The Vermont Criminal Justice Council has unanimously approved a selection of long-debated changes to Vermont’s fair and impartial policing policy in an attempt to curtail biased treatment of people by law enforcement based on personal characteristics.
The changes, many of which centered on citizenship status, earned qualified applause from an immigrants’ rights group, which said they were a step in the right direction but did not go far enough.
Last updated in January 2018, the policy lays out guidelines for unbiased policing, including under what circumstances law enforcement can involve federal immigration authorities when making policing decisions.
After years of proposed changes, delayed votes and a hot mic moment in which a representative of the Vermont Police Association made a racist remark during a migrant worker’s testimony — prompting an outcry and his on-the-spot resignation — the council unanimously approved the new policy on Tuesday.
Calling it “a long, difficult process,” Bill Sorrell, the governor-appointed chair of the council and a former Vermont attorney general, thanked a range of contributors, including the council’s fair and impartial policing subcommittee, which drafted the recommendations that were partially adopted; Migrant Justice for its “zealous advocacy” of immigrant rights; and the Department of Public Safety for its active participation.
Migrant Justice, which represents migrant farmworkers in the state, and the Vermont ACLU were the two community advocacy groups that contributed to the subcommittee’s work, as did the Vermont Attorney General’s Office.
Will Lambek, an organizer with Migrant Justice, said that although the new policy includes “significant improvements” that amount to “strengthening protections for immigrant communities,” more work needs to be done.
“We celebrate this victory while recognizing that the policy still contains dangerous loopholes and does not provide the clarity and security that immigrant communities need and deserve,” he said in an email Wednesday.
During a series of public hearings, some of the changes faced opposition from policing groups. The Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police, for instance, asked in January for all immigration-related references to be “stripped” from the document. The group objected to restrictions on allowing immigration officials to use their offices, according to the two-page letter they submitted listing 15 concerns.
With the policy revised, Vermont’s law enforcement agencies must now update their practices, according to a press release from the Vermont Criminal Justice Council. The council, in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office, plans to review compliance within the next six months.
The new policy includes many but not all of the changes recommended by the council’s fair and impartial policing committee. The bulk of the new language outlines the conditions under which local officials can enforce immigration issues and the extent to which they can work with federal immigration authorities, especially when doing so impacts a person from a marginalized group, such as a migrant worker or a person who is not a U.S. citizen.
For example, the changes emphasize that local law enforcement “does not participate in civil immigration enforcement and expects its members to try to swiftly and safely complete their law enforcement duties (e.g., issue a traffic citation) and move on, leaving immigration enforcement to the appropriate authorities.”
It also adds to the standing guidelines for establishing a person’s identity. For example, according to the new policy, law enforcement should not require that vehicle passengers show identification unless there is “reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity”; they should not consider refusal to provide such documents to be reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity; and they should make clear that a person can deny such a request.
The new 12-page document also includes several language tweaks — such as adding “citizenship” to a list that previously included only “personal characteristics” and “immigration status” — to expand the traits that officers should generally not consider or ask about while investigating most potential crimes.
However, the council rejected other recommendations from its fair and impartial policing committee that would have further limited the circumstances under which police can share information with federal immigration and border patrol agencies, Lambek said. He pointed out the policy continues to allow local officers to communicate with federal agencies when it comes to public safety, officer safety or law enforcement unrelated to immigration enforcement.
Lambek decried those sections of the standing policy as “Trump-era loopholes that have allowed local police to collaborate with federal agencies to detain and deport immigrants, separating families and terrorizing communities.” He said he is dismayed that the committee’s recommendations did not move forward.
“Our focus now turns towards implementation, to ensure that law enforcement agencies properly adopt, train to, and hold officers accountable to the updated policy,” he said.
Amanda Garces, director of policy, education and outreach for the Vermont Human Rights Commission, chaired the committee. While “the new policy does not have all the components that our (committee) voted on,” it is “a step in the right direction,” she said in an email.
“Policy changes must be accompanied by robust training, and I am confident that our system is equipped to ensure this path is navigable,” she added.
While there are challenges ahead, Sorrell said, he reiterated the importance of the work done and the collaboration the process entailed.
“Nobody got everything they wanted, but it was a respectful process,” he said, with “many different voices (at) the table.”