|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Guy Page
One of the Burlington’s most oft-arrested-and-released offenders has Burlington police hopping this month.
Burlington police say Michael Reynolds, 47, has 162 misdemeanor charges with 42 convictions, 19 felony charges with 6 convictions, 39 violations of court orders or conditions charges with 3 convictions, and 10 failures to appear. His arrests and his mugshot (above) are well known to VDC readers. This year he was arrested for spitting on and headbutting cops, and attacking a firefighter.
Yesterday, police reported that Reynolds had punched a mailbox, lunged into traffic and threatened a nearby pedestrian. It was, police say, the latest in a string of almost daily incidents since December 10. Here’s the list sent to the press by BPD:
On December 9, at about 7:29 am, officers with the Burlington Police Department responded to South Union Street for a trespass. Officers trespassed Michael Reynolds, 47, of Burlington for one year from the property.
At about 3:50 pm, officers with the BPD responded to South Union Street for a disturbance. Officers issued Reynolds a citation for disorderly conduct and unlawful trespass. Reynolds was trespassed from the same property earlier in the day.
On December 10, at about 9:50 pm, officers with the BPD responded to the University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC) on Colchester Avenue for reports that Reynolds was refusing to leave after being told he was trespassed. Officers arrived and informed Reynolds he was trespassed and needed to leave. Reynolds left and then later returned to UVMMC. Reynolds was taken into custody and cited for unlawful trespass.
On December 11, at about 11:45 pm, officers with the BPD were dispatched to UVMMC for a report that Reynolds was refusing to leave. When officers arrived on scene, Reynolds was yelling and refusing to leave after he was trespassed from the security. Reynolds was taken into custody and transported to the BPD. Reynolds was then released on a citation without fingerprints and photograph due to his escalated behaviors.
On December 12, at about 7:24 am, officers with the BPD responded to UVMMC for a report of a disturbance. When officers arrived, Reynolds was outside of UVMMC. Officers provided Reynolds a courtesy ride to North Winooski Avenue.
At about 1:12 pm, officers with the BPD responded to a disturbance on Pearl Street. Officers issued Reynolds a citation for disorderly conduct and unlawful trespass. Reynolds has been previously trespassed from this property.
On December 13, at about 5:52 pm, officers with the BPD responded to Pearl Street for a report that Reynolds was actively trespassing. Upon arrival, officers took Reynolds into custody for unlawful trespass and transported him to the BPD. Reynolds was cited to appear in court on February 4, 2025 and released.
On December 16, 2024, at about 6:33 am, officers with the BPD responded to South Union Street for a report of Reynolds violating a previously issued trespass. Upon arrival, officers responded and issued a citation to appear in court on December 19.
On December 17, at about 8:08 pm, an officer with BPD was conducting a directed patrol of the Marketplace Garage, when the officer observed Reynolds inside the stairwell. Reynolds has active court conditions to not be in the parking garage. Reynolds was issued a citation on scene and was escorted from the property.
Later that night, on December 18, at about 12:29 am, officers with the BPD responded to the University of Vermont Medical Center. Investigation revealed Reynolds was discharged and did not leave when asked to – Reynolds has an active notice of trespass from the location. When officers arrived, they asked Reynolds to leave. Reynolds did not comply and was taken into custody for unlawful trespass.
On December 20, at about at 1:06 am, officers with the BPD responded for a report of Reynolds violating a previously issued trespass. When officers arrived, Reynolds was observed standing inside of the business. Reynolds was taken into custody and lodged.
On December 23, the BPD received reports regarding Reynolds trespassing on South Winooski Avenue. Due to staffing shortage, officers responded to the scene a short time later. Officers located Reynolds and cited him for unlawful trespass.
Later the same day, at about 11:40 am, officers responded to the area of North Winooski Avenue and Pearl Street regarding a mental health issue involving Reynolds. Upon arrival, officers observed Reynolds chasing an individual. Investigation revealed Reynolds had engaged in violent and tumultuous behavior in a public place, when he repeatedly punched a nearby mailbox. Reynolds was also lunging into a heavily trafficked intersection and approaching a pedestrian in an aggressive manner. Reynolds was taken into custody.
Anyone with information about this incident is asked to contact the Burlington Police Department at (802) 658-2704.
Gov. Scott has expressed the hope that the Legislature will tighten up Vermont’s criminal justice laws to reduce the amount of ‘catch and release’ of repeat offenders.
