SmartTranscript of CoC - H 534 - 2024-05-09 - 3:20PM

[Speaker 0]: We are live. [Senator Ruth]: Okay. This is a conference committee for h five three four, the retail theft bill. We're here with five countries and senator Sears is remote. But I thought we would start with having Derek Fitzpatrick walk us through the differences and, you know, on a on a high level, but it's short enough that we can dig right into the details, I guess. [Eric]: Sure. Will do. Thank you, senator Ruth, and good afternoon, everybody. Eric with the office of Legislative Capital here as as the chair of the conference committee said to explain the changes between the senate and the house versions of eight five to report activating the retail theft. It's going sort of from the back to the front just because we need to really focus on sections three and four, which are pages two, three, and four. The reason for that is those sections, while they were struck from the senate version of the bill, they were actually put into a different they were put into the house correction I'm sorry. The corrections miscellaneous bill, [Speaker 0]: and they passed in that bill. [Eric]: So I don't know there in this bill anymore. They nevertheless passed elsewhere. So this is the background information on those sections. So the real stuff that's different. They have passed [Representative Bill]: out of both bodies? [Senator Ruth]: I don't know if it's [Eric]: quite gotten there yet, but I my understanding was that it was moving in that direction. [Speaker 4]: It's not fully passed yet. [Senator Ruth]: No. So [Representative Bill]: I just feel that's important to note because then those things are still in play then. So for us to just hold that. [Eric]: Sure. So, yes, that's the background on directions and pieces. The first section first two sections really deal with the if both the House and Senate versions address the issue of what to do with multiple offenses of the retail theft offense. Right? What happens when there's multiple misdemeanor offenses in particular? And remember that a misdemeanor retail theft is when it involves merchandise at nine hundred dollars in value or less. Right? So what do we do in those situations? And the house and senate took two different approaches. The house's approach is to say, alright, when there's when there's more than one misdemeanor retail theft event that took place at more than one location within a fourteen day period in a single county, well, in that case, there would be a felony penalty that would apply. Ten year felony, thousand dollar fine. So in a sense, the the aggregate amount of property stolen [Speaker 0]: could be added together if [Eric]: there was more than one events within that fourteen day period in a single county, and that would bump up the felony. Senate approach was different, but also addressing the same problem, which is the problem, as I said, of misdemeanor multiple misdemeanor retail deaths. And the senate approach rather was to say, keep the idea of the misdemeanor based on the nine hundred dollars less value, but a system of graduated penalties based on multiple events. So in other words, the first time that you can commit the misdemeanor events, the penalty would actually be a little bit less than it is in current law, actually credit plus. Rather than six months imprisonment, it would be thirty days. For a second offense, it would step up. In that case, the six month thirty thousand dollar fine would take in. For a third offense, then you would move into the felony range. So that would be a fifteen hundred dollar fine, three years in prison, which is about make this two years as the the dividing line between these two felonies. And then fourth or subsequent events, you would hit that maximum penalty of ten years in prison. Twenty five hundred dollars fine again. Obviously, it's serious. So it's basically two approaches that addressing the similar issue of multiple misdemeanor retail thefts and how you would [Senator Ruth]: Thank you, Eric. Any questions for Eric? No. Pretty pretty clear. So if you all don't mind, I I can start with why we didn't follow your approach, and maybe we've misunderstood it or but a couple of years ago, I wanna say two years ago, we took up a bill that was somewhat similar to this. So it aggregated offenses. And if if you hold over nine hundred because of that aggregate, then it stepped up penalties beyond where beyond the misdemeanor. Problem that we incurred was mostly Matt Valerio argued that it was unconstitutional in his opinion to be aggregating offenses, but he pointed out also some just practical things. So when I look at your language, I I assume what this means is that a person who is convicted of one or more retail theft within a fourteen day period. In other words, the fact that somebody is cited in multiple places, they're not yet convicted. So you would need to pursue both of those separately, it seems to be, and then you aggregate if there were two convictions. So let in other words, let's say someone robbed a store of seven hundred dollars in Burlington on a Monday, and then on the Wednesday, they robbed South Burlington. They're caught in both places. Both get sent to the district attorney or the state's attorney. Then it seems to me there's a there's a the only way you would be able to invoke this is if they were convicted on both charges, in which in which case then is this an added penalty because you were found to have convicted have been convicted on both within a fourteen day period? Or is your