Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: You're live. Good morning, everybody. This is a joint hearing of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee. We're here today to hear from law enforcement leaders of the different agencies that were involved in the incident that happened on March 11 in South Burlington. And so in order for us as legislators to make good policies, whether it's about this issue or any other issue, we all have to be well informed. And there are understandably many questions and concerns about what happened on March 11, and the purpose of this hearing is to hear what the leadership, from these different agencies have to say about their involvement. There's also been a lot of requests from, private citizens to have their voices heard, and we will be holding another public hearing in the near future. We don't have a date set in stone yet. Hoping within the next one to two weeks, but we are planning to have it scheduled for after 5PM. Make sure that the folks who, work nine to five jobs are also able to attend. But just keep checking our committee pages to make sure, to find out when that date will be posted, and I'm sure the media will also be hearing it as well. And I'll also just mention, I know there are many strong and valid feelings and perspectives about the various topics we're gonna be hearing about today. Despite that, I do ask folks to refrain from any cheering or heckling if you hear something that you agree with or disagree with. Because in order for us to have a productive dialogue, we do have to make sure that we allow our witnesses to to speak. So for the agenda, we're going to have a, brief refresher from our legislative council, regarding the fair and impartial policing policy as well as the use of force policy. And then we will hear from chief Burrow of the South Burlington Police Department, chief Burke of the Burlington Police Department. He'll be joining us on Zoom. We'll hear from commissioner Morrison and then colonel Birmingham. Once all of the witnesses have concluded their presentations, we will have a question and answer session, with the remaining time between legislators and the witnesses. So with all that being said, we have Michelle from Legislative Council, and the floor is yours.

[Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Morning. So for the record, Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Counsel and counsel for the committee. And so as the chair mentioned, what I'm going to do this morning just is very briefly refresh your memory about the statutes that you have currently in place with regard to a fair and impartial policing policy as well as use of force policy. And then I'll also just direct you to the policies that have been adopted as model policies on those issues by the Criminal Justice Training Council. I am going to point out a few provisions within those policies, but I didn't draft those policies. I don't work with those policies. And so I think if you want to dig a little deeper into interpretation of those policies, I would suggest that you have someone from the council appear before you and they can talk a little more in-depth about those. But this is just to kind of get you oriented a little bit. So if it's okay, I'm going to go ahead and share my screen since there's a lot of folks in here. Also, believe that all of these documents are posted on the committee's webpage under this Terry.

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: Now? Yes, that's it.

[Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Counsel]: All right, just let me know if you can't. So we're looking at Section 2,366. It was adopted by the General Assembly in 2012. So it has been around for quite a while. There have been a number of amendments throughout the years, but I'm just going to go through the existing language. You'll see in subsection A, it requires every law enforcement agency in Vermont to adopt a fair and impartial policing policy that includes each component of the council's model fair and impartial policing policy. So you'll see the language there in the second sentence is that such agencies and constables may include additional restrictions on agency members' communication and involvement with federal immigration authorities or communications regarding citizenship or immigration status. However, the floor is the model policy, so it could be perhaps more restrictive, but it cannot be less restrictive. So you see in subdivision A2 is that on or before January 1 of every even numbered year, the counsel in consultation with the Attorney General's Office as well as the Human Rights Commission is to review and if necessary update the fair and impartial model policing policy. Subsection B is that the counsel in consultation with the Attorney General's office is to review the policies of all law enforcement agencies and constables. And when I say law enforcement agencies, let's just assume I'm also including constables who have law enforcement authority under the statute of the rules. So they have to review the policies of all law enforcement agencies to ensure that those policies are in compliance with the statute and with the model policy. Subsection C is that annually as part of their annual training report to the council, every law enforcement agency has to report to the council whether the agency or officer has adopted the model policy or a version of that model policy and that is in compliance. And also the Criminal Justice Council has to determine as part of its annual certification and training requirements whether current officers have received training on fair and impartial policing. Subsection D is that annually on or before July 1, the council is to report to you, to the House and Senate committees on judiciary, regarding which departments and officers have adopted a policy and have received training. So I think that's it for that one. I'm going to now move and just show you the

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: policy.

[Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So here we have a copy of the Vermont Criminal Justice Council Fair and Impartial Policing Policy. I'm not going to go through all of it. Everybody should again have access to it through either the web page or the hard copy. I am going to show a few things to you. So if you take a look at from an F5, I think Romanette five, you're looking at your hard copies. You'll see there in subsection A, it says Vermont law enforcement agencies do not have authority to enforce federal civil immigration. And just want to note, so civil enforcement would be something like someone overstaying their visa. You'll see in subsection B is that the law enforcement agencies have authority to enforce federal criminal law. It's not to be a priority for Vermont law enforcement officers. You'll see in that second sentence, accordingly, agencies should not make warrantless arrests, detain individuals, facilitate the detention of individuals, or otherwise expend resources investigating or enforcing unlawful entry or unlawful reentry cases unless the actions are one, necessary to ensure public safety or officer safety or, two, integral to the investigation of criminal offenses unrelated to immigration law. Roman numeral six, I believe this is the bottom of page nine, you'll see that law enforcement agencies have no legal obligation to communicate with federal immigration authorities. There are provisions in federal law that prevent state and local authorities from restricting law enforcement from communicating with ICE with regard to immigration data. So a prohibition on restriction is not the same as an obligation to compel. And so there's where we see the language, however, statutes provide that local and state agencies may not prevent or restrict employees from communicating with federal employees. And then a couple other things I wanted to mention. So this next provision says that so this is in the case of a law enforcement officer in Vermont having custody of a particular individual. But I did want to highlight some of this language. So unless federal immigration agents have a judicially issued criminal warrant for a legitimate law enforcement purpose exclusive of the enforcement of civil immigration laws, An agency who has an individual in their custody shall not grant or otherwise facilitate immigration authorities access to the individual. But you'll see in subdivision one, there's a qualifier in there that says that, However, this section shall not be construed to require members to affirmatively interfere with a federal officer's lawful authority to interview, detain, or arrest, with or without a warrant, an individual. And then in D, there's some additional restrictions. And I just wanted to highlight subdivision nine, which is restriction on accepting requests by federal immigration authorities to support or assist in civil immigration enforcement. So now we're going to move on to the use of force provision in statute. So this is also in Title 20 in Public Safety under the chapter for the Criminal Justice Training Council, so Section two thousand three and sixty eight, Standards for Law Enforcement Use of Force. General Assembly adopted this in 2020. You'll see subsection A has various definitions. I just highlighted the definition of force meaning the physical coercion employed by a law enforcement officer to compel a person's compliance with the officer's instructions. And then you have some provisions under subsection B around use of force and I think one and two are probably most applicable to what you're discussing today. So whether the decision by a law enforcement officer to use force was objectively reasonable shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation based on the totality of the circumstances. A law enforcement officer's failure to use feasible and reasonable alternatives to force shall be a consideration for whether its use was objectively reasonable. Subdivision two is that a law enforcement officer shall use only the force objectively, reasonable, necessary, and proportional to effect an arrest, to prevent an escape, or to overcome resistance of a person the officer has a reasonable cause to believe has committed a crime, but to achieve any other lawful law enforcement objective. So here we have the statewide use of force policy. I'm going to take a look at that, but I wanted to go down to the end and just point out a couple of things for you. Sorry. It's making people dizzy while I'm scrolling. Here I just wanted to notice Section VII for you, and this is a requirement that whenever an officer uses force beyond compliance use of handcuffs, they are required to complete the use of force report and identify all relevant supporting documentation such as recordings, witness statements, etc. Within seventy two hours. Then there's also a requirement that a supervisor is to review the use of force reports and all supporting documents. So that's what I have, a little review, and I'll be here for the rest of

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: the hearing and happy to help you navigate some of this at a later time.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Thank you very much, Michelle. So next up we have Chief Bro from the South Burlington Police Department. We also have Commissioner Morrison and colonel Birmingham, and we'll just go down the, list on the agenda. And, chief Baruth, you could introduce yourself, and then the floor is all yours.

