ACLU advocates back bills to require law‑enforcement ID, urge clarifying amendments
Loading...
Summary
Warren Sowder of the ACLU told the Senate Judiciary Committee he supports S.208 and S.209—bills to require law‑enforcement identification and to limit arrests at sensitive locations—but recommended adding the agency name to IDs, clarifying whether penalties are civil or criminal, and including a severability clause and a judicial‑warrant exception.
Warren Sowder, a policy advocate for the ACLU, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 14 that the ACLU supports S.208 and S.209 and urged specific changes to strengthen the bills’ legal defensibility and public‑safety effects.
Sowder said S.208’s requirement that officers identify themselves is aimed at preventing encounters with masked or plainly clothed agents in unmarked vehicles, which he said “undermine[] public trust in law enforcement” and can leave residents unable to verify whether an officer is an actual government official. He told senators the ACLU would like the identification requirement to include the agency name and for the bill to clarify whether violations carry criminal or civil penalties.
The ACLU witness placed the bills in a national context, noting similar measures in other states and a pending legal challenge to California’s law. He said a broadly written state law that applies to all officers operating in Vermont is more likely to survive a supremacy‑clause challenge than a statute that singles out federal agents. “There’s a likelihood that we’re going to see a lawsuit,” Sowder said, “but we believe that it is very defensible and a good chance of surviving.”
Sowder also addressed S.209, which seeks to extend protections that historically applied to courthouse settings to other locations such as schools and hospitals. He cautioned that tying courthouse privilege to those locations can create legal vulnerability unless the bill’s purpose section explains why the state’s interests justify extending such protections. He recommended drafting language that ties the prohibitions to established constitutional protections—such as Fourth Amendment privacy interests—or otherwise makes the state’s interest explicit.
On drafting matters, Sowder urged adding a severability clause so that if one provision is struck down, the remainder of the law can remain in force. He also praised the inclusion of a judicial‑warrant exception in the bills, which he said provides an additional administrative check.
Committee members asked the witness whether the ACLU could provide specific statutory language to address the definition of “school” and other drafting questions; Sowder offered to work with legislative counsel. The chair noted the committee will hear more testimony, including from a constitutional law professor, and the discussion will continue.
The committee did not take a final vote on the bills during this session; members thanked the witnesses and scheduled further review.