approach that if you're cited twice within a fourteen day period? Because that doesn't make a lot of sense to me because you're innocent till proven guilty. So I don't know how you can if you haven't been convicted of both, how can you be cited for having two within fourteen days? That makes sense? It does. And Okay. [Speaker 4]: And and so to to response, so what we are envisioning with the house bill envisions is actually aggregating them when someone has been cited for the events, not after a conviction. With the idea being that if someone has the pending charges for retail theft over this fourteen day period, they could be combined into this more serious charge and the person has not been found guilty of anything by putting all these charges into into the same bucket, they would still need to be found guilty of the aggregate of charges. Mhmm. But by combining them, it's a means to show that someone is committing repeat offenses, albeit combined into one for the purpose of the court hearing, and that that would carry a greater penalty. [Representative Bill]: May I add something? I just remember from, testimony we heard too because I think that was a piece of it. It's a until proven guilty piece. But what we were hearing, I think it was from, Jim even, is that there is an abundance of evidence a lot of time. Like, there's camera footage. There's everything. So it is just a matter like, it's obvious this is a granted you still want somebody to have to go through the judicial process, but that was what we were trying to do. It was, like Mhmm. Evidence is clear. Can we put these things together to really hold somebody accountable for the full effect of what they're stealing? [Senator Ruth]: So the way I'm just trying to figure out the way it would work. So the two law enforcement agencies don't know about the other charge. So they each separately move a a charge to the state's attorney, and then the state's attorney has to make the connection and determine that it was within a fourteen day window. [Speaker 4]: So, yeah, the the aggregation would happen at the state's attorney's level because that that's where where it does come together. And then the that is one of the reasons why the bills we envisioned it. The offenses all had to happen in the same county so that it was the same state's attorney who was who was handling the the cases. But yes. So the aggregation would happen at state's attorney's office and I would just point out as well is representative Bill mentioned. We were told a lot of times there's camera footage from from stores whatnot. They would be up to the state's attorney whether to activate the combine the charges or not. So if you have someone with four retail thefts of span of of ten, fourteen days, the state's attorney could look and say, well, we've got strong evidence for these three and they get us over the nine hundred dollar threshold. We don't have to worry about this one more, say, there's no camera footage. So the ability to make a strong case Mhmm. Rests with the state's attorney. [Senator Ruth]: Okay. So then one last thing, and then I Dick, then then I'll turn it over to you for your opinion on this. So what I'm wondering is what we heard from witnesses is that the nine hundred dollar limit was low enough and state's attorneys were reluctant enough that it wasn't enough in the current law to wind up getting charges moving through the the system. So police weren't arresting, state's attorneys weren't prosecuting, etcetera. So if I'm understanding your proposal right, they we would still be operating under current law in each of the two instances. So how does it help that problem? Because it's only at a later stage that the district attorney might make the connection. I think a fourteen day window is a pretty narrow time for a district attorney to put two and two together and say, there are two different pending charges. But am I understanding the right that each of them would be happening under the current state of law, and it's only later that there would be an enhanced penalty if they were both prosecuted. Problem being that people are saying under current law, they're not prosecuting, and this wouldn't change the current law for the two component prosecutions. Does that make sense? [Speaker 4]: That makes sense. And, but one one of the what means to address this, and we, you know, we heard from retail establishments. I manage a retail establishment in downtown Rutland. And one of the concerns is, yeah, these minor crimes are not always being prosecuted. But the idea being, if you had a means to to combine, if you had a means to make them a more serious charge, then you might see more action and and more remedy. And one thing that was pointed out to us when we took testimony and we heard from Rutland County State's Attorney is that Rutland saw the Rutland region, Rutland State, Rutland Town saw a significant drop in in in retail fabs. Sorry. I still have your thunder. Yeah. We saw a significant drop in retail fab because five individuals were all in the in the local jail going through [Speaker 0]: the court system at the [Eric]: same time. [Speaker 4]: And just having those five individuals off the streets Yeah. Made a huge difference in the day to day theft level we're seeing. So this doesn't need to be this doesn't need to see widespread use to be success. It just needs to make it easier to prosecute and have higher penalties for a small number of bad actors, and it would have a significant improvement on the ground in in many communities