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: Good morning. My name is Bill Baruth, and I have the privilege of serving as the police chief for City Of South Burlington, position that I have held since October 2025. Before joining the South Burlington Police Department, I served for over twenty six years with the City Of Dover, New Hampshire, where I served as Chief for the last seven years there. I thank you for the opportunity this morning to address the joint session of Charleston Senate Judiciary Committee. I, like my colleagues before you here today, and the men and women of law enforcement throughout Vermont have devoted my professional career to ensuring the safety of others. Our commitment to ensuring public safety does not waver nor is it based upon ideology, public opinion, or viral video. For me it's simple, to protect people from violence and harm while upholding the rights of individuals and enforcing the law. Last Wednesday was a very challenging day for the City of South Burlington and for law enforcement throughout Vermont. I would like to take a few moments to provide you an understanding of how the events unfolded and provide some insight into the decisions made at local law enforcement command level. Last Wednesday's incident began as a result of action taken by the Enforcement and Removal Operations or ERO division of the U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE. Neither the South Burlington Police Department nor any other state or local law enforcement agency had prior knowledge of this action. It wasn't until an automated 911 call was placed from an involved motor vehicle that we learned of a crash. That crash occurred on Dorset Street in South Burlington directly across from the entrance to both the South Burlington High School and South Burlington Middle School. The facts that became clear over the next several hours were very unsettling. ICE DRO attempted an enforcement action that resulted in a vehicle chase by federal officers. During the chase they attempted to use their vehicles to box in the subject they were pursuing. This resulted in several vehicle collisions in the subject they were attempting to detain running into a residence. As events unfolded I learned that ICE had initially been seeking an individual on an administrative warrant. As a result of the morning of events they were now requesting a criminal warrant from the United States Attorney's Office for the individual as well as a federal search warrant for the residence which ICE agents had surrounding. I was informed by the on-site ICE ERO supervisor that additional agents from New York and New Hampshire were on their way to South Burlington. I was told that once the orders were approved by the court ICE would serve them using any means necessary. In that moment and several times throughout the day I had conversations with the ICE on-site supervisor as well as his superiors in Boston. I expressed my concern that executing the warrants plan was not in the best interest of public safety. I felt their plan did not take appropriate steps to mitigate danger to our community. I offered multiple other investigative avenues to accomplish their goal while reducing the danger to the public. Each of those conversations resulted in the same general response. ICE was going to execute the warrant as they had planned and in any means necessary. I should add, I was not alone in my concerns or my attempts to persuade ICE to seek other alternatives and not serve the war as they had planned. Both the acting supervisor of the local FBI office as well as the assistant special agent in charge of HSI also had conversations in my presence with the ICE ERO supervisor. And I should add that there's some confusion often with HSI or Homeland Security Investigations in ICE. They both fall under the umbrella of Homeland Security but they are distinctly separate agencies. HSI Homeland Security Investigations like local law enforcement has no operational control or direction over ICE ERO. Given the impending enforcement action as well as a large crowd gathering in the area of the residence, was left with two choices. The first was to remove all local police from the incident. I think this would result in a heightened level of force by the 20 to 25 out of state ICE agents against growing crowds. That force, likely legally justified, could be avoided. ICE SWAT deploying flashbangs, tear gas, and pepper balls later in the day validated this fear. My second option was to increase the local police response in an attempt to keep the peace. This would possibly limit the need for force by agents, work to ensure agent safety from protesters, and work to ensure people have the ability to peacefully exercise their rights to protest. Placing the safety of the community as my primary concern, I chose to increase local police response. As the potential for violence was significant our role became very clear help prevent conflict between federal agents and protest. An incident of this magnitude and potential violence is simply beyond the ability of any one police agency. I was well left with no option but to seek assistance from the Vermont State Police, the Burlington Police Department, as well as other local police agencies. I am incredibly grateful for the assistance of the Vermont State Police and the Burlington Police Department. There would be no doubt that their assistance prevented significant serious bodily injury and even death. Working under a unified command, plans and contingencies were developed and thought through, all of which had one common goal: keeping the community as safe as possible. As federal agents executed a warrant, local police officers and troopers moved into the area in an attempt to keep the peace and ensure the safety of all present. This includes members of the crowd and federal law enforcement which was not an easy task. In order to create separation between the protesters and federal agents it became necessary for officers and troopers to use physical force to move non compliant individuals. Although a complete review of the events in its entirety and reviews of every use of force incident are underway I'm confident this time the force used by troopers and officers was in response to actions of those present. As much as we needed to ensure that we highlight all misconduct by law enforcement it is imperative that we acknowledge there were some in the crowd whose actions were far beyond peaceful protest or even civil disobedience. There are people on the ground that assaulted officers, threw objects at officers, fired pyrotechnics at officers, damaged and attacked occupied law enforcement vehicles, and obstructed agents from leaving the scene. We cannot accept violence perpetrated against law enforcement to note without acknowledgement. I believe that as leaders we have an obligation to ensure that our officers follow policy, procedure, and the law, and that we also have an obligation to publicly condemn the violent actions of some of those present. Remaining silent on this point or characterizing the entire event as a peaceful protest for protection would be irresponsible and an acknowledgement that violence against the police was justified. As the execution of the search warrant concluded all law enforcement personnel became began clearing the area. One ICE vehicle however occupied by a single agent became surrounded by rioters. Despite my demands that federal agents abandon the vehicle and retrieve it later and even as a plan was being put in motion for troopers to safely remove the agent from the area. ICE without providing any notification sent their tactical team which had already left the area back to recovery gear. Again this was a unilateral decision ICE made that was not communicated to us. During that process, federal agents deployed flash bang devices and chemical agents to disperse the crowd. When the last ICE vehicle was cleared from the scene, rioters turned their aggression towards troopers. The actions of both ICE and violent protesters placed our police officers and troopers in an incredibly challenging position. However, state and local law enforcement executed their public safety mission with incredible restraint and professionals. As a police leader, I am committed to reviewing the actions of law enforcement who believe now more than ever we must uphold the high standard that Vermonters deserve of their police. I'm committed to ensuring that we find ways to learn and improve from this incident and that as communities we can work to peacefully express our differences. Events The of March 11 have greatly impacted our department, our community, eroded trust in public safety, and left many feeling unsafe. I am here today to help restore that trust in public safety and the trust of local and state police. We remain unequivocally steadfast in our commitment to protecting all of our markers. Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Thank you. Next up we have Chief Burke who is in the Zoom.

[Chief Sean Burke, Interim Chief of Police, City of Burlington]: Good morning. Can you hear me?

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Morning. Yes. We can hear you. Please introduce yourself, and the floor is yours.

[Chief Sean Burke, Interim Chief of Police, City of Burlington]: Certainly. First of all, I just apologize for my casual appearance. I'm on a, the last day of a vacation that was obviously poorly planned in terms of timing. My name is Sean Burke, and I currently serve as the interim chief of police in the city of Burlington. I spent thirty two years serving as a Vermont police officer, the last ten of which have been in executive roles with the Burlington and South Burlington Police Department. I would like to thank you all for the invitation to testify before this joint session of the house and senate judiciary committees. My colleague, chief Pro, has provided a detailed overview of the events which unfolded on March Dorset Street in the city of South Burlington. Prior to this incident, our agencies have been communicating along with the Vermont State Police with one another about our ability to manage a surge ice operation, knowing that it was more of a question of when and not if ice would begin to focus on Vermont. In Burlington, Mayor Emma Mulvaney Stanick was equally concerned. We've been hearing about fear running through our refugee and migrant community for months. Kids not attending schools, nonprofits and volunteers delivering groceries, missed medical appointments, and the list goes on. Regardless of their immigration status, these communities are scared. On 03/11/2026, the Burlington Police Department became involved excuse me became involved in the Dorset Street operation when the South Burlington Police Department requested mutual aid. The city of South Burlington team showed strong leadership in developing a plan focused on public safety and constitutional policing. If this plan had not been developed and operationalized, I feel strongly that the outcomes would have been much worse. The events unfolded as described by chief Bro, and I was in communication with the BPD deputy chief assigned to the incident command post. As the afternoon progressed, I was struck by two critical fail points, both avoidable but out of the control of Vermont law enforcement. First, the incident was predicated on a botched enforcement plan launched by ICE to apprehend a subject wanted on what started as a civil violation. The failed car stop, vehicle collisions, and attempts made to apprehend the subject in such close proximity of a school campus were reckless and not in the interest of public safety. Further, had the ICE agents actually ever positively identified the subject they sought and allegedly pursued to the Dorset Street address, there's an exception to the search warrant rule that they could have used to efficiently enter the house and apprehend this subject. Instead, the agents opted to create a high profile and dangerously close perimeter, which eventually drew the attention of the public activist community. The agents persisted and saw a criminal warrant in the US District Court in Burlington. The FBI joined and launched a criminal investigation into the purported assault on the agents rooted in the initial failed attempt to stop the subject. The ICE agents refused to stand down to leverage other investigative means or consider options that could have deescalated the situation as suggested by Chief Bro. Second, as the crowd grew on Dorset Street, the peaceful activists were joined by agitators, a Trojan horse of sorts, leading way to an escalation instigated by the crowd. The agitators ignored the announcement of a judicial warrant, ignored the responsibility to obey the law, and ignored the lawful orders of the police on scene. The escalation of the crowd led to violence and officers were assaulted and hindered throughout the judicially approved operation. This behavior was not activism. It was criminal and cannot be tolerated. Collectively, we need to name both of these areas of failure for what they are and reckon with the fact that we cannot control either group without Greater accountability from the federal government on their agency and greater accountability from the criminal legal system to address the violent agitators who cloak themselves as activists. The Burlington Police Department is currently reviewing our role.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Hold on one moment, Peter. Certainly. Folks, I I get it, but we have to let the chief say what he wants to say. We will be asking questions. So so please allow the chief to speak his peace. Thank you. Please continue, chief. The

[Chief Sean Burke, Interim Chief of Police, City of Burlington]: Burlington Police Department is currently reviewing our role in this incident to include the force employed by officers. Our officers showed tremendous restraint and professionalism overall, and I know that their actions on March 11 helped in keeping people safe. The Burlington Police Department works very hard to be a self assessing and self correcting agency. We have a strong legacy of relationship based policing, progressive response models, and de escalation at all levels of response. Our review will take time, and then we'll go through additional levels of transparency as prescribed in department directive related to use of force complaints from the public. There are always lessons learned from a thorough review of an incident, issues related to policy, training, equipment, and employee performance. These steps are critically important to help restore the trust the public holds in Vermont law enforcement. This this incident has eroded the public's confidence in their police. In closing, this is a moment for leaders to come together and demonstrate unity to Vermonters. This is not a time for polarization. Vermonters deserve strong leadership at every level. Collaborative leadership can help heal the harm caused by this incident, identify opportunities for growth as we work toward ensuring public safety for all. Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: We have Commissioner Morrison.

