Judiciary Committee Off to a Fast Start

lalonde

The House Judiciary Committee got off to a rapid start this year. On January 7th, the second day of the Session, the Committee passed two bills, both holdovers from last year.

H.28 implements technical fixes to our statutes related to oaths and affirmations, which are used when an official is sworn into office or a witness in court swears to tell the truth, for example. An oath is a solemn promise invoking a higher power, while an affirmation is a similar, legally binding promise based solely on one’s personal honor. Both have the same legal weight and lying under either is considered perjury. Some Vermont statutes currently provide only for an oath and this bill adds the option of providing an affirmation instead, depending on the individual’s choice. This technical bill covers some statutes; future bills will address the remaining laws. The bill aims to ensure inclusiveness and personal choice when an individual must make assurances under penalty of perjury.

The other bill the Committee passed relates to bail. Criminal defendants in Vermont have a constitutional right to bail – unless they have committed a violent crime against a person, they are entitled to be released pending their trial, with or without conditions of release. Bail may be imposed, however, if they are a risk of flight and they will be held unless they post (or pay) bail.

In situations where a defendant has not been detained pending their trial but later commits an infraction such as violating a condition of release, prosecutors can make a motion to the court asking a judge to take away (or revoke) the defendant’s right to bail. Granting that motion would lead to the individual’s detention. To date, Vermont courts have only allowed revocation of bail in very limited circumstances. If the judge denies that motion, there is currently no clear way for a prosecutor to seek relief of a higher Court (our Vermont Supreme Court) to argue that the lower court judge got it wrong. H.409, which the committee voted out unanimously, allows prosecutors to appeal a denied motion for revocation of bail, which will help move the case forward and may provide clarity as to the allowable circumstances for bail revocation.

The Committee also took testimony on H.5, which would amend Vermont Rule of Evidence 804a. This rule creates a specific exception to the general rule against hearsay, which prohibits using out-of-court statements as evidence because they are less reliable than live testimony.  There are exceptions to the rule against hearsay, including that established in 804a.

Rule 804a allows out-of-court statements to be admitted in court where they are from young children (or vulnerable adults) about sexual abuse or other serious crimes, provided certain conditions are met that suggest those statements are reliable. 804a balances the need for evidence with the protection of vulnerable victims from further trauma. Currently, 804a excepts children who are age 12 and under from the rule against hearsay. H.5 would increase the age for the exception to 15.

Witnesses testifying in the Judiciary Committee asserted that the current age-based distinction in Vermont’s hearsay statute does not reflect how trauma affects children. A child’s ability to disclose abuse, remember events, or withstand the pressures of court is not fundamentally different for a 12-year-old and a 15-year-old. Adolescents ages 13 to 15 remain developmentally and emotionally vulnerable. This is particularly true when abuse involves a trusted adult, family member, or caregiver. By extending the existing hearsay exception to older children, the bill aligns Vermont statute with child development research and adolescent brain science.

Other testimony pointed out the potential downsides of H.5. Rather than preventing trauma of 13- to 15-year-olds, Rule 804a may also be understood as a tool to strengthen the prosecution’s evidence. It would increase the amount of admissible evidence and would presumably make it easier to convict individuals who have allegedly committed sexual or violent offenses against adolescents. Because defendants are presumed innocent, easing the ability of the prosecution to evade the hearsay rule could be unfair to the defendant. It could increase the risk of convicting someone who is not guilty.

The current version of 804a provides important safeguards to protect defendants’ rights. It requires the child to testify under cross-examination if called as a witness, thus protecting the defendant’s right to confrontation. Also, before admitting any out-of-court statement under 804a, the court must consider the time, content, and circumstances of the statement to determine whether they substantially ensure its trustworthiness. In addition, if such statements are admitted into evidence, the defendant still can try to undermine the reliability and credibility of the statements through cross-examining witnesses.

The question that the Judiciary Committee must answer, then, is whether the bill appropriately balances the rights of defendants with the need to ensure that children who have experienced abuse are not silenced by procedural barriers that fail to reflect their developmental reality. I anticipate that the Committee will soon answer that question.

In January, the Committee will also consider bills to strengthen our laws against animal cruelty and advance protections against voter intimidation. We will also consider a bill to create a new crime to cover cases of sexual extortion, also called “sextortion.” Current Vermont law prohibits disclosing nude or sexual images without consent but does not criminalize the threat to do so. In February, we will turn our attention to the functioning of the criminal justice system. What else can we do to ensure swift and certain consequences when criminal laws are violated? What lessons will the Chittenden County “accountability court” pilot provide?

Priorities for the Upcoming Session

lalonde

When the Vermont General Assembly returns to Montpelier on January 6th, the legislators will face significant challenges.  In the second session of our 79th Biennium, the committees will continue to work on complicated, long-term issues. They will continue to take on education reform, seeking the best way to provide a quality education for all of Vermont’s K-12 students at a cost that communities will support. Other committees will pick up on their own ongoing efforts to increase the availability of affordable homes in Vermont. The Health Care Committee will build on their work to tackle rising medical care and health insurance costs.  The Appropriations Committee will make tough spending decisions in a tight budget year. And all of this work, along with that of the other committees, will need to be accomplished in the face of federal uncertainty and bellicosity.

Despite these challenges, I am eager to get back to the State House to continue in my role as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Although I will continue to follow and provide input on other issues facing the House, my focus will be on the work of the Judiciary Committee.

There, we will continue to focus on improving public safety and access to justice. The committee will conduct oversight hearings to understand whether our increased funding of courts, prosecutors, defense counsel, and victim advocates has led to swifter and more certain consequences. We will also examine other initiatives to expedite processing of both criminal and civil cases.

We will analyze any recommendations from the so-called “accountability court,” a pilot project in Chittenden County that runs into February.  A special prosecutor, assigned judge, and dedicated service providers are focusing there on expeditiously resolving the cases of repeat offenders in the county. The early results of the pilot are promising, but not necessarily surprising – for the past three years, my committee has been advocating for just such an influx of resources as is being provided, albeit temporarily, for the pilot project.

Last year, one of the Judiciary Committee’s priorities was to take a deep dive into our juvenile justice system. We passed Act 4, which implemented some changes, and that work will continue in the coming session with a focus on our Youthful Offender (YO) law.  

