aside from the criminal offense, does anybody have any other questions or comments on the changes that have come in? Great. Thank you. Lieutenant Robinson? So, yeah, is this your first time? It is. Okay. Great. So we can introduce ourselves.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Yeah. How's going? Chris Mattos, representing the North.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Our team, Windham County. Bob Norris, Franklin County, and the town

[Lt. Dustin Robinson (Vermont State Police, Narcotics Investigations Commander)]: of Albert in Great Elk County. I'm Dustin. I'm the state police. I'm the commander of narcotics investigation here. Great. And we

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: have, senator Vyhovsky on the Zoom as well.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Tanya Vyhovsky, I represent the Chittenden Central District.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Welcome to senate judiciary, and we just want to pull you over to introduce yourself. But, yeah, happy to hear your thoughts on this bill and any potential changes that you'd like to see, thoughts, comments, concerns, floors of this.

[Lt. Dustin Robinson (Vermont State Police, Narcotics Investigations Commander)]: Is there a specific question that you have for me?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Here, I guess, to speak in terms

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: of Yes. Certainly. Ideally, the drug task force, for me, it's not my intention to cause any disruption with that. I understand that there could be some challenges with how this is worded. But I'd like make sure that it won't impact the work that you're doing. And if you do have any other general thoughts, happy to hear them. But I did want to bring you in for the task force. Okay. So do have any thoughts on how it could impact you folks or any proposed changes, anything along those lines?

[Lt. Dustin Robinson (Vermont State Police, Narcotics Investigations Commander)]: I haven't read, I think, the most appropriate language that you were just speaking about with the Mantra task force specifically mentioned. So I I didn't mean I have any thoughts particularly towards us as a unit.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Just get your copy. Senator Baruth, do mind if I pass down one of your copies? That's

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: fine. Thanks.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. It's on page three starting on line eight.

[Lt. Dustin Robinson (Vermont State Police, Narcotics Investigations Commander)]: I don't have any concerns with that.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Is there something specific that

[Lt. Dustin Robinson (Vermont State Police, Narcotics Investigations Commander)]: you're getting at with that? Is there a good

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yes. I'm sorry. Yeah. No worries. So I know that with the Drug Task Force, there are some members who may not be in uniform all the There may be CIs that they're working with. And for the non uniformed members who are in the Drug Task Force, I'm trying to make sure that this bill, if it were to pass, won't disrupt or cause problems for the work they're doing because they're generally not in uniforms and they're not wearing identification. And so that's that's what I'm trying to that's what I'm trying to get at is to make sure that this bill and the language that you're seeing isn't something that would be problematic for the task force.

[Lt. Dustin Robinson (Vermont State Police, Narcotics Investigations Commander)]: No. Me reading it, I I don't see an issue. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but, I mean, that seems to cover would cover the work that we're doing.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: That works great. Yeah. Was just curious. Do you have any are there any other agencies in the state of Vermont that work independently, either than with the Vermont State Police Department of Drug Task Force, such as DEA or Baruth is a large municipality. Are you aware of any of that that work independently under undercover? Yes. But I don't see where they're we brought this question up here today as far as is it just the Vermont Drug Task Force or any other agencies working in conjunction with them? My question was, Burlington has a large police department. Probably did. And do they have their own drug unit? Don't need to let me know that, but do they does everybody work with you or

[Lt. Dustin Robinson (Vermont State Police, Narcotics Investigations Commander)]: does some work independently? Independently? We collaborate with people, but

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: they are definitely independent groups within the state. Like, specifically, Burlington is one.

[Lt. Dustin Robinson (Vermont State Police, Narcotics Investigations Commander)]: They're not necessarily associated with us. We work with them, but they're not necessarily associated with us.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: And federal entities are independent of the task force, or do they

[Lt. Dustin Robinson (Vermont State Police, Narcotics Investigations Commander)]: We work with them, but they can work independently.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: No. That was just the same thought I had from yesterday about if there are other entities out there that work solely on their own, not in conjunction with the with the drug task force, whether federal, state, local, anything like that. But the answer sounds like yes.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: That does happen. Sophie, I remember you spoke about that a bit at our last hearing regarding this. Do you have any thoughts on working with or conjunction with with the language that's raised? No. I mean,

[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: the intention was to make sure that anyone that is coordinating or working in conjunction with the Vermont Drug Task Force would be covered including if there were federal officers, because that was another issue that came up in terms of the federal enforcement agency. But if folks are comfortable with the language, then that will cover it. I think that was the

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

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: for your testimony. Just wanted to

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: have you in here just to make sure we had a chance to hear from you regarding that specific section. Are are there any other pieces just that that you have any thoughts on that you wanted to share?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Not at the moment. No. Okay. Great.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, thank you for your time.

[Lt. Dustin Robinson (Vermont State Police, Narcotics Investigations Commander)]: Thank you

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: so much.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Matt Reagan.

[Matt Raymond (Commander, Vermont ICAC Task Force)]: Yeah. Matt Raymond. I'm the commander of the Raw Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. The mission of the task force is to prevent the victimization of children by people using the Internet or technology.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: In clearing

[Matt Raymond (Commander, Vermont ICAC Task Force)]: up some testimony from Julio yesterday, I I this morning watched that on the YouTube. So, no, we we don't wear a mask when we execute search warrants or effectuate arrests or anything like that. My problem I only have the I don't have the current this is the current the new graph.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It should say 2.1 at the top, the top left corner.