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: Thank you, Chair Hashim. Good morning. My name is Jennifer Morrison. I'm the Commissioner of Public Safety. And the Vermont State Police is one of the divisions within the department that I oversee. I've been in leadership roles at DPS since 2020, and have been the commissioner for about four years. Prior to that, I spent over twenty eight years in municipal policing. Twenty three of those, plus twenty three and a half of those, were at Burlington Police Department, where I gained significant experience in crowd control and protest management. I also served for five years as the Chief of Police in Colchester. While I'm speaking to you today as the Commissioner of Public Safety, please don't forget that I'm also a longtime Vermonter, a person deeply invested in the health and prosperity of this state, its people, and its visitors. I care greatly about creating and maintaining safe communities. My remarks today address important components of the Department of Public Safety's response to the protest in South Burlington on March 11. I'm gonna talk about the Vermont State Police Internal Affairs Policy, the Fair and Impartial Policing Policy, law enforcement identification and the use of face coverings, public safety planning, and protesting. I want to start by answering the question that I've heard come up. How do we hold troopers accountable? In my role as commissioner, I am responsible for imposing discipline for trooper misconduct. This process is called internal affairs and is governed by statute. This process is robust, thorough, and has been in place for more than forty years. The internal affairs process includes a dedicated investigator, a lieutenant, who investigates misconduct allegations and reports directly to me outside of the chain of command. This investigator is receiving any citizen complaints regarding the incident on March 11 and reviewing them. She will also be tasked with independently reviewing this incident to determine if any policy violations or misconduct have occurred. Under our statutes, the State Police Advisory Commission also advises me on misconduct allegations and discipline. This group is composed of appointed members of the community from across Vermont who will be a valuable resource as we review the events of March 11. At the end of any internal affairs investigation governed by our policies and statutes, I determine whether to pursue discipline against individual troopers based on the facts of each case. Any internal affairs investigation that may occur related to this incident will take time, but will be thorough and will be based on the facts. The fact pattern of what occurred on March 11 is aided by the hours of body worn camera footage that was recorded that day. That footage is being reviewed even as we speak. Today, the colonel and I will discuss our understanding of some facts of this event based only on our preliminary review. There is much more work that we are doing to evaluate the facts of this event. That work will include, as I said, a review of all the body worn camera footage. I have not made any final judgments about this event, nor have I prejudged whether any trooper has violated any policy. I will follow our in-depth evaluation of the facts of this event wherever they lead in the normal course of our internal affairs process. I am committed to impartially reviewing this event after a full understanding of all the facts, and I will fulfill my duty to investigate any allegations of misconduct against members of the Vermont State Police and impose discipline for misconduct as appropriate, governed by our policies and statute. I'm turning my attention now to the Fair and Partial Policing Policy. There has been a lot of discussion about the applicability of the Fair and Impartial Policing Policy to this incident. I was personally involved in the development of the statewide Fair and Impartial Policing Policy more than sixteen years ago. I was a lieutenant of the Bronx Police at the time, and we had had a fair and parkour policing policy for many years. I recall sitting in the offices of migrant justice on North Winooski Avenue, working on what became the first statewide policy. This policy was created to prevent police officers from inquiring about people's immigration status during routine law enforcement encounters, such as vehicle stops, collection of victim and witness statements, and investigation of crimes. The development of the FIP policy never contemplated prohibiting police officers from exercising their public caretaking function or maintaining a safe environment for all at mass gatherings or protests. Like other state and local law enforcement agencies in Vermont, the Vermont State Police does not enforce federal immigration law. However, the Vermont State Police does have a public safety responsibility to respond to protests and other events when the situation may escalate and result in violence. This responsibility to respond remains even if a protest is at the site of federal law enforcement activity, including federal immigration enforcement activity. The Vermont State Police responded to the scene on March 11 in response to a call for assistance by the South Burlington Police Department. The South Burlington Police was seeking assistance to maintain public safety at a protest. The circumstances that developed that day, the federal agents stated determination to enter the residence with a judicial warrant regardless of whether or not the Vermont state police were present and the protesters' physical position of blocking the entrance to the residence created a significant and easily foreseeable public safety risk that we simply could not ignore. Federal agents were going to get to the door and execute the warrant with or without our presence. We chose to ensure separation between protesters and federal agents to protect everyone's safety. This public safety risk was the basis of the actions taken by the Vermont State Police on March 11. The Vermont State Police were not there to facilitate or assist with the enforcement of any immigration activities. Colonel Birmingham will provide more details in his remarks on the nature of the response by the Vermont State Police on March 11. I'm gonna now turn my remarks to the use of masks and personal protective equipment. The Department of Public Safety recognizes the critical issue of identification of law enforcement. The use of respirators and other face coverings are an important part of this topic. The Vermont State Police critical action team members responded to the scene on March 11 with respirators and other face coverings. The equipment they were wearing on March 11 was standard equipment that the critical action team would wear to any event where there is a potential risk of being in close proximity to protesters, being spit on by protesters, and being exposed to tear gas or other chemical agents. The purpose of their face coverings was to protect them from biological and chemical exposure. A preliminary review indicates that critical action team members were in fact spit on and exposed to tear gas or other chemical agents on March 11. The purpose of their face coverings was not to conceal any trooper's identity. As an employer, we have to try to balance our obligation to protect officers from legitimate work hazards and the importance of ensuring that officers are publicly identifiable. We are working with both of your committees in the House and the Senate right now on a bill that does just this, and we will continue working with you on that legislation, S-two zero eight. Regarding identification, the colonel will address the need for us to better distinguish between federal officers and state and local officers in the design and coloring of our uniform and patches. I'm gonna take a minute to talk about our pre planning before this event. In January, we began working with our local law enforcement partners in anticipation of protest events proliferating. Our initial coordination was with Chittenden County Police Agencies as they had seen the most protest activity. And part of this preparation, we established a common operating picture that balanced the right to protest and protection of First Amendment rights with public safety. Based on events in other parts of the country, we recognized a need to keep protesters apart from federal agents whenever feasible. All of our planning focused on protecting the public while balancing competing interests to minimize the likelihood of serious injury or death to anyone. On January 30, we also convened a meeting with federal law enforcement partners based here in Vermont and some from out of state, specifically to address our public safety concerns regarding their potential enforcement activities. The colonel, lieutenant colonel, and I met with representatives from Border Patrol, Homeland Security Investigations, and ICE in immigration and customs enforcement, including two reps from the Emergency Removal Operations Division of ICE. We discussed the events in Minneapolis and emphasized that we and the governor do not want to see any type of event in Vermont like those that took place in other parts of the country. We ensured that everyone had contact information for the other, and we left that meeting believing that we would have clear communication channels going forward. We took these steps to attempt to plan for an event like March 11, specifically to minimize the public safety risk associated with federal enforcement activities. I'm going to speak now about protest behavior. I'd like to take a moment to commend the many protesters who turned out to peacefully exercise their First Amendment right to express displeasure with their government. The first several hours of last week's incident were a classic example of protesting in a Vermont y way. Nonviolent, vocal but not threatening, passionate but not lawbreaking. I've been involved in many similar protests, and inevitably, they end up with the police and the protesters talking to each other, cooperating to keep everyone safe, and an eventual dispersal after the protest is over. As the day went on last Wednesday, the behavior of some protesters became more aggressive, and some crossed the line into lawbreaking. This could be seen in the attire being worn, the shift from singing and chanting to shouting, obstructing and damaging obstructing vehicular traffic and damaging vehicles, and objects being thrown at law enforcement personnel. I've been involved in a couple of protests like this, and it's a miserable place to be, Becoming the target of rage of protesters who are presumably fellow Vermonters for doing your job is really difficult. I mention this because it is not a fulsome discussion if we only focus on the actions of law enforcement. The behavior of protesters, particularly the small cross section that could be labeled as rioters or agitators, should not be left out of the discussion as we examine the events of March 11. Protests will persist. That has always been part of Vermont's history. It would be helpful if the leadership of future protests help us set an expectation of safety for all. While I reserve judgment on any allegations that will be reviewed by the internal affairs process, I do recognize and want to publicly call out that our troopers and local police handled an incredibly difficult assignment with restraint and professionalism. I want to conclude by mentioning that our job, mine and the colonel's, would be really quite easy if there was one policy interest to consider in a situation like this. But there are multiple interests that the colonel and I have to balance: the safety of the public and protection of First Amendment rights, the safety of our troopers and local police partners, as well as federal agents on the scene, the risk of violence from protesters, the risk of aggressive tactics by federal officers, and the obligation to uphold the rule of law. It is nearly impossible to balance these competing policy interests to the satisfaction of all. I want to assure you that we are doing our level best to strike the balance and achieve the safest possible outcomes during chaotic and rapidly evolving situations. The colonel and I have more than sixty years of combined experience in this field, and the four of us that you'll hear from today have more than one hundred and twenty two years of combined experience. And we take our responsibility seriously. We made the best decisions we could, given the information we had available at the time. Looking back at last week, I believe that we've achieved our objective to ensure the safest possible outcome for all involved. It certainly was not perfect. But at a high level, we avoided any known serious injuries or deaths, and violent encounters between protesters and federal agents were minimized as much as possible. We know that there will be lessons learned from this event, and we look forward to sharing those lessons with you once a thorough after action assessment is completed. Thank you. And I'll turn it over to the colonel.

