The following is the report I gave today on H.145, which passed on a unanimous voice
Last year, we passed two bills involving police use of force. S.219, which became Act 147, established a criminal offense, holding law enforcement criminally accountable if they used a prohibited restraint on a person and caused serious bodily injury or death. A prohibited restraint was defined as a maneuver that impedes the flow of blood or oxygen to the brain. In other words, a chokehold.
The second bill, s.119, which became Act 165, established statewide statutory standards for police use of force, including the use of deadly force. Act 165 tightened the existing restrictions on use of force in several ways.
First, in determining whether a use of force was justified, Act 165 requires a court to look at an officer’s conduct and decisions leading up to the use of force. Did the officer seek to deescalate the situation to avoid having to use force? Or did the officer instead escalate the situation, making the use of force inevitable? Without these new standards, to determine if the use of force was justified, courts generally would look only at the moment when force is used, not what led up to the use of force.
Second, the law says that any use of force must be reasonable, necessary, and proportional in order for it to be found to be justified.
Third, when an officer knows that a person is impaired due to a mental illness or some other factor, the officer must take that into account in determining what, if any, force to use in the situation.
Fourth, for use of deadly force to be justified, it must be objectively reasonable and necessary to counter an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. If there is a reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force to counter the threat, the officer must go with the alternative. Also, the force applied must cease as soon as there is no longer a threat.
Fifth, Act 165 along with Act 147 banned chokeholds, although their use could be justified when deadly force was justified.
Finally, Act 165 had an effective date of July 1, 2021 to allow the Department of Public Safety to produce a policy to put the use of force standards into effect. DPS has dutifully taken up the task and it continues its work on those implementing policies. To assist it in drafting these policies, DPS has asked for clarifications of certain parts of the use of force law. H.145 provides the necessary clarifications.
The primary need for clarification involves prohibited restraints, or chokeholds.
Under the laws we passed last year, an officer who uses a prohibited restraint (chokehold) that results in death or serious bodily injury can avoid criminal liability by invoking the justifiable homicide defense. That defense applies if deadly force was justified under the standards set forth in Act 165. The laws passed last year provide an indirect way of getting to the conclusion that use of a chokehold is permitted if deadly force is otherwise justified. H.145 is more direct, clear, and transparent in reaching this conclusion.
First, H.145 changes the terminology in the law. Instead of the term “prohibited restraint,” the bill would call it what it is – chokeholds.
Second, it clarifies the definition of chokeholds. It makes the definition easier to use and more straightforward to make sure that we are covering the actions that we mean to address.
Third, it makes clear that an officer must intervene when another officer is using a chokehold when deadly force is not justified.
Finally, it clarifies that a law enforcement officer may not use a chokehold unless deadly force is justified. This means that a law enforcement officer may use a chokehold when faced with a situation requiring the use of deadly force.
These changes do not ease the restrictions on the use of chokeholds. The statutory standards for use of deadly force remain strict. Before use of a chokehold can be justified, it must be objectively reasonable and necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and there must be no reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force to prevent death or serious bodily injury. The use of a chokehold must cease as soon as the subject no longer poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
There are situations where the use of a chokehold may be the best or only option that a law enforcement officer may use in a life or death situation. If an officer’s only option is use of a firearm, that could result in more fatalities then if the officer could use a chokehold in such a situation.
In short, H.145 provides strict restrictions on the use of chokeholds, but recognizes that in very limited circumstances their use may be justified.
H.145 provides other clarifications that I will cover in my section by section overview.
The language of the bill can be found starting at page 458 of today’s calendar.
Before I proceed to the text of Section 1, I will address a technical issue as to how H.145 appears in today’s calendar. You will note that all of the language in Section 1 of this bill is underlined, which usually means that it is new language. Here, it isn’t really new language. Most of Section 1 of H.145 is the same language that was passed as Act 165 last year. But Act 165 does not go into effect until July 1 of this year. The way we amend a law that has not yet taken effect is to repeal it and to reintroduce it with any changes. So, although it looks like H.145 is all new language, most of it is language we passed in Act 165.