[Matt Raymond (Commander, Vermont ICAC Task Force)]: The my concerns were on two sections of the old bill. I'll just address those really quickly.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Think I'll carry over. One is just confusion on it would be the old was page two one starting on line 12. A law enforcement officer shall be clearly identified by the officer's name or badge

[Matt Raymond (Commander, Vermont ICAC Task Force)]: number or both on the officer's uniform. There's a number of people working in law enforcement in plain plain clothes positions where you don't actually wanna be identified. It's law enforcement specifically doing we do a lot of surveillance. So if if something goes back to an IP address at at a residence, we could be on a street corner or in a vehicle or whatever. But we certainly don't wanna So that's that's one problem. And then the other was the exception to active undercover drug related operations. And now, I guess, the language just specifically refers to the drug task force. So we do a fair amount of proactive undercover operations, which can both online and in person necessitate disguising our personnel. So I wouldn't wanna limit it to just drug cases, I would think, preventing, you know, sexual abuse of children is actually probably as important, if not more, than drug use. That would impede completely what we do.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I I agree. I'll get to that, but I see, senator Vyhovsky has her hand up.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. Absolutely. I apologize if you already answered this. The sound is still very quiet, and it's difficult to hear most of what's being said. But, I have two questions around the sort of surveillance piece. If someone is undercover and doing surveillance, would they be interacting with the public or would they just be sort of watching?

[Matt Raymond (Commander, Vermont ICAC Task Force)]: Yeah, well, obviously you could be interacting with the public if you're out on foot walking somewhere and someone approaches you and talks to you. You're not effectually in arrest or or doing anything like that, but you could be just talking to a building owner or and you may not wanna tell them that you're the police, you're ICAC, and you don't know what their relationship is with their, you know, if they're a landlord and it's a landlord tenant situation. If you're having a friendly conversation with them, identifying yourself as a police officer as part of the investigation. And it would be problematic if we always had to tell them. It'd be like forewarning everybody, and everybody's electronics are gonna end up in Lake Champlain before we can get to them.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: That makes a lot of sense. And I I just not knowing how those operations work, I mean, my my knowledge of what an undercover surveillance operation is strictly informed by, like, watching CSI. So I appreciate you giving me the more nuanced view. If, in your opinion, if we were to expand that exception to also include working with ICAC in or in conjunction with ICAC, would that cover what you needed it to cover?

[Matt Raymond (Commander, Vermont ICAC Task Force)]: Yeah. I'd have to read the current draft language, but I haven't seen until I just heard

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: it as I was sitting here. No. The current language doesn't include that. It includes working with or in conjunction with the Drug Task Force. What I'm suggesting is an update that would that would also include working with or in conjunction with ICAC.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yes. And Okay. Great. Thank Yeah. Along those same points, I mean, I'm I'm not opposed at all to adding ICAC and Koozie to that list of exceptions. The one piece that I wanted to also highlight is on page two, line seven.

[Matt Raymond (Commander, Vermont ICAC Task Force)]: It's on the newer Graph

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: 2.1. Yeah. The newest one. Okay.

[Matt Raymond (Commander, Vermont ICAC Task Force)]: So where were you? I apologize.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: No problem. Page two, line seven, you'll see it starts with disguise while interacting with the public. The one piece I was contemplating putting in there, and this is from a conversation I was having with Lieutenant Colonel earlier this morning, having disguised while physically interacting with the public. Because I understand that there may be circumstances where detectives are posing as somebody who they aren't online Correct. In chat rooms or whatever it might be. And so my hope would be that that if we were to physically interact with the public, that could cover that and continue to allow for these online investigations.

[Matt Raymond (Commander, Vermont ICAC Task Force)]: Yeah. So our without going to give a YouTube tutorial on how to knock it out. But it can also be in person for us as well. Right.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And if we were to

[Matt Raymond (Commander, Vermont ICAC Task Force)]: By this next section, I'm assuming.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. So I'm thinking if we were to add physically while physically interacting and then also add just a general exception for iCap and Fusi, I mean, hope would be that that would cover you folks both in the digital realm and the physical face to face realm of folks.

[Matt Raymond (Commander, Vermont ICAC Task Force)]: Yes. Yes. I believe it will. Committee,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: any thoughts on those changes? Yeah.

[Matt Raymond (Commander, Vermont ICAC Task Force)]: Was just curious. I know very much chairman's Koozie. I know we have Koozie. I know we have several other places throughout the state. Do you just work specifically with Koozie or would you recommend including all of those? So, the we have ICAC members that are on that are also work ICAC cases. So I don't know of any SIU members that are doing undercover proactive online investigations. Line eight, law enforcement officers working with or in conjunction, and I believe that we just heard that there was independent agencies out there who have their own drug task force.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So if it were to say agencies working with or in conjunction with the command threat task force, would that still extend to the individual officers that I think senator Norris is talking about where they may not be working in conjunction, but they're still in the agency that is working with work within conjunction with the Mont Drug Task Force.

[Sophie Sedatney (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, if there is that relationship, I guess I was understanding question to be if there's no relationship between Between

[Matt Raymond (Commander, Vermont ICAC Task Force)]: that of the transpose.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Right. So I think that the way I think if it were to say A disease, it would get at what I think you're getting at.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Can I?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Oh, sorry.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: That's that's okay. My concern with using the language of agencies is that could theoretically mean any agency that's ever worked with them, then everyone is able to just not like, it creates that problem for me that you were talking about, about making exceptions so wide that it makes the law essentially meaningless. Because my guess is that at some point, probably every law enforcement agency has worked in conjunction, and then it applies to everyone there all the time because they once worked like, I I have concerns about that.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yep. Committee, anything else? Sorry. We kind of detracted from we kind of went on a tangent. It's okay. Didn't wanna be here in the seat. Any committee, anything else for Windham? Okay. Fine. Do you have any further testimony?