[Colonel Matthew Birmingham, Director of the Vermont State Police]: Morning and thank you for the opportunity to address this joint session of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. My name is Matthew Birmingham and I serve as the director of the Vermont State Police. I've been a trooper for twenty eight years and the director for over ten. The Vermont State Police have a long and proud history of service to this state and we take that responsibility seriously. The events of last week do not change who we are or the values that guide our work. Our troopers are Vermonters. We are sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers. We are neighbors and friends. We live in these communities. Our children attend local schools, and we volunteer, teach, and coach alongside the people we serve. Like all of you, we have a deep and personal stake in the safety, trust, and well-being of our communities. For that reason, the events of last week affected us deeply. Our members care about what happened, and we share the concerns expressed by many Vermonters. Last Wednesday was a very challenging day for law enforcement in Vermont, one we neither sought nor had the ability to avoid. Our responsibilities at that moment were clear but difficult to balance. Ensuring public safety, protecting the rights of protesters, and enforcing the law. When those responsibilities converge in a rapidly evolving situation, events are not always orderly. In those moments, actions can appear messy and are sometimes misunderstood. Because there's been significant public interest and concern, it is important to begin with the facts. I'll walk the committees through what we have learned so far in our initial assessment. I wanna be clear about how this incident began. The initial law enforcement action was taken unilaterally by the enforcement and removal operations or ERO division of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE. No state or local law enforcement agency in Vermont had prior knowledge of this operation until after the motor vehicle crash that occurred on Dorsey Street. The Vermont State Police responded to the scene only after the South Burlington Police Department requested additional resources to help maintain public safety as a crowd gathered at the location targeted by federal authorities. Initial information received by VSP commanders indicated that a federal operation had resulting in the had resulted in the ramming of federal vehicles and a suspect had fled and was inside a residence on Dorset Street. We also learned from the South Burlington Police that people had gathered to protest the federal action. It was clear that the incident was escalating rapidly. Our role was to help maintain order and public safety. Later that afternoon, federal officials informed state and local law enforcement that they were seeking a federal criminal warrant intended to execute it that day. A federal judge in Vermont subsequently authorized the warrant state and local agencies coordinated with federal officials to ensure officer and public safety during the execution of the warrant and to minimize disruptions to the surrounding community including nearby schools. The basis for our action was the need to ensure public safety and officer safety. It became very clear that the potential for violence was significant and our role was to help prevent conflict between federal agents and protesters. The federal agents were determined to execute the warrant the warrant despite our warning about clashing with protesters. They advised us that they had chemical munitions and less lethal weapons at their disposal and they plan to use force if necessary to execute the warrant. Throughout the day, the crowd grew and shifted in demeanor. As you heard, Our commanders noted that they had been peaceful most of the day but as time passed, individuals within the crowd began to become more confrontational with law enforcement. As federal agents moved to execute the warrant, they instructed the assembled crowd to disperse. When the crowd did not comply, federal authorities made it clear that they possessed a lawful warrant and would execute it with or without our presence. Given the clashes that have occurred recently across the country in similar situations, it was evident that our presence was necessary to help ensure the safety of everyone involved. While performing this role, troopers encountered encountered physical resistance including being pushed, struck in the head, and spit on. Troopers also reported that members of the crowd threw objects at them and blocked law enforcement vehicles. DSP personnel present included uniformed troopers and critical action team or CAT members, all clearly identified as state police and equipped with activated body cameras. Cat members are specially trained to manage large groups of people. They wore masks to protect themselves from biological and chemical exposure not to conceal their identities. Other troopers present were unmasked and clearly identified with name tags. According to our initial review, troopers use of force was focused on physically moving non compliant individuals when necessary to create separation between the protesters and federal agents. Protesters were located at and near the entrance to the residence where federal agents plan to execute their judicial warrant. Separating protesters from federal agents therefore brought troopers right up to the entrance of the residence. However, troopers did not assist with the execution of the warrant. They did not break down the door, search the residence in any way, or take anyone into excuse me, anyone into custody from inside the residence. Three individuals were cited by the state police on disorderly conduct charges in connection with the incident. As the operation concluded, law enforcement left the area. However, federal agents returned to recover one of their vehicles despite our commanders advising them to recover it later using a tow truck. They made the decision to recover their vehicle on their own and without our knowledge. During that process, federal agents deployed flash bang devices and chemical agents to disperse the remaining crowd. State police members themselves were also exposed to flash bangs and chemical agents. Other than crowd control tactics, troopers use a single deployment of irritant spray after a person broke a window and attempted to enter and occupy a BSP vehicle. One trooper sustained an eye injury during the incident and was treated and released from a hospital. He was unable to return to work for six days. I want to emphasize that the Vermont State Police were not involved in the investigation that led to this warrant nor in the decision to execute it. Obtaining accurate information from ICE throughout the entire incident was challenging for our commanders. We did not know the name of the individual or their immigration status for many hours. What we did know was that federal agents were investigating an incident in which a federal law enforcement officer's vehicle was rammed during an attempt to detain a suspect. DSP was called to assist when clashes between federal agents and protesters outstrip local law enforcement's ability to ensure public safety. Our presence that day was solely to help maintain public safety while federal agents carried out a court ordered warrant. Federal agents made it clear to us that they were going to execute that warrant with or without our participation. That place our troopers in an incredibly challenging position, standing between federal authorities, carrying out their lawful duties, and protesters who strongly oppose their presence. Our goal throughout the day was to reduce the risk of injury to everyone present. People in Vermont will deeply felt views about federal immigration enforcement and they have every right to express those views peacefully. But disagreement with government action cannot extend to violence or interference with lawful enforcement activity. No matter how strongly someone feels assaulting or impeding law enforcement officers who are performing their duties is unacceptable. Incidents like this have historically been rare for our department and in the state. Unfortunately, that reality appears to be changing. Over the past several months, based on events around the country, we have been preparing for situations like the one we experienced last week. That preparation is included meeting with federal partners as the commissioner mentioned to express our expectation that we be informed in advance so that we can protect the safety of everyone involved and better manage these situations. In this instance, that level of communication did not occur and we were left to respond to an unfolding situation as best we could. We recognize that we are not perfect. In complex and rapidly evolving situations, there will always be opportunities to improve. What matters is that we learn from these events, review our actions carefully, and adjust where necessary. While our comprehensive review of this incident is not yet complete, we can say that some things work and some things need improvement. We believe that our unified command structure with local law enforcement allowed us to manage this as safely as we could with the least number of injuries. An immediate area of improvement includes visually differentiating the state and local law enforcement from federal agents, a process that is already underway. We are conducting a comprehensive assessment of tactics and resources, resource deployments as part of this review. The final report will take time to complete as there is a great deal of information to analyze. We remain committed to reviewing our response, communicating clearly to the public, and doing everything we can to better manage situations like this in the future while maintaining the transparency, professionalism, and public trust the people of Vermont expect and deserve. Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Thank you. So now we're going to go into the question and answer phase of all of this. And I know we have well over a dozen legislators at this table. I have a feeling that a number of folks have a number of questions. So the plan in order to to just make sure that everybody here has a fair chance to ask their questions, the hope is to have legislators ask maybe two or three questions. We'll cycle through and make sure that everybody has a chance to speak and gain clarification here from our witnesses. So I'll I'll I'll start real quick here. I've got got a list of questions, but I'll just start with a short one that I believe is a yes or no question. So I I know you folks are still going through your after action process gathering information, but it has been about over a week now. And based on the information you've gathered so far, have any of your departments initiated any investigations into any policy violations, by any of the officers in any of your respective departments?

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: Speaking for the South Burlington Police Department, no. We have not.

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: Is chief Burke still on?

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Yeah. Chief Burke.

[Chief Sean Burke, Interim Chief of Police, City of Burlington]: The Burlington Police Department has use of force policy violation.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Clair but just is that one violation?

[Chief Sean Burke, Interim Chief of Police, City of Burlington]: Multiple multiple reports received from the public that appear to be related to one force application. But again, we are in the infancy of taking this all apart.

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: Yes, please. I have not authorized any internal affairs investigations for use of force related to this incident at this time.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Are there any I could use the mic.

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: I have not authorized any internal affairs investigations as a result of use of force complaints related to this protest at this time.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Any other complaints or other policy violations?

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: There are no internal, active internal affairs investigations. As I said in my remarks, we have an office of internal affairs who's gathering citizen complaints, which is generally either a way that internal affairs reports begin. To date, the vast majority of the calls received have been anonymous with no ability to circle back to the complainant in order to gather a fulsome statement. So we have a robust internal affairs process, and I would strongly encourage anyone who believes that they witnessed trooper misconduct to make a complaint via our website or by calling our Office of Internal Affairs and providing their information so that we can follow through on the complaint.

[Chief Sean Burke, Interim Chief of Police, City of Burlington]: Senator, if I one point of clarification. The Burlington Police has not initiated an internal investigation. We have a, very rigorous department directive that has been agreed upon with our police commission in accordance with the mandates in our state model internal affairs policy, and there are three different tiers of investigation. We have advanced our inquiry to what is known or identified in our directive as a supervisory review. It is not an internal affairs investigation as of today. So,

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: folks, if you do have a question, just raise your hand. It came from my attention somehow. Representative Belmont. Yes. Thank you,

[Representative Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary) [probable]]: very much for being here, and sorry about the very tough position you folks were put into. But, so I have a question. It's from, both our statute related to use of force, and and it's in the policy, specifically section five of the policy as a duty to intervene, that all officers have an affirmative duty to intervene whenever they witness an other officer using a chokehold or using excessive force. When it's an other officer, would that include a federal officer as well?

