Judiciary committee told 24 state transport deputies strain court scheduling; staff and sheriffs ask for six more

Committee members and law-enforcement leaders told the Judiciary Committee on an unspecified date that the state’s 24 state transport deputies are stretched thin and that the office has requested six additional deputies to reduce overtime, avoid single-officer transports and ease pressure on court scheduling.

The committee chair opened the hearing by saying the panel would focus on “how remote hearings are working and how transports are or are not working” as they affect case processing and time to disposition. Annie Noonan, a judiciary staffer, and a central office transport supervisor identified as Tim described the state transport program’s duties and limits, including that the 24 state transport deputies are intended to move detained people between correctional facilities and courthouses when a judge orders it.

Noonan and Tim told the committee the transport program is intended to supplement county sheriffs, not replace them, and that not every county has a state transport deputy assigned. They said multiple factors are straining the program: high demand as courts return to in-person calendars, fewer per-diem deputies available since the pandemic, and limits on relying on the Department of Corrections for ad hoc moves. Tim said the program has “only 24 staff and 14 counties,” that many transport days require two deputies for safety, and that county caseloads vary (for example, Chittenden runs more courts and therefore uses more deputy time).

Sheriffs told the committee the workload is complex, statewide and often unpredictable. Mark Anderson, sheriff of Windham County and president of the Vermont Sheriffs Association, said deputies travel to regional facilities including Rutland, Newport, Chittenden and St. Albans and that some counties (for example, those near medical or mental-health facilities) handle a disproportionate share of specialized transports. He described the program’s funding mix — state pays the 24 deputies’ salaries while counties provide vehicles and equipment — and said rising costs for vehicles, training and benefits make it harder for counties to supply per-diem deputies.

Roger Marcu (identified in the hearing as the sheriff of a different county) and another sheriff present emphasized safety concerns about single-officer transports. One sheriff said the practice has occurred in some counties when staffing is thin and called it “untenable” as a liability and safety practice.

Committee members and speakers discussed a specific procedural interaction between transports and remote hearings: the 24‑hour arraignment delay rule. Noonan explained that when a detained person invokes the 24‑hour consult-with-counsel window, moving that person across the state for the next-day arraignment can be inefficient; in some cases, courts and transport teams use remote arraignments to avoid a risky or costly overnight transport. Noonan said a recent case illustrated that remote hearings can “avoid liability during the transport” and permit courts to meet the 24‑hour rule without adding a long movement of a detained person.

At the same time, judges and prosecutors in the hearing noted limits to remote hearings. Remote status conferences and certain non-incarceration matters were described as efficient uses of remote technology, but several speakers said in-person appearances are sometimes necessary to secure a timely resolution (for example, plea offers that would result in immediate release, or complex hearings where counsel must meet in person with detained clients). A committee member cited examples where remote hearings constrained defense attorneys’ ability to meet multiple clients when attorneys and clients are dispersed.

Speakers also outlined workforce and retirement pressures. A witness said most state transport deputies hold a higher certification level (referred to as “level 3”) and that recruitment into law enforcement remains difficult statewide. The committee heard that many deputies are in a mandatory retirement system (referred to in the hearing as Group C with a mandatory retirement age of 57) and that a small number of deputies remain in other retirement groups; witnesses said one or two deputies may be exempt from the mandatory retirement rule. Tim and sheriffs said vacancy savings in the sheriffs’ budget — a figure discussed as roughly $672,000 — have reduced counties’ ability to fill positions, and that two current vacancies are being held to meet this year’s vacancy‑savings target.

Committee members asked whether transport staffing shortfalls had caused measurable slowdowns in case processing. Speakers said transport limits forced occasional rescheduling (particularly when detained individuals must be prioritized), and that the frequency of “no available deputy” calls has increased in the past year; however, they did not assert a quantified statewide backlog attributable only to transport shortages.

All witnesses who described staffing needs said additional deputies would reduce overtime, improve scheduling predictability and mitigate the risk of single-officer transports. The sheriffs and judiciary staff also described how federal pandemic-era funding (the Coronavirus Relief Fund and ARPA) paid for much of the initial remote‑hearing technology in courtrooms and prosecutor offices, while corrections did not receive the same one-time infrastructure funding; that mismatch has affected how and where remote hearings can be supported.

No formal vote or budget action occurred during the session. Several committee members signaled they would hear more from the Department of Corrections and the judiciary about implementation details — including facility Wi‑Fi, in‑facility staffing to facilitate remote hearings, and a post‑hearing release practice developed during the pandemic to return released people to their home jurisdictions — before making funding decisions.

The hearing included a brief recess toward the end of the transcript; the committee indicated it would continue questioning judges and corrections staff in follow-up sessions.