The ACLU of Vermont, along with partners including Pregnancy Justice, filed a lawsuit against the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF), Lund, and Copley Hospital on January 15, 2025. Filed under the initials "A.V.”, the suit alleges that DCF conducted an unlawful "assessment" of Vermont resident A.V. during her pregnancy based on unsubstantiated claims about her mental health, including accessing highly personal medical records regarding her pregnancy choices without her knowledge or consent. Lund and Copley Hospital improperly shared A.V.’s confidential information and assisted DCF in surveilling A.V. during her pregnancy. 

With the assistance of multiple direct service providers and without ever notifying A.V., DCF unlawfully surveilled her during her pregnancy, lied to a state court that she had given birth in order to gain custody of her fetus while she was still pregnant, attempted to force an involuntary cesarean surgery, and subsequently seized and retained her newborn baby for seven months while attempting to sever her parental rights—all in violation of her reproductive and fundamental rights. 

An unfounded report in January 2022 stated A.V. ”appeared to have untreated mental health issues,” leading DCF to open an “assessment for lack of parental capacity.” DCF initiated this assessment without speaking to A.V., despite having no legal authority to investigate a fetus or conduct such an evaluation on a first-time expectant parent for lack of parental capacity. 

DCF's "assessment" is intended to be a voluntary and supportive process, yet the agency failed to notify A.V. and instead illegally obtained highly sensitive medical information about her from Copley Hospital and Lund. This reflects DCF's ongoing and unlawful practice of infringing on the privacy rights of expectant parents. For example, the lawsuit alleges that DCF maintains a "high-risk pregnancy calendar," a standardless registry the agency uses to track people it deems unable to parent effectively before their child is born. The agency has since publicly confirmed the existence of this calendar in a meeting with lawmakers in March 2025. 

Copley Hospital informed DCF when A.V. went into labor on February 11, 2022. This prompted DCF to seek a family court order transferring custody of A.V.'s fetus to the agency, again without her knowledge. In its affidavit, DCF falsely stated that "Baby [V.]" had already been born. The agency also used confidential details about A.V.'s own victimization and history with DCF as a child, presenting it as proof of her alleged parental incapacity. The court granted DCF's request. 

After unlawfully taking custody of A.V.'s fetus, and while A.V. was in labor unaware, the State then sought an order from a different court trying to force A.V. to undergo a cesarean section against her will, despite no mental health professional ever finding that she lacked capacity to make her own medical choices. DCF argued that A.V.’s preference for a vaginal delivery indicated mental illness. While an emergency hearing on the forced cesarean was underway, still without her knowledge, A.V. consented to the surgery, and she soon gave birth to a healthy daughter. 

However, hospital staff immediately seized her baby and refused to let A.V. hold her. Only then did A.V. learn of DCF's weeks-long assessment and legal actions. For the next seven months, she was only allowed infrequent, monitored visits with her baby, often in intimidating places like police stations, as DCF fought to maintain custody. Despite DCF's claims, a mental health evaluation confirmed A.V. was capable of caring for her child. 

After hearing the evidence, the court finally reunited the family in September 2022. DCF dismissed its petition in November 2022, approximately nine months after it first took custody of A.V.’s child as a fetus. 

A.V. is seeking redress for the violation of her statutory and constitutional rights, and to ensure that no Vermonter experiences what she experienced again. The Complaint pleads 13 counts against Defendants, including what may be the first-ever claim based on Article 22 of the Vermont Constitution—known more commonly as "Proposition 5" or the Reproductive Liberty Amendment, adopted by an overwhelming majority of Vermont voters in 2022. 

This case exposes a grave pattern of constitutional violations here in Vermont. DCF's surveillance, deception, and forceful separation of A.V. from her child, all based on unfounded judgments about how a pregnant person should manage her pregnancy, represent a direct assault on the fundamental rights guaranteed by Vermont's Reproductive Liberty Amendment – an individual's right to make their own reproductive decisions. This terrifying precedent of state intrusion into the most personal and private aspects of life underscores the importance of fundamental civil rights protections for all Vermonters. 

A.V. is represented by the ACLU of Vermont, Pregnancy Justice, attorney Sarah Star, and Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP. 

The post A.V. v. Vermont Dept. for Children and Families; Copley Hospital; and Lund appeared first on ACLU of Vermont.