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: Yes. It would. And and how is that I mean, how I guess I

[Representative Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary) [probable]]: mean, that's gotta be, I I would assume, a very tough situation if it's other federal law enforcement. How do you figure out if there's excessive force that requires intervention? I mean, if you could play that out. I'm just I I'm trying to figure that.

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: It's hard to do so sitting here without knowing all of the facts and circumstances of the specific AIDS fish.

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: The statute and the policy that you're referring to, I'm quite confident were in response to incidents around the country where an officer was kneeling on a detainee's neck and otherwise engaging choke holds, as you described it. I can't remember what year it was that we worked on this, but it might have been 2020, 2021.

[Colonel Matthew Birmingham, Director of the Vermont State Police]: 'twenty one.

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: And in the contemplation of that policy, it was made explicit that if you witnessed that behavior, that is clearly an unapproved tactic, that officers have a duty to intervene and move that person off their neck or otherwise not put them in a chokehold that is not necessary?

[Representative Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary) [probable]]: Right, so the statute specifically says intervention if there's a chokehold, but the policy seems to expand that to, or using excessive force. And I mean, how would you evaluate beyond a chokehold that excessive force is being used and there should be intervention? And I know this is it's gotta be, I would assume, fairly clear cut when you're in any officer, but particularly if you're dealing with federal officer as well. But, how I how would you determine if it's not a chokehold, but it could be another situation?

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: I mean, this is a hyper I Yeah.

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: Guess trying to we're trying to be responsive to your question, but it's a little bit challenging in that the same way you would respond to anything, you evaluate the totality of the circumstance and take the appropriate action that you're trying to take. So I don't know how to answer your question other than if you're I'm not gonna assume that you're leading us in a certain direction.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary) [probable]]: Oh, no. I guess I'm not. I'm just trying to understand a situation where I know our use of force, we look at totality of the circumstances, And and just last on on March 11, it seemed the totality of the circumstances, at least towards the end, was a very aggressive federal agents who it then eventually led to use of flashbangs. You know, whether that was excessive force or not, I don't could be, I suppose. So so it's like I'm just trying to understand for future, when is it appropriate for our state law enforcement to intervene if there's a federal agent who are exercising something that you know, process that we think is wrong. I mean, that I I'm just trying to for future for a future event, if if let me put it this way. Let me ask a slightly different question. Is how how can you be looking or will you be looking into when there can be actual intervention as opposed to just actually trying to keep protesters away from federal ICE agents.

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: That will be part of our review of the incident. So I'll leave it at that. That will be part of the review of the incident. I just need to clarify, though, that us thinking something is excessive based on our training does not necessarily mean that the federal government believes that an action or a tactic is excessive when they have lawful presence and they have a lawful objective that they're trying to obtain. The fact that we don't agree with it and don't prioritize it the way they do, that's a really tricky calculus that you're trying to move us into.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary) [probable]]: Right, and that's exactly

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: Let's leave it that one part of our after after And

[Representative Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary) [probable]]: that is exactly the point that I'm trying to address, the friction is I'm trying to just really understand that a little bit better. I appreciate that. Thank you.

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: And I think it's important. Two points. They're operating federal agents are operating under a whole different use of force policy than directed. I think what you're getting at that I don't want to speak for you, but there's clearly a difference between what's excessive and what's avoidable. I, going back to this incident, that they would use force. And I said earlier, depending on the circumstances may very well have been legally justified, but in my opinion, very, very avoidant. So the use of flash bands, use of things like that, although completely avoidable, were likely not acceptable, even though they are not something that the self relative risk climber would do or would authorize. But again, when you're working under two different sets of rules and without really drilling into individual circumstances surrounding something, I think most options know excessive when they see it, but it's very difficult to identify without having a full picture and all of the facts and circumstances.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary) [probable]]: And just to be clear, federal agents, our use of force policies do not apply to the federal agents. Correct.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Okay, Thank you.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member, Senate Judiciary) [probable]]: Thank you for being here. I'm

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: Senator, I'm having a hard time hearing. There's a lot of talk behind me. It's it's hard to hear about directions. Thank you. Thanks.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: We'll see you as we'll use

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member, Senate Judiciary) [probable]]: Thank you all for being here. Can you hear me now?

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Hello? There Emily, is there another mic we might be able to find?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member, Senate Judiciary) [probable]]: Okay, first of all thank all of you for being here. I appreciate it. Many of you, well several of you, the word accountability and I want to start there. So we are eight days out from the incident. I know you've been working hard on an after action report. As has been said a number of times, that's going to take a while to complete. But I would note that you have been specific so far in your critique of the protesters. You've separated out some as agitators. You've given a timeline for when their behavior changed in your point of view. You've also been, my mind, very transparently talking about the failures of ICE to communicate or compromise in the way they handled the operation. I think that's all great. It's what we expect of you in reviewing your own force's actions as well, but when you're speaking of your own force's actions, you said only that they are professional and restrained and that they are accountable, but we haven't yet heard other than color of windbreakers, which is no one's fault, we haven't heard hint of any behavior that could have been different, although you said that after action reports seek that purposefully. So I'll just ask you all directly, is there anything you can offer us in terms of after eight days of contemplation, reviewing video, etcetera, In advance of the interaction report, is there anything you can offer us today that you feel you could have done better or that needs accountability to use your own term? And maybe we could start with Burlington PD. Thank

[Chief Sean Burke, Interim Chief of Police, City of Burlington]: you for that question, senator. There's nothing further that I can offer at this stage, but I would like to highlight a couple of things. So Burlington police on scene did have to make four arrests of folks. And this is typical of how Vermont police operate in the field where we have to identify probable cause for a charge, figure out the arrest status of the person, take appropriate action, and and move on. And we've done so in that regard, and that's why I have greater clarity on what Vermont criminal statutes were violated by those that immerse themselves in the activist community. The internal process always takes time. We have similar frustrations when the attorney general has to review lethal force applications. Those take extraordinarily long time have extraordinarily long timetables, and that is, equally frustrating for us. But I promise you that the city of Burlington, our police department, will work through our investigative process. We have additional steps, layers for transparency that will involve the mayor's office and the police commission, and we will identify any missteps of policy committed by any of our employees that were on scene in South Burlington and take the appropriate action necessary?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member, Senate Judiciary) [probable]]: Maybe South Burlington.

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: Sure. As far as officer misconduct, I I am internal initial review of all use of force by South Burlington police officers has been conducted, none of which have determined that any of our officers violated policy or used excessive force in any way. We are like our other partners here. We are continuing our complete review And I'm sure there will be many things, being president of the Emergency Operations Center, being in direct control of this operation. There's plenty of things and ways we could have done better communication between agencies, all kinds of issues that could be addressed to ensure that the next time we respond, we are responding with less issues of communication. One

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member, Senate Judiciary) [probable]]: of the

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: things we didn't think about was body cameras and how long the batteries last in the body camera. And that you can't just replace a battery in a body camera. It's assigned to an individual officer. So we are looking at ways to, if something like this should happen again, where options are out for an extended period of time, that we can have a process in place that we're not trying to develop in the moment to replace body cameras, to ensure that we have continual video recordings of incidents. That's just an example. There's a whole host of those things. Like Chief Burke said, we are reviewing those and those things are going to take time. I am also in the process of using body cam footage, really developing a, hoping to develop a minute by minute timeframe for the entire year, so we can truly learn as a profession and see where the different feeling points work.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member, Senate Judiciary) [probable]]: And if if I could just BSP.

[Colonel Matthew Birmingham, Director of the Vermont State Police]: Yeah. Yeah. Senator, thanks for the question. It's it's too premature to draw any conclusions until this review is done. We're going through many, many hours of video. We have two processes really for the state police. We have what the commissioner referred to as our internal affairs process, which includes all misconduct. And then we have the after action review, which includes things such as tactics and how we deploy resources and how they're utilized. And it's premature for us to draw any conclusions. But that will all be included in the report in terms of what we did and what we could have done then, but we're not there yet.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member, Senate Judiciary) [probable]]: Thank you. And my last question would be regarding masks. In the morning after briefing, we did talk briefly about masks. I understand the need for a carve out for a biological necessity. My question would be, did the CAT officers who are wearing masks, were they, prominently identified otherwise?

[Colonel Matthew Birmingham, Director of the Vermont State Police]: All of the CAT team members had state police uniforms on. But but were they identified? By by name.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: By name.

[Colonel Matthew Birmingham, Director of the Vermont State Police]: No. They were not.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member, Senate Judiciary) [probable]]: Okay. That is important because it's it's piece of two zero eight as it goes forward. I know you're working with us on that. I'll just repeat something that I said to commissioner Morrison the day after. To the extent that state police, whether they're wearing identifying windbreakers that more clearly differentiate them, to the extent that they wear masks, I believe the general public will associate them with ICE at this point. The mask is itself an irritant, a flashpoint, and I think it should only be deployed in the event of true biological emergency. And I'm not saying that spitting cannot be such a case. I would just ask that you think three times before masking rather than simply twice. Thank you.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary) [probable]]: Senator Lowes.

[Unidentified Senator]: I am concerned that the CAT team had no identification. It's difficult for the public to believe that balaclavas are not a disguise if you also don't have your name on your uniform, and that is not a question.

[Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's just a statement.