The current YO law provides an alternative to adult criminal court for youth ages 14 to 22, allowing their cases to be handled confidentially in Family Court if certain criteria are met. An individual with YO status may be placed on juvenile probation with both the Department of Children and Families and the Department of Corrections having jurisdiction over the individual. The focus of juvenile probation, and generally of YO status, is rehabilitation with services like education, treatment, and job training. The goal of YO status is to prevent long-term collateral consequences for the youth and allow them to avoid having a criminal record. If the youth violates their probation, however, the individual may be transferred back to the criminal court for sentencing, which helps ensure accountability.

In the coming session, the Judiciary Committee will study different ideas to improve the YO law. We will consider strengthening provisions related to accountability of YO participants and expanding victims’ rights in the law.

The intersection of mental health and substance use disorder with the criminal justice system will also be a hot issue in the coming session, although I anticipate that the Senate Judiciary and Health and Human Services Committees will address this initially.  They may consider the creation of a forensic facility to hold highly violent offenders with severe mental illness and may work towards implementing a competency restoration system.

As I discussed in my most recent column, the Judiciary Committee will also continue its focus on concerns brought on by what is happening at the federal level and in other states. We will seek ways to ameliorate impacts on vulnerable Vermonters, including undocumented and immigrant members of our communities. In addition to these matters, the Judiciary Committee will likely consider bills related to voyeurism, animal cruelty, voter intimidation, and other matters. It promises to be a busy session for the committee.

Addressing Concerns at Federal Level

lalonde

In recent months, I have heard from concerned Vermonters appalled that immigration agents nationwide are wearing masks and failing to properly identify themselves while detaining individuals. These Vermonters have urged the legislature to follow California’s lead and pass a law barring state and federal law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings that shield their identities.

I anticipate that the legislature will consider such a bill in the upcoming Session, which starts in early January.

While we do not currently have a law barring the use of masks by law enforcement,  the Vermont legislature has in recent years passed laws to improve transparency and to ensure accountability of law enforcement officers. Law enforcement agencies have also implemented policies with those goals.

For example, the use of body cameras has increased among Vermont law enforcement agencies. In 2020, the Vermont State Police began deploying body cameras to all uniformed troopers, requiring them to activate the cameras during law enforcement activities like traffic stops and investigations. Local Vermont law enforcement agencies followed suit, and the legislature in turn enacted 20 V.S.A. § 2369. That statute requires each law enforcement agency authorizing its officers to use body cameras to adopt, follow, and enforce a model body camera policy established by the Vermont Criminal Justice Council.

In addition, Vermont’s Fair and Impartial Policing Policy requires state law enforcement officers to identify themselves. The policy provides that, during pedestrian and vehicle stops or other interactions with members of the public, officers must introduce themselves by providing their name and agency affiliation and also state the reason for the stop unless doing so would compromise officer or public safety or a criminal investigation. The policy states that it intends “to cultivate and foster transparency and trust with all communities.”

Note that these laws and policies apply only to state law enforcement officers. While the legislature can require state officers to unmask on the job, it is not as clear that a state ban could apply to federal agents operating in Vermont. As it is likely that the California law will be challenged in court, we may have guidance on the legality under federal law before we consider a mask-ban bill.

If the legislature does consider such a ban, we will need to balance the benefits of law enforcement transparency against the safety of law enforcement officers. Are there situations when it would be legitimate for a law enforcement officer to conceal their identity other than when a medical mask or breathing apparatus is required? I will need to be convinced.

This past session, the House Judiciary Committee and the General Assembly passed bills that respond to other concerns brought on by what is happening at the federal level and in other states. These bills are intended to ameliorate impacts on vulnerable Vermonters, including undocumented and immigrant members of our communities.

Immigrant parents may be deported and their children left behind in Vermont.Through the establishment of standby guardianships, Act 31 clarified a process that allows immigrant parents to identify trusted adults who can step in as temporary guardians if the parent is detained or deported. This proactive step can provide some measure of comfort to parents and their children because they will know in advance who would care for the kids in the event their parents are detained or removed from the country. This process helps ease traumatic separations or confusion in emergency situations. It also avoids the necessity for the Department of Children and Families to take legal custody of those children. 

Under Vermont law, the Governor has sole authority to enter into certain agreements with federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if there is a declaration of a state or national emergency. Previously, there was an exception to that authority in the law, but Act 28 eliminated it and kept the Governor as the only one in Vermont who could enter into an ICE delegation-of-authority agreement. This will keep the State accountable to Vermonters regarding how our law enforcement interacts and cooperates with ICE.

Another legislative response was required to protect many Vermont parents, some LGBTQ, who had children through the use of assisted reproductive technology. They are already parents under Vermont law, but other states may not recognize this legal parenthood. A confirmatory adoption provision in Act 31 provided a clear and expedited process for these Vermonters to obtain a court order declaring parenthood that must be honored in other states. This provides a necessary level of protection for many Vermont families.

Finally, Act 8 expanded Vermont’s statute on hate-motivated crimes. It increased the scope of who can be considered a victim of a hate crime, more accurately capturing the conduct that the statute was intended to penalize. Hateful conduct is not acceptable and Act 8 helps ensure that such conduct can be named and prosecuted effectively. 

Public Safety Update and Protective Orders

lalonde

Vermonters continue to be concerned about public safety. In the last biennium, the legislature sought to mitigate these concerns. We passed laws related to retail theft, auto theft and trespass into an auto, drug trafficking, the proliferation of ghost guns (those without serial numbers), conditions of release and bail, pre-trial supervision, and pre-charge diversion.

Our most important initiative in the last biennium, however, was advocating for and obtaining an increase in resources for the criminal justice system. The boost in resources for the courts, prosecutors, defense counsel, and victim advocates paves the way for quicker and surer consequences for criminal activity, which are critical for deterring crime.

Data from the courts allows the legislature to measure their progress on resolving criminal cases. Clearance rates measure the number of new filings compared to the number of cases the courts dispose of each month. If the clearance rate is over 100%, that means the courts are making progress on reducing the backlog of cases that has clogged the courts and caused delays in disposing of cases. Through June of this year, Vermont courts have achieved a 12-month clearance rate of 110%. Although this shows improvement, it is still short of our goal of achieving a clearance rate of 125%. 

