SmartTranscript of House Judiciary - 2025-03-27 - 9:00 AM

[Chair Martin LaLonde]: Right. Well, welcome to the House Judiciary Committee this Thursday morning, March twenty seventh, and we're gonna take up s eighty seven, an activating to expedition procedures. And we'll start with a walk through the legislative council. Thank you for being here, miss Jones. Good morning. [Michelle Childs]: For the record, Michelle Taos, office of legislative council, and we're taking a look at s eighty seven as it passed this senate. I'm gonna do a really kind of high level kind of overview. You guys have the experts on your witness list who do this day in and day out and talk about the process. They know far more about it than I do. And, so I think that we're kind of getting just a little bit oriented in the issue and then hearing from the witnesses about the process because it is very heavily, you know, like, process based. And I realize this is probably a judgment, but, like, kind of antiquated. So, so what you have in Vermont so when you think about extradition, extradition is essentially surrendering the custody of a fugitive from one state or country to another state or country to place the accused on trial or punishment. And when a state has to comply with three things when we're talking about extradition. First, you have the extradition clause in [Speaker 2 ]: the US [Michelle Childs]: Constitution, and that clause requires states upon demand of another state to deliver a fugitive from justice to the demanding state. And so when I use the term fugitive, it's intentional because we're talking about someone who has allegedly committed an offense in one state, and then they have fled that state. And so so I I don't know. And and I'm always at a loss about how to talk about. So there's the demanding state where someone has allegedly pleaded a crime. Then there's, I think, I think I recall I've referred to it as a silent state. I don't know if people use other terms, which is the one that is responding to the request for the return of the fugitive. There is a federal statute that kind of sets forth the the process for that. So, you have like the US Constitution provision, then you have the federal statute, then you have the uniform criminal extradition act, which almost all but a few states have adopted. But and I I can't recall, but I think I looked I think when I looked at ours, I think it was we adopted it in the thirties. So and so then if you would you look at that language, it's pretty integrated and it's a it's a it's a little dense to kinda go through and really understand the process, which is in part why I think that just talking to the practitioners who work with this will be helpful and kinda getting your head around the policy issues that are that are before you. So I'm just gonna give you a very basic kind of how the process currently works. Let's say we have a fugitive who flees, from one jurisdiction to another. The prosecutor and the demanding state files an arrest warrant and NCIC. So that goes in the database so everybody can see that. Right? Fugitive is picked up in the asylum state. They confirm the identity. They pull together all the documentation, file complaint petition for interstate rendition in court in the asylum state. The fugitive is arraigned on the petition and decides whether or not to waive extradition. So, waiver of extradition is an option under the current law, but that has to be done before a judge. And that's one of the key issues here about why there's a proposal in here for a chain for an alternative. If they do waive extradition, then they go back to the demanding state. If not, then the court can set bail or the person can be continue to be detained. The prosecutor in the asylum state notifies the prosecution in the demanding state of if somebody refuses to waive extradition. The prosecutor in the demanding state prepares a requisition request, which is sent to the asylum state and the asylum state issues a governor's warrant. The asylum state brings [Speaker 3 ]: the fugitive before the court, advises them of the demand in the other state, their right to counsel, and there's some time allotted in current statute for the person to file, with a pedia's corpus so that the governor the government has to kind of prove that the validity of the charges. [Michelle Childs]: If no writ is filed, the fugitive is extradited. The current time allowed for the process in statute is ninety days kind of total, but that's extended here, and I'll show you the language in here. So I'm gonna take you to the to the actual language here. You look at page one, section one. This is on commitment to a weight extradition. And so this extends the amount of time we look at line eleven. You'll see there's a thirty days right now period. You have to read this kind of in concert with another section, which allows for an extension of sixty days. So we're talking about kind of like a, a total of ninety days. It is between the two sections, sections one and two is extended from ninety days to a hundred and twenty days. So, you see that change from the original holding period for thirty days. There's just a technical change on line sixteen, and you'll see like a number of just kind of technical changes with dating language. Section two, this is extending the time of commitment. You'll see there that's being extended from, it's actually being shortened from sixty to thirty, but the overall time period between those two is going from ninety days to one hundred and twenty days. So, the larger time period is for the initial one with the hope that you won't have to ask for as many extensions, because right now you have the thirty days and the sixty days. So it's kind of a little bit backwards. So hopefully that'll kind of cut down on some of the administrative burden. [Speaker 2 ]: That makes sense? [Jay Johnson]: Okay then. [Speaker 5 ]: Michelle, you're talking about the that change on line eleven on page one. That's the intent behind that is from thirty [Speaker 3 ]: ninety [Speaker 5 ]: or no. That's a diff sixty of a different change. Right? [Michelle Childs]: Yeah. Yeah. If you look at let's say, you look at the two the two sections. Right? You have right now, you have an initial period of thirty days, but they can request an an extension of an additional sixty days. The new would be the first period is ninety days, which is what it is now in total, right, with the ability to extend for another thirty days. Again, if you can hear from the witnesses, there's a lot of administrative stuff going on between a lot of different agencies, a lot of paperwork, a lot of stuff like that. It it can take time, and I think what you're gonna hear from them is that they just need a little more to go around in there, to be able to to prove that someone has not waived extradition. Thank you. So the next section is, section three. And as I mentioned right now, the only waiver, of extradition proceedings that's recognized under our law is one in which the accused signs the waiver in front of the judge. So, they can do that. And this amendment would recognize another situation. And so, if you look at page three, so the new subsection C, and this pertains to folks who might be under conditions of release, you know, because they've been arraigned in another state and they've signed their conditions of release. It could be that they're under probation or or parole or some other kind of community sentence. And as part of that, they have signed an agreement, but that they have essentially waived their right rights under extradition as part of that agreement. Right? So if, let's say, someone is released on bail in Connecticut and part of that is one of their conditions is to is that if they flee the jurisdiction, they're gonna waive challenging extradition back to Connecticut. Right? And so that's one of their conditions or it could be a condition of their probation. Right? And so what this language is doing is recognizing those as valid and saying you don't have to have that person back before the judge signing a waiver. Vermont will, if there is already this existing waiver, then we will extradite that person without going through all of this process. So, if you look at the language on subsection c, so if the, in the state holding the person who's alleged to have broken the terms of the person's probation, parole, bail, or any other release in the demanding state shall immediately deliver that person to, the demanding state without the requirement of a governor's warrant if all of the following apply. First, the person signed a prior waiver of exhibition as a term of their probation, plural, bail, or other release. Page four, subdivision two, the law enforcement or corrections agency holding the person has essentially received all the proper documentation, you know, making sure that you have the right person, all the papers are in order. There is the ability to receive those documents via electronic means. Before you pull on the electronic [Tom Burditt]: I I didn't pay Paul. So would we still have the obligation to if we got that person, can I get apprented them here? [Speaker 3 ]: And [Tom Burditt]: we wanna send them back to Connecticut? Do we still have obligation to charge them as being fugitive from justice so that we can help them, or would there be a different mechanism for that? [Michelle Childs]: I'm sorry. Say that say that one more time. [Speaker 2 ]: So can [Michelle Childs]: you just return them? Well, they're not gonna be [Tom Burditt]: able to go right back. They're gonna have to make travel plans and arrangements with the Right. So it's gonna take a matter of days, weeks. So Right. So what's what what steps gonna would we have to take to to pull that? Will we just be able to do it based upon their Connecticut agreement? [Michelle Childs]: I don't know. I would say it's is that direct that to the witnesses? I think that you can use the existing system that's built in here to do that. Or I think [Jay Johnson]: the answer is yes. You can once you well, yeah, we can talk about the the [Tom Burditt]: I'm sorry to leave a document there. [Jay Johnson]: Yes. Yes. It is. And that's in this thing. Oh. Basically, they have the waiver expedition. You have to get there has to be evidence of copy of the and then identifying information, things like that, and then [Speaker 2 ]: we'd simply take them back. [Tom Burditt]: We would have them. Yep. [Jay Johnson]: That [Tom Burditt]: charge and has [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Just identify yourself in the record as well just so you know what he's talking about. [Jay Johnson]: Johnson, Yeah. It's in the, governor's legal counsel. But I think maybe it's better for the the technical team to see this. And then [Tom Burditt]: that should [Jay Johnson]: Yeah. But then when you answer that, check for me to talk, I don't wanna forget [Michelle Childs]: about it. And the third, requirement is that, all open criminal charges in this in Vermont, have been disposed of through trial and sentencing unless, you know, the state's attorney in that instance, essentially pays that. [Speaker 2 ]: So [Tom Burditt]: I [Chair Martin LaLonde]: have a [Speaker 3 ]: few I have a few questions I can ask them. Okay. [Michelle Childs]: So, section four, hearing commitment and discharge. And this section amends the hearing process for purpose of determining the lawfulness of the arrest, by we have to, like, reflect the new ninety day period that was changed earlier. Additionally, if the court's considering releasing the accused on bail pending issuance of the warrant from the demanding state, the court is to consider evidence of the fact that the person has essentially fled the demanding state when they're making their risk assessment on around, like, risk of flight when they're when they're issuing or making a bail position. And then the effective date is on passage and only applies prospectively, so it doesn't affect any extraditions that will be in the process at [Speaker 3 ]: the time of the payment. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Excellent. Yes. Okay. Great. Yep. So [Jay Johnson]: So see, I'm glad [Speaker 3 ]: I waited because I could cross one thing off my list. So I'm wondering for page four Mhmm. Step three in section three, probably. So let's say somebody does have charges pending in Vermont. Would we have them serve their Vermont time first before we send them back? [Michelle Childs]: I think that would be a question for the state's attorney when they're they are on the in his list. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: I don't know if this is [Speaker 3 ]: a question for you or [Jay Johnson]: not, but you had talked about the background that you gave us when you said that [Speaker 3 ]: the prosecutor in the demanding state files in the NCIC. Mhmm. So do they filing in the NCIC, they would need to say what the crime is. Right? Like, I know there's a lot of like, if it's, like, we're not sure if, like, if it's related to this person might be have broken the law and we don't know their citizen. Like, I guess I'm wondering, would we know for sure that there's a charge pending through that NCIC when we do this? Yeah. It's not like there may be a like, it's it's pretty concrete. Yes. Okay. And is this just for other states? Can the federal government use this process as well, or is that different? [Michelle Childs]: That is different if you're talking about extradition between countries. Right. Like, maybe [Speaker 3 ]: it's someone from Canada or maybe it's Right. [Michelle Childs]: I mean, this is around around interstate extradition. [Speaker 3 ]: And do we also have some kind of interstate compact related to this, where it's like, who's paying to house the person and getting them like, is there there must be some other arrangements and agreements. Right? And I'm also wondering, do do we have reciprocity with these states? Like, if we're doing this, but they're not doing it. [Michelle Childs]: Well, I think there's all states. I don't I don't know. I don't think it's Missouri, Louisiana. There's just, like, maybe two or three states that don't that are not that don't have those. [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. Okay. [Michelle Childs]: And and again, I think when you're talking about the logistical day to day workings of how it is, I think the witnesses can talk to you more about how that is done. [Speaker 3 ]: Okay. Because there's, like, nothing in the bill that talks about and this the sending you know, the inquiring state will pick up the tab or, you know, whatever. [Michelle Childs]: Right. I think you can talk to them about their procedures and how things are typically done. And, you know, and also, you know, while this is just kind of addressing you know, initially, it was to address just the the prior waiver issue. You know, I think there has been expressed some interest in and and I certainly understand it looking at, the uniform act holistically. Because the because it is you know, how oftentimes, you know, something's enacted. You're working with it for a number of years, but it really doesn't necessarily clearly or a hundred percent accurately, like, kind of reflect, you know, how, things are done. So [Speaker 3 ]: And I think I have one last question, which I think got answered at the end, which is if the if our judges are setting bail, they would need to follow the Vermont Constitution guidelines to set bail still, right? So you mentioned risk of flight. So, [Jay Johnson]: so the only exception to [Speaker 3 ]: the Vermont constitution is if they are violating condition in their own state and were recognizing it because they were charged and it was a condition of release or something. Sorry, say that again. So either they're at risk of flight, which Vermont Constitution allows, or the state that is wanting this person back signed something in their state when they were released on as you said, if they're on probation or condition of release was if you we, our state, you can't seek sort of sanctuary somewhere else. You right? Like, they've given up their rights. So that that would sort of suffice in terms of our constitutional bail requirements, right? Or wouldn't go against that. Am I making sense? No? I know everyone's looking at me. I'm like I [Speaker 2 ]: think I'm missing something. [Michelle Childs]: So, if they have signed a waiver, right? Vermont can say, okay. We're we're gonna recognize that waiver just as if you had attested in front of a judge and and waived waived extradition in front of the court. We're gonna recognize. That's one option. The other option is the judge sees if they're original. And holds it. [Speaker 2 ]: Right. They're gonna they're gonna look [Michelle Childs]: at bail. I think there is something specifically in with the extradition around if the you know, right to bail, maybe if you are if it's, like, life in prison or something like that, but I can take [Speaker 3 ]: a check. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Yep. Good questions for Michelle. Alright. Sounds sure there are other questions as well. I'm just wondering if the order is correct. Jay, would it make sense for you to go first? I'm I'm I don't know the area very well, so I don't know the buyers as much, and and we just kinda put this in in no particular order. Does it make sense? It may make sense. Or [Jay Johnson]: I mean, I'm happy to go. I do have a limited window of what I see about the process. Kim, I think, doesn't really I don't know what you would trust us. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Okay. Well, we can stick with this order then that we have on here. That makes sense. [Jay Johnson]: Anything with order. I I have to go, but I just would be I would be testifying for prior revision date process. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Okay. Alright. [Speaker 3 ]: But I can talk [Jay Johnson]: about my, you know, understanding what the constitution is. Go ahead. [Speaker 2 ]: If I if I can, I think just hearing case that's early to be similar, I think it might [Jay Johnson]: Okay? Great. Yeah. Great. Okay. That's [Chair Martin LaLonde]: great. Yeah. Let's have Jay then. Thank you. Thank you for the flexibility. So Okay. [Michelle Childs]: So So, mister chair, I if it's okay with you, I because I wanna be here for this, but I also have a bill down in the senate. So if I go back to my office on Zoom, I can bounce back and forth if that's okay. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Sounds great. Thank you. Alright. Thanks. Welcome, Jay. Thanks for being here. [Jay Johnson]: Thanks, Actually, I, testified on the screen earlier in the session, but I have not been in this room all set here. So Yeah. It's nice to see all of you who haven't done I've seen you only on the screen. So, anyway, thank you for having me. I did testify in the senate on this bill. This is something that because I mean, I do have a limited process piece of extraditions, but it's a key piece. And I work with the attorney general's office because the attorney general's office does a preliminary rule sorry. A preliminary review of every extradition that comes in from another state. Or when we are sending back, we are issuing a requisition to another state, and they do a preliminary review. I do a review before the governor signs, and then, you know, and then the governor executes and then we hand it off to the next part of the process. But the AG's office is sort of an intermediary review. I give it back to them and make sure it gets to the right people. So I this, as you might recall, this was a piece of the governor's omnibus public safety bill that is on your wall, H-four eleven. The basic provision for the interstate extradition of fugitives, from justice is found in the US Constitution's extradition clause, article four, section two, clause two. So this is a US constitutional provision. And it reads, a person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another state shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, so that governor, another governor, person flees to Vermont, the other governor can say to the governor of Vermont to please, you know, ask, please deliver up, and remove that person. Back to the state that has jurisdiction over the crime. So this provision allows each state to bring offenders back for criminal proceedings in the state where the alleged crime was committed. The right runs to the state, not to the offender. It's not the offender's right. The state can agree to accept a waiver of extradition or not. We have proposed a process for streamlining the return of offenders who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their rights to a governor's extradition. And I did work with someone, in the AG's office named Sophie Stratton, who is doing the processing in their criminal division, and she, observed to me that about fifty percent of the extraditions that come into Vermont for return have defendants who have already waived extradition as a condition of release in that state. So, we all know about conditions of release these days. Yes. [Speaker 7 ]: I was going right there. Say that to me. So on on line nineteen on page on page three, The person has signed a fire waiver. That's what you just said. Most people will sign that? [Jay Johnson]: Well, half of the people, apparently, are the ones who flee to Vermont who are then subsequently arrested will have signed a waiver of extradition. [Speaker 7 ]: And I assume the ones that don't are the ones that are don't want to go back there because of prosecution? [Jay Johnson]: Yes, I would say anybody who flees doesn't want to go back for prosecution, but some have agreed to just be arrested and go back as a condition of release. Right? You're making that decision. And then the others, yes, clearly don't want to be they they wanna make it as hard as possible to send that back if they flee. So the end result, regardless intent or anything with all tiers. [Speaker 7 ]: So so regardless whether they want to go or not, eventually we can get them back there? [Jay Johnson]: And that's the constitutional process. And we always have that. Right? This doesn't do anything to affect that. This just streamlines that process if the person has waived. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Okay. Thank you. Just just for clarity, that that condition of release would be in that other states release of that. [Jay Johnson]: Yeah. So no, I'll get to that. I actually yeah. I have an example. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: And can I set a question before you go? [Speaker 2 ]: I think it's on the [Michelle Childs]: same line, but just clarify, there [Jay Johnson]: are two opportunities to waive. It's waiting as a condition in the original state. Yep. That is when it could be a condition of release. And then it is when it is identified in what we're using the asylum state. You could if you're you could waive it then. Right. You could waive it. One doesn't well. So that's what this part of what this law does is that's what often happens. Right? They waive in the state as a condition of release. They flee to Vermont. They do not waive, and then we have to go through the extradition process. Yeah. This would shortcut that, which is to say, once if you have waived in a prior state and you're picked up here, basically, law enforcement can immediately return you without the extradition process. And that's what you're saying is fifty percent of folks typically have weight in their, original state. That's what we have found to be true. Yes. Okay. Great. Clear? Yep. So our Vermont Supreme Court and the reason for this is really and while this may be an anticipated process and need some updating, the whole purpose is to recognize the coequal sovereignty among the fifty states. Right? So it's fundamental to our constitution's underpinnings. The Vermont Supreme Court, citing to the US Supreme Court case law, has recognized that the extradition clause, the purpose, articulates in mandatory language, right, shall on demand, be delivered up. So in mandatory language, the concepts of comity and full faith and credit, and its purpose is to bring criminal offenders to justice in the states where they have offended as quickly as possible. So that's the purpose of the of the original extradition. [Ken Goslant]: What's the site? [Jay Johnson]: For that case? Yeah. It's Michigan. Well, so this The view of Vermont. So they're from you know what? I don't have Vermont citation. I have the US Supreme Court citation. I can get you the Vermont citation. Okay. Alright. Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. [Speaker 3 ]: Does this apply to juveniles too? [Jay Johnson]: Oh, that's an interesting question. It it is something that's happening now because, obviously, we do not have a mechanism for holding juveniles in Vermont. They do flee the state. Yeah. And there is a question among the the prosecutors right now whether, and I don't know if Kim has been part of these conversations, whether you can ask for the extradition for proceeding in a juvenile court, which is not criminal. Right? You're talking about he's to be delivered up after having committed, or removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. Is it crime if it's in juvenile court? Well, that's interesting because We're not going to answer that question today. [Speaker 3 ]: What you read us from the US Constitution said any or any other crime or something. Right? So I was assuming that meant if either state is calling something a crime, that well, no. Because it it seemed like it was the state that was charging the person Yes. Right, from the way you read yeah. [Tom Burditt]: DCF uses the compact. [Jay Johnson]: Yeah. DCF just has a cow. Right? Anyway, it's an interesting question. We may run into it. Okay. So as Michelle mentioned, the extradition process is addressed in federal law, so it lays out the basic process. Vermont's Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, and that lays out a process for both bringing them back and sending them out, and then Vermont's interstate detainer agreement on detainers, which largely applies to the DOC process. What happens if they're here and in jail, or they're here and being tried, or they're pretrial, and another state asks for them or, actually, no. It's not pretrial. It's post adjudication. Can you how do you make arrangements for sending them back and forth? Who get who pays? Who keeps them? Who you know, [Tom Burditt]: either demanding state pays. [Jay Johnson]: Yeah. So there's so that interstate detainer, interstate agreement on detainers controls in those cases. So like I said, the extradition process involves the governor's requisition, and the issuance of a governor's warrant. And so this is both extradition of fugitives from Vermont and the extradition of fugitives from other jurisdictions back to Vermont, because we also request the same from other governors. The focus of this bill is on sending back. Right? They come here. They flee here. We are trying to create this streamlined process for sending them back. And I wanted to emphasize the due process protections already built in to the process. So in the other state, the person will have to have been arrested and and so, obviously, this applies in the case both of free charge and post adjudication where they have violated the terms of their probation. Right? They're released, and then they violate the terms of the probation. The DOC from the other state is seeking to bring them back. But generally speaking, I'll talk about pretrial. So a person will have to have been arrested and charged or convicted, and released. This requires a finding, you know, pretrial of probable cause and arraignment before a judge. It will require a voluntary written agreement to conditions of release, which include a waiver of the right to extradition. It requires a failure to appear. Right? You already are required to appear in court in another jurisdiction. You fail to appear for court proceedings in the state where the crime was alleged to have committed been committed, and then the issuance of a bench warrant by court happens. Right? So a court so so the prosecutor goes to the court. This person hasn't showed up. Your honor, can I please have a warrant for the arrest of this person? The warrant is issued, and that goes out, across multiple states in many times. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it's limited. But in many cases, it goes out to multiple states. We have that in our system. The person gets picked up on the arrest warrant, Or sometimes they're committing another crime, and we recognize that they actually have an outstanding warrant, and then they are arrested. And how does it feature? [Chair Martin LaLonde]: And I think parents also have a question. Yes. [Jay Johnson]: Just for context, how many, of these are is Vermont processing a year on average? I would say way more now than in twenty seventeen. Vermont oh, I guess I can't draw this conclusion. I would say generally speaking, Vermont's very state for people to flee to because they don't get held. But I can't draw that conclusion right. I've never done a study or anything like that. But we have probably do now two a month, three a month. Okay. It depends, really. But I think probably more now than when in when we first started in twenty seventeen. Okay. And when you say that they're not being held, what do you mean by Well, so they are picked up on the arrest warrant. They are basically processed like any other crime in Vermont, and sometimes they will be held on bail. Like the example I have, the person is held on substantial bail. Sometimes they are released, with a direction from the court to simply return to their home state to further proceedings. That's not very effective. Sometimes they are released on other conditions, but they are often released in Vermont. So even though they're picked up after already fleeing another state's jurisdiction, they get released in Vermont. This bill is not necessarily changing that. No, no. They'll well, no, no, no. Sorry. Language. Importantly does change that because rather than being held at all, they get returned. Right? We don't go through all that process. That's, I think, the goal. But when you when you can so [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Just before you go and and there's the provision at the end where where the judge has to consider the fact that they have fled when they're looking at bail. [Jay Johnson]: Yes. And that's I do have a was pointed [Tom Burditt]: at that point. Right. Yeah. It kinda [Chair Martin LaLonde]: seems like pretty good evidence. [Jay Johnson]: Yeah. That's would be my those questions. [Speaker 3 ]: Jay, I'm confused about why they're released if we have that the constitutional obligation. Like, why are we just releasing them? [Jay Johnson]: That is an excellent question. But because we can, the law allows for release on bail. So that's that's a that's a determination by individual judges. Well, I mean, prosecutors can ask that they be held, and then the judge decides. But no one's challenged Vermont for not honoring the constitutional agreement? Well, we do honor it. Right? We go through the the extradition process. Whether we can find the person is a different question. [Tom Burditt]: Is it possible that we set the conditions based upon we we set the conditions upon the charge we bring and not the charge that they're facing anywhere else? [Jay Johnson]: Well, it depends. If they're if they've committed another crime in Vermont, they [Chair Martin LaLonde]: use the package. About a crime. [Tom Burditt]: That's how we hold them. [Jay Johnson]: Well, they're they're charged with, like, fugitive from justice. Yes. Right. So they are a fugitive from justice. Sometimes there are other crimes involved. Like I said, they can be picked up and they turns out they have a warrant. Yeah. It is a it is a fugitive from from justice charge. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: So so if the underlying and maybe this is [Speaker 2 ]: I can't can't I'm sure [Jay Johnson]: can articulate more about that. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: A crime that might not matters conflict. The impression [Jay Johnson]: The theory is you it might not. It's we might a judge might factor that in. Is the person violent? But I have to say that we were doing the extradition process and why we have asked for more time here for people to be held for a longer period. Is that case? You have a violent criminal. You don't want them released. A judge is saying you've already held this guy for ninety days as a fugitive. I can't hold them anymore, and I'm going to release him at the next hearing. That will happen. So we try and process these as fast as we can, but you will hear it's a pretty extensive process. It doesn't always happen in ninety days. So the recent example is sorry. Forgive me this statute. The okay. Sorry. So we had a request from the governor of New Hampshire to bring an individual back from Vermont as a fugitive from justice. He was convicted. This is an odd one because, actually, this guy was out, on a deferred sentence. So he was convicted of felony forgery in July of 'twenty two. He was given a deferred sentence. So, right, he was convicted. He has a sentence. He flees the state. He was due back in court for a hearing on the deferred sentence in July of twenty twenty four, two years later. He fails to show for the hearing and a bench warrant is issued. There must have been other proceedings because he then is, he appeared and he waived extradition in July of twenty twenty four as a condition of release. Another hearing was scheduled for September of twenty twenty four. He failed to appear for that hearing. A second bench warrant was issued, and the hearing was rescheduled for November of twenty twenty four. He again failed to appear, and a third bench warrant was issued in November. He was arrested on the warrant finally here in Vermont in December. He refused to waive extradition. So