[Unidentified Senator]: I do have some questions. One of them is that if Vermonters can expect that if they are assaulted by federal law enforcement or other law enforcement, that something will happen. Because I was there,

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: I don't know if any of

[Unidentified Senator]: you were, and I witnessed several Vermonters assaulted by law enforcement, most of which was federal law enforcement. But I did not witness a response from our state and local law enforcement just to intervene. There were a couple of instances I did witness someone stop a car from running over a downed protester. And that was certainly intervention. But I would expect my state and local law enforcement would arrest people if they were assaulting Remoders. So I guess my question is, can Remoders expect that that will happen in future instances?

[Colonel Matthew Birmingham, Director of the Vermont State Police]: That's the impossible situation that Marin Senator is trying to balance the federal action against citizens. Had the legal authority to dispute the warrant. They operate under a different use of force standard and they don't answer to they have their own internal processes for review. They have their own internal complaint processes. The United States attorney is an avenue that can investigate them. The FBI is an avenue that can investigate. So I would suggest that if there were complaints of that nature that that people who have those allegations contact the US attorney's office and the FBI and their office of inspector general and file those complaints. On the ground, these are judgment calls made by by law enforcement officers whether something and we've covered this is excessive or illegal. And it gets very blurry and very complicated when you're pitting two different law enforcement groups against each other.

[Unidentified Senator]: Okay. So the Vermonters should not expect that people may be law enforcement may be arrested for assaulting people.

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: At this time, that's what you should expect.

[Unidentified Senator]: I'm wondering at what time the teams learned that the individual named in the warrant was not in the home.

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: We learned that after I used to run out three individuals who loaded them in vehicles who was in the process of trying to leave the area. And in your view, was it facilitating an unlawful arrest to aid them in taking three people out of the home that were not named in the warrant and helping them detain them? My view, no, it was not. We had the agents went inside, the agents developed their reasons for detaining people. Like any police officer developed whatever probable cause they developed to do so. They were their detainees. They were not our detainees. They were their detainees. And they It was assumed that they had every legal justification to detain.

[Unidentified Senator]: But if they were not named in the warrant, they would have been civil detentions. Our fair and impartial policing policy quite clearly says that our state and local police should not help facilitate civil detentions.

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: It also says that we don't have to do anything to stop them from making some of the charges.

[Unidentified Senator]: But you should not make those civil defenses by helping them clear the path. Like, that's that's what I'm trying to understand is is the role in facilitating what you now need to be civil defenses.

[Chief Sean Burke, Interim Chief of Police, City of Burlington]: Senator, if I may, this is a bit of a criminal law question. So the entry into the home and the subsequent search was predicated on a criminal warrant issued by the federal court. And it's akin to when we go into a residence with a search warrant for a stolen gun, but yet there's a pound of cocaine on the table. We take the actions needed. So the actions of Vermont law enforcement in South Burlington aided in the execution of a criminal warrant. Once the agents were in there, they still have their lawful authority to do what they need to do and no obligation whatsoever to say, we don't have our person in here, but we do have three other people that we're going to take out. So it wasn't until like Chief Bro said, hour hours later that we had learned that they didn't get the target of their investigation.

[Unidentified Senator]: But three is different than one, and there was only one person named in the criminal warrant. So it would have been pretty clear that civil arrests were happening that law Vermont law enforcement then facilitated to continue by aiding them and getting in the car and holding the door open to put them in the car?

[Chief Sean Burke, Interim Chief of Police, City of Burlington]: I don't agree with that because we don't know what information that they are privy to. And we've we've cited countless examples of the lack of communication. In fact, I will call it for what it is. They do not care to inform us about what authority they're switching between. And when we think about how the fair and impartial policing policy was engineered, it wasn't for any situation that even remotely comes close to this. It's more related to when Vermont law enforcement could have potentially, you know, stopped a person for a traffic violation. And we were not going to inquire as to their immigration status. These are worlds apart. And in my, my assessment, really, this is not a violation whatsoever of the fair and impartial policing policy.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: There was conversation earlier about aggressive behavior from protesters. There was also conversation about aggressive tactics from federal agents. And I'm wondering if you can describe further if the escalation that happened later in the evening, because as far as I understand, throughout almost the entirety of the day, it was a peaceful gathering. Did this become more chaotic in response to the increased amount of law enforcement or the increased tactics from law enforcement?

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: I would say it happened a few times during the day that anytime any federal agents changed, a number of federal agents changed, but pretty early today around noon time, two additional federal agents arrived and there was a flare up from the crowd. Federal agents had to deploy records freight and that's because of that first round of violence or potential rounds between protesters and agents that was the reason I decided to close down the street in front of the residence. So I would say the coronal demeanor definitely became more agitated than not at once. Anytime there was an influx of agents. Now of course that happened right before the war was served and understanding that and predicting that, we made a level decision to have troopers and police officers specifically there when that was about to happen. Because had we not been there, I am certain that as they told me numerous times during the day, they would have served that warrant with any means necessary, which would have included a much more heightened level of force. Again, the same force we saw when they were simply trying to recover a vehicle later in the event. We would have seen that at the time warrant was attempted to be served. I am certain that the presence of local police and troopers stopped unnecessary and avoidable violence from happening?

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: Thank you all for being here today. I think this debrief is really important for us as a state to reflect on what happened and how can we burn from this, understanding that this is our new landscape where it's likely to happen again. So with that being said, I appreciate hearing the opportunities that you are taking to kind of look at and reflect what can

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: you make, what can we do better. I know that we're doing that here in

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: the legislature with bills that are being considered. I'm curious what opportunities exist, if any, for you to debrief with federal agents? Because I feel like that's the part of this that we're hearing. And are there any opportunities that exist? Or is that, no, we're out of luck on that? So I'd be really curious about that. Thank you for the question. Do intend to reach back out to the group that we met with on January 30, which is mostly Vermont based federal agents. They live here, their children go to school here, they do their job here. There were some from the Boston Regional Office that were in that meeting. So we are hopeful that at our invitation, they will come back to the table to do exactly what you just suggested, some

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: of them

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: debrief, identify the opportunities for things to go better in the future. We're hopeful that that will happen. I'm confident that our Vermont based partners will come to the table. And I'm hopeful that the regional bosses will join us because that's where I think we can get some inroads made on not having these things fall out of the sky with no flow warning. I do think it is worth pointing out that the federal agents who are based in Vermont did not know this action was happening. They came from out of the state and began an operation, and it was news to federal agents who live and work here. So it's We are going to take that opportunity to try to debrief with them. Doctor.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: North.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: I to thank you all for being here. I'm going to change the question just a little bit here. I'm wondering if they've been trying to look through the lens of the local state picture. Had the Vermont State Police not responded to an assist or request for assistance from the self proble police, and I can't ever imagine if Vermont State Police not responding to an assistant on a local agency. What I'm wondering is the response taking place and the CAF members weren't there and so on and so forth, nor the courts of the federal agents executing there was warrant. In your opinion, and it could be the colonel, doesn't matter, in your opinion what other foot of the seat look like?

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: Ali, as the one who requested the assistance of both Vermont State Police and Burlington Place as well as others, my fear is exactly what

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: we saw later in the night

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: that ICE was going to serve that warrant to 20 to 25 agents, greatly outnumbered by a crowd, and they would have used a much more aggressive tactic and much more force to do so To include, and I'm not being overly dramatic, I think it doesn't take much imagination to see how potential deadly force could have been used by agents. A crowd of two hundred-three 100 people, all it would take is an agent believing somebody was reaching for his gun, things that we've seen throughout the country, and it quickly turned from pepper spray to firearms being discharged. And I believe in my role as the chief of police for the city of South Burlington, public safety was paramount and that's why I called the state police and the Burlington police. And without them, we would have absolutely seen, there's no doubt in my mind, we would have seen much more violence include up and into including potential loss of life.

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: Do you want to

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: take that one?

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Representative Baruth. Probably not.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: Thank you. Thank you for being here. I want to say first and not maybe this is more for our chairs that I'm feeling a little bit limited in my ability to ask or ask questions because we've only heard from law enforcement, we haven't heard from folks who were there. So I feel a little bit like I don't have all the information to ask the questions I have. I don't want to put you all on spot based on assumptions and in premises. I won't ask there are questions I have that I feel like she doesn't ask me because I don't I wasn't there. I don't have firsthand accounts, and I'd to So understanding that you all were separate, completely separate, you know, this was a federal action and a criminal warrant sought by federal officials, but just from my understanding, hopefully I'll help folks understand better, can you say a little bit about the warrants that was sought and issued? The criminal warrant. The event today didn't start with a criminal warrant and then there was a switch to a federal agent seeking a criminal warrant. What was that warrant for? Do you know?

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: What I was told by the supervisor on-site for ICE was that initially they were applying for two criminal warrants for the same individual. One was to, for illegal reentry into The United States as a criminal offense federally, as well as for assaults on federal officers. The United States Attorney's Office based on conversations between ICE and the US Attorney's Office did not move that warrant forward, assault on police officers. They wanted that further investigated by FBI and FBI is still currently investigating the underlying assault related to the war vehicle equipment for against the agents. They also applied for a federal search warrant to enter and search the residence.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: And was that warrant granted?

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: Yes, was.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: So then one other question I have, this is following up a little bit on Representative Malone's question and Senator Klipscheek about a duty to intervene. One of the few firsthand accounts that I have heard is from a fellow state rep who was there, and she shared with me that at some point folks who were present became aware that the person whose name was on the warrant was definitely not in the house, and when she became aware of that after seeing the warrant, somehow a photo of the warrant was circulating, she asked who she should speak to, who might be in charge, she was told to look for her VSP, she looked for someone, she was told to look for someone with a gold lanyard on their hat, and she found someone and said, I'm aware that the person that is named on this warrant is not in the house. I think there's some confusion, and his response was the feds are not confused. What is the duty there, does there exist a duty? I understand everything you're saying about the federal agents not being particularly responsive to your input, and that's of course a separate problem that we need to address in any way we can as a country, but what is the duty to intervene when you are aware they are working on incorrect information?