On April 14, Mohsen Mahdawi was scheduled to attend his long-awaited naturalization interview at an immigration field office in Colchester, VT. This is one of the final steps in the process of becoming a U.S. citizen. Following his interview, plainclothes ICE agents with hooded clothing and face coverings arrested and detained him, putting him in an unmarked vehicle. 

Within an hour of his arrest, Mr. Mahdawi’s immigration attorneys had filed a habeas petition on his behalf in Vermont District Court. Mr. Mahdawi’s habeas petition argues that his detention violates his constitutional rights, including free speech and due process, and goes beyond the government’s legal authority.

After apprehending him, ICE attempted to put Mr. Mahdawi on a plane to Louisiana. Before the flight departed, Judge William K. Sessions III issued a temporary restraining order that required the government to keep Mr. Mahdawi in Vermont, which was extended by Judge Crawford for another 90 days on April 23. He is currently being held at Northwest State Correctional Facility in St. Albans, Vermont.

Mohsen is a lawful permanent resident of the United States who has lived in Vermont for 10 years. He is set to graduate from Columbia University in May.

The post Mahdawi v. Trump appeared first on ACLU of Vermont.

C.B., a former Vermont student who was subjected to racially motivated bullying and harassment by classmates at Twin Valley Middle High School during the 2020-2021 school year, filed a complaint with the Vermont Human Rights Commission (HRC) after school administrators took no meaningful action to address the ongoing racist bullying she faced as the only Black student in the school. This case reached a settlement in March 2024.

Instances of bullying included the use of derogatory racial slurs, references to white supremacy, and threats of physical violence. Among the many racist incidents reported to school officials, in one instance a group of male students repeatedly accosted C.B. in the hallway, raising the Nazi salute and yelling the “N-word” at her. In another incident, a male student lunged at C.B. threateningly. After school administrators failed to respond, the racist harassment and bullying of C.B. escalated. In the spring of 2021, a Snapchat video captured a group of male students at the school yelling the “N-word” and “Burn, Burn, Burn!” and that they “hope [C.B.] burns in hell.” Still, Twin Valley officials took no meaningful action to protect C.B.

Fearing for her safety, C.B. dropped out of school sports, her grades declined, and she developed anxiety and depression. Ultimately, C.B. was forced to transfer schools, just weeks before the school year ended.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that by failing to address severe and known racial harassment, Twin Valley unlawfully deprived C.B. of her right to a school environment free of discrimination.

NAACP Windham County Branch President Steffen Gillom: “The racism this student experienced is unfortunately a daily reality for students across the state, and one that is still not being talked about or addressed the way it needs to be. Educators and administrators need to support students of color, and that starts with paying attention, listening, and responding appropriately when they are harmed. That didn’t happen in this case.”

Other publicized examples of racist incidents in Vermont classrooms racist incidents in Vermont classrooms and at sporting events have drawn attention in recent months, though advocates say the vast majority are never made public. Over the past two decades, multiple reports have found racism is pervasive in Vermont schools and needs to be addressed.

Vermont has a Harassment, Hazing, and Bullying Prevention Advisory Council, and Vermont state law requires schools to have harassment, hazing, and bullying prevention policies in place, but the law has no enforcement mechanism and provides no recourse when schools fail to implement those policies or respond appropriately to racist incidents.

The post C.B. v. Twin Valley Middle High School appeared first on ACLU of Vermont.

Vermont policymakers have made clear that legal cannabis users should not be punished under state law. Legal, off-duty medical marijuana use cannot, by itself, justify the denial of unemployment or other state benefits. Further penalizing someone for using a substance they have a legal right to use—often to treat chronic medical conditions and disabilities—makes no sense. The federal government may still be fighting the failed war on drugs, but that doesn’t mean Vermont should be.

Rutland resident Ivo Skoric has a State-issued medical cannabis card to treat a debilitating condition. Mr. Skoric worked as a bus fueler/washer for a regional transit authority. He lost his job because Federal Department of Transportation regulations required his employer to terminate him after he tested positive for cannabis. 

When Mr. Skoric applied for state-based unemployment, the Vermont Department of Labor denied him a portion of his benefits. In its view, Mr. Skoric had engaged in alleged “misconduct” under state law—even though he had tested positive only because he used state-approved medical cannabis pursuant to a valid prescription. 