The courts also track how long it takes to resolve criminal cases and have set out specific goals for the length of time to disposition. For example, 98% of standard misdemeanor cases should be resolved in 180 days and 98% of standard felonies should be resolved in 365 days. At the end of 2023, approximately 60% of criminal cases met these timeliness standards. As of the end of June of this year, 70% of pending criminal cases met the timeliness standards.  This trend is in the right direction, but the consequences for many alleged criminal offenders are still far removed from the offense, diminishing their deterrence value. There is more work to be done.

This session, public safety continued to be one of the governor’s and legislature’s top priorities. The House Judiciary Committee again prioritized proper funding of the criminal justice system so our judicial system can keep improving how quickly it resolves cases. Although resources were more limited this year, the budget did include additional resources for courts, prosecutors, and the pre-charge diversion program created last year in Act 180. 

Beyond funding, this year the legislature passed other bills aimed at addressing public safety concerns, particularly related to domestic and sexual violence.

Act 46 revises Vermont’s civil protection order statutes to improve relief to victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, and stalking. Protection orders – civil court orders requested by a victim – are a critical legal tool. They offer important protective measures to prevent future harm, including requiring a perpetrator of violence to maintain physical distance from the individual they victimized.

The Act revises Vermont’s civil stalking order to better capture device-related stalking. The definition of “stalking” in Vermont’s civil stalking statute requires the victim to show the perpetrator’s “course of conduct” – meaning two or more acts over a period of time, no matter how short the time – to meet the threshold for obtaining a protection order. It was challenging to apply this definition in cases of device-related stalking. For example, when a device like an Airtag or a tracking app is set in place and then used to continuously monitor someone, it was not clear whether those activities met that definition of “course of conduct.” 

Act 46 now provides that a stalking victim may establish a perpetrator’s “course of conduct” by their “use of any electronic, digital, or precise geolocation device or software or application to surveil a specific person or a specific person’s internet or wireless activity continuously for 12 hours or more or on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short, without authorization.” 

Also under Act 46, courts can now grant temporary possession of a vehicle to the relief available in a domestic violence relief from abuse order. A vehicle can be a lifeline when escaping violence and leading an independent life immediately afterwards. Explicitly stated forms of relief available to victims included primary possession of a residence or pets, or custody of shared children. This law adds primary possession of a vehicle as a form of relief. 

Finally, Act 46 adds completion of a domestic violence accountability program to the forms of available relief listed in the domestic violence relief from abuse order statute. Domestic Violence Accountability Programs, commonly referred to as DVAPs, are community-based treatment programs designed to address the needs of people who use violence in their intimate partner relationships. DVAPs understand that abusive partners are, in most cases, capable of change, and these programs seek to modify behaviors and develop skills to prevent future abuse.

Many victims have reported that an accountability program to change behavior would be extremely helpful as part of a civil protection order. Victims may want to reduce the risk of violence for their shared children, a future partner, or themselves if they want to maintain the relationship.

Vermont has 12 community-based DVAPs that offer in-depth group programming and are certified by the Vermont Council on Domestic Violence. While DVAPs are not the sole vehicle for holding abusive partners accountable or changing behavior, they are a critical component to our response to domestic violence and can improve outcomes for both victims and those who have used violence against them.

The legislature also passed Act 12, which establishes procedures to ensure access to orders against sexual assault after regular court hours or on weekends. Prior to the passage of this law, survivors could only request a sexual assault protection order during regular court hours, leaving them at risk when assaults occur on evenings, weekends, or holidays. By ensuring that victims can access orders against sexual assault outside of regular court hours, the bill allows for swift action to protect them from further harm. In the next legislative session, starting in January 2026, the House Judiciary Committee will continue to monitor progress on improving public safety in Vermont. I anticipate that we will continue to review safety issues that occur when alleged offenders await trial, including those related to pre-trial conditions and bail, repeat offenders, and the pre-trial supervision program established last year. We will also continue to advocate for the appropriate resourcing of our criminal justice system and will seek other ways to reduce the time it takes to resolve criminal cases.

S.12 – Sealing bill

lalonde

The following is the Floor Report delivered by Representative Karen Dolan last Friday.

S.12, as amended by your House Judiciary Committee, takes key steps to modernize the system for criminal record clearance in Vermont. For those of you who were here last year, the contents will likely sound familiar as a majority of the bill is modeled after a bill passed in the House last year. Before getting into the details of the bill, I will offer some background information. 

The General Assembly has worked on policy regarding the expungement and sealing of Vermont criminal history records for several years to ensure that old records of nonviolent offenses do not unduly hinder Vermonters from obtaining jobs, housing, or educational opportunities once a sentence has been successfully completed. In policy development on this topic, the plan is to develop systems and practices that balance our goal of minimizing the collateral consequences of a criminal history record with our collective goal of ensuring public safety and minimizing the impact on victims. 

Currently, Vermont employs a two-track system for expunging and sealing criminal history records. I’ll take a moment to outline the difference in these two terms, which can have different meanings across states. In Vermont, expungement refers to the deletion of a record and sealing refers to the closing of a file to general access. In current law, whether criminal records are eligible for expungement or sealing is determined by the type of offense, the length of time since the person completed the sentence, and whether the court finds that expungement or sealing the record “serves the interests of justice,” among other factors. The current system is overly complex, the result of years of amendments and a piecemeal approach to the issue and therefore is poised for clarification as proposed in the bill before you.

S.12 builds on recommendations proposed during prior legislative sessions, as well as those from the 2021-22 Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee, to develop an improved record clearance process. The bill moves Vermont from a two-track record clearance system toward a one-track sealing process. 

Record clearance is an important part of our criminal justice system as it addresses significant barriers that exist for those who have been sentenced, specifically related to housing, employment and educational access. A study in Michigan showed that people whose records were cleared saw an average of 25% increase in income within two years of clearance. In our current employment environment, individuals with long- completed criminal sentences are finding it hard to find jobs and housing. Three social factors that are correlated with the commission of crimes are unemployment or unstable employment, lack of support or inclusion in a family, and engagement in a community. When people have old, irrelevant records, this can prevent them from finding housing and jobs, and exclude them from communities. We want to prevent this type of situation as it is counterproductive to our current public safety concern. 