Click on the image below to read more VDC headlines and thumbnail descriptions about Vermont’s Public Safety Crisis. In response to reader interest, in 2025 VDC intends to be more active than ever covering Vermont’s criminal justice system, including proposed legislation.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Public Safety
Stay the course; it seems to be working for everyone involved.
Follow Sheriff Colby’s cue …
November 5, 2024
Council Membership
Vermont Criminal Justice Council
317 Academy Road
Pittsford, VT
Re: Essex County Sheriff’s Department FIP Policy
Dear Council Members,
I have drafted this letter to clarify my reasons for my requested revisions. Please consider my request to approve my policy as modified. As a county with border communities, we lack resources in our border communities. One town does not have an enforcement contract, another is less than 5 hours weekly, and the third contracts for just between 20 and 30 hours weekly. When our officers see something suspicious or out of the ordinary, we often relay that information to our federal partners. It is a common practice to share what appears to be suspicious or out of the ordinary patterns just to have a better understanding of what is happening in our communities. Regularly exchanging intelligence information on criminal behaviors and potential trafficking suspects with our law enforcement partners is a standard practice for solving crimes. This policy blurs the lines for officers on what they can and can’t share by trying to apply limitations on sharing of information. Our level of sharing is often on a very basic level. As an example, “Hey, I saw this vehicle in this area and it seemed suspicious, or we had a report of this suspicious activity occurring in this area”. Often none of the detail is available to understand what type or even if a crime has been committed. Our reports could lead to immigration related cases, illegal border crossing cases, or any illegal trafficking of humans, guns, drugs, turtles or other contraband. Our reports could also be of no relevance to any criminal activity. It is often unknown when that intelligence is shared what legal or illegal relevance it holds. The sharing is intended to improve the number of people paying attention to what is occurring, or has already occurred, within our communities so we can help each other reduce and solve crimes.
The border patrol station that is located in one of our towns has a presence in our community where they provide a vast amount of the resources for local emergency responses. Just based upon the distance of our patrol area, a response can take an hour of travel. Border Patrol agents are often our first responders to scenes. Our rural nature lacks infrastructure to have the necessary staff and tools statewide to regularly access evidence to solve crimes. Agents are often called as witnesses in cases in Essex County, cases where they have been the persons finding or called to incidents and crime scenes. Law enforcement regularly asks the community, “See something, say something,” seeking witnesses to crimes and suspicious behaviors.
This policy directly contradicts that common practice. We ask this of others, yet limit officers’ communications with federal partners. The policy is incredibly confusing and applies premises that are questionable at best. We, as officers, are led to observe and identify things that appear suspicious or out of the ordinary. This policy not only attempts to unlawfully restrict these communications by limiting what can be shared, it requires agencies to dissuade its officers from reporting or seeking the arrest of a person committing a federal crime by stating “unlawful entry is not a priority of the agency”.
After submitting my draft policy, I received a letter from Attorney McManus with several comments referencing areas she deemed did not meet the requirements. The sections below highlighted in yellow are the model policy sections that I deleted. The words in red underlined print are my additions. The green highlighted sections are comments. I have isolated the specific amended sections and comments below. Please forgive the formatting.
IV. Establishing Identity
d. Any contact with federal immigration authorities to determine an individual’s identity must comply with guidance regarding Interactions with Federal Immigration Officers in Section VI.
I removed the highlighted section above as it is attempting to place restrictions on communications with federal law enforcement agencies. The arguments for removal of the restrictions are made in the appropriate subsection.
These restrictions hinder, delay and prevent law enforcement officers from providing statements as witnesses of possible federal crimes.
V. State / Local Enforcement Authority / Priorities and Federal Immigration Law
The language below is a direct attempt to dissuade officers from reporting to federal authorities by hindering investigations by stating unlawful entry is not a priority of the agency. The policy goes a step further in attempting to prevent investigating and reporting of possible federal crimes by restricting the witness statements of possible federal crimes by limiting them to subsections (1) and (2). This policy is dissuading officers from investigating federal crimes and making arrests in direct violation of
18 U.S. Code § 1512 which states(d)Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—(3)arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
I, for one, feel harassed by threats of sanctions, for not imposing policies which limit officer discretion, authority to investigate crimes, and individual rights to make reports to federal law enforcement officers. It is clearly a public safety interest for Vermonters to understand what persons are illegally crossing into their communities and why. Under the premise that all illegal entry cases are matters of public safety, why insert this language into a policy other than to confuse, hinder, and dissuade officers from seeking the arrest of a person involved in a federal crime? My amendment was to explain to officers that these enforcement actions are voluntary. I believe directly telling an officer they should not use authority they have to investigate a specific crime is an attempt to hinder and/or corruptly persuade officers, with the intent to prevent the communication to a federal law enforcement officer, information relating to the commission or possible commission of a federal offense and makes this policy unethical and unlawful.