18 V.S.A. § 4230a(a)(1) specifically provides that legal cannabis users like Mr. Skoric “shall not be penalized or sanctioned in any manner by the State or any of its political subdivisions or denied any right or privilege under State law.” The ACLU’s amicus brief argues that even if an employer has a policy against marijuana, off-duty use of State-authorized marijuana to treat debilitating conditions like Mr. Skoric’s should not count as “misconduct” that disqualifies someone from unemployment benefits. 

The post Ivo Skoric v. Department of Labor appeared first on ACLU of Vermont.

On May 15, 2021, Cathy Austrian discovered that her child—who had recently changed his ADHD medications and was exhibiting unusual behavior—had taken several vaping pens from a local gas station. She asked two Burlington Police Department (BPD) officers to come into her home for a conversation with J.A. and immediately informed them of his disabilities and change in medications, and that he had recently undergone an MRI of his heart. Ms. Austrian believed and expected this would be a learning opportunity for J.A. about the impact of his low-level theft.

When the officers entered J.A.’s room, he was sitting calmly on the bed and eventually relinquished all but one of the vape pens at Ms. Austrian’s request. J.A. did not engage the officers and presented no danger; the officers could have simply issued a citation or walked away. Instead—despite their knowledge of J.A.’s disabilities and recent medical history—the officers threatened J.A. with arrest and handcuffing if he did not produce the final item.

Although the officers could have engaged in a number of different de-escalation techniques—including continued verbal engagement, calling a supervisor for guidance, or requesting a clinician for support—the officers abandoned BPD policies and instead grabbed J.A., forced his arms behind his back, and wrested the pen from his hands. When J.A. started to panic, the officers did not disengage. Instead, they handcuffed J.A. and ultimately pinned him to the floor, where the terrified teen screamed and contorted himself in distress.

Police summoned paramedics, who did not adequately discuss with Ms. Austrian or BPD J.A.’s disabilities or health needs. Instead, the paramedics proceeded to wrap J.A.’s head with an opaque mesh bag, or a “spit hood,” further terrifying him. Officials then labeled J.A.’s distress as “excited delirium,” an illegitimate diagnosis rejected by the medical community yet often applied to victims of police violence, especially Black men and boys.

Paramedics then injected J.A. with ketamine—a powerful, fast-acting anesthetic used to induce loss of consciousness and approved for restraint use on adults only—contrary to established protocols. Ms. Austrian watched, horrified, as officials carried her unconscious child from his room in a stretcher bag and took him to the hospital. J.A. was discharged the next day—bruised, disoriented, and traumatized.

Hoping for some accountability from BPD, Ms. Austrian filed a complaint about the unwarranted and excessive force used against J.A. After reviewing her complaint, as well as body camera footage and the confidential results of BPD’s internal investigation, the Burlington Police Commission made several recommendations to then-Acting Police Chief John Murad. Murad did not accept the Commission’s recommendations in full and concluded that the BPD officers’ actions in this case constituted an appropriate use of force. Murad told Ms. Austrian that his officers did not violate any Department policies.

Rather than accept responsibility for the incident, Burlington sought to refer J.A. to the Burlington Community Justice Center for assault. But the Center rejected the charge, determining J.A. was not at fault, and it was never pursued.

The Burlington Police Department has a long history of discriminatory policing, while its leadership has opposed independent oversight. In 2017, the ACLU sent a letter of concern to BPD, citing multiple examples over a two-year period in which people of color – both adults and children – who swore at or challenged the police were chased down, pepper sprayed, and arrested by police. Although none of these individuals were violent or made a clear threat, each was charged with disorderly conduct. The ACLU filed an amicus brief with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 on behalf of Charlie Meli, asserting his arrest was another example of a “troubling practice of police responding to Black men’s speech with handcuffs.”

People of color are not alone in experiencing disproportionate mistreatment at the hands of BPD: its officers have demonstrated a pattern of responding to individuals with disabilities with unnecessary—and sometimes deadly—force. In 2016, after BPD officers killed a man with disabilities who was holding a knife, the Vermont Mental Health Crisis Response Commission concluded the death was preventable and urged further training in mental health best practices. Similarly, a 2021 assessment of BPD reported that “BPD has significant deficiencies in training,” particularly regarding interacting with people with disabilities and de-escalation. 