When discussing our criminal justice system it is always important to discuss racial disparities. A 2022 study by the Council of State Governments showed that Black and Brown Vermonters are 350% more likely to be charged with a misdemeanor, 600% more likely to be charged with a felony, and 1400% more likely to be charged with a felony drug crime, despite no difference in drug use compared to White Vermonters. While we are considering measures to prevent these disparities, it is important for us to also address the harmful reality that currently Black and Brown Vermonters disproportionately have criminal records in our state. Record clearance is one tool we can use to mitigate this disparity post conviction. 

While the evidence in support of record clearance is significant, there are different schools of thought in regards to the type of process used. As shared earlier, Vermont currently has a two-track system involving both sealing and expungement. S.12 moves the majority of the record clearance process to sealing with a few carve outs remaining for expungement. 

Testimony shared in committee revealed some concerns around complete record deletion such as that found in expungement. Witnesses discussed the value records can hold for future cases. Even if old records are no longer serving as predictors of future crime, witnesses shared that these records can offer criminal justice purposes including impeachment considerations and prosecutorial discovery needs. 

Additional witnesses shared the relevance records can provide for the hiring and oversight of law enforcement. S.12 moves toward a sealing regime, in order to meet the goals of record clearance while also creating space to address this and other concerns. The streamlined process proposed also addresses system inefficiencies identified by witnesses. With a more efficient sealing regime, the expectation is that there will be increased confidence in the record clearance process and create new opportunities to strengthen the system in the future.

In determining the qualifying crimes for record clearance, S.12 followed the lead of last year’s legislation and referred to the list recommended by the 2021-22 Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee. Many of the expanded qualifying offenses included in S.12 have been considered by the legislature in previous sessions and were originally proposed to provide pathways forward for Vermonters in recovery from substance use disorder, following justice system involvement. As will be shared in the bill section overview, the list of qualifying crimes consists of primarily misdemeanors and a limited number of non-violent felonies. 

Now, I will turn to reviewing S.12 as amended by House Judiciary. For those following along, you can find House Judiciary’s strike-all amendment to S.12 on page XXXX in yesterday’s House Calendar.

Section 1:

As an overview, this section amends the chapter adopted by the General Assembly in 2012 that sets forth the process for a person to petition to have a criminal history record sealed or expunged.  In general, this section moves from a complex system of sealing and expungement to one of sealing in most instances, with an expanded list of qualifying crimes, and limited access to sealed records for certain entities that require such records for criminal justice purposes. 

Subsection 7601 is the DEFINITIONS section

  •  The definitions of “court” and “criminal history record” remain as is in current law. 
  • The definition of “predicate offense” is removed as it is no longer relevant 
  •  “Qualifying crime” is updated to include:

(A)  all misdemeanor offenses EXCEPT those listed and

(B)  ONLY the specific list of felonies included

I will spare the body of reading the full language of qualifying crimes, but I will refer folks to the list in yesterday’s calendar on pages XXXXX related to the listed offenses. In general, the misdemeanors that are excluded include listed crimes and those related to domestic and sexual violence. And for felonies, the included list is specific to non-violent and property-related offenses.

§ 7602. 

Sets forth the process for a person to petition for the sealing of a criminal history record if the offense is no longer a crime or if it is a “qualifying offense.”

It clarifies that whichever office prosecuted the offense resulting in the conviction, the State’s Attorney or Attorney General, will be the respondent in the matter unless the prosecuting office authorizes the other to act as the respondent.

Under this section, the court shall grant the order without a hearing if the petitioner and the respondent stipulate to the sealing.

It is also made clear that the process is not available to an individual who is the holder of a commercial driver’s license or commercial driver’s permit seeking to seal a record of a conviction for an offense committed in a motor vehicle.

Next, this subsection outlines the conditions that need to be met in order for the court to grant a petition of sealing for each type of qualifying offense.

For Offenses that are no longer prohibited by law, those conditions include:

(1)  The petitioner has completed any sentence or supervision for the offense.

(2)  Any restitution and surcharges ordered by the court have been paid in full, provided that payment of surcharges shall not be required if the surcharges have been waived by the court.

For Qualifying misdemeanors, those conditions include:

(1)  At least three years have elapsed since the date on which the person completed the terms and conditions of the sentence.

(2)  Any restitution and surcharges ordered by the court for any crime of which the person has been convicted has been paid in full, provided that payment of surcharges shall not be required if the surcharges have been waived by the court. 

(3)  The respondent has failed to show that sealing would be contrary to the interest of justice.

For qualifying felony offenses, those conditions include: 

(1)  At least seven years have elapsed since the date on which the person completed the terms and conditions of the sentence.

(2)  Any restitution and surcharges ordered by the court for any crime of which the person has been convicted has been paid in full, provided that payment of surcharges shall not be required if the surcharges have been waived by the court. 

(3)  The respondent has failed to show that sealing would be contrary to the interest of justice.

For Qualifying DUI misdemeanors, those conditions include:  

(1)  At least 10 years have elapsed since the date on which the person completed the terms and conditions of the sentence.

(2)  Any restitution and surcharges ordered by the court for any crime of which the person has been convicted has been paid in full, provided that payment of surcharges shall not be required if the surcharges have been waived by the court. 

(3) The person is not the holder of a commercial driver’s license or commercial driver’s permit.

(4)  The respondent has failed to show that sealing would be contrary to the interest of justice.

Lastly, this section clarifies that sealing a criminal history record related to a fish and wildlife offense does not void any fish and wildlife license suspension or revocation imposed pursuant to the accumulation of points related to the sealed offense.  Points accumulated by a person shall remain on the person’s license and, if applicable, completion of the remedial course shall be required.

§ 7603.  Outlines the procedure for granting a petition when a conviction does not occur.

In that case, unless either party objects in the interests of justice, the court shall issue an order sealing the criminal history record related to the citation or arrest of a person if the petitioner and respondent stipulate to the sealing or within 60 days after the final disposition of the case if:

(A)  the court does not make a determination of probable cause at the time of arraignment; 

(B)  the charge is dismissed before trial with or without prejudice; or

(C)  the defendant is acquitted of the charges.

If a party objects to sealing the record, the court will schedule a hearing to determine if sealing the record serves the interests of justice.

A person may file a petition with the court requesting sealing a criminal history record related to the citation or arrest of the person at any time. 

§ 7604.  

This section states that a court must wait to act on a petition for expungement if the person has another criminal offense pending.