in the state. And these [Speaker 0]: those five bad actors that he's talking about were were hitting the threshold in a day. Being caught and hitting the threshold, but, you know, they they need the fixes that they need because they're going to steal and stuff and selling it and going and buying what they need to buy. And and one other thing that happened, of course, getting them off the streets, the the the retail that plummeted, but they're I'll call them their associates, people that they knew Mhmm. Also slowed down on their retail debt because they saw those consequences. Mhmm. [Senator Ruth]: And and I I totally get that. I the piece I'm missing is how your approach makes it more likely that somebody will get prosecuted given that the law enforcement agency involved doesn't know about the second, You know, that's gonna happen five days from now. So they don't know about it, and the state's attorney, I would argue, is not gonna have time in fourteen days to connect these dots. [Speaker 0]: But yeah. I might add to that. Yeah. Go ahead. But the problem has with the fourteen day period. Okay? One, this is a tracking nightmare, Okay. For a local law enforcement agency. Because if you picked up for a minor or misdemeanor retail violation, the option is gonna have six to eight weeks to file that paperwork. Okay. State's turned ninety one c. It's a misdemeanor. So by the time it gets over there, these people could continue to do this thing. So my my concern is with the fourteen day period, I can tell you from experience that a misdemeanor violation does not get over till six to eight weeks after the alleged offense occurred. [Speaker 4]: The charge doesn't need to be aggregated in fourteen days after the initial charge. The fourteen days is the time period from one charge to another that could be aggregated. And that doesn't necessarily have to happen immediately. That could happen in in the process later. And and the and the question I would have in regards to, law enforcement and using it more is, based on testimony that that we heard, I think it'd be fairly clear to a arresting officer, an officer who's responding, whether someone is new, you know, some some kid shoplifting, you know, first time offender versus the regular people they see. I know from talking to members of the Rutland City Police Department that they know who the players are. They know who when they're called to our our main areas of retail theft defense, which for us is our our downtown plaza where the Walmart and the the price chopper are. Half the time, they they know who they're gonna see. So the the offenders who would fall under this, it it would be very clear if this was was enacted to to law enforcement, like, who is gonna apply to that because they they're familiar with these [Speaker 0]: like exactly. [Senator Sears]: And I If I if I might. [Speaker 0]: Okay. This is very rural and the same doesn't apply. [Senator Ruth]: Let me bring out senator Sears in. Go ahead, Jay. [Senator Sears]: Yeah. I just just I think we're all on the same page. We're trying to solve a problem. But my my issue with the proposal from the house is mainly that things that both senator Bruce and senator Norris brought up. But, also, I live in Bennington. We have a lot of theft, quite frankly, between Manchester and Rutland. People go to Rutland, steal from your stores, go down to Manchester, steal from those stores, and that wouldn't count. So that's like a different criminal justice system by having it in the same county. That that's problem number one. Problem number two is I do believe it is unconstitutional, or may it will certainly be challenged the first case that comes forward. The defender general's office made that clear. And the other issue I would raise is your, your proposal doesn't take into account what if it was two hundred dollars and it's pre charged, and the next one is seven hundred. So you you haven't got to the nine hundred because they've already been diverted. And I do wanna you know, I I'm very happy that Rutland was able to lower the theft by putting people in jail. But I I most cases are misdemeanors. Both would be misdemeanors, and so they probably would not have, any jail time, so they'd be out for to whenever it all resolves. So those are my comments. [Senator Ruth]: Okay. Great. In the time we have left, maybe you could tell us what about our approach puts you off and why you don't think it's workable, and then we could we'll we'll have an even playing field again. [Speaker 4]: Certainly. And, you know, I'll just I'll just speak first and say that our concern is by not by not aggregating the offenses by just going on a sort of one, two, three basis that someone could end up with a, you know, very serious penalty for what could in and of itself be a very minor offense without tying it to say this this nine hundred dollar threshold. Mhmm. You know, theoretically, someone could do a, you know, very small theft under under twenty dollars, under ten dollars. But if they're caught doing it just a handful of times, then the the penalty seems overly severe. [Senator Ruth]: Fair point. [Representative Bill]: I think that is the piece the sharing from community members as well, simply thinking about youth that could fall into this, and that they yeah. It's very broad. It could affect a lot of people where I think our goal was to really target the repeat offenders that are stealing from establishments regularly and stealing just under that nine hundred Yeah. Dollar threshold and wanting to be able