The lawsuit alleges violations of Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution and the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act (VFHPAA); it seeks declaratory, monetary, and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiff is represented by the ACLU Foundation of Vermont and Latham & Watkins LLP, with strategic support from the MacArthur Justice Center.

The post Cathy Austrian o/b/o J.A. v. City of Burlington appeared first on ACLU of Vermont.

Update, October 2023: The ACLU of Vermont and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed a motion for summary judgment in Vinson v. Clark, et. al., a lawsuit on behalf of Brattleboro resident Isabel Vinson. A motion for summary judgment requests that a court decide a case based on evidence and statements presented in court filings—without a full trial—on the grounds that there can be no real dispute about the relevant facts. Find a link to the motion here.

In January 2022, we filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Brattleboro resident and Black Lives Matter supporter Isabel Vinson, who was criminally cited by the Brattleboro Police Department in June 2020 for her online criticism of a local business owner’s derogatory Facebook posts about the Black Lives Matter movement.

Vinson is challenging a Vermont law that prohibits “disturbing peace by use of telephone or other electronic communications” for unconstitutionally restricting online speech. Vinson is asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont to declare that the statute violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and to issue an injunction prohibiting its enforcement going forward.

Vinson, a white woman, is a supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement, which calls attention to ongoing, systemic injustices faced by Black communities and individuals nationwide. In June 2020, days after the police murder of George Floyd, a Brattleboro business owner posted on his personal Facebook page, “How about all lives matter…Put your race card away and grow up.”

In response, Plaintiff Vinson posted on her own Facebook page, “Disgusting…no matter how many people try and tell him it’s wrong he doesn’t seem to care.”  In the comments on her post, Vinson also recommended that others leave a review on the individual’s business page.

On July 7, 2020, Brattleboro police cited Vinson under 13 V.S.A. § 1027 based on her Facebook activity. The ACLU filed a public records request about the incident, and shortly thereafter, the Brattleboro police offered Vinson diversion in exchange for dropping the criminal charges. Two days after Vinson rejected that offer, the charges were dropped without explanation.

The lawsuit argues that 13 V.S.A. § 1027 is “at once vague and exceedingly broad in scope” and is therefore unconstitutional. The law provides:

A person who, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or annoy makes contact by means of a telephonic or other electronic communication with another and makes any request, suggestion, or proposal that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, or indecent; threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of any person; or disturbs, or attempts to disturb, by repeated telephone calls or other electronic communications, whether or not conversation ensues, the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of any person at the place where the communication or communications are received shall be fined not more than $250.00 or be imprisoned not more than three months, or both.

Another Vermont statute, 13 V.S.A. § 1702, is far narrower and applies to situations involving actual, direct threats that put others in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. It is clear that Vinson’s online posts never rose to that level.

This case is yet another example of law enforcement overreach in our communities.. It also demonstrates why First Amendment freedoms are so important, and why restrictions on free speech are often problematic. In these times more than ever, it’s important to recognize that a healthier democracy requires a free exchange of ideas.

Plaintiff Isabel Vinson: "Regardless of what 'side' you're on, the police should not be able to shut down free and fair discourse. We should be at liberty to have disagreements and debates without fear of government interference. I am a proud supporter of Black Lives Matter and want to be free to speak about the issues I care about without being afraid that police will target me.”

Isabel Vinson is represented by the ACLU of Vermont and Justin Barnard and Haley Peterson of Dinse, P.C.

The post Vinson v. Clark, et. al. appeared first on ACLU of Vermont.

Cassandra Keating and Joel Fowler filed a complaint in 2021 with the Vermont Human Rights Commission (HRC) against the Bennington Select Board for unlawfully retaliating against the couple after they submitted verbal and written complaints to the Bennington Police Department about their numerous experiences of racially-motivated policing. The ACLU filed suit on the couple's behalf in July 2023.

The Select Board retaliated against Keating and Fowler by publicly revealing and publishing their identities and status as complainants, along with other detailed personal information -- in violation of Vermont law, which prohibits public disclosure of complainants’ identifying information and retaliating against those who submit complaints of discrimination.

The Select Board's actions violated Keating and Fowler's privacy, caused them to fear for their safety – so much they had to relocate to another state – and seem intended to discourage other people from reporting discrimination by Bennington's police department. This case is another example of Black Vermonters driven out of their communities due to racist harassment, retaliation, and a lack of support.