§ 7605.  

States if a petition for sealing or expungement is denied, the petitioner must wait two years before filing again unless authorized by the court.

§ 7606.  

Retains the current law regarding the effect of expungement because there are still some areas of law, such as court diversion, where expungement is used. The House Committee on Judiciary added language to the statute to require a State entity that inquires about a person’s criminal history record is to advise the person of the person’s right not to disclose expunged records.

§ 7607 outlines the EFFECT OF SEALING

Except for certain circumstances where persons or entities are granted access to sealed records, a sealing order is legally effective immediately and the person whose record is sealed is to be treated in all respects as if the person had never been arrested, convicted, or sentenced for the offense.

In any application for employment, license, or civil right or privilege or in an appearance as a witness in any proceeding or hearing, a person may be required to answer questions about a previous criminal history record only with respect to arrests or convictions that have not been sealed. The House Committee on Judiciary added language to the statute to require that a State entity that inquires about a person’s criminal history record is to advise the person of the person’s right not to disclose sealed records.

Subsection (c) establishes who can use and under what circumstances a sealed record can be used.

If a party who has been granted authority to use a sealed criminal history record pursuant to the exceptions established in this subsection, wishes to use the record in a court proceeding, prior to any use of or reference to the record in open court or in a public filing, the party must notify the court of the party’s intent to do so. The court will determine whether the record may be used prior to its disclosure in the proceeding. If a party submits a filing that contains a sealed record or a reference to a sealed record, that filing must be filed under seal and remain under seal unless the court permits the use of the sealed record. This does not apply to a person using their own sealed record. Other entities will be able to access sealed records for specific purposes, including:

1. An entity or person may use in any litigation or claim arising out of the same incidence related to the record, including use of the record in reasonable anticipation of litigation.

2. A criminal justice agency as defined in 20 V.S.A. § 2056a and the Attorney General may use the sealed criminal history record for a criminal justice purposes 

3. A defendant may use a sealed criminal history record in the defendant’s criminal proceeding.

4. Use of a conviction for DUI I may be used as a predicate offense for a penalty enhancement for any subsequent offense.

5. A sealed record may be cited in a court order or decision.

6. A sealed record can be used for firearms background checks.

7. Prosecutors may use a sealed record to meet discovery requirements.

8. The person who is the subject of the record and the person’s attorney may use the record.

9. A law enforcement agency may use a sealed record when considering an applicant for a LEO position or an investigation into a current employee.

10. Persons or entities conducting research shall have access to a sealed criminal history record to carry out research in accordance with State law.

11. Information and materials gathered by the Department for Children and Families during a joint investigation with law enforcement are considered Department records that shall be maintained and may be utilized as prescribed by law and produced in response to a court order.

12. Information and materials gathered by Adult Protective Services during a joint investigation with law enforcement are considered Department records that shall be maintained and may be utilized as prescribed by law and produced in response to a court order.

The court is required to bar viewing of the sealed offense in any accessible database that it maintains. The case file remains publicly accessible until all charges on a docket have been sealed. When all charges on a docket have been sealed, the case file becomes exempt from public access.

When a sealing order is issued by the court, any person or entity, except the court, that possesses criminal history records must bar viewing of the sealed offense in any accessible database that it maintains or remove information pertaining to the sealed records from any publicly accessible database that the person or entity maintains, and clearly label the criminal history record as “SEALED.”

As currently happens, the court will keep an index of sealed cases.

§ 7608. VICTIMS

Current law requires the respondent to notify any known victim if a petition has been filed. The amendment adds e-mail as a method for contacting the victim.

§ 7609. EXPUNGEMENT OF CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS OF AN INDIVIDUAL 18–21 YEARS OF AGE

Allows a person who was 18–21 years of age at the time the person committed a qualifying crime to petition to seal the record after 30 days from the date the person completed the terms and conditions of the sentence for the conviction. The court shall seal the record if the following conditions are met:

(1) Any restitution and surcharges ordered by the court for any crime of which the person has been convicted has been paid in full, provided that payment of surcharges shall not be required if the surcharges have been waived by the court.

(2) The respondent has failed to show that sealing would be contrary to the interest of justice.

(Note: Current law allows this process, but the records are expunged.)

§ 7610. CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD SEALING SPECIAL FUND

No changes.

§ 7611. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE

This section includes law enforcement officers in the list of people who are subject to a civil penalty for knowingly accessing or disclosing sealed criminal history record information without authorization. A violation is subject to a maximum civil penalty of $1,000.00.

Sec. 2. RIGHT TO NOT DISCLOSE EXPUNGED OR SEALED CRIMINAL

HISTORY RECORDS

Directs the Secretary of Administration to notify all State administrative entities and the Court Administrator to notify the Judicial Branch of their obligation to notify persons of the right not to disclose an expunged or a sealed record.

Sec. 3 DEFERRED SENTENCES

Currently, when a person successfully completes a deferred sentence, the criminal history record pertaining to the offense is expunged. The amendment substitutes sealing for expungement.

Sec. 4. APPLICATION TO DEFERRED SENTENCES

Sec. 3 of the act applies prospectively to deferred sentences issued on or after July 1, 2025.

Sec. 5. EXPUNGEMENT OF MUNICIPAL VIOLATION RECORDS

Expunges municipal violations two years after satisfaction of the judgment, provided the person has not received any additional municipal violations.

This section is modeled after a similar provision enacted in 2021 regarding traffic violations and will apply to municipal violations that occur on and after July 1, 2025.

Sec. 6. EXPUNGEMENT OF TRAFFIC VIOLATION RECORDS

Amends the previously adopted statute requiring expungement of traffic violations to clarify the implementation date.

Sec. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE – July 1, 2025.