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: I think it's important to understand the process that has to happen to obtain a search warrant or arrest warrant. A probable cause affidavit has to be written and then reviewed by the United States Attorney's Office and then ultimately reviewed and either approved or denied by a United States District Court Judge. So there was a following cause based on that review that the individual was in the residence. I think it would be naive of us to assume that if just because a member of the crowd told law enforcement a person isn't in there, they would they would just assume and take that for as a fact. They have an obligation, they have followed the laws of when the person is in the home, but they have an obligation to serve that warrant to confirm that or dispel that. And we as local law enforcement, surely we want to ensure that any member of law enforcement, whether it's federal or state or local, that we are all working on all of the information and have correct information. But it doesn't just because somebody in the crowd said, I believe the person's not in there or I know the person's not in there. Unless that person that they wanted produces themselves somewhere else, I think it's impossible. I don't see the result changing. They're still going to enter the home to search and confirm for themselves.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: So just a quick response. Thank you, representative.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: And then I'm

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: gonna also hand it over to Senator Vyhovsky after this. I fully agree we do need to make sure that we hear from the public. So just a little bit of context as to how this hearing came about. At least on the senate side, literally the evening of March 11, there were conversations, within our caucus saying, first thing tomorrow morning, we need to have all law enforcement in our committee, to hear from them. And so there was a lot of logistical moving around to try to figure out how can we get them in, how soon can we get the the CRM scheduled. And then also what amount of information will they realistically have for us the morning after compared to a week and a day after. Regardless, I wanted to make sure that both committees have an opportunity to hear from law enforcement, but also have the opportunity to hear from the public. And so as I had mentioned at the beginning, and I think folks may have come in and out the public has come in and out since I've said this, but we are going to have a public hearing where the public where private citizens can come and share what they conserved. And we're planning to schedule that. We don't have the exact date yet. Still working with representative alone, but definitely planning to have it scheduled out at 5PM so that we can make sure that people who work nine to five jobs are also able to be here. And so I guess just another little public announcement. If you are curious about that public hearing, please just keep double checking the legislative website and our committee pages, and that date will get posted in the near future. And that will, again, just be for private citizens to come and testify to us. Okay. Senator Mahomes.

[Unidentified Senator]: Thank you. I'm wondering what steps were taken by state and local law enforcement to protect the safety of the people in the home that were not named in the warrant. Namely, I'm wondering if there was any assistance from Vermont State Police in getting this young child out of the house.

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: Specific to the young child that was in the house, when a member of the public approached Self Burlington police sergeant and explained that they had joint custody of the child at the same time members of the self Burlington school district arrived and there was no, self governing school district employees had contact with people inside the residence then was able to take custody of the child. We did not take custody of the child. That all happened literally at the same time and the child was safely removed from the house by members of school district.

[Unidentified Senator]: Okay. So you didn't provide help in maintaining the safe transfer of that child or the other people in the home that

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: were not being as supportive.

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: Yeah, that was hours before the law was served, the child was removed and it was done safely. There was no issues at the time. Of course, we would have intervened if had there been any acts of violence at any point, but specific to that child, I'm not really sure what your question is, we take custody of the child and it was done in my opinion in a safe manner.

[Unidentified Senator]: I'm wondering how the process that you described, Commissioner Morrison, of internal investigation intersects with the criminal justice council's complaint and review process? Because it sounds like they're kind of two separate processes. So can you just help me understand that?

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: Yes, ma'am. They are two separate processes. Our process, as I mentioned, has been in place for over forty years. It is statutorily guided. It is also supported by, as I mentioned, SPAC, the State Police Advisory Commission. When we make findings in an internal affairs investigation, if we make a finding of misconduct and we have them categorized in different category A, B, C, we immediately report those findings to the criminal justice council, and they have a subcommittee of the council that reviews findings of misconduct or policy violations. And they decide if they are going to take that up as a matter that should come before their subcommittee or the council. And the council has the ability to take action on their own related to a misconduct. Thank you. Yeah.

[Unidentified Senator]: I apologize because I'm going to actually ask a question that would better be directed to the council, but they're not here and you seem to have a fairly adept understanding of how it works. Members of the public can also make complaints to the

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: council, correct? Yes, I believe that

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: to be true. It historically has been true.

[Unidentified Senator]: Okay, and does that process intersect at all? I'm trying to understand how the communication and how the processes sort of intersect. And you may not know.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Go

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: ahead. Go ahead, Sean.

[Chief Sean Burke, Interim Chief of Police, City of Burlington]: Thank you, commissioner. Senator, so we we did have members of the public file complaints with the criminal justice council. And in turn, the director sends us written notification of that, report and with a request that when the investigation inquiry is done into these specific complaints that the reports are shared with the director of the Police Academy. And then how that's reviewed by the director and then referred or not referred to the subcommittee of the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, I am unaware of.

[Unidentified Senator]: Thank you. I recognize the right expert wasn't in the room, but I was just hoping to get some clarity. So thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: President Orseau?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: Thank you. One more that I neglected the past before. Think, Commissioner Morrison, you mentioned the preparation work that's been done for, you know, anticipating protests, and I think you might I'm not sure, were you talking specifically about preparation that's been done in light of recent events, or more generally for keeping the public safe in case of protests?

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: I think I understood your question. I didn't ask any But my comments today were specific to the preparation we have made since the situation and events in Minneapolis occurred, and we wanted to ensure that we had proper communication. We had hoped to have proper communication with federal officials, and at that time we also had ongoing conversations, do happen in the normal course of policing every year or so. We talk about our crime control techniques and the teams train up. Vermont's home to many protests, so this isn't completely foreign territory, but the specific remarks I made were about what we perceived could happen in Vermont in the wake of fenced in New Orleans.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: Okay, thank you for that clarification. And I'm wondering if, you know, I think that framing is really important, we frame situation, you know, framing is important, and I'm wondering if in those conversations, in those preparations, how, or if you're able to take into account the high likelihood of violent interactions between protesters and federal agents, and what your plan is for, you talked about keeping separation, I think was the word, right, between protesters and federal agents. I wonder if you can say a little bit more about separation, and it was getting to the question earlier about intervention. Just would love to have a little more clarity on the plan, because we know what we know and how unfortunate it is that we're having to make such preparations, but what does that look like in hearing the preparations? To keep I'm asking again, said framing, so I'm wondering if when we think about keeping Vermonters safe from federal law enforcement, what does that sound like?

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: And law enforcement safe from protesters who choose to resort to violence.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: It's a boat ban. Absolutely, but again, because I'm bringing that framing. So the assumption is that protesters are going to be assaulting officers,

[Unidentified Senator]: and I understand you have to

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: plan for multiple eventualities, but I'm specifically wondering about the, again, very unfortunate, and I can't even believe I have to say it, you know, a likelihood that federal agents will be aggressive towards the watchers. What is

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: the plan for keeping the watchers safe from those federal agents if left you yet? We executed the plan. The plan was to keep them separated, and that has been the plan all along. There's a great Norman Schwarzkopf quote about you can have the best laid plan until somebody climbs out of Yorkshire Pit and chases you around with a bayonet, right? I think that generally speaking, the plan to separate protesters from the agents who were on a mission, clearly, was executed. And that was the plan all along, to provide for separation so that everybody could do their job. Protesters could do their job, agents could do their job. I can't speak about the events on March 11, but I can speak from experience of being one of the people who is in a job where you have to separate or move people. And these are very coordinated, choreographed moves to move crowds of people by a small number of police officers, and it does get messy at times. There's no way around it. It is a messy business crowd control. I've been there. I've supervised it. So we executed the plan, which was to keep them separate. And if there's more to the question, please help me.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: I guess, and perhaps, I might be over being optimistic here and even idealistic. So I'm imagining how things might go, and maybe the reestablishment of trust that you all are talking about, so how things might go differently if this happens in the future or something similar. If the protesters at the bookstore there exercising their First Amendment rights feel confident that our local law enforcement's first objective is to keep them safe, that may be already the case. I am not challenging that, but I maybe am looking for an opportunity or trying to create an opportunity for you to share that if that is the first objective, because I think as you, you're American citizens, you know as well as any of us how scary it is to be, to feel like under attack by your federal government, and these law enforcement agents of the federal government who seem to have no care for the American people and the harm they're causing, and it's scary. And how lucky are we to have folks who sign up to protect those rights. People in law enforcement are there to do that, and that's a really wonderful thing. I'm really hoping that we can establish, not just here in this moment, but through multiple efforts, and understanding that Vermont law enforcement is here to protect Vermonters. It sounds silly to say that it should be understood, I just, because of the situation we find ourselves in.

[Colonel Matthew Birmingham, Director of the Vermont State Police]: You are correct. We are here to protect Vermonters and that's what we attempted to do last week. I can tell you the state police has always we've been planning aggressively since the events in Minneapolis to try and come up with a way to thread the needle on this. And and the plan is to separate at this point because if if federal law enforcement has legal process and a legal right to do what they're doing, we can't stop them. And I think that people ask us that question all the time. Why did we stop them? We don't have that authority. So I think the volatile nature of both sides of this, for us the plan is to separate protesters and federal authorities and the area in which we have to disagree is either in a courtroom or in Congress or in this building. It can't be on the street because violently I mean. Because if they have a legal right to be doing it, you may not agree with it, I'll just say that right now, but we can't we don't have the authority to stop them.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Member, Senate Judiciary)]: That's what if they don't have a legal right to do what they're doing?