On the Judiciary website, under today’s date, you can find a document under my name that highlights the language in H.145 that changes the language in Act 165.
In addressing Section 1, my report will focus on those aspects of Act 165 that this bill changes.
In Section 1, H.145 defines chokehold as “any maneuver on a person that employs a lateral vascular neck restraint, carotid restraint, or other action that applies any pressure to the throat, windpipe, or neck in a manner that limits the person’s breathing or blood flow.” This definition is more straightforward than that provided in Act 165 and covers the actions that we wish to prohibit.
Totality of the circumstances is modified from Act 165 by adding the following language: “including the conduct of the person or persons involved.” This clarifies that it is not just the conduct of the law enforcement officer that is relevant. The conduct of the person or persons involved in the situation is also relevant to a determination of the justification of a use of force by the officer.
Subsection (b) found at page 459 of today’s calendar provides the standards for use of force. The first four subdivisions of this section contain the same language as Act 165 but have been reordered for clarity. Subsection (b)(1) was subsection (b)(4) in Act 165 and subsection (b)(2) was subsection (b)(3) in Act 165.
Subsection (b)(7) on the top of page 460 of today’s calendar provides that an officer has a duty to intervene when the officer observes another officer using a chokehold in a situation where deadly force is not justified. This provision was in the use of deadly force section in Act 165, but we moved it to the use of force section. The placement in the use of force section, as opposed to the use of deadly force section, clarifies that a chokehold may not be used when deadly force is not justified and that officers must intervene in the event that a chokehold is being used in such a situation.
Subsection (c) sets forth the standards for use of deadly force. The standards set forth in this section are the same as found in Act 165 with the exception of new subsection (c)(6), which provides that “a law enforcement officer shall not use a chokehold on a person unless deadly force is justified. . .”
Section 2 of the bill, starting at the bottom of page 460 of today’s calendar, replaces the definition of “prohibited restraint” with the definition of a chokehold in the criminal offense for the unjustified use of a chokehold.
Section 3 replaces the term prohibited restraint with the term chokehold.
Section 4 changes a cross reference in 13 VSA 2305(3), the justifiable homicide defense.
Section 5 and 6 change the terminology and definition from prohibited restraint to chokehold.
Sections 7, 8, and 9 are a bit technically complicated, but here is the upshot of what they do. They repeal the use of force standards set forth in Act 165, which are replaced by the standards in this bill. And they make the provisions in this bill effective on September 1, 2021. This is an extension of time from July 1, 2021, to give law enforcement sufficient time to complete its policy and additional training on the use of force standards.
We heard from the following witnesses:
Retired Director of the Human Rights Commission
Chief, South Burlington Police Department and representing the Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police
Representative from Northfield
Major, Vermont State Police
Executive Director of Policy Development for the Department of Public Safety
Staff Attorney, Disability Rights Vermont
Chief of Police, Montpelier, and representing the Vermont Police Association
Deputy States Attorney from the Department of State’s Attorneys & Sheriffs
Advocacy Director, ACLU Vermont
Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety
Windham County State’s Attorney
Director of the Civil Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General
Attorney from MadFreedom
The vote in your Judiciary Committee was 11-0-0
The First instance of amendment provides clarity in the chokehold offense that passed last year and is the subject of Section 2 of H.145. The language that is being amended can be found at page ______ of today’s calendar. It clarifies that this criminal offense does not apply if a chokehold is applied in compliance with use of deadly force standards.
The Second instance of amendment is technical and recommended by legislative council as the more appropriate way to accomplish what sections 7, 8, and 9 in H.145 sought to accomplish. Namely it repeals Act 165 and extends the effective date for the use of force standards to give law enforcement sufficient time to complete its policy development and training on those standards.