Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We are live. We are back

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: in the senate judiciary on April 3 when now taken on page seven four four. A case have him from the state's attorneys and parents to be

[Tim McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Thank you so much. For the record, Tim McMahon is Department of State Attorneys and Chairs. So, the bill, as it was passed out at the House, we do not have enough objection to it. We don't necessarily support it. We don't think it's needed per se. We think the system currently works well, but the language, as described by Senator Lalonde, basically reiterates current practice that a judge may set certain criteria for when law enforcement needs to get in touch with the prosecutor before calling the judge at their hours. When the Criminal Rules Committee had initially proposed the rule back in the fall, The language was shelved, and it said for every warrantless arrest like that, there would still be multiple phone calls, and that was where our department had a very strong objection. Depending on the county, that was going to be potentially very onerous for our department and for law enforcement when we felt like a number of those phone calls probably would not be necessary. And we pointed out for everyone that our on call attorneys only received $50 twenty four hour shift to be on call. They're being woken up three or four times, say, that, that $50 becomes very, yeah. Does not become worthwhile after a while. Yes, sort of. I'm just curious because I genuinely have no idea and have taken on call in my role, and I imagine it's somewhat different. Is it sort of the expectation if you're an attorney on call that you feel you'll be woken up? Or are there times that you're not woken up? Like, how does what does that look like? It varies. But not as the message we were conveying back in the fall, to join the judicial committee, the schools committee, it can absolutely vary. You can be on call and not so broken up for a few days. You can be on call and have 10 phone calls. In the larger counties, more phone calls. Larger counties have more attorneys to share. Below, so you might be on for a few days or you might have a week, and then you can be shown off. Smaller counties, have a state's attorney, maybe only one that would be. So half the office is on call all the time. But again, with smaller counties, they might go for dates without home calling. As you might imagine, certain holidays, long weekends, certain times of the year, you'll see, I think, pretty soon. So, yes, we've drawn opposition in the beginning to the show. The Bay language does reiterate practice, And we do appreciate the need to remove the line that is now in the bill, lines thirteen and fourteen, that that's just a correction. The arresting officers are not charging. The prosecutors are charging. So we appreciate that that needs to be taken out here and that's come up in the past. So let's just literally clean up.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So folks are essentially neutral on the bill, is that?

[Tim McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: We're neutral as written. As long as it stays with the base. If somebody came in and advocated strongly for the mosque and the shell, then we would be back to speak with you.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So, Davia mentioned that you know, and I'm sure they're trying to obtain through this language or whatever else. Is, in your opinion, what is the largest, the main, the chat list, the only thing we can refer to here has made the biggest change in this?

[Tim McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Well, this is the biggest change from the committee rule. Yep. As it was proposed in the fall, it was going to require, and essentially require it for every warrant that's arrest, that the prosecutor be included. So the arresting officer needing to call the prosecutor before being able to finish their affidavit and reaching out to the judge if there was going to be, you know, an expert conditions or all things. And so that it had to be part of me. The way it was written with rule, it would have to be part of every, all powers, or rest. With this language of they, then the judge is setting for their county, know, I wanna I wanna prosecutor involved for a hold without bail.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Well, I'm hearing twice, six months or whatever. Exactly.

[Tim McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: It'll change.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It'll change.

[Tim McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: But the nice part about keeping the May and what our hope would be is that presiding judge is taking into account that unit and the resources in that unit. The depth, the various law enforcement agencies, I think, they're able to have a better appeal, And probably through experience, maybe through a few phone calls, might adjust their rules depending on what they're being called for. They feel like, okay. I don't need to be called for this scenario. We can then put that out to their union.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: This used to be a time for simply call outsmarting.

[Tim McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: And I believe in some counties Right. You still I mean, you still can been more than that. And again, as long as it's May, and it's the judge, I can stop and shake that.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So the law enforcement has to stay informed as to what's in policy every time we have this changing of the guard within our court systems here. Eventually.