[Colonel Matthew Birmingham, Director of the Vermont State Police]: That's a very good question and I don't have an answer for you. And so I I think that the federal government has a responsibility to answer that question. But in that moment in time, in order to keep people safe, which is our role, our best approach is to separate.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Representative Goodnow.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Thank you. Thank you very much for being here. My question is, I'm not sure who to correct this at. We're gonna learn a lot more information, lessons, things that can be done differently in the future. How can we ensure that that information, those lessons, those changes in policy or procedure are keeping you across the state to other local municipalities so we can ensure that another action happens and doesn't happen in the winter South Burlington that all of that information of life are conveyed into the community.

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: We anticipate that the after action review in this circumstance will be made public. Certainly, we will share it with our colleagues at the Vermont Police Academy that develop a training curriculum around most of these intersecting topics. And we also tend to share information like this through associations. The Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police involves all of the chiefs across the state. Likewise, those sheriffs have an association. So there are definitely avenues to quickly and effectively share the information. I can't direct them to uptake the information. We can share it. That's really what we can do. And we can encourage the folks who create the training curricula to incorporate the key takeaways.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Ask me that. I think I have one more question. Suppose it's more technical here. Going back to something we had discussed earlier regarding masks, there had been a reference to the balaclavas, the masks that were covering most of people's faces. Then there was also reference to the biohazards as well. And that had caused me to think about the transparent face shields that you generally see crowd control wearing and I had seen photos of law enforcement with the balaclavas but also the transparent face shields that were up rather than down. So can you describe the discrepancy there and why weren't the transparent base fuels used instead?

[Colonel Matthew Birmingham, Director of the Vermont State Police]: Those are good questions, Senator, and they'll all be reviewed as part of this after action review. We're already looking at alternative ways to protect our people from biological or chemical exposure that may not be a face mask. So that's going to be part of the review because I have the same question. So we're trying to figure that out as part of the review and I don't have a clear answer for you right now.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Okay, thank you. Representative Harvey, Senator Hosneakin, that may bring us to time here.

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: You.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: There we go, thank you very much Chair and Chief. Usually I don't need a microphone to announce even Commissioner Nosav. I first wanna echo the things of everyone the day that has thanked you all for being here and taking the time to come before us because I think this is a really important and critical conversation that we're having in real time before the media and certainly the community, which I really think is that I want to take that things a step further and thank all of you, your departments, the men and women in uniform for their service to the state and keeping our community safe. Because without all of you, the first amendment and all the others really don't matter if we don't have the ability to exercise those. And I wanna thank you commissioner for your comments yesterday in the governor's press conference, because I do think that the distinction that you made with the three different policy lenses of the first priority being the protesters being able to exercise their first amendment to protect other men and women in uniform. And then thirdly, to make sure that federal law enforcement were protected in the crowd, to exercise the warrant. I want to come back to I think a few, I want to go back to a question that Senator Norris had asked of the chief and I do think that we don't have to imagine what the situation could have looked like if your departments were not on scene protecting protesters because we saw that happen in Minneapolis and Minnesota. And I think we, know, had you not responded in the way that you have, we could have, we would be here on the stage addressing a very difficult concern in a very, very tragic incident. And again, to the chief's point, a potential loss of life. And so one of the questions I have, there's been a lot of distinction about how much authority does Gramoxone police have or do they not have when federal law enforcement is responding to a scene? I'm curious, in my research and preparation for this committee hearing, I came across an interesting nuance Vermont State Police General Order C7. And I'm curious if you, and one of the distinctions is that while it does restrict participation in civil immigration enforcement, it does not prohibit assistance in criminal federal law enforcement actions under a valid warrant. So I'm just wondering if you can, I feel like the point has been asked,

[Representative Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary) [probable]]: but I'm wondering if you can

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: kind of hone in what your responsibilities were in that moment?

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: So there was nothing preventing us from assisting with the execution of a criminal federal warrant. There was nothing preventing us from doing that. We made the choice not to be involved in the actions of the ICE agents. We chose instead to exercise our public caretaking function of protecting the public, because this was going down with or without us. And I don't know how to make that any more clear. And I would ask some of you who think that there were other alternatives to say, in our position, then what? You have now a binary choice to either send your highly trained private control team or not. And we could have participated in the federal warrant. That would have been acceptable under the state law and under policy. We chose not to. And we do not concern ourselves with issues around immigration. So as someone who has spent her entire adult life in this space, it's a little frustrating to not hear some of the areas of let's collaborate on this because we're pretty collaborating. We're good collaborators, I think is what I meant to say. And as I said, going back into yesteryear, I saw Will Lambic sitting here earlier. He and I worked together long ago and far away, trying to come to a place where an FIP policy meets the real life needs of Vermonters of So all somehow that kind of let's collaborate, let's do what's all best for Vermonters without casting blame, Someone apparently had to be the villain in this story. And we really want to leave here today with the sense that we have told you what we knew at the time, we've told you what we know today. We know we will know more in the days to come. We are committed to circling back to our federal partners. We are open to collaborating with any group that spearheads protests to talk about doing it safer in the future. In my day in Burlington, that's exactly what we did. We talked with the leaders of protest groups to determine what their course was, what was their goal, did they want to be arrested, and we facilitated that. So I think we need to come back to our Vermont roots a little bit, everyone, all the actors involved in the incident in this situation.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Thank you, Commissioner. And that really is a point that I was hoping to make is that this was a very deliberate choice that you, the department, South Burlington Police Department made.

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: And I do want to kind

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: of hone in and double click on one very specific point and it's to be clear, is it your collective assessment that had you not provided the separation ICE is going to do this themselves and their tactics very likely could have been even more reckless than what we've seen. And I think that you know maybe this is to Chief Bro if you want go find any further on that one.

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: No yeah I think it's crystal clear to me what potentially could have happened it would have most likely have we've not been there and our partners not been there.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Thank you and one it's my understanding that the individual who's subject of the judicial arrest warrant, Mr. Sanchez, obviously was not apprehended by immigration and customs enforcement and if this individual is still in the state and I realize that that is in the clear jurisdiction of the federal immigration enforcement officers, your preparedness in the likelihood of something, an additional incident happening or further law enforcement activity on behalf of ICE to apprehend this individual if they're even still in the state of Vermont. I mean, remains to be seen. I'm curious if you can talk about what the planning has gone into, the anticipation of maybe it's an event related to this, maybe something entirely different. And I know that the after action in the reports are still coming out and you're going be making determinations based on those. If you can just talk to the group about that maybe.

[Jennifer Morrison, Commissioner of Public Safety]: Yeah,

[Colonel Matthew Birmingham, Director of the Vermont State Police]: mean, like I said, we've been since Minneapolis, we've really taken a hard look at our critical action team has rarely if ever been deployed for actual engagement of protesters, is a good thing. I'm proud of that for the state. So we're learning rapidly. We're on an exponential learning curve right now to try and understand what we're going to do the next time. Our primary objective as it was here is to keep everybody safe. But it's not that easy as we've explained to you today. We will be making adjustments every day to try and improve our response to ensure that we do it responsibly and safely within the law. And a lot of that will come out in the abstraction review and things that we've already done.

[Representative Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary) [probable]]: Thank you, Gerl. So I

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: guess in closing, I'm hearing

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: is Representative Marvin, I'm really sorry. We are out of time. We have Representative Christie on the Zoom. Sure. If can keep it to, like, one second.

[Senator Robert Norris, Vice Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: This is one second. It's not a question. What I'm hearing is that you've prepared, you've communicated, you responded, and you protect your community. Just wanna say thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Representative Christie is on the Zoom. He hasn't had a chance to say anything yet, and I wanna make sure that he has that opportunity, and then we'll be wrapping up because we're at 11:01 right now. So, coach, representative Christie, are you

[Representative Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary) [probable]]: are you here?

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Representative Christie?

[Representative Kevin "Coach" Christie]: Yes. Can you hear me?

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Yes.

[Representative Kevin "Coach" Christie]: Senator and mister chair, thank you very much for bringing this together. I just wanna make one statement about our response, as noted so far by South Burlington, Burlington, and the state police and the leadership. Having been involved in the FIP process for a number of years from the legislative perspective, the response of our law enforcement, all 70 entities around the state, you know, has been exemplary. And for that, I'm really proud. And I heard a statement that gives me a lot of hope when I got a call from my daughter in tears, a brown Vermonter asking her dad to get a copy of her birth certificate out of fear. And to hear the commissioner, the colonel, and our two chiefs clearly state that their primary role and mission is to protect all of our Vermonters gives me a lot of hope, you know, in this process. So I just wanted to share that and share my gratitude to them for their continued service, you know, in this very difficult, difficult, difficult time. And you notice the emphasis on difficult.

[Chief William "Bill" Breault, South Burlington Police Department]: So I

[Representative Kevin "Coach" Christie]: I just wanted to say thank you, and, we'll continue our work, as this, moves forward. Thank you, senator.

[Senator Nader Hashim, Chair (Senate Judiciary)]: Thank you, representative Christie. Good closing comments. So and thank you to our witnesses. Thank you to the public for this well attended meeting, and thank you to both committees for, your good questions and for being