IN COMMITTEE WE HEARD FROM a wide range of  WITNESSES, over 25 individuals that I will share:

  • President, Vermont Sheriffs’ Association
  • Family Services Division Director of Policy & Planning, Department for Children and Families, Family Services Division
  • General Counsel, Office of Professional Regulation, Secretary of State’s Office
  • Court Administrator, Vermont Judiciary
  • Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs, Attorney General’s Office
  • Director, Court Diversion and Pre-Trial Services
  • Director, Adult Protective Services Division, Department of Disabilities, Aging and Disabilities
  • Deputy Secretary of State
  • General Counsel, Department of Public Safety
  • Director of Research, Crime Research Group
  • General Counsel, Vermont Department of Health
  • Consultant from Kaye Consulting
  • Vermont State Archivist and Chief Records Officer
  • Legislative Attorney, Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs
  • General Counsel, Department for Children and Families
  • Deputy Defender General and Chief Juvenile Defender, Defender General’s Office
  • Executive Director, Center for Crime Victim Services
  • Vice President of Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police
  • Deputy Commissioner, Department of Motor Vehicles
  • General Counsel, Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living
  • EMS Programs Administrator, Vermont Department of Health
  • Director, Vermont Crime Information Center, Department of Public Safety
  • Executive Director, Crime Research Group
  • Founder, MadFreedom
  • Chief Superior Judge, Vermont Judiciary

Madame Speaker,

The thoughtful and balanced record clearance approach established in S.12, establishes a modernized framework for Vermont and creates a clear path for further reforms as progress is achieved. S.12 offers a solid foundation for future considerations such as petitionless sealing, qualifying crime expansion and the ideal balance of sealing and expungement systems. I look forward to these future discussions in following years.

S.12 as amended by House Judiciary passed out favorably with a vote of 11-0-0 and we ask that you join us in our support by voting yes.

Standby Guardianship

lalonde

The following is my floor report for H.98 on May 13.

Earlier this Session the House passed H.98, which established a confirmatory adoption process.  The Senate has concurred with that portion of the bill. It also amended H.98, adding provisions that establish what is referred to as Standby Guardianship.  

The language of the bill can be found on the legislative website. As a reminder, section one of H.98 establishes an expedited confirmatory adoption process for parents who conceived a child through assisted reproduction, and who are already recognized as parents under Vermont law. This process gives additional protection for parental rights when these parents travel outside of Vermont. It provides a judgment issued by a court that must be recognized by other states. The Senate made no changes to this provision that passed the House. 

The Senate’s amendment added Sections 2 through 8. These sections clarify the process for immigrant parents to create a guardianship for children in the event that the parents are subject to adverse immigration proceedings. 

Before walking through these sections, I’ll provide a bit of background. Vermont Legal Aid currently oversees an Immigrant Minor Standby Guardianship Project. The project helps immigrant parents make a plan for who will care for their children if the parents cannot do so because they have been arrested or detained by immigration authorities. The project connects immigrant parents with legal representation. The attorneys meet with parents and proposed guardians to fill out Powers of Attorney and minor guardianship documents, which can subsequently be used in a petition to the court to create the guardianship.

So, what happens if a parent is arrested or detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). There is an ICE directive that addresses this situation. Madam Speaker, may I read from that directive? 

“ICE personnel should accommodate a Covered Individual’s efforts to make alternative care arrangements for their minor children . . . prior to their arrest or detention. . . If the Covered Individual cannot make an alternative care arrangement for the minor children at the time of arrest, . . . ICE personnel must contact the local child welfare authority or law enforcement agency to take custody of the minor children.”  End quote.

Presumably, under this directive, ICE would accommodate the plan that an undocumented parent has put together with the help of Vermont Legal Aid, and would facilitate placing the children in the alternative care arrangement. If for whatever reason ICE does not accommodate any care arrangements prior to arrest or detention, the Vermont Department of Children and Families would likely become involved.

In that case, DCF has an operating agreement with Vermont Legal Aid (or VLA). Madam Speaker, may I read from that agreement?

“DCF and VLA believe that the well-being of children of immigrant parents who have been detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is best promoted through efforts to establish safe and appropriate legal guardianship arrangements with people already known to the children whenever possible. DCF and Vermont Legal Aid are making this agreement to honor the intent of immigrant parents to establish powers of attorney and minor guardianships for their children whenever possible.” End quote.

Under the agreement, when DCF learns of children of parents who have been detained by ICE, DCF will contact Vermont Legal Aid. If there has been minor guardianship and power of attorney paperwork prepared for the family. and there is no concern regarding the safety of the children, DCF will coordinate with Homeland Security, Border Patrol, or local law enforcement, as well as Vermont Legal Aid to unite the children with their proposed standby guardian.

One way or another, either directly by ICE or through DCF, the children could be united with the proposed standby guardian where one has been arranged ahead of time. 

What if the parents have not made arrangements for alternative care ahead of time and they face arrest or detention? Again, under ICE policy, the parents may, at the time of their arrest, try to make an alternative care arrangement for their minor children. If the parents are unable to make alternative care arrangements on such short notice, the child would likely end up in DCF custody. Making these arrangements earlier allows the parents to communicate with potential guardians in a non-urgent context and avoid the many downsides of DCF custody, which I will explain later.

In any event, to make the proposed guardianship official, the parent or their representative must petition the court. And that is where H.98 comes in. The bill clarifies the court process to create a so-called “Standby guardianship.”

Back to a section-by-section explanation of the bill.

Section 2 of the bill provides various definitions. Subdivision (8) defines “Standby guardianship” as “a consensual guardianship agreement between the custodial parent and their chosen guardian . . . in which the custodial parent has been subject to an adverse immigration action that has rendered the parent unavailable to care for their child.” Subdivision (9) defines “Adverse immigration action.” This subdivision provides six different situations in which a custodial parent could be rendered unavailable to care for their child due to either deportation, detention, or denial of entry.

Section 3 begins by amending Title 14 VSA 2623 to differentiate between petitions for regular guardianship and standby guardianship, and when it is an emergency petition. 

This section establishes requirements for the information to be included in the petition, such as the proposed guardian’s relationship to the child, names of other household members, why the guardianship is being sought, and several other important factors that a court shall take into consideration when determining whether or not to grant a guardianship. 

This section also requires notice of service to all parties involved, although there are exceptions. The court may waive notice requirements if the identity or location of the parent is unknown, if the parent is detained as a result of an adverse immigration action, or if no contact can be made with the parents after reasonable efforts have been made. If the factors involved in this exception change, the court must reopen the proceeding at the request of a parent of the child who did not receive notice. 

Section 4 concerns the hearing that must be held before a guardianship petition is granted. Under current law, subsection F permits the court to delay a hearing until after an emergency petition is filed if the parents are unavailable because they are medically incapacitated or deceased. This bill also permits the courts to grant an emergency petition for a standby guardianship if the custodial parent has been subject to an adverse immigration action that renders the parent unavailable to care for the child. 