The letter from Attorney McManus identifies the model policies’ intention to restrict officers’ involvement in unlawful entry and reentry cases both of which are criminal offenses which Vermont officers may lawfully enforce. The specific statement from the letter is in part, “ allows ECSD employees far more discretion in involving themselves in in unlawful entry or reentry cases than the model policy permits.”
b. Though ECSD have authority to enforce federal criminal law, enforcement of federal criminal immigration law is optional generally not a priority for [Agency]. Accordingly,
ECSD members should not are not required to make warrantless arrests, detain individuals, facilitate the detention of individuals, or otherwise expend resources investigating or enforcing unlawful entry or unlawful reentry cases unless such actions are (1) necessary to ensure public safety or officer safety (imminent risk of physical injury to subject, officer, or third party) or (2) integral to the investigation of criminal offenses unrelated to immigration law.
The comment section below seemed to intentionally make the officers’ roles in the crime of illegal entry more confusing. The statement directing officers not to presume Vermont interest opposed to federal interests is a direct attempt to dissuade law enforcement from reporting unlawful federal entry or reentry by making officers question if it is their responsibility. I responded by stating what the scenario would most likely look like in the field. This entire section should be struck including my additional language. If the comment section remains, my officers need clarity on how to respond so my inserted language would need to remain.
Comment: Some individuals crossing the border outside of an authorized checkpoint may be seeking asylum and receive federal permission to remain in the United States. Because it is often difficult to determine whether someone is crossing the border to obtain safety and lawful status, ECSD members should not presume that unauthorized border crossing implicates Vermont, as opposed to federal interests. ECSD enforcement of alleged “unlawful entry” may create the misconception that the Agency is involved in immigration enforcement and undermine partnerships with local communities. ECSD members may provide assistance to individuals seeking asylum and desiring federal permission to remain in the United States who have crossed the border outside an authorized checkpoint by putting them in direct contact with border patrol agents who can further assist them.
Both sections b and c are attempting to state a department’s priorities and also infer that one crime is more important than another. This is a direct attempt to dissuade officers from involvement in investigating and reporting these federal crimes. These policy statements are contrary to border protection work and the establishment of reasonable suspicion that may be determined by the court as reasonable or not. Placing these elements of credible factors which lead to reasonable suspicion only create confusion for officers and liability for agencies to be sued by third party agencies for violation of policy not law. My only argument in section c. is linking number 4. Proximity to the border. If 4 is removed then I would leave section c. as written.
c. The following do may not on their own establish reasonable suspicion of a criminal offense and are not sufficient to warrant an investigation:
Personal characteristics, including Limited English Proficiency
Citizenship or Immigration status,
Presence in the United States without authorization or formal documentation, and
Proximity to the border.
These elements in combination with others may contribute to reasonable suspicion. As noted in Section II(b), personal characteristics may be taken into account only where there is credible, reliable, locally relevant, temporally specific information that links a person of specific description to particular criminal incidents and is combined with other identifying information.
The section below has been removed as it is incorrect and misleading. Law enforcement officers are not limited on communicating with federal officers. It is only the policy which is attempting to narrow the scope of voluntary communications.
d. In interacting with all people,* including suspects, crime victims, and witnesses, [agency members] shall not:
*As explained in Section VI. below, federal immigration law permits a narrow category of voluntary communications with federal immigration authorities — i.e., those regarding citizenship or immigration status.
VI. Interactions with Federal Immigration Officers
a. Limited Application of Federal Immigration Law.
[Agency members] have no legal obligation to communicate with federal immigration authorities.
ECSD Officers shall not be limited in any way on sharing intelligence on suspicious persons or circumstances occurring on or off duty with federal authorities.
I disagree with the inclusion of all of the information between my revision above and my edits below as they are only an attempt to justify a legal argument for illegally restricting communications with federal authorities. I understand what the council is attempting to do which is why I left the language and added my edits for making this optional for department members. The list belowis included, I believe, to show officers what can be excluded under section’s 7(a) and(b) below. I do not believe those sections are legal and therefore feel this section is unnecessary.