to say, no. You can't skirt around the law that way. If you keep doing this, it's gonna add up, and we're gonna hold you at the felony level. [Senator Ruth]: Just a question for my own curiosity, because I had a question on the floor like that. It was stealing bottle of soda or something like that. If if it were a range, so it had to be over, let's say, two hundred and fifty dollars but under nine hundred, would something like that help help in terms of accepting that approach? So then you'd know that somebody was stealing a substantial amount of goods multiple times. I mean, there are some people who who think that felonies at all for shoplifting should never occur. That's not the approach we're taking. But just wondering if there's a way to make the the the threshold range acceptable. Right. Who would've thought? Who would've thought? Yeah. Yeah. [Speaker 4]: And I mean, and that's what their approach, and we're taking either because, obviously, we're combining into a felony. Yeah. So I do find the idea that if there was a amount to ensure that it's not canisodic type thing, that it was someone who was a serious criminal actor Mhmm. Yeah. That's definitely food for thought. [Representative Bill]: That may add another piece for food for thought. I think it's also considering the time span too because I could see a youth. Again, even the two hundred whatever we do, you know, they could rack it up as a youth and then say, you know, something happens down the road. They make a mistake and have that fourth one. Now it's a felony. I see. But I just wanna say like, again, if we're really trying to get these repeat offenders that are doing on a regular intentional basis Mhmm. That's who I think we're trying to look at. Not somebody who had the spree fixed and maybe had a relapse or something. I don't. [Senator Ruth]: So maybe within within a three or five year period. [Representative Bill]: Again, food for thought to think about. [Speaker 0]: Okay. Great. Oh, one more thing. Senator senator Sood, just wanna address one thing you said around the keeping it to the single counties. The main reason for that was the potential logistics nightmare. [Eric]: Drive in that [Senator Sears]: in the in this. [Eric]: Yeah. [Senator Sears]: I yes. I did. I think yeah. I understand why you kept it in the Sangre County. I don't think you could coordinate between state's attorneys, but it Right. It does leave you with some disparity in what would happen. Right. I've and and other alternative in our construct might be to put a hundred or two hundred dollar limit on what would be counted towards the [Speaker 0]: A floor. Yeah. [Senator Sears]: A floor. What would be counted towards the so it wouldn't be the lady who walks into price chopper and steals pound and a half a hamburger because she's starving. [Speaker 0]: Right. The price of the hamburger nowadays, it could reach the threshold. Wow. I [Senator Sears]: I understand that. [Speaker 0]: Yeah. The two [Speaker 4]: hundred dollar floor in the as the defenses reoccur, we get us close to the nine hundred dollar amount we are going on on this side and something like a five year time limit so that someone didn't have, like, one [Senator Sears]: Just scan it to the to the I [Speaker 4]: I think that sounds like we're we're honing in on something we could [Senator Ruth]: all agree on. So let me ask, since we're running up on time for your other conference committee, would you prefer to put together a proposal to bring [Speaker 0]: to us or vice versa? You could come up with one? [Speaker 4]: Yeah. It's good. Yeah. I'm coming up with that. [Senator Ruth]: Alright. Why don't I have who who would schedule for you guys? Ashley will do it for us. Who should she be in touch with? [Speaker 0]: She needs to reach out to me. [Senator Ruth]: Okay. Great. So we'll put together as soon as we can. Well, Well, would you wanna do it later today or early tomorrow morning? [Speaker 4]: I think either either way is fine. [Senator Ruth]: I I could do it early tomorrow morning easier Right. Because I don't know when we'll [Senator Sears]: Judiciary's meeting at nine tomorrow morning. We should be done by nine thirty at the latest. [Senator Ruth]: We're on the floor at ten. What about eight thirty, Dick, for this? [Senator Sears]: That could work for me. I may not be fully dressed. [Representative Bill]: We would prefer fully dressed. Let's do later then. [Senator Sears]: No. I'm flat I'm I'm joking. [Senator Ruth]: So does eight thirty work for you? I guess I'll have I just [Speaker 0]: thought I got a caucus at eight from the other parties. Then you [Senator Ruth]: can leave caucus at eight thirty. Yeah. Come over here. Great. Okay. So we could see you here at eight thirty and Perfect. Can I ask [Speaker 0]: a question before we disperse here? I don't understand the fourteen day period. More than one retail theft within a fourteen day period. So if if it doesn't accumulate up to the aggregate you're looking for and the fourteen days is going by and they start all over again in in on day fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen, how does that affect your proposal here? It's gonna explain that to me or The the fourteen We gotta can shift. [Senator Ruth]: We gotta go. Oh, [Speaker 0]: you're I'm here. [Senator Sears]: So so [Speaker 4]: then fourteen days can shift. It doesn't have to be, like, your first rest.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of CoC - H 534 - 2024-05-09 - 3:20PM

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