[Matt Raymond (Commander, Vermont ICAC Task Force)]: No. That was it. Those are two sections I wanted to address. Great. Just plain close officers not obviously identifying themselves all the time and being able to disguise doing undercover. So,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: committee, are we generally alright with adding the word physically on page two line seven and then also adding an exception for Great. Thank you very much.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Lieutenant colonel, you wanna testify as well today?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yes, please.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And I I know you're not I I don't see how your name isn't on the agenda, but, of course, you're more than welcome to. And we got plenty of time. So yep. Again, just please introduce yourself and take away.

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: Good morning. My name is Sean Lone. I'm the deputy director of the State Police. I'm a lieutenant colonel. I'm excited to be here because some of these things I I worked in before. I was drug task force member for many years. And I've worked with the units. I've run a lot of the investigation units. So I had a statement that I was going to read. But before we went on, I just wanted to provide just from the conversation that just happened. Creating an exhaustive list of agencies is very difficult in units. So my concern with the previous testimony that at the end of it was that when you talk about people that maybe work child sex cases and we say, well, okay. Well, it's just newsy and it's just cozy, you're now limiting the Orleans County unit to doing an undercover operation with the FBI for child sex partners. Is it possible to look at the language as to what the

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Because that opens it up for us that we don't end up putting ourselves in

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: a position where, for instance, has a specific goal. But homeland security investigations does a lot of online to catch a job. In that same vein, when we talk about drug passports, like Senator Norris said, Burlington has their own drug passports that are separate entities. They're differently funded, differently managed, differently policies and procedures than the Newmont drug passports. Recently, St. Albany's PD had a street crimes unit that was essentially an underdog passports. Barry PD had stood them up when they could and taken them down when they could.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: I'm trying to think

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: of Brattleboro has a few people assigned to the task force. But when their numbers get low, they'll pull those people off our task force. They'll work independently from Brattleboro in an undercover capacity. So if we look at what they're doing as opposed to who and what they work for, I think you would find yourself not having to create a list that may have so many exemptions. This is just from the outside that I wanted to provide. Same oh,

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: yes, sir.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: If I could. I take the point, and I think in a different world, we wouldn't have found ourselves going in that direction. But one of my concerns throughout has been that the federal government has been completely disingenuous in how they respond in court and the cases and the and the rationales that they make. So you use the phrase, do they need anonymity? I think Christy Noam would say ICE agents need anonymity. Why? Because they're afraid that they'll be doxxed. And but that, of course, is true for every police officer who identifies themselves. They run the risk in an Internet society of having people put their their face and their name out there. So I don't buy that rationale. And I think one of the things we've been struggling with here is how to proactively prevent those kinds of, to my mind, silly arguments that they need to be masked and they need not to identify themselves. That's why we started focusing on, did you actually belong to a drug task force as opposed to do you need anonymity?

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: I completely understand what you're saying. My concern and the counterpoint to that would be, are we hindering Vermont law enforcement? And this is the fine line that we're trying to cut here. Yeah. And what I'm hoping is if we if we can create and I don't have the wording for it. I apologize. I'm just coming up with a good idea here. If we could create the idea maybe that we could talk about the action, the criminal investigation, criminal investigations to include things that require undercover operations and put, what do we have? Let's talk to our partners maybe in some drug investigations, child predators, arson investigations. And there are certain investigations that may require some sense of

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: an undercover

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: perspective. And that may give us a limitation where your concerns might be met, that we wouldn't have federal agents doing the things you're concerned about, but for models to be able to work in that three sixty scope of law enforcement.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: I think that could work as well.

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: And I know this is kind of

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: a wrench at the end of the game, but I

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: just I really want to make sure this works well. That's my goal.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: In other words Just to clarify, which part do you think would work?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: In other words, not enumerating task force and ICAC or whatever the acronym is, but instead saying furtherance of undercover operation undercover drug operations. Although, I guess my problem there is that the administration has been using the fentanyl crisis as part of the reason why ICE needs to be out in communities. So it's just hard to if we say drug operations, undercover drug operations, and we didn't specify beyond that. I think, you know, the justice department would have no problem arguing that ICE is pursuing undercover drug operations and border protection on pursuing undercover drug operations because they've used the fentanyl crisis as the the emergency that's allowing these surges in federal agents. So it's very tough, but I I take your point. We it's not our intention at all to hamstring from our operations that are necessary.

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: And I completely understand that. That's why I wanted to take a little talk. And also going back on the same conversation, I'm gonna I'm gonna skip my next one because I think this is a better conversation. So I oversaw the criminal division. The criminal division dresses like everyone here, suits and ties, the office is attire. They don't wear nameplates. They carry a badge just like and and fire them. And the way this is written, it just said law enforcement officers. So that would require a big shift of of the way we do business in the state for our plainclothes business attire people. My question is, is that the intent to have all law enforcement? That's something that we would want to discuss as law enforcement leaders. Is are we going to be getting identification for people? And in doing that with our criminal justice folks, part of what they do is they work in this environment. So they're dealing with victims. They're dealing with banks. They're going in dressed as a as a business environment in a single time. So that was one of the things that came up too. And then the the last part that I wanted to talk about was that that was on the on the identification part. But the last of his chair is sliding down. You can't tell. Can you see it? I'm getting shorter.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: How do notice? Feel it in a

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: couple

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: seconds. Worried about the firearm. So

