Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
House Judiciary reviews revised S.208 to require officer identification, limit facial coverings amid operational and legal concerns
Loading...
Summary
Legislative counsel walked the House Judiciary Committee through draft 1.1 of S.208, which would require clear identification of law enforcement and limit facial coverings while recognizing multiple exceptions; witnesses from the Fraternal Order of Police and the Vermont State Police urged a model policy approach and the Attorney General's office flagged potential federalism litigation.
Legislative counsel on Wednesday presented draft 1.1 of an amendment to S.208 that would require law enforcement officers to be clearly identified when interacting with the public and would prohibit officers from wearing facial coverings except in enumerated circumstances.
Sophie Sedatny of the Office of Legislative Counsel told the House Judiciary Committee the draft incorporates many changes suggested by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and reorganizes the statute to add a new definition of "facial covering," listing examples such as balaclavas and ski masks. Sedatny said the draft also adds a verbal-disclosure provision requiring an officer to state the officer's name and the official name of the officer's agency when detaining or arresting an individual; she said that verbal-disclosure language did not come from DPS but from other states' laws.
The committee heard that the draft retains multiple exceptions. Sedatny said respirators and medical-grade masks intended to prevent airborne disease transmission, face coverings used for water rescue or to protect against smoke, fire or projectiles, and coverings necessary when exposure to biological or chemical agents is likely would be exempt. She testified that she broadened disability-accommodation language beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act to include state disability and religious discrimination laws. The draft also enumerates operational exceptions such as undercover plainclothes operations, tactical-team responsibilities, executive-protective details and victim- or witness-interview situations.
Jimmy, identified in the record as a national trustee for the Vermont Fraternal Order of Police, told the committee he fears the bill could harm officers' physical and mental health and their families. "To make laws or to propose laws without getting the proper input from the people who it impacts, there's just something wrong with that," he said, arguing the committee had not collected primary data from officers statewide and warning that the statute could enable hindsight litigation of split-second on-scene decisions.
Lieutenant Colonel Sean Long, deputy director of the Vermont State Police, told the committee DPS would prefer a model policy rather than a statute because policy can be changed more quickly to address operational realities. He warned that a statutory requirement to verbally disclose identity "when detaining or arresting an individual" could be unsafe in exigent circumstances such as active crimes or domestic-disturbance responses, where officers may not have time to stop and identify themselves.
Legal staff and the attorney general's civil-rights counsel also raised constitutional risks. Julio Thompson of the Attorney General's Office Civil Rights Unit reviewed parallel litigation in California, where the U.S. Department of Justice obtained a Ninth Circuit administrative stay that blocked parts of that state's identification law pending appeal. Thompson said courts will scrutinize whether a state statute effectively regulates federal employees or discriminates by exempting state officials while subjecting federal officers to different rules. "If federal employees are similarly situated to state and local employees, they can't be disfavored because they're federal employees," he told the committee.
Members questioned whether listing specific state agencies for plainclothes exemptions (for example, departments named in the draft) could be read as favoring state officials and thus trigger federal challenges. Committee members and witnesses discussed narrower drafting options (for example, limiting exemptions to warrant-service teams) and urged keeping a Criminal Justice Council model-policy component that would allow operational detail and training to be set by practitioners.
No formal action or vote was taken. The committee scheduled additional witness appearances and adjourned; staff said they will circulate the DPS suggestions and consider revisions aimed at balancing accountability, officer safety and litigation risk.