Cassandra Keating, ACLU of Vermont client: “I had big hopes and dreams of being able to raise my children in the country, and my vision from an outsider looking in was that people in the country would be more kind than the city and hold the door for the person behind them. But once we arrived in Vermont our experience was much different. It was nothing that we ever imagined. The Bennington Police Department targeted us because Joel is a Black man.  Nobody at the town did anything about it. It was a really sad situation that we feared the people who were supposed to protect us.”

The ACLU of Vermont, Rutland Area Branch NAACP, and other groups have long objected to racial discrimination in Bennington government and its police department. In 2016, the ACLU sued Bennington for systemic racial profiling, resulting in a settlement. In 2019, following public outcry over Bennington’s response to racial harassment of then-state representative Kiah Morris, Bennington commissioned a review of its police department by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).

The resulting report described a police department with a “warrior mentality,” out of step with best practices, and distrusted by a large segment of the Bennington community. Twenty percent of town residents surveyed by IACP reported feeling discriminated against by Bennington police, and fear of retaliation for seeking police assistance or submitting complaints was widespread. The IACP provided detailed recommendations to change police practices and culture, but nearly one year after the report was published Bennington has done little to implement them.

Police data has consistently shown that Bennington police stop and search Black motorists at disproportionate rates, and the most recent UVM analysis of that data showed Bennington police stopped drivers at a rate nearly eight times the national average. Preliminary 2020 data shows that, despite having one-third the number of sworn officers and one-third the population of Burlington, Bennington police stop more drivers than the Burlington police.

Keating and Fowler, represented by the ACLU, are asking the Vermont Human Rights Commission to investigate the Bennington Select Board to determine (1) whether it violated Vermont anti-discrimination law, and (2) whether the Select Board’s policy of publishing the identities and other personal information of individuals who submit formal complaints against the Bennington Police Department is discriminatory and unlawful.

In addition, the ACLU and Rutland Area Branch NAACP are calling on the Town of Bennington to immediately change its policy to ensure future complainants’ identities and personal information are kept confidential from the police officers in question, anyone not involved in the internal affairs investigation, and the general public.

The ACLU and Rutland Area Branch NAACP are also calling for Bennington to overhaul its police department and implement the IACP’s key recommendations – issued almost one year ago – which include: creating an accessible system to file citizen complaints; improving how BPD tracks and analyzes data; ensuring diverse representation on the police policy advisory committee and civilian review and oversight board; among other recommendations.

Bennington community members, supported by the ACLU, have also called for an independent citizen board with subpoena power to provide meaningful oversight over the Bennington Police Department.

The post Fowler & Keating v. Bennington Select Board appeared first on ACLU of Vermont.

Summary
ACLU affiliates in New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont filed a federal lawsuit in August 2020 challenging the use of unconstitutional border patrol checkpoints that frequently occur on I-93 in Woodstock, New Hampshire and elsewhere in northern New England. During these checkpoints, Border Patrol detains hundreds – if not thousands – of individuals lawfully traveling in northern New England during the summer and fall tourist seasons without any suspicion that they have committed a crime. In May 2023, the ACLU settled the lawsuit, with Border Patrol agreeing to refrain from operating the Woodstock checkpoint until January 1, 2025. 

Background
The ACLU affiliates, with client Jesse Drewniak, argue these checkpoints – conducted for the primary purpose of general crime control and drug interdiction – are beyond the scope of Border Patrol’s authority. The lawsuit also asked that the court immediately stop Border Patrol from conducting these illegal checkpoints in Woodstock — a small town (population 1,374) in the White Mountains that is approximately 90 driving miles from the Canadian border. Drewniak was also represented by Scott Harris, Steven Dutton, and Jeremy Walker of McLane Middleton, as well as Mark Sisti and Albert “Buzz” Scherr.

Drewniak, a United States citizen residing in Hudson, New Hampshire, was one of the persons ensnared in an August 2017 checkpoint in Woodstock. He was travelling home from a fly-fishing trip in the White Mountains, where he goes at least 50 times during fishing season to fish, forage, hike, and swim. 