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: the the other thing is the regarding the the masking situation, I wanted to bring up a couple of events that are personal to me. So I have had skin cancer several times. I've got a lot of scars on my face across my head. As a police officer, I often wear a UPF cover. And my thought on that was I need to protect my skin. I wear it when I'm doing trainings. I I wear it if I was out on a car or trash, if I had to be up on a boat or anything like that. This I'm just gonna fix this. I'm sorry. That's maddening. This doesn't allow for that, and I think that that's not the intent, and and and I talked about it. I think us keeping our faces covered for safety is important, sun exposure, and cold exposure. But the intent is that we're not interacting with the public with our faces covered. And I wonder instead of creating, again, an exhaustive list of all the times that we can't wear or we can wear a mask, if we said that when we're speaking with the public and physically and verbally interacting with the public, we can keep our faces covered. That may cover a lot of this with the exceptions of drug task force, sexual assault, undercover situations, tactical services. But then the general person, whether they be in a suit and tie or in a uniform, when they're interacting in public, they should have their face open. And I agree with that. On the same hand, living in five miles from Canada, if I'm in a car scene and it's in mid December or even mid November, it's cold. Exposure after about thirty minutes is frostbite. So I

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: don't want to set

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: us up where our members, our civil servants are being opened up to health risks, whether it be sun or cold. So again, going back to that idea of that exhaustive list, there a possibility to look at this differently and say, when we're interacting with the public, when we're speaking with the public, when we're affecting the rest, when we're doing interviews, we can use the right terminology. We should not have a feast. And I think that, I hope, if I understand correctly, is the intent of this.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: One second. I see senator Mattosky has her hand up.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. I appreciate that. And and my understanding from previous testimony, I it think was from legislative counsel, is that's already what the bill does, is that caveat around interacting with the public already applies. We had conversation with it about the cold. If someone is in the woods looking for a hiker and not engaging with the public, they would absolutely be able to cover their face regardless of the temperature because they're not interacting with the public. So my understanding is the language sort of already does what you're pointing to on that end. Some of your previous testimony, again, the sound is so low, it's very difficult to hear anyone in the room. So if if I'm speaking over something that you've already said, I also apologize. My dog is now fricking. So I think the bill does what you're getting at in terms of parsing out that the exceptions or or the exceptions apply if one is interacting with the public, and those are then accepted. The overall bill says if you're not interacting with the public, sure. Of course, you can cover your face if you need to for sun exposure or cold exposure.

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: But I just just for my understanding, ma'am. So when I when I read the bill as a police officer, if I think about interacting with the public, if I were directing traffic, although I'm not speaking to the public, I I would feel that I'm interacting with the public. And I think the public would feel that way too. My concern is if if I had my face covered because of extreme temperatures, even though it's not below negative 10 and I'm out at a car scene and someone takes a picture of me with a facial covering and sends it to my boss, am I I on the hook for a thousand dollar fine? And I think maybe I I think we're talking about the same thing, maybe just defining what interacting with the public might be important that, again, that physical conversation, that interaction. So as a police officer driving down the road, I consider that interaction with the public because I have to be on my best behavior. If I'm speeding, the public's going to notice that. And I think that's the part that I'm a little nervous about is without that clear defined interacting with the public part, as I take it, most police officers I've talked to, when we start our shift, we are interacting with the public. That's how I look at it.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah. I appreciate that. And and I'd wanna be really careful how we define that because some of the instances that I have heard that are deeply concerning are, you know, there was an instance in Winooski with an unmarked car with masked men in it following a student to school. And to me, that's not okay. We know where they office And this is the other piece for me too, to some extent, and I do want to be careful how we define it, we're protecting officers too, because we don't know. Were those police officers? Were those people planning on just kidnapping someone? We have no idea because we're missing a lot of these requirements on what people can expect from law enforcement. At what point can they say, Yes, that is law enforcement, and these are other people that are impersonate, like this has created so much danger for everyone. And that's really what I'm hoping to sort of narrow in on. That is coming to the point of the sort of identification. It it is my view that if if a uniformed officer is engaging, they they should have their identification displayed. And if that's not current practice, I I think it should be.

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: I agree. The state police always has that. We have our nameplate. We we've got I'm I'm looking at the camera, it's backwards. But I've got the nameplate. I've got the badge. I've got the you know, we we make sure that happens. It is it is a little more difficult with the criminal division where we have people in suits and ties, and I think we should try to vet that out and figure out what goal is. And if the goal is to have them identified, we need to we're gonna have to statewide figure out ways to make sure people are identified when wearing business attire. But I think that like you like you mentioned, the the interaction part is the part that I'm stuck on just because I would be concerned that mean, the public has the right, and I I expect them to report bad behavior for police officers. So if I'm speeding, please take the picture and send it to my boss. Right? That makes sense to me, and I I get those complaints and I deal with them. My concern is if someone sees someone masked that and they're they believe they're interacting with the public, are they then gonna be fined a thousand dollars, which

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: is quite a bit of

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: money, for something that wasn't the intent of the bill? I I really think the goal is and I understand your your your instance that you're talking about. I'm thinking about the every day, 300 times a day. It's the speaking, engaging, affecting an arrest that unless you're in an undercover capacity or working with a specialized unit, you should not have your face covered. And I'm just I don't mean to simplify it, but I think that that's what my hopefully my testimony is to say if we can either say what the interaction part is so that we feel more comfortable in in being able to pull up a face mask because it's cold or because of the sun. And then understanding that we we are not wearing this when we're when we're interacting with the public as opposed to just being out in public. Sorry if that was confusing at the end. I might not explain that the best. But

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: No. That was definitely helpful, and and it sound yeah. I I think we can probably find I mean, maybe the language we find won't please everyone and capture every circumstance, but I think that we can probably find a way to craft a definition that captures what we're talking about. But I do think there are some areas where it's, I'm gonna use legislative council's word, a little squishy. You know, if I'm following someone, am I interacting with the public? If I'm just walking a beat, am I like and I think those are different things, and and that's where I think that we may we can probably improve on this definition, and I think it's unlikely that we're gonna get every little fine nuance.