However, two federal statutes, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644, provide that local and state agencies and officials may not prevent or restrict their employees from communicating with federal immigration authorities regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status.1
As noted in Section I above, information regarding “citizenship or immigration status” refers only to an individual’s legal rights, if any, to enter or remain in this country, or to exercise certain rights (e.g., vote in federal elections).
As a result, Sections 1373 and 1644 permit state and local authorities to decide whether or when to limit communications with federal immigration authorities regarding other types of information about individuals, such as:
Physical appearance;
Vehicle / license plate information;
Current whereabouts;
SSN or lack thereof;
Places of residence, work, or education;
Family relationships; or
Telephone number;
Custody status, release date/time; or court dates
In this light, [ECSD] has determined that officers may choose but are not required to apply certain legally-permitted restrictions on interactions with federal immigration officers will to aid in its mission to serve all Vermonters, including immigrant communities, and ensure trust and cooperation. Those lawful restrictions are described below:
The only reason I have attached the additional language to the section below is that we have had cases where victims or complainants in cases of human trafficking were identified in our area and we have offered our space as a safe place to meet to reduce the travel burden on victims. The involved agents in unmarked vehicles would not arouse suspicions of our involvement in immigration matters.
b. Restricted Access to [Agency] facility. Unless federal immigration agents have a judicially-issued criminal warrant or a legitimate law enforcement purpose exclusive of the enforcement of civil immigration laws, [Agency] members shall not:
ii, permit immigration authorities to use [Agency] facilities for investigative interviews of possible defendants or in immigration related cases. (This is a new addition)
c. Not amended
d. Additional Restrictions. In addition, [agency members] shall not:
Section 5 restricts officers from participating in certain enforcement activities, but offers exclusions to restrictions for specific enforcement activities that are part of a formal agreement with the governor. It is unclear the way this is listed if many of the other areas of the policy are also exempt when working under part of this formal agreement. Many of the restrictions would be in direct contradiction to the activities under the agreement, for example 7&8 below. I would seek further clarification of this exemption to explicitly reference these exclusions. Another suggestion would be to list this exemption separately rather than listing it as something an officer shall not do.
5. Conduct or participate in enforcement activities intended to locate and detain undocumented immigrants without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a crime, unless acting in partnership with a federal agency as part of a formal agreement entered into by the governor.
Not Amended
Section 7. Below is the most unclear and appears to be intentionally confusing for officers. This policy states we cannot share any information unless there is justification on the grounds of public safety or law enforcement needs. This is a direct violation of the law where it intentionally hinders and delays law enforcement’s ability to report on potential violations of federal law through witnessed events. These sections of policy are intended to make officers question their ability to share information with federal authorities. The policy creates unnecessary restrictions requiring verification of what shared information is a law enforcement need and a public safety concern. These restrictions are unjustified thresholds for information sharing which is created entirely by this policy’s interpretation. By creating fear for officers that their reporting may be a violation, you are clearly hindering and deterring communication. There is not a justifiable reason for creating such confusing language other than implying the concept of restrictions on information sharing. Placing the requirement to contact a supervisor clearly hinders and/or delays reporting.
Share any information (other than information regarding citizenship or immigration status) about an individual with federal immigration authority, unless there is justification on the grounds of
Public safety or officer safety (articulable risk or physical injury to subject, officer, or third party), and state and local authorities are unable to provide urgent assistance in time; or
Law enforcement needs that are not related to the enforcement of federal civil immigration law (e.g., individual may be a human trafficking victim, a crime victim, or witness entitled to a T, U, or S vias).
Prior to providing such information [agency] members shall consult with a supervisor if available, unless doing so would unreasonably extend the individual’s custodial detention.
Our agency regularly communicates with our federal partners suspicious persons and circumstances with the objective of learning a person’s identity. For instance, if I saw a suspicious vehicle operating late at night near XYZ residence and we have multiple reports of break-ins in the area, we would request they help us identify the possible suspect. This would be similar in drug cases where we would have a location and vehicles and try to indentify suspects. Often these suspects are not detained. It is through these activities that we determine suspects of criminal events. This is another attempt to limit local resources and hinder communication of possible crimes with federal authorities.
Contact federal immigration authorities to determine an individual’s identity, unless the individual does not present an acceptable form of identification and [agency member] has reason to believe that such authorities will be able to verify the individual’s identity.
The individual’s personal characteristics are not a reason to believe that federal authorities will be able to verify the individual’s identity.
[Agency members] shall not provide any information except information necessary to establish identity. For example, an [agency member] shall not provide the location of the individual.
