State Rep. Fears Vt. Version of Daniel's Law Could Lead to Abuse
Vermont House Judiciary Chair Martin LaLonde (D) plans on sharing multiple concerns with a bill that echoes New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law with the Commerce Committee, he said at a Judiciary meeting livestreamed Wednesday. Judiciary will punt H-342 to Commerce after hearing testimony on the measure Tuesday (see 2503110077), he said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
While Judiciary members, including LaLonde and Vice Chair Thomas Burditt (R), mostly agreed that the bill protecting personal information of public servants is necessary, Rep. Zachary Harvey (R) raised concerns about the measure leading to many lawsuits outside of lawmakers’ intent.
"I am not opposed to protecting the confidential information of people who are doing such important work on behalf of the state,” said Harvey. “What I'm against is the environment this creates and the opportunity for bad actors to come in and take advantage of [the terms] law enforcement and covered persons, [which] we have seen happen in New Jersey and is ripe for abuse … I frankly don't want that to happen in the state of Vermont.”
LaLonde said he’d pass along that concern, among various others. The chair said he plans to recommend adding additional covered entities to the bill, including victim advocates in the state attorney's office and state police, mental health crisis workers in state police, court staff, the attorney general’s office and the Vermont Human Rights Commission.
The chair said another concern is that 10 business days may be too short in part of the bill that says a “data broker that receives a notice from a covered person … that discloses or rediscloses the covered person’s protected information more than 10 business days after receiving the notice is in violation of this section.”
Also, LaLonde questioned the language that says “It shall not be a defense to liability in a judicial proceeding that the covered person’s protected information is or was available to the public from other sources, on the internet or otherwise, or available by inspection of public records.” The chair remarked, “It seems like if the names are readily available, [then] that should be a defense.”
Committee members also raised concerns about the bill’s proposed penalty of $1,000 in damages. Rep. Ian Goodnow (D) suggested LaLonde note that Judiciary heard testimony that including a criminal offense, as in Daniel's Law, is "important for enforcement because some of these companies are so big that they don't care at all about the fine.” LaLonde agreed to share that, though he said the bill would have to come back to Judiciary if that change is made.