here he waived extradition in New Hampshire, gets to Vermont, he's arrested, refuses to waive extradition, and he was being held on twenty five thousand dollars bail in Southern State. So a status conference was being held. So I get the extradition on, say, a Friday, Thursday or Friday. The AG's office advises me that there's a status conference on Friday, and the AG's office is seeking to extend the the stay for another thirty days to give the extradition process time to play out. We don't know what's going to happen on that Friday, but it turns out the judge grants the thirty day extension. We get the extradition done Monday or Tuesday, and then it gets served. So it's it's a very time sensitive matter even though it seems like a lot of time. So it's and so I just I also wanted to read the waiver of extradition. It is not a lot of wiggle gobbledygook. Like, this is it. The the defendant it's written. The defendant writes it's called waiver of extradition in big letters. The defendant writes his name down. I am a defendant in Grafton Superior Court, and I wish to waive my rights to formal extradition proceedings. If I am in another state, the state of New Hampshire may make formal demand for my return to New Hampshire to face the above charges. A governor's warrant would be issued and served on me, and after extradition hearing, I could be returned to New Hampshire. I voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive my rights to a governor's warrant and a formal hearing if I am in another state. I consent to this is all in caps. I consent to return voluntarily and without hearing or other formality to New Hampshire to face the above charges. Then he signs it and dates it, and the judge signs it. [Speaker 3 ]: That's And is there a, like, check a box, yes or no? Like That's what he signs. He signs his name to it. So is it voluntary, but it's like you buy a lift pass to a to a ski, and you're voluntarily you know what I mean? Like No. [Jay Johnson]: No. It's ticket that you don't get to read. But you are given this by a judge. The judge explains your rights. You may or may not have counsel there. You read it. It's whatever law it. [Speaker 3 ]: What happens? You have [Jay Johnson]: to waive your rights. [Speaker 3 ]: And that's it's not like now we're gonna go lock you up. I mean, there's not there's no [Jay Johnson]: There's no well, if it's a condition of release and you don't satisfy the condition [Speaker 3 ]: You're not. [Jay Johnson]: You may not be released. Right? Okay. [Speaker 3 ]: I was just trying to figure out why people might sign it and then not really be Understanding. Or willing to kind of be like, yeah. No. I signed that. I you know? Like I think that I mean [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Yeah. I mean, how voluntary is it really? Well, we can't judge that. I mean, just on forty nine other states. If it was in Vermont, that person could not be held for not signing a waiver like that. I don't know what happens in some other states, and I wouldn't expect that that would be part of the process either. I didn't think I mean, it's like you got the paper, and that's should be good enough to deal with. [Jay Johnson]: Yes. Yes. So when the sheriff gets theoretically with the process that we're trying to establish, the sheriff gets this. It's, you know, there's some kind of certification that it's it's authentic. And then the sheriff can simply return the person without going through the ninety to a hundred and twenty day extradition proceeding, which, again, you'll hear touches multiple hands. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: But but our law and our law currently does not allow that. That's not [Jay Johnson]: That's another reason we're doing this. Our our current law is silent. And the fact that it's silent means that we don't recognize the waiver made in other states. This would would explicitly authorize the recognition of the waiver because, like I said, here it is. Clear as day. I consent to return voluntarily. He gets to Vermont, and he refuses to waive extradition. So there is there is a a certain amount of process that has already happened for this individual before they get to Vermont, and then they say, nope. Not going back. So this would allow our courts and our law enforcement to recognize that they can simply arrest the person on the warrant and return them. [Speaker 7 ]: Good. So just to make sure I understand this. So we have a a a person that's probably not a very good person out there on the list that that is [Jay Johnson]: working choices. [Speaker 7 ]: Right? That's working both sides of the state to go and get away for as long as they can, whatever they can, using the system as much as they can and putting the general public at risk. And that's that's what's going on now, and we're trying to tighten that up so that doesn't happen as much? [Jay Johnson]: We're trying to tighten it up so that they're not in the process for quite so long. They just get it's an expedited process for returning them to their court proceedings in the other state. [Speaker 7 ]: But this that person is out there for a long time putting putting residents at risk. [Jay Johnson]: I mean, it's possible. It's yes. I mean, we typically, we only see not typically. I think in the law, it's requires that it has to be at least a one year crime, which in Vermont is a misdemeanor. In many states, it could be a felony, but felony crimes are typically what we see. It could but it you know, it's it's a range of crimes. Wow. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: And you're welcome to characterize these individuals as bad people, but that's not necessarily the case. I mean, they have done some bad things or offenses, but but that's your characterization. You're welcome to have it. And Tom has a question. [Tom Burditt]: Tom, if it's well, I will can I ask you a question I don't know the answer to? I'm sure the [Chair Martin LaLonde]: house, so we won't fall a point of order on that. [Tom Burditt]: How many times is someone released on conditions for being a fugitive from justice if they get rearrested on their out of state war? [Jay Johnson]: Not sure. I understand the request. So they [Tom Burditt]: Well, they're free, and they're walking around. So there's still have existing out of state MCIG head that weren't active for them. They're not complying with their conditions of release. They haven't gone back to the demanding state, and they're rearrested on the same warrant. [Jay Johnson]: Oh, so that actually doesn't happen. It [Speaker 3 ]: is very [Jay Johnson]: no. It turns out well well, so what's happened a couple of times, I've gotten two requests from New Hampshire where the person there is a there is a lot of interstate traffic between New York between Vermont and New Hampshire, particularly across that bridge right there on White River Junction. And so what what I have seen twice now is a judge they basically get picked up on the warrant here in Vermont. The judge says, please just go back for your proceedings in New Hampshire and releases them. Apparently, once they're picked up on the warrant, the the notation in the system goes away. Because then what what we've what we've heard from New Hampshire is in the in the cases that we've gotten them Yeah. New Hampshire says, hey. You guys have basically erased a warrant in the system, but this person is still out. We need you to pick them up with a governor's warrant under extradition. [Tom Burditt]: The law says that that the arrest warrant cannot be vacated until they've appeared in the commanding state. [Jay Johnson]: Well, I can't well, this is what I've experienced. [Tom Burditt]: I can't I can't vacate a warrant. I bring somebody from Georgia back to the state of Vermont till I have them back in the state of Vermont. [Speaker 3 ]: Oh, okay. [Tom Burditt]: That way, if they escape or any trip or anything, there's still an active warrant person. [Jay Johnson]: So that's I mean, all I can speak [Chair Martin LaLonde]: to is New Hampshire. [Tom Burditt]: Arrest on people. New Hampshire's on I understand what you're saying, but, yeah, if somebody's from Pennsylvania, they come here. They never went back. [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. [Tom Burditt]: Yeah. And and we we rearrange them three, four times [Jay Johnson]: As a fugitive. [Ken Goslant]: Because we know that, [Tom Burditt]: yeah, we keep running them. They're still alive. [Jay Johnson]: Interesting. Yeah. No. This is all all I can speak to is the two times it happened to me where it's been frustrating for New Hampshire because they're saying, what the hell, guys? You arrested them and you released them, and now we can't bring them back. We can do the extradition proceeding. We don't we don't know where they are. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: So can I ask you a question? Just to clarify from what Thomas said. So if if this individual hasn't been going back, he's a fugitive, but he hasn't done a waiver, do you still need do you need to have the request from Pennsylvania to send them back? So if there's no request, you can keep on arresting them as a fugitive. But if there's no request to send them, [Jay Johnson]: then There's no arrest warrant from the demanding state. They there's no there's no arrest. Okay. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: So the the arrest warrant is the request to send them back. That that acts as a request, but or does the [Jay Johnson]: Oh, so so it as a matter of process, there's the court process for the person who's in in court in the sending in the demanding state. They have committed the crime. They're getting released on conditions. One of the conditions is the waiver. They agree to waive. But what triggers the so then what happens is they flee. They don't show up for their proceedings. Right? And the prosecutor says, oh, you know, your honor, I need an arrest warrant because this person is not showing up. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: This is in Pennsylvania. [Jay Johnson]: Yeah. In Pennsylvania. Correct. [Speaker 3 ]: Okay. [Jay Johnson]: So the arrest warrant is issued. That goes out to all law enforcement in this national system, and they get picked up in Vermont on the warrant. That's not the request to return. At that point well, so even now right now, even if the person is waived but doesn't agree to waive in Vermont, they're here. They can they're either get held or they get released on bail or they just get released on conditions or they get released with a little bit of advice from the judge. Right. And right. So that is what's happening now. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: No extradition at that point because there's not a request. [Jay Johnson]: That's right. So then the request has to come from the governor. And, again, they'll walk through the the extensive proceeding as required, but the request from comes from the governor of New Hampshire to the governor of Vermont. We sign the extradition, you know, the warrant, basically. The per and that is delivered to the sheriff. It's delivered to the defendant. It's delivered to the defendant's attorney. We get seven copies, DOC. So we do seven originals. They get dispersed. The court gets one. Hopefully, the court gets the original. Sheriff, hopefully, gets an original. Everybody else gets a copy. The defendant gets it. The defense counsel gets it. And then that's the that's the request from the demanding state. We sign a warrant. The warrant gets distributed to everybody. And then the person, if they're out, theoretically, you know where they are and you pick them up and you return them, and there's a process for that. There's a hearing, I believe, on the sufficiency of the governor's warrant, I think, as Michelle mentioned. But you have if you can't find them, right? Yeah. They're still out on both the arrest warrant and if they've been released. I don't know. Maybe the arrest warrant is still out there, or they are somewhere. You don't even know if they're still in Vermont. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: So let me ask you just a couple I wanna make sure I'm understanding this. Yeah. So, if there's the waiver, though, you'd you can you don't have to wait for a request from Pennsylvania in this example because the waiver, you can just process and send them there. Right? Or no? [Jay Johnson]: Well, see, yeah, the language in the the proposed language is not on page and I'm sorry. I have the senate's version, But this was as introduced. It's on my page three. See, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a law enforcement agency in this state holding a person who is alleged to have broken the terms of the person's probation, parole, bail, or any other release in the demanding state shall immediately deliver that person to the duly authorized agent of the demanding state without the requirements of a governor's warrant if all the following apply. And this is the process that's required for that immediate return. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: And and so by saying the demanding state, there has to actually have been a demand, and it's not the arrest warrant in the other state that is the [Jay Johnson]: they're gonna have a So in this scenario, if we were to change the law, the arrest warrant would be essentially the document that triggers this return process. Okay. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Alright. [Jay Johnson]: It would not be the extradition process. Okay. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: So if if we didn't have if it wasn't one of the situations where there was that waiver in the conditions and release in the other state, you pick up somebody, there is an arrest warrant, but you still have to does the law enforcement contact the other state and say, hey. Do you want this person back? Do you wanna make the demand? You know, is that is that what would happen in that support? [Jay Johnson]: You like this is and, again, I'm not this how would that plays out? So the there's the arrest warrant. The person gets arrested. The law enforcement agency has the person. This would say, if there's an arrest warrant and they're a fugitive, they shall immediately deliver that person to the duly authorized agent of the demanding state. Yeah. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: I was just wondering if there wasn't a waiver. I'm just I mean, I know that There's no this [Jay Johnson]: is for Mike. If there's no waiver, there's no you can't just pick them up and return them. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Right. [Jay Johnson]: There has to be [Chair Martin LaLonde]: law enforcement or somebody contact the other state and say, are you gonna issue a demand to get this person back? Officer don't. Okay. Alright. That yeah. I just was wondering where that because if you need to have the demand, they should probably know that you'd pick them up. [Jay Johnson]: Ultimately, I think that there is some communication. Okay. If there's an arrest warrant, they you know, the pros the prosecutor from the other county in, say, New Hampshire may be communicating with our prosecutors or our sheriffs, they in very often in their letters to the governor, they will say, we believe this person is being held in x facility, or we believe this person can be found in Burlington, Vermont. Like, we there is a general expression of where we think the person is. Sometimes they're there. Sometimes they're not. Okay. [Tom Burditt]: Okay. So [Jay Johnson]: I'm wondering if immediately needs to be defined. Like, what immediately needs to be defined? Where it says Immediately needs to be defined? [Speaker 3 ]: Like, does that does that mean, like, get in your car now, Tom? You're you're driving to Ohio? [Jay Johnson]: There is a little process. Okay. Right? The person has signed a prior waiver of extradition. Right? Right. The law enforcement agency holding the person has received an authenticated copy of the waiver, and other identifying information. And then I I don't know how that return sort of logistically. It's how I'm I'm thinking it's easy when it's New Hampshire or Massachusetts or New York. This immediately deliver to the authorized agent of the demanding state. It would seem to me that that's something that law enforcement has to work out. Right? So if it takes a month, that's not immediate. Right? I mean, so [Speaker 3 ]: I guess I'm just wondering where they're going. Right. I just wondered if that like, I know sometimes when we put something like that in language that the court has to do something immediately Mhmm. There are issues with us putting time frames. I know we hear from judge Zende about putting time frames is hard, but I'm just wondering, like, immediately might mean something different to the chief of police and [Jay Johnson]: It didn't say immediately. Wouldn't you have the concern that law enforcement can pick up the person and deliver them whenever? [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Yeah. I think I mean, there maybe there's other language that, you know, as expeditiously as possible to if there needs if there needs to be any wiggle room, but we can hear further witness. [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. I mean that. Yeah. I'm not I I I wasn't objecting to immediate. I just was more thinking about, is it will it create too much vagueness of, like, hey. You know what? We only have one staff person, and we can't do it till next Friday. Can it work? [Chair Martin LaLonde]: That may be immediate enough, but let's hear from some of the other witnesses on So happening on. But Tom Tom, [Tom Burditt]: I I would just suggest that it would follow if if someone picked up and brought to court and they paid the process right there, then it would follow that same exact procedure. If you're arrested on a warrant and we find out that you signed the the waiver, then it would follow the same exact mirror image of what would have happened. Like [Speaker 3 ]: Right. [Tom Burditt]: I arrest you. You decide to waive. So now we make arrangements to send you back to their original state. I arrest you, I find out you already way, we make the same arrangement. [Jay Johnson]: Yeah. That makes sense. [Tom Burditt]: Like, stipulate something different if there's, you know, some extreme possibility of not making it happen. [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. That makes sense. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Yeah. Yeah. [Ken Goslant]: Are there instances where so we're not talking about the waiver just like in the current structure Mhmm. Where someone's picked up, there's a warrant out from another state, and the contact is made between our state and that state, and they decide they don't want them brought back? [Jay Johnson]: I guess Kim is nodding. Yes. Okay. I [Speaker 3 ]: just can keep them. Right? [Ken Goslant]: And then the other question, just as I'm trying to understand the process, can you describe what you review when when you were talking about, like, your part of the process? Like, with the AG's office, like, what are the documents? What are you what are you looking at? [Jay Johnson]: Oh, okay. So I get a package that includes so I get a memo from the ADU's office basically says, here's the extradition. We've reviewed it. Please have the governor sign it. It's a package that has on the cover page is something and I can send a copy of a complete package. But, basically, it's a it's a it's a very formal request from a governor of another state that says it names the person. It says, this is the crime. It says, this person has fled justice, and, it's signed by the governor of the state. It says, here's my authorized agent. Please return that person to my jurisdiction. That's from the governor of the state too. It's sealed. It's signed. There's certain requirements in statute for what that needs to say. You cannot be seeking a person with bringing them back for purposes of collecting debt. That's typically in the paperwork. Then what's behind that package is a req basically, a request to the governor to that governor from a prosecutor, so who basically says, dear governor, we need you to bring this person back because they committed this crime. They failed to show up for proceedings. We believe they're in Vermont at in this location, and, please write to the governor of Vermont to bring them back. So then that's backed up usually by a police affidavit that says I've arrested this person and gives a whole, usually long explanation of how that arrest happened. [Ken Goslant]: Vermont or the other side? [Jay Johnson]: All on the Manning State side. And that's all come to us and say, you know, this person was in you know, basically, it lays out probable cause. Usually, if there's a grand jury or other indictment materials from the other state, that's in the package. Like, as much information to support the arrest and the prosecution. Sometimes people flee before they're arrested, and you need to have a police affidavit that explains probable cause, basically. Sometimes you do have a grand jury indictment regardless. You have all of that paperwork. You have the affidavits signed and notarized. You have all of these identification materials where the clerk of the court says, This is the judge's signature, and the judge is saying this is the clerk's signature. You have a secretary of state sometimes saying this person is is a valid notary. You have all that sealed. And then you have things like fingerprint cards and pictures to identify the person. If you don't have that because, say, they hadn't been arrested, you have an officer saying this person is it's an affidavit. Person is known to me. They're this tall. They have brown hair. They, you know, they they identify the person to the best of their ability. And then the then you have to include the court's arrest warrant. So the court issues an arrest warrant based on whatever information they have, probable cause, and they say, you know, this person failed to show up, and there's a judicial judicial judicial justice or whatever it is, and then they issue the arrest warrant, and the judge signs the arrest warrant. So in every single package, the AG's office is looking at that. I'm looking at that. If it doesn't include the arrest warrant, I have sent it back. If I read the description in the police affidavit and the dates don't line up or and there's an obvious mistake, I will send it back. Because at the end of the day, this also goes to a court, and the court has to make a determination that it's validly issued. So, we don't want there to be any kickbacks from the court. So, we make sure through this process, this review