[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6282999,"mediaKeyId","2591214-91222f24f94dd6672ffce6a6b3598970","parentId",2591214,"title","Committee debate on S.45 centers on trespass language and farm definition thresholds","audioSeconds",349,"startMs",1292000,"endMs",1641000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2591214-91222f24f94dd6672ffce6a6b3598970&start=1292&end=1641","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2591214-91222f24f94dd6672ffce6a6b3598970/thumbnail_1292000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6282999/Vermont/Committee-debate-on-S45-centers-on-trespass-language-and-farm-definition-thresholds","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6282999-bb4e93b3c8c4f8ba90af5fc7cf2d9f1a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775962833&Signature=O9oZe1BKn0pw3TT7ONSdo1hYfENYqbY4p40CXul77PEERUGk~YnDKlirWf-U94uwoF6c2O98utzP44CkX-8AVmnVjJbLQCvjDa0MPmWZBvG~pki0RE5Ug6k~7Yh5dMXso-4AHlgMlrW3GphLZdNsr6K0Hk~chMlmIvhlCp82MFdMW1Y0C2uaHbFKqdDKgTe6GoI1Y8xS6HC7SszepGp1z6wNRPfHtylYccH807~tYdG1klD~aMCww2SJu3GN3dD32NROpFOLa2av24bweTFQ1Qop-1B7usCUEM-mSYCUkvLsGocBzo7LdVtn0fPqNr6kge3R5WPETK0GE6t5oVJglg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Vermont Senate Committee on Judiciary","date","2025-03-13T01:54:51Z","article","Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed S.45 on March 12 and debated whether the bill's immunity provisions should include trespass and whether the statutory threshold for what constitutes a farm is set appropriately.

One committee member warned that including trespass converts the bill from nuisance protection into addressing “a physical incursion” and said they “do not want trespass in the bill.” That speaker noted they had asked legislative counsel and found only three other states include trespass in similar right‑to‑farm statutes, and one of the examples they cited (Oregon) applies a very narrow standard for liability.

Other members said trespass language would have to be fact‑specific and depend on whether a farmer acted outside the scope of generally accepted agricultural practices or violated rules set by the Agency of Agriculture. A member who identified themselves as representing Franklin County said the bill’s current threshold for defining a farm — $2,000 in agricultural product sales — is too low and may improperly broaden protections.

Committee members discussed mediation language and clarifying when an attempt at mediation is sufficient. One staff presenter said she had recommended clarifying changes on mediation wording and did not foresee additional changes before a final draft. Members agreed to wait for input from the sponsor and for additional drafting before taking a final vote; no formal vote occurred in the transcript provided.

Speakers repeatedly emphasized the practical burdens of litigation on small farmers, noting that defending against a nuisance or trespass claim can require substantial time and cost that jeopardizes farm operations. Several members said the bill, as worked out with the Agriculture Committee, attempts to strike a balance by focusing liability questions on whether practices are “generally accepted” in farming and by preserving a path for aggrieved parties to bring suits when regulations or standards were breached.

The committee paused consideration to wait for the primary sponsor, who was expected to appear later in the session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary - 2025-03-12 - 9:20 AM","oneSentenceSummary","During a review of S.45 (a right‑to‑farm measure), committee members expressed strong disagreement over inserting trespass into the statute and questioned whether the bill's thresholds for defining a farm are too low.","taxTitle","Judiciary, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",47267,"location","Vermont","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6283001,"Public defender warns S.87 could lengthen pre‑extradition detention; committee discusses trimming extension",459,30000,489000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2591214-91222f24f94dd6672ffce6a6b3598970&start=30&end=489","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2591214-91222f24f94dd6672ffce6a6b3598970/thumbnail_30000.jpg","/articles/6283001/Vermont/Public-defender-warns-S87-could-lengthen-preextradition-detention-committee-discusses-trimming-extension","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6283001-b5c994adebaff2cf90457637f845dd45/orig.mp4?Expires=1775962833&Signature=ApvPzZIrHFzqzvK9MWnAsXgyQ7tr8xbETyE1ZXSg~5lqXd5U4yJhTObvdz4W1z5okLMI1EbqV2EfbqvY0kM~rYdC~MoAgI9koWblC-Hunlw~pcEwDM13NkyaNsEc2cuJTsqDsP1diMQXrXDYuc7j21cA7x1SiexWZycRJdPAORoEcEnKSu35eK8ndyZIHLW2i-DXXWQubL61w3fXDKGwehZJqejeB0WEjTfSoB42MQI1bUN2bQwGyqJXm90MKEBNG8Y6WUJanhduJY2dk1jOzrjBbr~nHpfTBmUBPa3DLLc4DofggsmMyE-vJqd0E-U9mtuoK1nuI2mpZAgJRCBKOA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A supervisor attorney from the Burlington Public Defender's Office told the Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee on March 12 that S.87, as drafted, would extend the default period a person can be held pending a governor's warrant and could expose defendants to longer pre‑extradition detention.

Josh, supervisor attorney in the Burlington Public Defender's Office, said his office “does not necessarily oppose or support S.87 as it's drafted.” He explained the current statutory procedure: when a person wanted in another state is arrested in Vermont they are brought before a judge under the statutes cited in the hearing. Under the present text, a judge sets conditions and an initial period of roughly 30 days to allow the demanding state to secure a governor's warrant; prosecutors may then request an additional 60 days under the existing extension provision, commonly leading to a practical 90‑day maximum while extradition paperwork is completed.

“[T]he effect that section 1 would have would be to take that 30 day period and get a hundred and 20 days,” Josh said, describing the draft's change to make 120 days the default and leave the extension mechanism in place, which could allow an additional 60 days. He warned that because bail and conditions can remain in place during the extended period, “our clients [face] the potential that they'll be held essentially double the amount of time that they would have held otherwise.”

Josh also described section 2 of the bill, which would add an advanced waiver procedure allowing a person to waive extradition earlier under specified conditions. He said courts in other states have treated such waiver procedures as consistent with uniform extradition principles and that advanced waivers have been upheld where statutory procedures are not deemed exclusive.

Committee members repeatedly returned to the Vermont Supreme Court's reading of the current statute and the case the witness cited, Severson. Members pressed whether the committee should set a default that aligns with the court's interpretation. Several senators suggested a compromise: change the bill so the default period is 90 days and reduce the length of the statutory extension from 60 days to 30 days, keeping a path for the demanding state to seek additional time in extraordinary circumstances. One member asked whether changing section 1 to 90 days and amending 49.57 to shorten the extension would be feasible; staff and other members indicated they could draft that markup.

The committee also asked about how voluntary waivers operate in practice. Josh described attorney advice and client choice factors, including that some people—particularly minors—may prefer to remain in Vermont with family for a time before returning to the demanding state. He said counsel should advise clients about the likely effect of waiving extradition, including that a waiver can shorten the time spent in custody because it expedites return to the demanding state.

No formal vote was recorded in the transcript. Members agreed to pause the hearing and return later; staff indicated they would prepare a markup reflecting the 90‑day baseline and a shorter extension for future consideration.","A Burlington Public Defender attorney told the Senate Judiciary Committee that S.87 as drafted would extend the default time a person can be held pending an interstate governor's warrant and could increase total pre‑extradition detention. Committee members discussed cutting the default to 90 days and narrowing extensions to 30 days.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee debate on S.45 centers on trespass language and farm definition thresholds

Public defender warns S.87 could lengthen pre‑extradition detention; committee discusses trimming extension