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: it. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: If I can interject, I don't know if I'm oversimplifying a potential solution here, but regarding the criminal division, I can imagine that figuring out name tags and call signs for plainclothes detectives can be challenging. For example, my own state ID, I'm assuming they'll still get IDs similar to this. Yeah. I'm sorry. But I was just going say, I mean, would a possible solution just be a lanyard where they can have the ID hanging if they're interacting with folks?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I mean, is. It also

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: it says you can see the name.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, I don't know if I'm splitting hairs here or getting into semantics. I mean, if you're wearing a lanyard, part

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: of your uniform, right,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: to some extent?

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: Yep. I'm just going again, being the person who would follow it exactly how it's written, because I want people to stay out of trouble, the officers' agency on the officers' uniform. Maybe it could be the officers' agency display. Because we carry a badge. Everyone has a badge. Some detectives wear them around their neck. Some detectives wear them on their belt. It depends on the situation. Obviously, if you're walking into

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: a room full of children

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: and you want talk to somebody who's

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: a victim, have the badge in

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: the front, you've got out. It's not always helpful. Sometimes it's a little more casual. Would let other people speak more to that. But at least they would have it on them. They have

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: the badge on them.

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: It's not visible at that moment, but it's a jacket

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: pulled away.

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: So I think that's just if we can look at fine tuning some of those things for the other than uniformed person to still be affected in their role without having to change their entire approach to dealing with victims

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: and incumbents. So would it make more sense then to have the officer's name or the officer's unique radio number or badge number visibly displayed on the officer's person?

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: Yeah. Because that would be a lab, which we all carry ID. Everyone on this carries an ID, both the state police ID, us. We at least have a state

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: police ID. I think that could be a reasonable change that addresses that concern. And I mean, it's not just for DSP. It'll be for all the office. I

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: really appreciate the TSU and the Trump task force from here.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: But there are groups that

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: are statewide that mark us. And I want to make sure this affects all law enforcement positively.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And I think we would also have to make a similar change one line down. The officer's agency on the officer's uniform could be something similar. The officer's agency visibly displayed on the officer's person. Committee, do we have thoughts on those two changes in this issue? Anybody opposed?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: No. So I do have a quick question. So is it my understanding now that Nader or whatever else? Say they're mad. Once they approach someone on the motor vehicle stop,

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: back to that what is the interaction part would be really helpful for law enforcement. Yep. While I understand the intent, it's also important that the public understands the intent so they don't hold us accountable, something that wasn't necessarily the the goal here. You know?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: And I would just stress, from my point of view, none of this would be necessary except for the way that federal immigration customs but we're trying to make sure that this is not classed as a discriminatory measure. And so it's it's bringing all law enforcement into it for constitutional reasons.

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: I completely understand that. I appreciate the the positivity of us. Yeah. And I I'm glad everyone's willing to at least look at it to make sure that separate from your concerns that we can continue doing what we do for the state of Vermont. You know, across all the law enforcement levels.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And I know this is kind of geared into making edits to this, but I think this is very helpful and helpful conversation for everybody. And I think this is a good process here. So we've got those two changes there. Are there and that kind of disrupted your testimony. Did you have more that you wanted to share with us specifically?

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: I think if we're looking at the interaction part, that answers everything. Because my concerns were being exposed to the elements of sun, winds, cold exposure. But if we're talking to Senator Norris, you said, pulling it down, having that conversation, having that interaction, being able to pull it back up for safety and wellness, then I don't think we need to address as much as that exhaustive list had. So much of it would be covered under the idea that you're engaging the public. Maybe engaging is a different piece of work that we can talk instead of being the public.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I'm wondering if going back to page two, line seven, where I suggested physically interacting with the public, if we're putting physically and verbally interacting with the public. Is that I

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: think that's a for me, that's a big change because that's that engagement. That's that interaction when we're having the conversation traffic stop or turn it into you. But when that's over, I'm thinking about I'm going to use boat patrol. And I'm not a boat patrol person. But they're out on the water all day. They've got EPF coverings. They're wearing different hats, different uniforms. When they get on that boat, they're going to remove that. They're going to have a conversation. When they get back on the boat, they're

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: going to put it back up to do

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: the paperwork. I think that's appropriate use of facial recognition.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Committee, thoughts on physically and verbally interacting?

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Physically and or verbally. In other words, if somebody's in a crowd and nobody happens to be talking to them, I

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: would still want the mask on. Yeah. Wait. I'm sorry.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Say that. So so in other

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: words, I wouldn't want it to be that it only applies if somebody is physically and verbal and verbally interacting that the law applies or wanted. So my thinking is you've got a demonstration. You've got ICE agents mask. Even if they're not talking to somebody, I would want this law to apply.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Right. Yeah. No, that's a good point.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So is it just a demonstration we're talking about or someone doing the foot beat?