process, that it's valid and all those pieces are there and it's all required in statute. And then so that's what I patient. And then what the AG's office always sends me, I'm not sure I have a copy, is the governor's requisition. And it says, you know, on the I'm gonna you sometimes it says, you know, this is a form of business. Right? Because there's lots and lots of paperwork, some to the governor, you know, the the governor of Massachusetts. And then I say, no. Because we're not governor of Massachusetts. One time, we had a mistake that everybody nobody picked up, but the defendant's counsel or the defendant picked up, which was it said right in the governor's warrant, this person has been convicted, and we're thinking to bring them back or hadn't been convicted. So they got kicked back, and we had to redo it. Like, that's all fair. And I think the ninety day process, the ninety to a hundred and day, twenty day process doesn't even contemplate mistakes. Right? Because I'm figuring that should be plenty of it should be plenty of time. It shouldn't count mistakes because we should do it right the first time. Hopefully, we can get them turned around because, like I said, sometimes you do have violent offenders who will be released after ninety days if they haven't committed a crime in Vermont. They're only here as a fugitive from justice. So it should be a process that moves fairly quickly, but it is pretty cumbersome and time intensive and labor intensive. It touches the courts, the prosecutors, the sheriffs, the defense bar. Everybody reviews it. Everybody touches it. The governor's office, the AG's office takes a long time. [Speaker 3 ]: That So [Ken Goslant]: just one thank you. And and I appreciate it's just helpful to hear sort of and it sounds like there's a lot of happy. Sort of due diligence that goes through. Have you ever rejected a warrant from another state based on, like, an issue with the underlying charge or crime that [Jay Johnson]: No. We never have. [Tom Burditt]: Okay. [Jay Johnson]: Yeah. And and I don't know that that's legal because it is a matter it is a matter of federal constitution, federal law, state comity among the states. I think if the process is followed, it would be very I'm not even sure that that would be legal for the governor to say, no. I'm not sending back. [Ken Goslant]: I meant more like a warrant is issued and then the underlying case is dismissed in the other case in the state and that the the communication [Jay Johnson]: Oh, that definitely happens. Yes. Actually, we have gotten a number of requests from the AG's office or from the prosecutors to withdraw a governor's warrant because it was either settled in the other state, person happened to show up in the other state. That definitely happens, and there is a process in statute. I mean, it's not much of a process. Basically, the governor is authorized to withdraw a governor's warrant. [Ken Goslant]: So how just if we're if there was, like, a waiver Mhmm. Signed, is there a way in the proposed language of s b seven, for someone to know that that's happened in the other state, so not deliver the person back? [Jay Johnson]: Well, the person would have had to show up, probably. That's very often why they get withdrawn. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Okay. [Jay Johnson]: I don't I don't know of an instance, and maybe someone else does, where a a request for a warrant has been withdrawn and the person is still a fugitive from justice or, say, they're known to be in another state and they made another request, you know, requisition to a different state, this wouldn't probably be triggered because we wouldn't have the person probably. But, I mean, there's lots and lots of fact patterns. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. [Ken Goslant]: That's really helpful. Thank you. Okay. Sure. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: So did you have more than you had? No. Seventy five I [Ken Goslant]: did not. You may have [Chair Martin LaLonde]: made a statement you were gonna make and Yeah. You know, [Jay Johnson]: I think I was gonna say, but I think you picked up on earlier is this last direction to the court, which is please consider that they're already fugitives from justice. I would imagine if I was Tom Zoney, I would say you don't need to do that. Courts already do that. I would say we do need that just as a little reminder that this person is already a fugitive from justice, and that is part of our Vermont constitution as the primary reason for holding someone on bail or giving, you know, a giving bail, awarding bail, or holding someone without for a certain period of time. It it has been our experience very often that they are leased, that they cannot be located, or that it's difficult to locate them or whatever. And it is a limited period of time. It is a defined process. It's a US constitutional matter of commity, and here we are just releasing. I I am not objecting to that. We haven't asked for the bail provision being removed or anything like that. It's just that we would like an express consideration by the court of the fact that they are already a fugitive from justice, and that would seem to increase the risk, of releasing them. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Appreciate that, Tom. That's what I'm saying. [Tom Burditt]: So that's something that I've always wondered. Many of the states that we go to to pick up somebody when, you know, we're the demanding state. We would go and get them. And those states simply use our warrant as a mechanism to hold them Oh, wow. Where we have to charge somebody in our court to hold them. And that is a very difficult process in itself. I don't know. [Jay Johnson]: And so, like Michelle suggested, you might look at a wholesale revision at some point Mhmm. Because it is pretty old statute. It's lots and lots of process that doesn't maybe take into consideration some of the complexities we find today. [Tom Burditt]: Right. The whole system The whole probable cause charging a a fugitive is just identifying the person and then a warrant exists. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: So are they cited into court as opposed to arrested and Well, we arrest them and we bring them in. But, I [Tom Burditt]: mean, we could bring them in on the warrant that could could could make the decision based upon how would you identify them, but that's why we bring this fugitive case in which takes hours to put together. It's very strange. We have to contact the demanding state, which is fine. But then author every all the information they give us from photocopies they fax us or email and create another affidavit altogether just to hold them. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Gotcha. Interesting. [Tom Burditt]: And then it's dismissed as soon as the other state takes them. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Okay. Interesting. Alright. Any other questions for Jay and [Ken Goslant]: one other one that just came up? So all of those because some of the language we're looking at is about reliable electronic means of, showing the law enforcement the the authentic authenticated copy of the waiver of execution. [Speaker 2 ]: Mhmm. [Ken Goslant]: In your process, do you get some of your all those documents that you listed through electronic means? [Jay Johnson]: I get them all through paper. [Ken Goslant]: And is there a reason for that? [Jay Johnson]: Well, I mean, I believe that the statute requires that, like, you know, governors will want it be written, be I mean, I think, you know, there has to be a state seal. There There has to be all of that. I mean, I think some of the documents we get provided are copies of copies of things that people have gotten, but I don't get anything electronically. Some sites by deliver like FedEx or some Yeah. The other the demanding prosecutor sends it to our AG's office and See you all in the Yeah. Yeah. It's true. Yeah. It's just like it's a big package of stuff that we get. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Thank you very much. This is very impressive. I would [Jay Johnson]: any of the any corrections. The the the other witnesses are are free to correct any any misperception, I'd like to hear. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: So I thought that we'd have one more witness before break. Is that fine, folks? Alright. So, Kim, can [Speaker 3 ]: you jump in? [Tom Burditt]: Not entirely, but everything's a little different. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Thank you for being here. Nice to have you back. Thank you. At least a couple days. [Speaker 2 ]: Yes. I was just observing yesterday. Right. Good morning, everyone. For the record, Tim McManus, the Department of State, Surmese, and Sheriffs. As attorney Johnson said, this is a complicated area, and the bill before you is addressing a few issues. It's not addressing all the issues, and we would encourage you at some point maybe to we could take a look at this. Yeah. I don't really simplify it. My earlier high school teacher days are coming out because I made one of the chart. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: What? Something like that. Geez. [Speaker 2 ]: Is it colors? Green for Vermont. Orange for the other state. Yes. It is. Extra [Chair Martin LaLonde]: color. Shirts. [Speaker 2 ]: Yeah. Especially color. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Especially color. [Speaker 2 ]: I was excited about the colors. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: I like a, you [Speaker 3 ]: know, just a chance to [Tom Burditt]: mark Marshall paintball. [Speaker 2 ]: Did you do this just for us or also the senate? I did this test for you. Wow. Sorry, senate. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: They were. I mean, like, they don't. [Speaker 2 ]: Well, I did that when, we went into senate testimony. The AG's office has a wonderful presentation for you, and I don't wanna take their thunder. They were an excellent memo that runs through all of this. I'm a visual person, and I can read the NMO and understand it just like I can go and read the statute, which is what States attorneys have to do almost every time, except for those who have a slightly higher volume, we have to double check how does this work again and run through. And so I always have to make myself a chart when I do these sort of things. So here you go. So and again, the AG's office is going to do a thorough overview and process. So I don't want to be overly redundant since I know the testimony that's coming. But what I wanted to lay out for you is the first part of the Bill, that is giving this additional time for the Governor's warrant. So if you follow along the top row, fugitive flees, the demanding State has, issued an arrest warrant, the fugitive has come into contact in some way with law enforcement. So they've either committed a new crime and are arrested. Maybe they've been pulled over for a traffic violation, right? So we may not have a new arrest. It might, it might be a traffic violation and then the arrest warrant pops up. As Representative Oliver was explaining, law enforcement always checks on the warrant. You, these warrants pop up and you need to call and see one, is it still active? And two, is it extraditable? Does this, does the State want the person from Vermont? Sometimes States will issue a warrant and it'll say, only for surrounding States. So, you know, only if the person's picked up in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, does Vermont want them back? Because there's an incredible expense tied, to individuals being picked up. So the officer has to check the warrant and see, does the state want them, before we move forward? [Jay Johnson]: I'm curious how that works if it is, like, a traffic stop. Is the person just detained while this is all happening? Or [Speaker 2 ]: Yeah. That's, you know, the, oh, just a moment. You know, we're checking and, you know, they're running it, and then the phone call be yep. Hang on a moment, just to see, like, is is this someone we need to hold right now, or is it someone and and I think it varies there. Is this something that's gonna take a lot longer, so we're gonna release them on the citation? You know, we have their address. It might be a charge that comes later that they confirm they're a fugitive from justice and then go and arrest. [Jay Johnson]: And the so when the state receives well, how would I ask this question? Is the only way that a fugitive [Speaker 5 ]: would be known to be in Vermont or would be picked up by law enforcement is if they have a is through, like, natural consequences? Like, law enforcement, it's there's not a proactive, like, hey. New New Hampshire says we're looking for this person. We believe they're in Vermont. We we'd like them to be extradited, and then law enforcement looks for them. I mean, that [Speaker 2 ]: that can be communicated. They still have to come into contact with them. So they might be aware and see have that information. They still would need to if they saw the person somehow confirm who that is. You know, they can't just walk up to everyone and be like, are you Tom? Are you Tom? Yeah. Okay. I didn't even know if No. Don't worry. Yeah. I didn't know what that was all left up to chance. I mean, it needs to have to well, I I don't wanna get does that make no. I know it should be in, and I I don't have direct I wouldn't yeah. And Tom might be actually better to answer the question as far as how law enforcement would handle that. If they know someone sort of wanted an out and about, again, they may, again, be aware. They may be a group, you know, looking for that, but we generally are law enforcement. It doesn't have that proactive end. It tends to be more reactive and not at any fault, but just from a resources point of view. So they would still need to cross paths with that person. And whether that was more intentional or not, I don't know. [Jay Johnson]: K. Thank you. Thank you for that. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Could you tell me what the extraditable means again? I think maybe you just had a comment, but that wasn't [Speaker 2 ]: Yes. So there can be an arrest warrant. So and I'll say this from the Vermont perspective. When the prosecutor person doesn't appear for a status conference, and then we have information that they've fled, I would then ask the Court to issue an arrest warrant. And in that arrest warrant, I would ask, you know, that they'd be I have information that maybe I have information that they're in South Carolina, that I want our judge to say this arrest warrant, that they're extraditable, that we want them back. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: That doesn't always happen. [Speaker 2 ]: It doesn't always happen. And so depending on what the the offense is, judge may or may not. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: And even if they say it's not extraditable, that's still maybe a process that would lead to extradition. Right? Or not? [Speaker 2 ]: No. If not, this No. If the other state says no. [Speaker 3 ]: Okay. We're [Speaker 2 ]: not, you know, home from Vermont, then that's and we don't then we don't do anything with that, and then we just deal with whatever Vermont interaction. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Okay. So so not a fugitive from justice if the warrant does this? [Speaker 2 ]: Right. So they could have an arrest warrant in Montana. And if it's not extraditable, we Okay. You know, we let the prosecutor know, or we let the law enforcement when we call them. Person's here. Let me say, okay. Have a great day. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Yeah. And [Tom Burditt]: then NCI should usually it's usually in there if if it's expeditable. [Speaker 2 ]: Yeah. And state just [Tom Burditt]: with are willing to do it from. [Speaker 2 ]: Okay. Since the law enforcement just confirms that, then we move on. Good. [Speaker 7 ]: What do you mean we just move on? This person just stays here. We we we can't do anything about it, and taxpayers are paying for this person. That should be in another state. [Speaker 2 ]: Right. But what's important, I think, to know so say the person in Montana, they could have an arrest warrant for a misdemeanor crime, that it just essentially, Montana is like, it's not worth it for us to go get Jill from Vermont for this retail theft case. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Oh. [Speaker 2 ]: So arrest warrant can be issued from, you know, not appearing in court for your misdemeanor case, right, all the way up to you've been arraigned for a felony and then didn't appear on your next court date. Like, arrest warrant covers that whole span. Now sorry. Go ahead. [Speaker 7 ]: So so is it safe to assume if the if the person I won't use the phrase that I used before. If this person really committed a horrible crime, that state's gonna take them back? [Speaker 2 ]: I couldn't speak for most states, but if if it's a felony, more than likely, the the state will say it's extraditable, that we want them back. [Speaker 7 ]: Is it in the constitution we have to keep them? [Speaker 2 ]: It's and we're not not that we're really keeping them, but it wasn't a crime in our state. So we can't we and we have to interact with them with what they've done in Vermont. But if the other state doesn't ask for them back, we we can't hand them back that way. Mhmm. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Yeah. We deemed a fugitive. Correct. Yeah. Okay. [Speaker 7 ]: Thank you. [Speaker 2 ]: So and again, not to get too bogged down, but what I wanted to just show is, as you follow along into the second row, when the fugitive has been, the officer has gathered all their information, they brought the complaint to the State's attorney. The State's attorney is charging the person as a fugitive from justice. And if there's anything else going on, And this is where if the person does not waive in front of the judge the first time, that red box, right, that then starts the process of, okay, they didn't waive. Now we need to start the process of getting a governor's warrant. And that starts with the state's attorney then saying to the demanding state, your person didn't waive. Here we go. We need to start the process. The demanding state then in those yellow boxes or orange boxes, they do their perforation on their side. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Before you go back at the orange box there. So so this is suggesting that if the crime in the other state is something that has life imprisonment, that they could be held here [Speaker 2 ]: Yeah. Hold bail. That's right. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: So so whatever the the underlying charge of the other state, it does matter for whether we can hold them under without taking care. [Speaker 2 ]: It does. That's in our statute [Speaker 3 ]: in [Speaker 2 ]: this section. So if it's a life something that somebody has up to life, as a possible disposition in their other state, then they can be held. If not if it's not a life offense, then they are available, and the judge has to go through the bail factors. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: And and but it doesn't extend to the, crime of violence against the person where the guilt is gay the evidence of guilt is great. That doesn't qualify. It has to be a lot of concern. Like [Speaker 2 ]: Correct. That's my understanding. Okay. Yes. Otherwise, where it goes through the bail factors. And, again, if there's another Vermont case running parallel, it's a separate Correct. Issue of bail. So for the timepiece of this bail, this is just visually showing you all the steps that need to happen. And that is why the bill requested more time for being able to either hold a person or have them on bail while this process goes on. There's a lot of back and forth. So the demanding State prepares their information that gets reviewed by their Attorney General or equivalent. The demanding State's governor has to sign the requisition. That's then sent to our Attorney General. Our Attorney General's office reviews it to make sure it's legally sufficient. Then it goes to the Governor's office. So all these pieces back and forth. At any point, if something is not legally sufficient, right, it's sent back a step. And so back and forth, back and forth. So you can see why the request for time, were in the bill and the state's attorney, we support that request for time. We understand that the Senate, did not agree to all of the time that was requested. We understand that and we appreciate the more the time that has been, given in this version of the bill. We like the original amount of time. Only because, again, it's just a lot of back and forth. And essentially what happens is if any piece gets stuck along the way, we have to ask for that extension. And we have another thirty days coming up. Well, it was sixteen, now it's thirty. So, So we'd just like you to consider that when you're looking at the timeframes, whether you think that's sufficient. What is in the bill right now? As far as the, so that's section one and two, as far as the timeframes. Does anyone have questions about that? Okay. So the written waiver, as Attorney Johnson explained, currently, even if someone has a written waiver and even if law enforcement has that in the packet right up front, when the person's in front of the judge for the first time, they don't they have currently, they have to sign a waiver in front of a judge in Vermont. And if they say, nope, I don't want two today, Even if they have one, then we go through the whole process. So the provision that has been offered in this bill, I think, representative Oliver was explaining it well. It cuts that process there, that if there is a written waiver that we don't have to have a signing in front of a judge. Now, I think Representative sorry, Representative Oliver raised a good point. Law enforcement picks the person up, sees this, oh, here we are and has the written waiver. In this bill, the law enforcement officer has to contact the state's attorney, because there was a question earlier of what if we want to hold, what if we want to deal with the person with whatever is going here? That's the provision there that the state's attorney, depending on why we had contacted this person, we will want to address the legal issue here in Vermont and then allow the person to be extradited without provisions there. I do believe, and I imagine that attorney here behind me will say, that there does need to be, some court contact there. So if we're going to hold the person while we're waiting for New Hampshire to send their sheriff to come pick them up, if they're being held for a day or two, we need a legal basis to hold them. Right. So the the initial arrest could happen. And then in front of the judge, there needs to be a hold of some type ordered. So that does and there are other provisions within the when you see the section that has that. [Ken Goslant]: Where where where is that [Chair Martin LaLonde]: that we're located right now or is that, Tom? [Speaker 2 ]: Well, so currently, representative Oliver raised, you know, the provision on page three [Tom Burditt]: Yeah. [Speaker 2 ]: That allows law enforcement or Department of Corrections to immediately return someone to the domestic state. They're on the ground. Immediately might mean, you know, two days. If it's, New York City, that, you know, we need to transport, we need to send somebody up to Vermont to pick someone up to bring them back to New York City. It might take twenty four or forty eight hours for that to happen. How are we legally holding that person? We would wanna make sure it's clear. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: And is that not in here right now? [Speaker 2 ]: Or people I don't think it's clearly addressed. We have it in other provisions, but I think we would just wanna tie that up [Speaker 3 ]: Okay. Yeah. [Speaker 2 ]: To just to make sure. Like, if you look at later, where we have the hearing commitment and discharge in five zero four three on page four. That's in connection with fresh pursuit cases where New Hampshire officer is, you know, driving across the bridge, you know, felony. They they they have felonies in process or they, you know, believe it's happened. They are racing across the bridge into Vermont, and they arrest the person in Vermont. That provision there allows, you know, the need to go in front of a judge. The judge needs to make sure that the arrest was lawful and then a hold can happen until that governor's warrant happens. So I think we'd want to have similar language about a hold being allowed, with a assigned paper. So that's only one thing to note. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: So it's does that take care of the issue of the term immediately, or do you have any issue with that term immediately? [Speaker 2 ]: I don't have a I don't have a I don't believe we have an issue with the term immediately. I think we would just want to, for the sake of law enforcement and DOC, I have again that connection with the court to make sure the hold is legal while waiting for the demanding state [Jay Johnson]: to come pick their person up. Right. K. [Speaker 2 ]: But we we support this as a department. Again, it is complicated. And so the additional time is really appreciated, with all the batching forth. And, and we do appreciate, Vermont honoring the waivers that have already been been written and to to shorten the the process. It is time consuming. There's a question about how many of these there are a year. Our department had about fifty in twenty twenty four, so across the state that we were dealing with. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: So so I I have Angela then Tom, but I just wanna clarify. So so the timing changes, the ninety days and such, that's not that's separate from the waiver. The waiver one is gonna actually expedite stuff. Correct. Alright. So I [Speaker 2 ]: just Yes. Exactly. The the the timing piece is for those who either who who did not sign a waiver. Right? So that's the there was an example before someone, you know, doesn't even know if they've been charged or maybe they have a hint that they're gonna be charged, but they wanna see the beautiful Green Mountain State. And then there's an arrest warrant. So then the whole process needs to happen because they haven't signed anything. Yes. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: So it was the term. [Jay Johnson]: Oh, thank you. I was [Speaker 5 ]: just curious, Kim, what the state's attorney's office would would have preferred in terms of the tarnish extension. [Speaker 2 ]: We supported the original request in the governor's omnibus. I believe it was one hundred and twenty days originally. And then there was there had not been a reduction in the the extension of time that had not been in the original bill that was added on the senate side. So the original bill, it was a hundred and twenty days instead of thirty, and Santa landed on ninety for the first part. [Speaker 3 ]: Gotcha. [Speaker 5 ]: And then that reduction on the other side [Speaker 2 ]: I mean, originally, it was we could ask for a sixty day continuance essentially or extension, and it was reduced to thirty. [Tom Burditt]: Just a quick thing to follow-up. I know that when someone signed a waiver in another state, the clock is ticking, so things happen a lot. But my question would be, I noticed we're sending more or allowing people to cross state line after their arraigned more often. Are we having unsign waivers here? [Speaker 2 ]: It's a good question. I don't think so as far as I'm being released on conditions. Mhmm. I don't think that's a No. Right here. Yeah. I'm trying to be real quick of the yeah. I I don't think so. So it'd be more for somebody who's on probation, you know, than than [Tom Burditt]: there's I've seen it on a charge with at least one. [Jay Johnson]: I've seen it on, like, pretrial where But you know, what often happens at least in this sort of New Hampshire, Vermont pipeline, it's Yeah. People live in Vermont. They they live in Vermont. They commit crime to New Hampshire. They walk across the bridge, go home, and then they never show up for court here in New Hampshire. Yeah. [Tom Burditt]: A few minutes then. [Jay Johnson]: Yeah. But they or, for example, they get arrested. They get conditions of release, and it's like, yeah. You can go leaving your house, Vermont. We have to come back for court, and then we don't. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: So just to clarify, so we don't that's not a condition, generally speaking, or at all that you've seen that we we have for individuals going through our courts? [Speaker 2 ]: That they that's tradition as part of conditions of release? Yeah. No. I have not seen that. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Are you [Speaker 3 ]: Who wants to leave them or No. [Tom Burditt]: Wants to replace. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Is that something that we should be considering or looking into as far as an additional possible condition? [Tom Burditt]: You would be after that more often. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Well, we can we can ask Scott. [Speaker 2 ]: Offense and so we'll reserve that question. [Speaker 3 ]: They don't think they go. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: So, Ian, [Ken Goslant]: just really quickly. So with this nice chart, where would the this, day wave expedition? And we now recognize it. [Speaker 2 ]: Right. [Ken Goslant]: The orange box be. [Speaker 2 ]: Yep. So I couldn't get so jazzy to override that. I thought about it for a second, and I ran out of time. So on that first row [Ken Goslant]: Yep. [Speaker 2 ]: This is when, you know, the officer has confirmed the identity and prepares the paperwork. Yep. So at that point, right, that would be where the section on page three would be Yep. That, okay. I need to double check all the information. I need to have that certified copy. I need to check-in with the state's attorney. And then that would be the question there of, like and then court. In my mind and I would think some other witnesses will say, we need to walk by a court just to make sure that initial legal that the arrest was legal. And then whatever hold, if that's what's being asked until the demanding state can come. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Yeah. [Speaker 2 ]: It would be at that first row. [Tom Burditt]: Okay. [Speaker 2 ]: And everything else would be [Ken Goslant]: Yeah. And then one other question. So if they were held on bail or held without bail in Vermont, they would get credit for that time if it was a Vermont charge. [Speaker 2 ]: Yeah. Well, I think it's interesting [Ken Goslant]: Yeah. [Speaker 2 ]: There. If they're being held on their fugitive status, they're not getting credit on their Vermont time unless if they have a charge on their Vermont time [Ken Goslant]: Yep. [Speaker 2 ]: If they're also they need it means they need to be held on that or bailed on that. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Yep. [Tom Burditt]: Does [Speaker 2 ]: that make sense? Yep. Which gets tricky, and some states some states will count the time that they're held here and vice versa, and I wouldn't even start to get into that myself personally. Okay. Complicated. [Ken Goslant]: I was wondering if yeah. Is there something that we could say that recognizes I'm just thinking about it with extending the time. So we're gonna have to hold somebody for longer. I mean, you're acting for a hundred and twenty days holding somebody. That's that could be significant on someone's eventual resolution of their case if they got that time or not if they were in another state. So I was just wondering if there's a way that we could recognize that someone's time held here would be credited if they were held on bail when they were eventually extradited. [Speaker 2 ]: So what gets tricky is we can't tell the other states what to do as far as how they run their clock. So that's that's the only couple to be there. [Ken Goslant]: And in Vermont, do we recognize time that people sit waiting to be extradited in another state when they eventually come back here and their case resolves? [Speaker 2 ]: Again, I think it's it's complicated. I and I'm not the best person to ask COVID because I only had three cases where I was bringing someone back, and it became a part of our renegotiation about what time are we counting and what could we count and when does what we counted was when the our sheriff's department went down and listened had the person, and then it took them a week to drive back or something from Florida. Like, all of that time is counted. Yeah. But I can't remember whether we counted but I knew it was part of our negotiation, and attorney over here might be able to to better address that because he's probably negotiated that time. So I'm not the best person to ask, but I can follow-up on it. No. I mean not answered. Yeah. [Ken Goslant]: And I don't wanna go way into the weeds on it. It's just as we're talking about that extension of time at the beginning, it's just sort of it feels like someone was interested about it. [Speaker 2 ]: And, again, if things flow smoothly, like, it's not like we're waiting for that hundred and twenty days. Like, it's that the back and forth. Sometimes it takes that long. Sometimes it's smoother. Right? And then we don't need all that time. [Speaker 7 ]: They could wave extradition again. [Speaker 2 ]: And at any point yeah. Well, that's a great point. Is that at any point in this flowchart That's true. Wave. Yeah. [Speaker 3 ]: Get into jail pretty quick. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Yeah. Alright. Any other questions for Kim? That's okay. Alright. Thank you very much. So we will take a five minute ish.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Judiciary - 2025-03-27 - 9:00 AM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: