Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the First Responder Protections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers debate criminal protections for first responders and a contested 25-foot provision
Summary
Legislative counsel reviewed existing criminal statutes that protect certain professionals but identified coverage gaps for EMS and firefighters; committee members debated removing a proposed 25-foot proximity clause and instead defining obstructive conduct, while counsel warned against narrow carve-outs for journalists.
The Government Operations & Military Affairs committee examined whether existing criminal laws already protect first responders and whether new language in draft 2.3 should expand or clarify protections.
Legislative Council counsel Tucker Anderson summarized relevant statutes in Title 13 and noted they vary in scope: "...assault of a protected professional... 13 V.S.A. §1028," "interference with access to emergency services... 13 V.S.A. §1031," criminal threatening (13 V.S.A. §1702), impeding public officers (13 V.S.A. §3001), and a statute addressing hindering an arrest (section not specified in testimony). He emphasized these laws do not universally cover EMS and fire personnel and that some provisions require other crimes or specific duties to be implicated.
Committee members raised two main concerns. First, several said statutes such as 13 V.S.A. §1031 apply only if another crime is being or has been committed and therefore leave gaps when conduct merely impedes a responder providing care (for example, performing CPR). Second, members strongly debated a proposed fixed 25-foot buffer that would criminalize certain proximity during public-safety emergencies; several argued the distance could unintentionally prevent journalists and other legitimate observers from doing their work.
One lawmaker urged removing the fixed-distance language and instead drafting a behavior-based definition that criminalizes intentional obstruction of responders’ duties. Counsel cautioned that carving out professional journalists or narrowly defining "news reporters" is legally fraught in the digital age and advised the committee to avoid overly specific exemptions that would be hard to administer.
Members suggested compromise drafting options: drop the 25-foot metric, define actionable obstructive behaviors during public-safety emergencies, and consider graduated penalties (including prosecutorial discretion or a misdemeanor tier with shorter incarceration) so penalties align with comparable offenses.
The committee asked Legislative Council to map existing statutes and propose targeted language options for future consideration; no formal vote occurred during the session.
