Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Officials tell lawmakers they are working on S.208 and better identification rules after masked state officers drew concern
Loading...
Summary
State public-safety leaders said critical-action team members wore respirators and face coverings for biological and chemical protection and that they are coordinating with the legislature on S.208 to improve visual differentiation and identification of state/local officers from federal agents.
State public-safety leaders told a joint House and Senate Judiciary Committee on March 19 that they are working with lawmakers on S.208 to address officer identification when face coverings are used, after multiple legislators and witnesses raised concerns that balaclavas and respirators made it difficult for the public to distinguish state troopers from federal agents.
"The purpose of their face coverings was to protect them from biological and chemical exposure," Commissioner Jennifer Morrison said, adding that a preliminary review indicates some critical-action team members were exposed to spit and chemical agents on March 11. "The purpose of their face coverings was not to conceal any troopers' identity."
Vermont State Police Director Matthew Birmingham and other witnesses acknowledged the optics problem: some category-of-response (CAT) members wore masks and were not identified by name on their uniforms. Birmingham said the department is already working on visually differentiating state and local officers from federal agents through uniform and patch design and that the pending bill S.208 aims to clarify identification rules.
Several lawmakers and a public witness said the lack of visible names or clear identification undermines public trust and increases the risk of misidentification during tense encounters. Officials responded that a balance is required between officers' personal safety and the public's right to identify law enforcement and that alternatives to balaclavas and respirators will be considered in after-action reviews.
The committee heard no vote on S.208 during the hearing. Officials said they will continue to work with the legislature on the bill and that identification practices and equipment choices (for biological and chemical protection) will be reviewed and reported in the after-action documentation.