Section 5 describes the procedures for obtaining a standby guardianship. The custodial parent and the proposed guardian can sign the petition and other required forms in advance, so that the guardian or the parent’s attorney can retain the signed forms and only file them with the court if the parent is subject to an adverse immigration action. 

In summary, subsections A through F provide rules related to submitting consent forms by the custodial parent, the numerous requirements that must be agreed to between parents and potential guardians, the manner in which the Vermont Rules of Evidence shall apply, the threshold of evidence needed to grant a petition, a rebuttable presumption that the guardianship is in the best interest of the child so long as certain factors are established, and the required timelines for both holding a hearing and issuing a guardianship if granted. 

Section 6 adds standby guardianships to the list of guardianship orders that may be issued by the Probate Division. The order must include provisions addressing the guardian’s powers and duties, the expected duration of the guardianship (if known), a family plan consistent with the parties’ agreement, and the process for reviewing the order.

If a standby guardianship is granted due to an adverse immigration action, the custodial parent may be detained in a federal facility or relocated outside the country. For that reason, Section 7 permits the guardian to provide status reports to the custodial parent at the parent’s last known email address, because contacting the parent by regular mail may not be feasible. 

Additionally, because the parent’s location may limit their ability to meet court procedural requirements, Section 8 permits the parent to appear remotely at continuation hearings, and permits the court to waive formatting and signing requirements for good cause shown in proceedings to terminate the guardianship.

Section 9 provides that the confirmatory adoption proceedings section of H.98 takes effect on July 1, 2025, and that the standby guardianship sections take effect on passage.

  • We heard from the following witnesses:
  • Legislative counsel
  • The director of the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project
  • An attorney from Vermont Legal Aid
  • The chief superior judge
  • Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families
  • An alternate guardian from Bellows Falls

The vote in committee was 6-3-2.

H.98 clarifies a process that allows immigrant parents to identify trusted adults who can step in as temporary guardians if the parent is detained or deported. The parent’s children can get some comfort by knowing the person that would care for them in the event their parents are detained. This process helps ease traumatic separations or confusion in emergency situations.

It also avoids the necessity for DCF to take legal custody of the children in these situations. Under current law, some courts may grant petitions for temporary guardianships when a parent is detained or deported by ICE.  But some courts may not grant such petitions. H.98 clearly authorizes Vermont courts to approve Standby Guardianships so long as the criteria of the bill are met. H.98 provides needed clarity and consistency in our courts to help avoid unnecessary DCF custody.

And there are downsides to DCF custody in these situations. The Department’s focus is on taking care of children in abusive situations, not in situations where children are separated from their parents due to an adverse immigration action. In addition, once children have been placed in DCF legal custody, they cannot be released to an informal guardian or easily reunited with their parent in another country. 

DCF is fully supportive of H.98.

H.98 is centered on ensuring the best interests of children. It allows families some peace of mind, knowing that there is a path to put into place their plans to keep their children safe and in community care.

I ask for your support. 

Vermont Can Hold Polluters Accountable, by Senator Nader Hashim and Representative Martin LaLonde

lalonde

When floodwaters tore through Vermont in July 2023 and then again exactly a year later, they left more than physical destruction in their wake. They also revealed to Vermonters the mounting price tag of climate change. While national media attention may have shifted to climate-change catastrophes in other parts of the country, Vermont families are still displaced, businesses are shuttered or drowning in debt, and communities are struggling to rebuild.

The financial toll of climate change in Vermont is real and ongoing. Every washed-out road, damaged bridge, and flooded home and business represents a cost someone must pay – and right now, that burden falls squarely on Vermont taxpayers. We see it through higher property taxes, rising insurance premiums, and reduced municipal services.

This dire reality prompted our legislature to pass the Climate Superfund Act, applying the same principle that has governed environmental cleanup for more than 40 years: Those who contribute to a problem should help pay for its solution. 

Overwhelming scientific consensus tells us that some of the world’s largest and most profitable fossil fuel corporations are at the root of the climate crisis. For decades, these corporations knew their products were likely to cause the kind of costly damage Vermont increasingly faces as the planet overheats. Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act applies this established polluter-pays approach to the mounting costs of our climate-related disasters, requiring these corporations to pay their fair share and help clean up the climate mess their products and activities have caused.

Americans across the political spectrum have long embraced the ethical standard that when someone makes a mess, they should help clean it up. Directing these massive fossil fuel corporations to contribute to recovery efforts isn’t radical, it’s basic fairness.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of Vermont to stop the law from being enforced. DOJ makes several claims including that the Climate Superfund Act is preempted by the Clean Air Act, exceeds the territorial reach of Vermont’s legislative power, unlawfully discriminates against interstate commerce, conflicts with federal interstate commerce power, and is preempted by federal foreign-affairs powers. Last year, when we took up the bill that would become the Climate Superfund Act, he House and Senate Judiciary Committees vetted the legal and constitutional claims that could be made against the Act and we were confident that it would stand up in court.

As chairs of the Vermont General Assembly’s Judiciary Committees, we take our legal and constitutional obligations seriously. We appreciate the proper balance between state and federal authority. States have long served as the proving grounds for practical solutions to our challenges, and Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act continues this proud tradition. 

The law establishes a careful, science-based process to determine which companies should contribute and how much, ensuring fairness while addressing pressing needs.

This law passed with strong support from Vermonters of all political parties, but we knew that powerful interests would fight back. The recently filed lawsuits against Vermont and our neighbors in New York, who passed their own Climate Superfund Act, merely confirms what we already understood: Our approach is effective enough to warrant powerful opposition.

Vermont has always stood firm in defending our right to protect our citizens and preserve our way of life. From our founding days to the present, we’ve maintained that local solutions often best address local problems. We deeply appreciate the work Vermont’s congressional delegation and state officials are doing to defend our state’s authority, and call on them to continue that work as long as necessary. We must hold accountable those who profit while others pay the price.

Climate change presents unprecedented challenges but addressing them requires the same principles of responsibility and fairness that have always guided our legal system. Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act upholds these principles while protecting taxpayers from bearing costs they shouldn’t have to shoulder alone.

