CHITTENDEN COUNTY SHERMF'S OFF'ICE
el: (802) 863-4341
Fax: (802) 863-7445

\
STATE OF VERMONT

K-EVIN M. MCLAUCHLIN"

SFjIER.MF

P.O. BOX 1426
Burtington, VT o54o2

MOTOR VEHICLE STOP NOVEMBER 22, 2OI9
1. Background
A formal complaint was filed with the Chittenden County Sheriff s Department
by Amanda Cole on December 4,2019. In that complaint, Ms. Cole contends that the
Chittenden County Sheriff s Department and Deputy Sheriff Jeffry Turner were involved
in the "improper and discriminatory arrest of farmworker Luis Ulloa." The Complainant
accuses the Department and Deputy SheriffTurner of "rampant racism" and that Deputy
Sheriff Turner acted out of "bias and violated the Fair and Impartial Policing policy" of
the Department. The complaint suggests that there is "systematic discrimination being
carried out by your officers".
While Ms. Cole's complaint does not identiff the date of the alleged improper
behavior, I am assuming that her complaint relates to the events of November 22,2019
when Deputy Sheriff Turner was on an assigned DUI patrol and effectuated a motor
vehicle stop on Interstate 89. In addition to the Complaint received by Ms. Cole, that
event has triggered considerable public attention along with a demonstration that took
place at the Sheriff s Department headquarters in South Burlington.
On Saturday, November 23,2019, a Public Records Request was received by the
Sheriff s Department from Will Lambek of Migrant Justice. That communication was
the first indication that I received that any out-of-the-ordinary events had occurred the
previous day. Consistent with the past practice of the Department, I advised Deputy
Sheriff Turner to contact Norman Blais, the Department's attorney, in order to assist him
in responding to the Public Records Request. That directive to Deputy Sheriff Turner
was consistent with the past practice of the Department to secure Attorney Blais'
assistance in responding to any substantive Public Records request.
On November 25,2019,I responded to Mr. Lambek's Public Records request by
providing him with a number of documents. In my communication with Mr. Lambek, I
asked him to advise me if he felt there were any deficiencies in that response. I have not

 heard from Mr. Lambek that he has a quarrel with the compliance with the Public
Records request.
After complying with the Public Records request, I directed a senior member of
my staff to speak with Deputy Sheriff Tumer about the events of November 22nd.
Because of the intervention ofthe Thanksgiving holiday, that meeting did not take place
until December 2, 2019. After that interview, and being briefed about the interview, I
determined, as a preliminary matter, that no disciplinary action against Deputy Sheriff

Tumer was warranted. However, I did indicate in a public announcement that I intended
to conduct a full investigation into the matter. That commitment on my part was made
before I received the formal complaint from Ms. Cole.
As part of my investigation, I directed Deputy Sheriff Tumer to prepare a written
report describing the events ofNovember 22nd. That report was filed by Deputy Sheriff
Tumer on December 4,2019. I had been made aware that there were two women
involved in the events ofNovember 22nd, and I directed another staff member to conduct
interviews of these two witnesses. This staff member reports that one such witness failed
to respond to his request to speak \,\rith him. The second witness, while initially open to
an interview, no longer wishes to be involved in responding to an inquiry.
I also directed Attomey Blais to contact Mr. Lambek at Migrant Justice to secure
his assistance in arraaging interviews of the two men who were involved in the events of
November 22nd. I am advised that Attomey Blais was informed by Mr. Lambek to direct
any such inquiries to Attomey Robert Appel. I am frirther advised that Attomey Appel
has indicated to Attomey Blais that the he did not believe that the witnesses wish at this
time to be interviewed regarding the events of November 22nd.
Therefore, despite my efforts to secure information from all persons involved in
the events that occurred on Interstate 89 on November 22,2019, the only first-hand
information that has been made available to me is the written report from Deputy Sheriff
Tumer.

2. Fair and Impartial Policing Practices
On March 1, 201 8, the Chittenden Sherifls Department adopted a "Fair and
Impartial Policing Policy" which was modeled on a policy prepared by the Vermont
Criminal Justice Training Council. Those policies were implemented in response to 20
V.S.A. $2366. The stated purpose of the Department's policy is to require that all
members of the Department "conduct policing in a fair and impartial manner, to clarify
the circumstances in which offrcers can consider personal characteristics or immigration
status when making law enforcement decisions, and to reinforce processes and
procedures that enable the Department and its employees to provide services and enforce
laws in an equitable and impartial way."
In particular as relates to the events ofNovember 22nd, the policy stresses that
"[e]nforcement ofcivil immigration law is a federal responsibility and this Departrnent
and its employees should not engage in such enforcement except as otlerwise outlined in
this policy." Also, the policy is explicit with regard to the following - "Employees,
agents and members of the Chittenden County Sheri{fs Department have authority to
enforce federal criminal law. Unauthorized border crossings by persons who are not U.S.
citizens or nationals can be a federal crime." (Section IX)