[Lt. Dustin Robinson (Vermont State Police, Narcotics Investigations Commander)]: No, no. No, we're talking about

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: broad interaction with the public. But obviously, the one that we've seen again and again is the flashpoint is demonstrations where people are confronting ICE and saying, identify yourself, remove your mask, and refusing to do that. Or or even when they're going to a rescue, you're asking them to remove the mask and identify yourself. So I'm I'm thinking if we can keep it broad and and interacting and engaging seem to be the two words to capture the fact that you're out in the public. You're not in your car driving somewhere. I know you said that that seems public to you too. But personally, if somebody would add a mask on in the car and then they get out, and they're among the public, I would inspect the mask.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So Oh, sorry. Agree

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: with Senator that limiting it to physical and verbal is too limited. You know, the example, and this is where I think it gets a little bit difficult, like I said, to fine tune and capture in every direction what we're looking for. And I actually, even within the car, wouldn't capture the instance that I was pointing to that is a real thing that happened in Winooski. So I want to be careful how we narrow it, because I think it's a pretty broad group of things. You know, I agree if there's a, you know, a rally or a protest and there are officers there, the public should know who they are. That you know, so so I I think it is it is tricky. And I don't think that physical and verbal I I think that is too narrow.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: No. I was just thinking I think you talked about it the other day, like, doing doing the beat down Church Street, cold day, got a mask up, not talking to anybody. You would not want a mask on in that situation.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Well, I take senator Vyhovsky's point that seeing a car with masked agents riding around in it is unnerving. So I I guess for me, the most important point is when you're out in the public, so you're you're standing with people, then I would want no masses and identification sure. I'm a little less clear on what I think about whether in your car you could be wearing them. The chair mentioned being out in the woods looking for evidence or something. I don't think anybody would have a problem with somebody wearing a face covering just for personal comfort at that point. In a way, this is starting to remind me of the mask rules that we had during COVID. You know what I mean? Like, when you but but there was the reverse when you came closer to people, you masked up. When you got further away, you took the mask away. I guess I'm seeing that in reverse where if you're if you're not gonna be affecting somebody's personal space or view of the world, it shouldn't apply to anything. I don't know.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Yeah. I'm just thinking about this Friday. Supposed to be very cold. Might not get to the threshold that's in the bill now but you know, Friday night's downtown Burlington. Who's out and about? Right. Students, folks, bars, police officers, they're just standing there for the most part.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: I mean, I used to be

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: a college student. They would be standing there monitoring what's going on. I don't remember if they had a mask on or not, but

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: if it was a cold,

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: cold night, negative eight degrees, they more than likely would wanna have a mask on. And it does meet the threshold or if it's zero degrees, whatever it is. But they're not interacting. They're not talking with anybody. They're just monitoring the situation. They have their badge identified, call number identified there. So that's not hidden or anything. They have a cold weather mask on that wouldn't

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: be allowed, and you wouldn't want that to be allowed.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: The identification part is still there.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: They still have badge. It would be allowed.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Well, and we could Not at 10 to or

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: below freezing. What I'm getting at is, I think, Senator Baruth's point about interacting is being there, being walking down the street, being seen in public, that's just where I get a little

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: concerned. And I had a teacher

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: who used to say, you fool around and

[Lt. Dustin Robinson (Vermont State Police, Narcotics Investigations Commander)]: you ruin it for everybody.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: And that's what we're seeing here, really. I mean, traditionally, in Vermont's cold state, if I saw law enforcement wearing a mask on a cold night, no one would bat an eye because you knew for a fact say nobody, but we don't often have problems with how law enforcement are doing their jobs in the state. But the idea is how can we script it tightly enough that it will have the effect we want on the people who are breaking those traditions, but not be discriminatory in

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: the constitution. And that's what keeps hanging us up. Yeah. Can we do it in a way where

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: you can't I'm trying to think of how I wanna word it. But if you're wearing a mask, cold weather climate, or in the summertime, you know, personal health reasons, when you are asked to identify yourself, interact in an identifying manner, something like that, be able to, like what you said, kind of your common practice is now bring the mask down when you're talking to somebody because your your identification is there, maybe not your facial because of the weather. But if somebody asks for your identification, you are then fully interacting with that person and therefore cannot be wearing a mask. Because I'd imagine that'd be

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: a shorter time period.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. I get so I think I get where you're going. So basically making a requirement that if you are wearing a mask and you're maybe not directly talking to somebody, but you're just standing, monitoring college students in Burlington, if somebody comes up to you and they say, name and badge number. Yeah. And they have they want to see your face.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: They have it shown Required to show you the face. I think it might be a way to help solve the problem of not being able to during these conditions, whether it's sunny out or it's cold out. Because

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I don't I don't

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: wanna get into a situation where I think we heard it the other day. Well, it's cold out. Maybe you just don't want the beat. Well, then that sets up. If it's cold out, I can do whatever I want because that's gonna be there. Right. So in that situation, I would

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: definitely not wanna enhance those opportunities.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Norris and then senator Robinson.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I don't I wanna keep kicking this can down the road. Mind is very similar to what Chris will say. An officer, okay, any officer standing across the road, a jersey barrier, barricade behind the fence, not doing anything, just standing there with a mask on. People that I've seen it on TV, the field. People come charging across the road, slandering them, pointing at them, whatever else. What's your interpretation of that now? Are they just by standing there behind the fence that they have to give them their name and that they didn't initiate this. There's a they're across the road.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: These are masked ICE agents? No.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Masked officers. Mostly ICE agents that

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: are masked officers. Well, the reason I ask is because ICE has begun to just put the word police across their uniform, hoping to have people confuse them with their local law enforcement. In this moment, being a masked officer is provocative. That's that's the way I would go. So when you say they're mining their piece and key is not doing anything, why do they need to be masked? Because they choose to.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Well and and They're behind a lock

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: fence. Yeah.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Not even facing these folks. They come charging across the road doing whatever they do. You can call it demonstrating, protesting, assembling, whatever you wanna call it. They initiate this

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: particular incident. Right. But I'm I guess what I'm saying is initiating is not what they're doing. It's that ICE is trying to normalize and regularize regularize masked anonymous law enforcement agents and try to get Americans to believe that that's normal going forward. And I I don't wanna live in that world. So these days, if I'm driving down the street and I see a masked agent somewhere, my assumption is that it's ICE. My assumption is that they're going to refuse to identify themselves and that they may be looking to pick up people from my community, throw them in a car, and drive them away. So to me, that's the provocation, not not the protesters who are going up and saying, identify It's I I view what they're doing as a a protective community response to this irritant anonymous masked agents who are, you know, armed and dangerous.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Well, once again, I I try to stay away from I know you're all over the the administration and federal agencies or whatever else, but I'm gonna we can't pull ourselves from the place that you put. I was talking about local law enforcement officers in that discussion. But thank you. I