Reaffirming Our Commitment to Transgender and Nonbinary Vermonters

lalonde

Last week, the Vermont House of Representatives passed J.R.S. 15, a resolution that reaffirms our unwavering commitment to dignity, equality, and human rights for all people, especially our transgender and nonbinary neighbors, friends, and family members.

This public commitment should be uncontroversial and unnecessary. Unfortunately, it is neither.

The official policy of the United States government is that transgender and nonbinary people are not worthy of recognition and do not deserve protection of the law. Many states also have policies that echo this dehumanization and disrespect, putting their transgender and nonbinary citizens at risk.

The day after his inauguration, the president signed an executive order that sought to erase legal recognition of transgender and nonbinary people. The order sought to define these individuals out of existence. It went on to require federal agencies to remove all references to gender identity in their regulations and communications.

A later, similarly offensive executive order barring transgender individuals from serving in the military stated that being transgender is incompatible with “an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.” A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the military ban, finding that it was “soaked in animus.”

In contrast with these degradations, Vermont has passed laws that recognize and protect the civil rights of transgender and nonbinary people. From laws ensuring access to education, housing, employment, and public accommodations without discrimination; to policies that allow Vermonters to affirm their identities in vital records; to legislation that safeguards the right to access gender-affirming care and shields families and providers from out-of-state political interference. Vermont has not only stood by its values, it has led.

Transgender and nonbinary Vermonters are part of the fabric of our communities. They are our teachers, our nurses, our baristas, our students, our colleagues. They deserve to live freely and authentically, without fear of discrimination or exclusion. We made clear in this resolution that in Vermont, they are not only welcomed—they are valued.

J.R.S. 15 is not only a resolution. It is a reaffirmation. A reaffirmation that the state of Vermont will not waver in our defense of equity. And a declaration that we will keep fighting to ensure every Vermonter, regardless of gender identity, is treated with the respect and humanity they deserve.

J.R.S. 15 is a promise to transgender and nonbinary individuals that we have their backs, that we’re here to protect them in Vermont. As the resolution states, “all individuals are welcome here and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.”

Public Safety Update

lalonde

Public safety continues to be a concern for many Vermonters. In his January budget address, the governor noted that Vermonters do not feel safe and incidents of certain types of crime have increased. He correctly noted that “one solution is more accountability.” The governor also said that taxpayers “made it clear they want us to fix broken systems, not just fund them.” 

The governor’s suggested fixes were contained in a so-called omnibus public safety bill. The bill was not introduced until late in this Session, but based on a preview of what it would contain, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees were able to start work on proposals in that bill in early January.

In the House Judiciary Committee, we tackled concerns related to juvenile justice, including the “raise the age” initiative. Vermont was the first state in the country to treat 18-year-olds accused of most crimes as juvenile offenders rather than adults. 

Based on research showing that young people’s brains are still developing into their 20s, the reform was set to gradually increase the age that youth could be sent to family court. There, cases remain confidential and offenders receive rehabilitative services aimed at helping them avoid future criminal behavior. Young adults accused of serious violent crimes, like murder and a handful of other felonies, would still be charged in adult court. 

In 2020, the state brought 18-year-olds into the juvenile system and 19-year-olds were set to follow in 2022. However, the Legislature has had to repeatedly extend the date for adding 19-year-olds, most recently to April 1, 2025.

After extensive testimony, it became clear that the administration, through the Department of Children and Families, was again not ready to proceed with raising the age to 19. In part, this was due to difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff. It also stemmed from the challenge of holding 18- and 19-year-olds accountable when they are resistant to treatment and unwilling to change their behavior. In light of these concerns, the administration proposed repealing the law that would allow 19-year-olds to be treated in family court rather than criminal court.

Our committee agreed that adding 19-year-olds to DCF’s workload at this time would stretch its already over-stretched resources. But, given the recognized benefits to public safety of addressing most youth in family court and providing them with rehabilitative services, last week the legislature in H.2 instead delayed the addition of 19-year-olds to July 2027. The delay will give the administration and the legislature additional time to develop approaches to improve accountability for those treatment-resistant individuals in the older age group.

In the second half of this Session, the House Judiciary Committee will work on bills received from the Senate that also address provisions in the administration’s public safety bill. S.12 would create a uniform, simplified system of sealing – rather than completely erasing or “expunging” – criminal records. It would allow criminal records for certain crimes to be sealed automatically if the offender receives no additional criminal convictions over a defined time period. The individual would no longer have a criminal record, which would eliminate overly punitive obstacles to obtaining housing, employment, and education. Sealing rather than expunging these records would also ensure access for law enforcement and criminal justice purposes as well as for background checks necessary to ensure public safety.

The House Judiciary Committee will also continue to work on amendments to the State’s extradition procedures, bail revocation, and the definition of recidivism, also among the administration’s priorities.

I support these initiatives and some of them might bring additional accountability. But they won’t “fix” the system, despite the administration’s claims. True accountability for criminal offenses requires additional funding for the criminal justice system.

Our court system currently faces a backlog of cases and recently experienced a number of judicial vacancies, which exacerbated the problem. These vacancies have since been filled and the legislature approved three additional judges in the FY 2025 budget. The increase in judicial resources will help, but without additional resources for pre-charge diversion, as well as additional resources for prosecutors and public defenders, it will still take years to clear the backlog. And due to the backlog and a lack of resources, criminal cases are not being processed in a timely manner.

Funding programs to divert cases out of the criminal justice system and thus reduce pressure on the courts is a top priority of the House Judiciary Committee. The governor’s budget contains no funding to divert cases from the courts through the pre-charge diversion program. Pre-charge diversion occurs when individuals who commit low-level crimes are referred to community providers of restorative justice, such as community justice centers, instead of to court. Over the past three years, an average of 698 cases per year have been diverted from the courts prior to being charged. Act 180 of 2024 established a state-wide pre-charge diversion program, which should divert even more cases from the courts. But this program requires funding.

The governor’s proposed budget does not provide the resources the criminal justice system needs to ensure the public is safe. Accordingly, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that the budget include the resources necessary to enable cases to be resolved in a timely fashion. Only by doing so will individuals be held accountable for their actions as soon as possible after offending – a key to ensuring public safety.

This is admittedly a difficult budgeting year, with many needs but reduced resources. Nevertheless, to improve public safety by ensuring more expeditious resolution of criminal cases, it is critical that we find a way to provide the entire justice system with sufficient resources.