Vermont council details April 2024 updates to fair-and-impartial-policing model, clarifies immigration, data and access rules

The Vermont Criminal Justice Council outlined April 2024 revisions to the state’s model fair and impartial policing policy at a joint Senate and House Judiciary hearing, telling lawmakers the update clarifies immigration‑related procedures, roadside stop data collection and officers’ obligations when federal immigration agents seek access to detained people.

The changes matter because the statute that requires the policy — 20 VSA, section 2366 — ties the model policy to every law‑enforcement agency in Vermont and requires agencies to adopt the Council’s components, submit annual compliance reports and post stop data publicly, counsel Ben Novodrovsky told the committees. “The statute is 20 VSA, section 2,366,” Novodrovsky said in the hearing.

The Council’s executive director, Christopher Rekheldin, described the April 2024 policy as the product of public meetings and broad stakeholder input. “This is a collective body of work that resulted in the latest draft of what this policy is,” Rekheldin said.

Key substantive changes - Rule‑3 and immigration status: The policy now states that citizenship or immigration status shall not be used as a reason to arrest someone instead of citing them, and shall not alone affect Rule 3 custody determinations except when citizenship or immigration status is an essential element of the offense. The Council said the language narrows earlier guidance that warned against presuming undocumented status as a flight risk. - Enforcement priorities for federal immigration crimes: The policy says enforcement of federal criminal immigration law generally is not a priority for Vermont agencies. Members “should not make warrantless arrests, detain individuals, facilitate the detention of individuals, or otherwise expend resources investigating or enforcing unlawful entry or unlawful reentry cases” unless 1) necessary to ensure public or officer safety, or 2) integral to an investigation of unrelated criminal offenses, Rekheldin said. - Restricted access by federal immigration agents: The policy now limits when federal immigration agents may access individuals in custody. Absent a judicially issued criminal warrant or a legitimate law‑enforcement purpose exclusive of civil immigration enforcement, agency members shall not grant immigration authorities access to individuals in restricted portions of agency facilities nor facilitate access to people in custody, Rekheldin testified.

Identification and documentation The Council added two subsections addressing identity requests during traffic stops. Absent reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity, officers shall not require passengers in motor vehicles to provide identification; a passenger’s refusal to provide ID does not alone constitute reasonable suspicion. The policy also states an individual’s failure to provide a Social Security number on a standardized form does not on its own constitute reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity.

Data, transparency and training The statute requires agencies to collect roadside stop data — including age, gender and race of the driver; grounds for the stop; search grounds and type; evidence located; date, time and location; outcomes; and whether force was used — and to submit that data to the Council and the Council’s vendor. The Council must post the resulting analysis publicly. Novodrovsky summarized the statutory collection requirements.

Rekheldin told the committees the Council has made training a central part of implementation. The Council’s fair and impartial policing training is competency‑based, delivered to recruits and required of all Vermont certified officers in odd‑numbered years. “This year’s training has 4 separate modules” covering the policy, data collection, vehicle stops and scenario‑based competency assessments, Rekheldin said; he added that nearly 800 officers had completed the training so far and that officers have until year’s end to finish it.

Accountability and enforcement State law requires agencies to investigate allegations of willful violations or substantial deviations from the model policy. The Council, acting under Act 56, can impose certification sanctions, including permanent decertification. Rekheldin said the Council accepts complaints from any source (including anonymous submissions), reviews agency investigations, may ask for additional information, and can initiate its own inquiries if an agency’s internal process is not valid. He reported that, in the past two years, two complaints reached the Council level: one self‑reported and one still under investigation.

Compliance and local differences The Council told lawmakers it is working with three agencies that remain out of compliance while negotiating policy language that aligns local ordinances and the model policy. Rekheldin identified those jurisdictions as the town of Hartford, the town of Richmond and the Essex County Sheriff’s Department and said the Council has met recently with each to resolve differences in policy language.

Cooperation with federal partners Commissioner Jennifer Morrison of the Vermont Department of Public Safety and Captain Skip Barnes of the Vermont State Police described routine operational cooperation with federal border and immigration authorities on investigations and emergency responses. Morrison said federal partners often provide first‑response resources on the northern border and that cooperation has helped in investigations involving cross‑border trafficking, guns and human‑trafficking victims. Captain Barnes gave examples in which Border Patrol intelligence or intervention aided state investigations or located victims.

Morrison also cautioned that imposing a blanket prohibition on cooperation with federal immigration authorities — or declaring Vermont a sanctuary state — could create legal conflicts and risk federal funding used across public‑safety programs. She told the committees the model policy includes a “savings clause” to avoid conflict with federal statutes and argued the Council’s policy strikes a balance: “this policy was designed on a blue sky day precisely for a rainy day,” she said.

Unresolved questions Lawmakers asked about the completeness and analytical usefulness of stop data, how technology and new surveillance sources intersect with the policy, and what proactive auditing the Council performs. Rekheldin said Vermont’s small sample sizes complicate some external analyses and that the Council is starting audits this year using a newly hired investigator to verify agencies maintain policies and investigative procedures beyond self‑attestation.

What happened at the hearing No formal votes were taken during the hearing. The session was a legislative briefing and question‑and‑answer format in which legislative counsel, the Council’s executive director, the Department of Public Safety commissioner, chiefs, sheriffs and a state police captain described the policy, its changes, training and operational impacts. Lawmakers pressed for additional detail on data reliability, local compliance, and how technology and surveillance practices intersect with fair‑and‑impartial policing obligations.

Looking ahead Council staff told the committees the model policy and a plain‑language explanatory statement have been translated into multiple languages and made available on the Council’s website. The Council said it will continue outreach, auditing and collaboration with local jurisdictions to resolve outstanding compliance issues and to support agency implementation of the April 2024 model policy.