The Vermont Supreme Court has thrown out the conviction of a Bennington County woman on a felony charge of impeding a police officer when she refused to provide her drivers license.
The high court ruled that refusing to give documents to law enforcement after a traffic stop was at most a civil violation, not a criminal matter.
“There is no question that defendant’s refusal was unlawful,” Chief Justice Paul Reiber wrote for the majority of the high court in the decision issued Friday.
“Thus, defendant was legally required to provide her documents upon the officer’s request,” Reiber added. “However, we do not conclude that defendant’s refusal — which essentially was an intentional civil violation — may, without more, constitute a violation of § 3001.”
The statute deals with the criminal charge of impeding or hindering a police officer.
The case stems from a traffic stop of Stephanie Berard by Vermont State Police Trooper Wayne Godfrey on July 14, 2016.
Berard could not be reached Friday for comment. She was represented by the Vermont Defender General’s Office.
“It messages that the Supreme Court is going to narrowly construe criminal statutes to get reasonable results,” Vermont Defender General Matthew Valerio said Friday of the ruling.
“This is actually a fair result,” Valerio said, “because with the activity that led to the charge it would not be fair to saddle someone with a felony.”
David Tartter, a lawyer with the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, handled the appeal for the prosecution. He declined comment Friday.
According to court filings and a dashcam video from Godfrey’s cruiser of the traffic stop introduced into evidence as part of the case, Berard was pulled over for failing to properly use a turn signal.
As she began to get out of her vehicle, which was stopped in a Stewart’s convenience store parking lot, Godfrey approached Berard on the driver’s side of the car and Berard asked him to call another officer.
Berard said she recognized him from a previous incident in which he “maced” her.
The trooper several times told Berard to provide him with her license, registration and proof of insurance, and she replied that she had the documents in her vehicle but she would not provide them to him.
Instead, Berard again asked Godfrey to call another officer.
The exchange continued for another six minutes with Godfrey requesting the documents and Berard refusing until another officer arrived.
During the exchanges with Godfrey, Berard told him that she was an investigative journalist and worked at a radio station. She also called him a racist and an “embarrassment,” adding that he “might as well as work at McDonald’s.”
She repeatedly said she did not feel comfortable dealing with him.
“I would like you to call the Bennington PD,” she said at one point, adding, “I’ve dealt with them before and they’re very nice people.”
Godfrey replied, “They’re on their way.”
The trooper asked Berard if knew why he “maced” her. She replied that it was during an incident a few years earlier.
“Because I threatened to write an article because you ran after the first black guy when there was a riot on Main Street and you’re a racist,” Berard said.
Godfrey continued to ask her for her paperwork and she refused.
During the trial, the ruling stated, Godfrey estimated that he asked Berard “around twenty-two times” for the paperwork and called her delay in providing them unreasonable.
“As Trooper Godfrey testified and the video shows, defendant was ‘[c]ombative’ and ‘uncooperative’ and her voice was ‘escalated and raised,’” according to the ruling.
“When the second officer arrived, defendant retrieved the documents and extended them out of the car,” the ruling stated. “At that point, Trooper Godfrey grabbed defendant’s arm and physically pulled her out of the car.”
Godfrey then arrested Berard for impeding a law enforcement officer.
A jury in February 2018 convicted Berard of the criminal charge and she filed a post-trial motion for acquittal, which Judge David Howard denied.
Berard was sentenced to pay a $400 fine, with the judge stating the penalty, in large part, was the felony conviction.
She then appealed that conviction.
The high court, in overturning that decision, looked at the felony charge of impeding or hindering a police officer, which carries a maximum penalty of three years in jail, in light of other similar criminal offenses.
For example, the decision stated, a first-time conviction for resisting arrest is a misdemeanor carrying a sentence of no more than one year behind bars.
“Given these lesser penalties for a comparable or lesser offense,” the decision stated, “we cannot conclude that the Legislature intended § 3001 to include a civil violation of the motor vehicle code as a hindering action.”
According to the motor vehicle statutes, the ruling added, failing to provide a driver’s license and registration carries a civil penalty of up to $250, and failing to provide proof of car insurance carries a civil penalty of up to $100.
“This is dramatically different from the three years’ imprisonment authorized by the impeding-officer statute,” the ruling stated.
“The disparity,” the decision added, “calls into question a broad interpretation of § 3001, which would put discretion into the hands of law enforcement officers and prosecutors to render a civil violation a felony.”
The high court ruling throwing out Berard’s conviction was 4-1, with Associate Justice Karen Carroll dissenting.
Carroll wrote that Berard “unjustifiably delayed” the trooper at the traffic stop by repeatedly refusing to provide the required paperwork.
“Most importantly,” Carroll wrote, “a reasonable jury, deliberating on the facts of the case, ultimately decided that defendant hindered Trooper Godfrey. I see no reason to more narrowly interpret this unambiguous statute and in so doing upset the jury’s verdict.”