 3. Results of Investigation
The formal complaint filed in this matter accuses the Department and Deputy
Sheriff Turner of egregious offenses - "racism", "bias" and "systematic discrimination".
The Chittenden County SherifPs Department is a relatively-small law enforcement
agency. Any such conduct by any of the deputies in the Department would eventually
come to my attention. Deputy Sheriff Tumer has been a commissioned deputy in the
Department, and a certified police officer, for nine years. Never before has there been
any complaint made against him from any source that would even suggest that he
engages in the types of behavior of which he is accused in the complaint. The
complainant, and members of the community, can rest assured that if any employee of
this Department were found to have engaged in racist, biased or discriminatory behavior,
that person would be summarily dismissed liom his or her employment.
The question that remains, and which I will examine in this report, is whether the
conduct of Deputy Sheriff Turner on November 22,2019 was in violation of the Fair and
Impartial Policing policy (hereinafter "FIP"). In that regard, the only information
available to me is the written report of the deputy. That report discloses the following
salient points:

A.

The initial motor vehicle stop

Deputy Sheriff Tumer was assigned to a DUI patrol on November 22,2019. At
approximately 7:45 p.m. on that evening, he was driving onto Interstate 89 in a marked
sheriff s cruiser. His intention was to travel southbound to Williston where he was to
report for duty. Soon after he was on the Interstate, he was passed by a car traveling,
according to a radar indication, at 88 miles per hour. The location where the car passed
him is in the so-called "safety zone" where the speed limit is 55 miles per hour. Deputy
Sheriff Turner followed the vehicle and noticed that it would periodically slow down and
then speed up again, reaching speeds in excess of 85 miles per hour when it accelerated.
He decided to engage the vehicle in a motor vehicle stop for speeding.
Section II of the FIP specifically provides that "all enforcement actions such as
investigations, detentions, traffic stops, searches and seizures, etc. by law enforcement
officers must be based on reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or other or relevant
exigent circumstances supported by articulable facts, circumstances and conclusions that
justiff the given action."
It is my determination that Deputy Sheriff Tumer, based on his observations
(confirmed by radar readings) that the vehicle was traveling faster than 80 miles per hour,
had sufficient and reasonable grounds to effectuate a motor vehicles stop of the car. The
speed at which the vehicle was traveling would have been sufficient to charge the driver
with "excessive speed", a criminal offense (see 23 V.S.A. $1097).

B.

The detention awaiting federal intervention

After pulling over the speeding vehicle, Deputy Sheriff Tumer approached the car
and saw that it was occupied by four adults - a male in the driver's seat and a female in

 the front passenger's seat, with a male and female in the back seat. Officer Turner, who
was wearing his assigned uniform, introduced himself and advised the occupants that he
was a member of the Chittenden County Sheriffs Departrnent. He asked the driver if he
was aware of the reason for the deputy pulling over the car. The driver said '!res",
prompting the officer to confirm that the driver had been speeding. The driver
acknowledged that he was aware that he "was going a little too fasf'. Deputy Sheriff
Turner then asked the driver for his license, as well as insurance and registration
documentation. The driver responded by indicating that he did not have anything further
to say to the officer.
While engaged in this discussion with the driver, Deputy SheriffTurner noted that the
two individuals in the back seat were averting their gtves from him, instead looking to
their right outside the car window.
The officer explained to the driver that, since he was speeding at arate in excess of
thirty miles over the speed limit, he could cite the driver with a criminal charge. Deputy
SheriffTurner again asked for the requested documentation from the driver. He refused
to respond.
Instead, the female passenger in the front seat began acting as a "spokesperson" for
the driver. This person informed the officer that the driver did not have a driver's license,
and that the car they were in did not belong to any of the occupants. The woman then
indicated that she was uncertain as to where any documentation would be located.
One document which was handed over to Deputy SheriffTurner by this woman
passenger was a photocopy of a Mexican passport. When the officer asked about the
photocopy, the woman explained that the driver was oohere illegally" and was "out on
bond."
Deputy SheriffTurner then asked all occupants of the vehicle if any one of them had
a valid driver's license that would enable that person to legally drive the car away from
the scene. Again, the individuals in the back seat were silent and unresponsive to the
officer's question. The female in the front seat then responded that none of the occupants
had a valid driver's license.
Officer Tumer at that point determined that he needed to secure information from all
occupants regarding their identities. He was provided with rurmes and dates of birth from
the two female occupants. He already had the photocopy of a Mexican passport
regarding the driver; a Mexican passport relating to the male in the back seat was given to
him.
The officer ran a registration check which confirmed that the car was not registered to
any ofthe occupants ofthe car.
Deputy SheriffTumer at this point felt that he should contact the US Customs and
Border Protection office in Swanton. He indicated that the reason for doing so was his
concem that the situation presented a circumstance where an illegal border crossing or
smuggling was in progress. The offrcer then indicated to the occupants that there would
be a delay while awaiting the arrival of the federal officials. That delay was coincidental
with the delay prompted by the need for a licensed driver to drive the car was from the
scene. Eventually, a friend of one of the occupants arrived at the scene and thereafter
drove the car away.
Upon the arrival of the federal officials, Deputy SheriffTumer advised them of the
circumstances presented by the stop of the vehicle. The federal officials questioned both

