Chittenden County State’s Attorney Sarah George (left) wants to limit non-moving vehicle violations. But state troopers say failing to enforce these ‘minor’ violations could lead to something far worse.
By Michael Bielawski
This article was first published on KeepSafeVermont.com.
The Vermont Chittenden County State Prosecutor Sarah George was rebuked by a state police spokesperson and a police chief for her public comments suggesting that police are stopping too many cars and engaging in discrimination.
George was highlighted in April of last year by The New York Times in an article titled, “Cities Try to Turn the Tide on Police Traffic Stops”.
“Such stops “are a danger to law enforcement” as well as ineffective and racially discriminatory, Sarah George, the prosecutor for Chittenden County, wrote in a statement this year explaining why she would “presumptively” decline to bring charges arising from minor pullovers,” the report states.
Last week Sgt. Jay Riggins from the Vermont State Police appeared on the WVMT Morning Drive radio show. Host former state and city lawmaker Kurt Wright brought up the comments by George. Riggins responded:
“If a officer is directed to not stop it in the first place because it ‘only’ a headlight or ‘only’ a ‘only’ a registration violation, then we do run the risk of missing the pre-event that I would call what happened up in Newport [see below], a pre-event stop from what could have been quite tragic.”
Chief Braedon S. Vail of the Barre City Police Department spoke with VDC by phone on Tuesday.
“I think it’s a balance and officers are allowed to have discretion and if you are not allowed to stop, if they do away with discretion and you are not allowed to stop for those violations, I disagree with that. But I do agree with officers being allowed to use discretion and I don’t think that those non-moving violations should be discounted or done away with.”
Vail talked more about how they can and do lead to arrests for impaired driving or other criminal activities.
“I would say some folks consider like having a tail light out or not having a front license plate could be a pretext stop.” he said. “That doesn’t necessarily mean that people know that the individual that’s operating the vehicle is doing something criminal. It’s just often times when you stop vehicles for those violations, it can go into a further criminal offense. … If you are stopping for violations you could find DUIs that way.”
He added that unfortunately many police departments such as up in Burlington are understaffed which means officers don’t have much time to do many non-moving violation stops because they are stretched thin on bigger crimes. He added it can still be worth it to make those stops.
“Folks that are involved in criminal behavior have to get from point A to point B, generally speaking they are within a motor vehicle most of the time,” he added.
On the radio show, Wright noted that recently there was a non-moving violation and pull over up in Newport that resulted in the driver being found with guns and apparently, he told police that he was “looking to shoot someone”. The Caledonian Record covered the incident.
Riggins said non-moving violation stops account for about 4-in-10 of the drunk or drugged drivers that they catch.
“We know that if we were to eliminate non-public safety stops … if we were to eliminate that from our repertoire, we would miss 40% of impaired drivers,” Riggins said.
Vail said when it comes to local police those numbers might be different. He added that state police spend a lot of time on highway patrol.
Riggins noted that when an impaired driver doesn’t get pulled over for a a non-moving violation, that means the next thing that can happen is worse.
“One of the things that we’re looking at for next year is to study that impact of what happens in Burlington if the officers there, time not withstanding, don’t make stops for a non-moving violations. And our concern is that leads to a ripple in the surrounding areas and the troopers are now responding to what is an impaired driving crash.”
The author is a reporter for the Vermont Daily Chronicle
Categories: Crime, State Government
“If you are stopping for violations you could find DUIs that way.”
I’m normally pro law enforcement- to a degree- but maybe if you have to be searching so hard to “FIND” a DUI, then there isn’t really an ACTUAL safety issue in the first place…. I’d rather live free than in a police state where the cops are always nickel and diming people on “infractions”.
Over one in five Vermont drivers involved in a deadly crash are impaired.
And you’re ok with that?
Anything safety violation that gets a drunk off the roads is just fine with me.
Sarah George is the criminal she signed up to do this job. If she doesn’t think it should be illegal she should run for the legislature
This is a perfect example of the broken window syndrome. If there are laws on the books, then they need to be enforced. That being said, let’s trust our police officers to use discretion when they deem necessary.
I simply wonder why this lady is even in office. She’s the proverbial
fox guarding the henhouse, but in reverse. The hens are now the criminals, and the “poor” foxes are the victims.
Ms. George makes a pretty broad claim about traffic stops being racially discriminatory. Vermont has been collecting racial data from traffic stops for a few years now. I’m curious if the data supports Ms. George’s statement or she’s just throwing it out there to support her anti-law and order stance? Wouldn’t that be front page news if our data showed this to be true? I suspect it doesn’t show what she hopes so she throws out the claim, probably originating from some jaded study in another jurisdiction, and leaves it there hanging. After all who is for some practice that is racist. Typical politician working to move to higher office at the expense of us little people.
When I was much younger, and a bit of a muscle-car type, I used to get pulled over for No-Right-on-Red in NJ. Every time I attempted that, I got a ticket. Dang cops!!
Guess what? I watch for that sign now, and no longer break that law.
I also update my registration ASAP b/c I got nailed with that once, too.
Amazing how the law works beautifully on law-abiding citizens.
But we know leaders are not worried about that so much as they don’t want to offend someone’s categorical feelings.
But let me point something else out:
This Sarah George we’re discussing is “concerned” with cops getting hurt at such traffic stops. Have any of us ever considered hurting a cop when we get pulled over? I certainly never thought that way. I would be pissed, but I took my ticket and paid it.
So, what she is therefore saying is that it must be logical, and even rational, for a stopped person to react with violence… well, depending on the person’s category.
Think about that…
But as far as not wanting to get stopped… maybe that’s b/c you’re impaired.
I hate to tell you, but being impaired and driving is not a privacy-protection matter.
Unfortunately, the newer cars will be able to tell if you’re impaired.
It will also be able to tell if you have or haven’t done something they deem inappropriate for you to be behind the wheel.
I will be interested to see if categories will have different rules, but perhaps the only special category will be politicians and govt uppities.