This federal lawsuit followed a major ACLU victory that stemmed from illegal searches and seizures that occurred during the August 2017 checkpoint in Woodstock. In that case, sixteen people who were charged with the violation-level offense of possessing small amounts of drugs for personal use (mostly marijuana) – including Drewniak – challenged the checkpoint’s constitutionality. In May of 2018, the Plymouth Circuit Court concluded that “the primary purpose of the [August 2017 checkpoint] was detection and seizure of drugs,” thereby making the checkpoints “unconstitutional under both State and federal law.” As a result, the Court suppressed all evidence obtained from the checkpoint. The State then dismissed all charges against the 16 individuals in September of 2018.

Despite this court victory declaring the August 2017 checkpoint unconstitutional, Border Patrol continued these checkpoints in northern New England. 

The post Drewniak v. CBP appeared first on ACLU of Vermont.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of John Chinnici, who was unlawfully arrested, interrogated, and searched by Bennington police after they repeatedly pressured multiple witnesses and suspects to name him as an accomplice in a January 2016 armed robbery, despite the fact that Mr. Chinnici did not match witness descriptions and no other evidence connected him to the crime.

While still trying to get Mr. Chinnici named as an accomplice, Bennington police arrested Mr. Chinnici without probable cause, and went on to make multiple misrepresentations in their interviews with Mr. Chinnici and in their application for a warrant to search his phone. Mr. Chinnici was prosecuted based on evidence arising from these unlawful actions, though his resulting conviction was eventually thrown out. Mr. Chinnici now asserts that BPD officials and the Town of Bennington violated his federal and state constitutional rights.

On the morning of January 11, 2016, two masked men robbed employees of Martin’s Mini Mart, the latest of a string of unsolved robberies in Bennington. Police arrested Austin Mayhew on January 14, and he ultimately admitted to being one of the two robbers. Although the employees described the second robber as a Hispanic male with an accent weighing 170-190 pounds—characteristics that in no way resembled Mr. Chinnici—officers disregarded more likely suspects and immediately targeted Mr. Chinnici. BPD officers had already been harassing Mr. Chinnici, including stopping him without cause simply because he was “in [their] radar sights.”

After hours of Mayhew refusing to implicate Mr. Chinnici, BPD Chief Paul Doucette deviated from BPD policy and conducted an unrecorded and non-memorialized interview with Mayhew. Afterward, back on the record, Doucette implied that Mayhew had named John Chinnici specifically, which Mayhew denied. BPD continued pushing Mayhew to incriminate Mr. Chinnici, ignoring Mayhew’s invocation of Miranda rights and promising him leniency.

Despite the employees’ contrary description, Mayhew’s refusal to name his accomplice, and no evidence connecting Mr. Chinnici with the robbery, Doucette arrested Mr. Chinnici without probable cause. Mr. Chinnici was seized in front of family, handcuffed, and charged with the robbery. Doucette then returned to pressuring Mayhew, telling him “[Y]ou gotta be the one to officially say it. He had the gun. Not you.” After sustained pressure by BPD, Mr. Mayhew falsely identified Mr. Chinnici as his accomplice—approximately 30 minutes after Mr. Chinni had already been arrested.

After Mr. Chinnici had been unlawfully seized, Doucette interrogated Mr. Chinnici, telling him, “I’m not going to lie to you.” Doucette then told Mr. Chinnici—untruthfully—that a witness had identified him as the gunman by a unique facial tattoo, while Mr. Chinnici maintained his innocence. In addition, BPD officers made multiple misrepresentations in their application for a warrant to search Mr. Chinnici’s cell phone, including omitting key details from witness descriptions of the suspect that did not match Mr. Chinnici. The illegally obtained evidence was then used against Mr. Chinnici at trial.

Mr. Chinnici's case is not unique. An independent report by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) concluded in 2020 that the Bennington Police Department exhibited a “warrior mentality” and had lost the trust of many residents. The report was commissioned after revelations that Bennington officials withheld relevant evidence from then-Attorney General T.J. Donovan’s investigation into racial harassment of then-local resident and state legislator Kiah Morris, as well as multiple Vermont Supreme Court decisions concerning unlawful BPD traffic stops of Black motorists. The same year the IACP issued its findings and reform recommendations, the ACLU settled a racial profiling lawsuit against BPD, while another case—involving city officials’ retaliation against an interracial family who were targeted by BPD—is currently pending at the Human Rights Commission.

The post John Chinnici v. Town of Bennington appeared first on ACLU of Vermont.