 males, and eventually took the male in the back seat into custody. Deputy Sheriff Tumer
was advised by the Border Patrol agents that the person taken into custody was a "reentry felon", that he had previously been deported and had re-entered the United States

illegally.
After the federal officials left the scene with the person whom they had taken into
custody, and upon arrival of a person who had a valid license to drive, the remaining
individuals left the scene of the stop.
Deputy Sheriff Turner decided that, instead of giving the driver a court citation for
the criminal offense of "excessive speed" or a civil traffic ticket for speeding, he would
instead give him an oral warning. The only action taken against the driver by the officer
was the issuance of a civil traffic citation for "no license."
The question for consideration is whether, consistent with the FIP, Deputy Sheriff
Turner was justified in contacting the federal authorities and detaining the occupants until
the Border Patrol agents arrived at the scene.
A number of provisions of the FIP need to be considered in responding to this
question. Section III of the FIP, as relates to detentions, requires that a detention be "no
longer than necessary to take appropriate action for the known or suspected offense".
Section VII provides that a deputy sheriff "may engage in efforts to identi$ any person
who is detained, arrested, or who otherwise comes into the custody of the Department . . .
[i]f the individual has already been stopped for a lawful purpose, the person may be
subject to objectively reasonable additional detention in order to establish identity".
Section VIII provides that deputies may not "inquire of a person regarding that person's
immigration status unless such inquiry is necessary to an ongoing investigation of a
criminal offense." Section IX confirms that deputies "have authority to enforce federal
criminal law. Unauthoized border crossings by persons who are not U.S. citizens or
nationals can be a federal crime." Finally, Section XI makes reference to the application
of certain federal law to such situations - "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 other government officials (for example, ICE or
CBP) regarding an individual's 'citizenship or immigration status'."
It is my considered judgment that Deputy Sheriff Turner had sufficient justification to
notift the US Border Patrol of the situation, to ask that the federal offrcials investigate the
circumstances, and to detain the individuals until such time as the federal officials arived
at the scene of the stop. In making this judgment, I consider the totality of the
circumstances presented to Deputy Sheriff Tumer. He was dealing with stopping a
vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed in the nighttime at a location within 40 miles of
the US/Canadian border. The car was traveling southbound away from the border. Upon
stopping the car, he was confronted with a driver who, while initially responsive to the
legitimate questions posed of him by the officer, inexplicable became silent in response
to further appropriate questioning. The behavior of the two individuals in the back seat
of not looking at the officer, but instead looking away from him and not joining in any of
the discussions, was also very suspicious. His initial questioning of the occupants about
their identities was not designed to ask about immigration status, but instead to
reasonably inquire as to whether there were any occupants who had a valid driver's

 license. Upon making such inquiry, he was informed that the driver was "here illegally"
and a copy of a passport was given to the officer.
These circumstances provided Deputy Sheri{f Turner with legally-accepted grounds
to suspect that he was presented with a "human smuggling" or "human trafficking,,
situation, both of which involve federal criminal violations, not "civil immigration" law.
Under the provisions of the FIP, Deputy Sheriff Tumer is authorized,to enforce such
criminal laws. With that justifiable suspicion, he was further within the provisions of the
FIP and state and federal law to seek assistance from federal authorities and to detain the
occupants until the arrival ofthose federal authorities.
Subsequently, it was confirmed that Mr. Luis Ulloa-Hemandez, the male in the back
seat of the vehicle, was amenable to a federal criminal charge (re-entry of removed alien,
8 U.S.C. $1326). The decision whether to prosecute him lies solely with the United
States Attorney for the District of Vermont.
There is no evidence that supports the contention that Deputy SheriffTumer's
purpose in dealing with the individuals in the vehicle (that he had lawfully stopped) was
to enforce federal civil immigration law. Instead, the evidence supports the conclusion
that his actions were solely intended to enforce Vermont traffrc laws by making the initial
stop for speeding, and thereafter to enforce the federal criminal laws relating to human
smuggling/trafficking.

4. Conclusion
From the information made available to me, I have concluded that Deputy Sheriff
Tumer, during the course of his interactions with the occupants of the car that he stopped
on Interstate 89 on November 22,2019, acted in a manner consistent with the
Department's Fair and Impartial Policing Policy, as well as Vermont and federal law.
Indeed, his conduct was a model of sound law enforcement practice and procedure.

DATED at South Burlington,

this

i7

\W

day of Janu ary,2020.

Ke(nl Mc Laughlin, Sheriff