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: really appreciate everyone wanting to work to try to narrow this in. My concern with making a require making it that if someone asks that you have to is that people aren't going to ask because whether we like it or not, what the federal government is doing is making people afraid generally, not necessarily because local law enforcement is going to act that way, but because any law enforcement is acting that way, it is increasing fear. And so my concern with with saying you can have your face covered if unless someone asks you not to is no one is going to ask because how are they to know that this law enforcement officer is not going to tear gas me or shoot me for asking? They're not. And so I think we can, as much as we want, try and acknowledge that our local law enforcement is not behaving that way. But if any law enforcement is behaving that way, it is going to increase the public sphere that any law enforcement could behave that way.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Then program. I was just going to say I think the penalty for the actions that Senator Vyhovsky has talked about is probably much more than a $1.00 fine.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: But the penalty for the person who asked is they are perhaps dead. So, they're just not going to ask.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Let me go back to the witness that we still have in our seat. See, get it back on track here. Do you have additional thoughts or I mean, provide some very helpful testimony. I mean, everybody has. Based on everything you've heard, do you have any additional thoughts or any testimony that you wanted to share?

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: Well, I want thank everyone for having me here. We do need to keep our law enforcement safe in Vermont and and free for us by free of any other dangers. We we do have some good caveats with the, you know, the chemical and irritants and things

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: like that. But that's

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: a perfect example of being just exposed for a long period of time in public. And is it acceptable to wear something to keep warm? And I think that's what I would leave it with. I think that's it's a perfect example that happens every day, many times a day, as opposed to the exception of something negative happening. So I would use that as our Vermont example of Burlington PD walking down Sherp Street, keeping Sherp Street safe, and having that fish covered and keep your nose from frostbite. I think that's where I would end it. But I really do appreciate everyone's time and for being so professional in listening to me. So thank you, ma'am.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Can I just say, I really appreciate throwing away your canned testimonies? Because we usually spend quite a lot of time listening to stuff. And then we ask people to comment on the bill. That's when

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: it gets interesting. Yes. You just started there. I appreciate it. I've never done this before. It was my first time doing a can test one, and I decided to stop with me. Yeah. Sorry.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Speak from

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: the heart. Thank you very much.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Do you

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: mind if I take this? Is there someone else

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: We can get you a copy.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Actually, sorry. You

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: sent me one this morning.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Actually, you can you can take that copy. I have an exact replica I can put back on senator Robles' desk. I don't think you'll hold the desk.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: No. No. No. No. I often take notes on my bills. So, actually, do need my copy back.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Sorry, I'm still there. Back on your desk. I think he's got it done. Thank you. There was one thought I had regarding some of the safety stuff, which could be a cross reference to both the occupational safety hazard. I think that's

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: pretty close. I understand.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: But you'll know what I'm referring to, making reference or cross referencing that nothing in here will supersede OSHA or OSHA in terms of occupational safety hazards. So I don't know off the top of my head what all the provisions are in OSHA. But I think that's something that could potentially get to being on a boat or being in negative 10 or negative five degree weather without necessarily having to spell it all out in the law. Any thoughts on that? I mean,

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: be happy to take a look at that. I think it makes sense to be able to cover that. Definitely don't want to overstep the bounds of Yeah. And

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: then I won't talk

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: about it.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: No. I was just thinking more along the lines, like in these weather related issues, so to speak, is the identification of the officer's agency badge number name enough until somebody asks more? Like, if you're wearing a mask, it's cold out. Yeah. But you I According to this, you have to have your name, badge number, call sign, agency, what have you. Is that enough during those Not for me.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Or do you mean if somebody's

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: not Like you need the person's face?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yes. Like in order to not violate this?

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Yeah. Like if you're cold weather, OSHA, supersedes, whatever, but their badge number, agency, all that is visible.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: If what you're asking so we're not talking about a cold weather exception. We're talking about normal No.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Cold like, cold weather. You're out walking the beat Burlington. Burlington. You're standing there, mask on, not talking to anybody, but your badge number, name, agency is all there.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Well, so here here would be the problem for me. Our last witness was talking about the need for it in

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: the sun.

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

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: So now we've got to the sun or in the cold, which is a cold year. Right? Because it's either warm or cold. If if that's the case, then then I think we really are weakening the anti masking piece of it. If if it's not linked to a certain amount of cold or, you know, maybe to a certain amount of sun. Because what what we're addressing is to the sudden willingness of federal agents to go mask Mhmm. And unidentified. If they remain masked, there's there's a reason why in various moments of history, we've forbidden masks. And it's because people terrorize, like the Kurogs, people are terrorizing communities with the masks. So it's very helpful if they're identified under uniform. But it doesn't take away that

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: And that's why I like the piece from earlier when I said if you are a more than much better, but directly interacting with

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: And that could work too, I think. It seems like we've got two or three different possibilities that might work. I just have a hard time keeping them all in

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: my head. Oh, I hear you. Yeah. So