In closing, please vote as a council to approve my recommended revisions. I understand the desire to improve officer education involving the impacts of our existing challenging world of working with immigrant communities in a divided country. I believe the trainings and policy statements for fair and unbiased treatment are necessary. I do not believe, however, that this policy is fair or impartial. I have found the current statewide policy is not designed to support public safety, is confusing to officers, and sets up agencies for unjust defamation. Many of the policy directives are an attempt to hinder officer reporting to federal law enforcement officers which is a violation of criminal law. It is ironic to me that the leadership of the Vermont Criminal Justice Council would identify this as a model policy. The policy imposes strong restrictions and then appears to remove the restrictions in certain circumstances which leave officers questioning their application. It appears to be a compromise between competing factions that creates an unjustified maze for officers to attempt to navigate. I hope you will find the majority of my recommendations are to meet the middle ground and uphold the policies intent of officer education and direction in appropriate circumstances without imposing confusing language that makes officers question their authority. I have attached below the criminal code which I believe is most relevant.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Sheriff Trevor Colby
The time will come when we will see a return to some form of mental hospitals with custodial care. The closure of those facilities in my lifetime was a failed policy decision. See it in these revolving doors cases with no place to put them. Jail is not where they belong.
Take a cue from Sheriff Colby in Essex County:
Good morning,
Colby, Trevor
McManus, Kim; Brickell, Christopher Anderson, Mark
Fw: FIP policy
Monday, October 7, 2024 1:09:10 PM
I believe the current approved statewide policy violates federal law. I believe all council members voting to approve the policy are in direct violation and any persons assisting in the enforcement of the sanctions for failing to adopt the policy are accessories.
I revised my policy attempting to communicate the intent of the council without directing my officers that they could not contact these federal officers. It is my position that I do not want to be an accessory by adopting the current statewide policy.
It is my position that an officer may contact the appropriate federal agency with any suspicious activity to which they are a witness, whether on or off duty. To be clear, the timing of a call, however, can’t further the detainment of an individual without justification during a traffic stop.
At this point, I do feel personally intimidated, harassed and threatened by the council with threats of sanctions, loss of my certification, and ultimately my position and livelihood. As the leader of my organization, I do not want to adopt illegal policies.
I am happy to further explain my reasons for the revisions I made, if necessary. Please find the applicable federal code below.
Respectfully,
Sheriff Colby
18 U.S. Code § 1512 – Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant (b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to— (3)hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (d)Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—(2)reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation 1 supervised release, 1 parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; (3)arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
Is the DA and judges letting him out so it keeps their jobs secure?
There are no mental facilities, so put him in jail as a non-reformable repeat offender. Not only is he a threat to the public, but a threat to himself. Repeat offenders are a drain on precious police resources. There needs to be a limit to how many times a person can repeatedly break the law. In California it is three times and you go to prison. VT should consider three strikes and you’re out.
You get what you vote for. This guy should be in a mental institution.
Mike Reynolds simply wants to be inside for the winter.
What cracks me up is when current policies are not changed and the excuse for it is “so-and-so did such-and-such X amount of decades ago.”
Meantime, the same groups of people make all sorts of changes for the worse.
One of them who makes executive decisions from the very top never reversed the biggest human disservice our society has (homelessness/mentally ill roaming about), which, like I said, comes with the built-in excuse of “so-and-so” did something a million years ago… as if that was set in stone forever and the money that went overseas couldn’t have been used to remake old factories into places of public safety from lunatics on the loose. Of course, we feel very sorry for them. But allowing them to be a danger to themselves and the public is not how we ought to express our supposed better mental health to the mentally ill.
I mean, should we approach a crazy person on the streets and say to them directly, “You know, if it weren’t for Reagan back in the dark ages… ”
Better you stop them and instead say, “You know, if it weren’t for political parties using excuses every dang day of the freaking week in order to stay in office while bleeding us dry so you can live like a feral animal… “
Funny, I might add, that it resembles a bit like the escaped owl earlier this year from the Central Park Zoo… its cage was vandalized and the owl got loose. The progressive nutjobs kept disrupting professionals who were attempting to recapture the poor thing and bring it back to its safe space at the zoo.
Eventually, after a short couple months, the owl had eaten enough rats that were poisoned from all the city’s rat poison, that it too became ill and died from crashing into a building b/c it was too sick to maneuver safely in the air.
I can’t stand these bleeding heart progtards. They are anti-life while trying to come across as having “principles.”