[Tim McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: But I think that's true right

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: now. Okay. Thank you. I think keeping it at its same makes a lot of sense. Committee, any other questions? I

[Tim McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: have a question. It might be for a council. Maybe it's for Kim. But with the language of they, can they already do this? Precisely. So this is really just reiterating what is happening. It's just putting it in rule. I

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: think there was, I think this one, Judge Creadwell, about to find a lot of them worried about it now, but I think that's why you see July 2 as the effective date is because the rules committee is taking up the same issue. They vote on July 1.

[Tim McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: So the rules committee is still considering this issue. And the rules, maybe their rules can go into effect either July 1 or I believe December 1 or January 1. I think January So January 1 or July 1. And so I believe the reasoning here for the effective date of July 2 is that this will keep the current practice. If the rules committee really wants to push the must to the shell, they may continue to do that, but it wouldn't go into effect until later.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: You remind me if the Rules Committee is contemplating May versus Shell, or what's currently on there?

[Tim McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: That I'm unsure of. When Judge Treadwell testified, I believe he said he was waiting to see I believe he said we're waiting to see what the legislature does. I think they were sort of in a holding pattern, but I don't know what that means in terms of whether they're sat on the show or legislature say builds, let's keep it with May.

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

[Tim McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: With their name. All that

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I got now. And keeping it as is nonsense. Any other questions?

[Tim McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Well, we're essentially passing a law that does nothing. No. But if they can already do this.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So I think it's perhaps there is a lack of clarification in different districts. Perhaps that's part of it. And putting it in statute provides that this may require as opposed to one April committee may be contemplated, but I don't think I can remember. I'm not sure what the rules committee is contemplating. So

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Eric Bakker, also with the City Council. So the last iteration before the rules committee was shouted. So it was required the experience of us be involved in the affidavit. So that would be a change to the current practice. Of course, what you have in front of you is not to go that route and instead keep current practice. As Jim has indicated, chair of the Supreme Schools Committee of the Court, Treadwell, indicated that they may they're gonna wait and see what the legislature does, but the last iteration before the rules committee is challenged. So by but if you choose to pass May with the July 2 effective date, then that would overrule the proposal of the court of law's conviction if, which we don't know, they decide to go ahead and do the shall change anyway.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: So presently, it was May that they had, they had a new one in front of them instead of shall. Correct. So we bring it back to May to get the exemption. Well, it's a long road.

[Eric FitzPatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Doesn't to break the branches up the chair.

[Tim McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: It'd be a strong signal that the legislature would like to keep present practice, and we'll see what the community does with that signal. We would appreciate it if they could stay.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Makes sense. It's one of my favorite things. They're. But anyway, else?

[Tim McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Thank you are

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: you with us all right You

[Tucker Jones (Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: can. Can you hear me all right?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Yes. Yes, we can hear you. Yeah, thanks for joining. We just wanted to hear from Department of Public Safety, see if you have any thoughts on this one.

[Tucker Jones (Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: Yeah, thank you. And not much really more than the discussion that you've just had with Kim. Well, first of all, you for having me all. And Tucker Jones with the Department of Public Safety. You know, the thinking here is if it's true that all the interested parties here agree that this change to rule three merely codifies

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: what is

[Tucker Jones (Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: existing practice, then there isn't much more to add here. And if there's a need to codify it, then so be it. And it sounds like, you know, perhaps in the context of what the Rules Committee is considering, etcetera, there may be, you know, some logic to that. But the kind of hope and expectation is that everyone is on the same page that we are just codifying existing practice here. Yeah. Because if there was a change, then we would all need to iron that out and and, you know, we would need to have law enforcement, you know, up to speed on what the expectation is.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: But that's about it.

[Tucker Jones (Vermont Department of Public Safety)]: I don't have anything really additional to add from what Kim said.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Sounds good. Thank you. Committee, any questions for the public? Great. Thank you for your time. Thank you. So we can go on this sometime next week. Any comments and any other folks follow-up? Send us concerns or questions or anything? Next up, we'll have Michelle at eleven. So, yeah, and it's I'm okay. So, I have to wait. We haven't got the water. So So you'll be here

[Tim McMahon (Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: for Yeah. Saw that on the schedule. But I