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I know that some of the first changes that we suggest were adding well, interacting. Yeah. And performance of the Office of Duty. That's on page two, line seven. And then the changes further up, subsections a and b, having the name or unique radio or badge number visibly displayed on the officer's person, and then the officer's agency visibly displayed on the officer's person. Those are the changes that I have so far. And then going to page three, back to our earlier testimony regarding iCat and Koozie. I think going to the point of not necessarily spelling out every single agency or sub agency, yeah, I think that's a good point, but rather going to the conduct of what they're doing. So I'm wondering if we want to, instead of just saying, undercover investigations related to sexual assault of minors. I don't know what the best way to phrase that is. I might defer to Commander Raymond for that. But to cover any other agencies that may not be Koozie for ICAC. Commander Raymond, sorry to put you back on the spot. Do you have a way to phrase that to get what

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: we're trying to get at? Child sexual exploitation.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Child sexual exploitation. So

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: My concern is just making sure that the exception covers so there's basically like two phases of our investigation.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Once we get to going to execute it, they

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: mostly culminate in executing a residential search warrant where we are wear identification where no one's masked. But not having to wear identification when you're in the investigative phase, if you're in a plain clothes, you know, you're in t shirt jeans, monitoring a location, you don't wanna be wearing and it goes back to interacting with the public. If I'm sitting on a park bench and talking to public people, not about the case or anything, just being a person, and I'm monitoring a location, I don't wanna be wearing my lanyard and and police identification. And I'm not doing an active undercover necessarily. Necessarily. I'm I'm doing the under a, you know, phase of an investigation where you don't wanna put yourself out there as a police officer. Mhmm. Does that make sense?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It does. So

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So that needs to be covered as well for plaintiffs. We're not wearing suits in that case or not. I am today, when I testify. Right. But if I'm doing that, I mean, could be in T shirt and jeans. If I'm not I'm not arresting anybody, I'm not doing that, effectively doing an investigation.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So, you know, the the phrasing that I'm thinking of is making an exception for undercover investigations related to child sexual child sexual exploitation. And so at least in my mind, at first glance, I would think that that would cover whether you're

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: I just wanna

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: make sure that that's the legislative intent is to make that still okay. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: And if somebody is wearing a shirt and jeans and they're just watching somebody. Right. In my mind, I see that as somebody who's being undercover investigating

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: child support. Just want make sure that was covered because that's Yeah. Part of what we do.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: That's my intent. Committee, thoughts on go in the issue that Sam Baruth raised of already there'll be some agencies that will just say everything's a So that just creates this broad sweeping exception. It's also you know, we're never gonna get to perfection on anything. But so I'm not I'm not sure of

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: the answer off the top of my head right now. That's something something to think about next time. Anything

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: else? Other comments, questions? Just Yeah. I I'm not sure. I mean, I can take or leave it with the criminal piece. I mean, I think having tiered civil penalty aspect of this is fine. I also do think that Julio would raise some concerns. I think I brought this up much earlier in the conversation. Julio would raise some concerns. Sent some materials. I personally haven't gone through them yet. But how do we feel about I know we it wasn't in there. We added it. And now we're talking about it again regarding the criminal charge case. Mhmm. How are we feeling about it at the moment? I don't know where you're coming from now, but anybody else?

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Off the top of my head, if there is that constitutional concern with Zoe. Sophie, sorry. Constitutional concern about that. And if our intended hope is to be as broad as we can be and not discriminate or have that concern, I think it would be that civil penalty would alleviate that concern.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yeah. I think it also gets to the discretion piece of it. Mean, I know we've got black letter law in front of us. But I think that you've got two troopers on a car stop. One of them is on FTO. And the other is training them. I don't think he's going to write them a ticket if he sees a mask on at the wrong time or something like that. But to start introducing crime to it, that makes things a little more potentially challenging. But then I think it also goes to another point that was raised earlier of agents or officers were just repeat offenders disregarding the laws that we created. So I saw Senator Bahos' hand up first and then you said.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I will read what Julio has sent, but at this point, it's fairly unsettled. You know, we have some constitutional experts saying it doesn't matter if it's civil or criminal. We have some saying maybe it does matter. Getting at the sort of pattern of disregard, I would prefer to leave it in the tiered way that we have it. There's a lot of discretion in whether or not you know, an officer says, yeah. You know what? It is cold. Like, you weren't really talking to like, I I I think that once it becomes a pattern of behavior, I I would really prefer to leave it how we have it. It was already a compromise because I wanted the original offense to be criminal right out of the gate.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Well, sorry we're tackling up. Mean, I'll I'll look at Julio's materials as well. And if there is any little bit more clarity that we can get around potential issues or not with having a criminal offense, I think that would be helpful. And then, dare I say, I think we might be close to being finished.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: I was just going to say we are close to the end. I would suggest flagging that as a decision for us to make The criminal part? Yes. Yeah. And then because we're going to be involved in trying to reach consensus and getting a little here and taking a little there. So leaving these things on the table for that session as opposed to trying to get to an answer now, I think allows us in the final analysis more ways to reach consensus. Would be

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: my way of looking

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: at it. Yeah. I'm not sure what to do about the NIU piece that Senator Mattos brought up earlier and the The NIU piece. Think The Vermont Drug Task Force piece of the independent agencies.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Oh, I didn't know the acronym.

[Lt. Col. Sean Lone (Deputy Director, Vermont State Police)]: You just can't lose the whole evidence. I

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: don't want to take credit.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I mean, for that, I don't know how much we're going to be able to perfect that particular area if there's because, I mean, yeah, our state agencies work in conjunction with federal agencies, and they would be covered in that. But there could be instances where the DEA is doing their own independent investigation. Necessarily get it perfect. But it's still a point to revisit and see if there's anything that we can verify there. Senator, you have your hand up? Thought I

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: saw No.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: No. No. Two remaining decision points and those changes. I think say that's that's about it. Any closing remarks? Anyone? We good? Great. Thank you all for coming in. Appreciate all the witnesses. Take care, Tanya.