A House panel is working on legislation that “clarifies” a new law restricting chokeholds by law enforcement officers.
The measure discussed Wednesday in the House Judiciary Committee would allow the use of chokeholds when deadly force is justified — specifically, when it is “objectively reasonable and necessary” to defend against serious bodily injury or death.
“This clarifies that we recognize that there are limited circumstances where a chokehold may be an appropriate action for a law enforcement officer to take,” Rep. Martin LaLonde, D-South Burlington, said during the hearing on the bill, H.145.
A law passed last year, S.119, made it a crime for police officers to use certain restraint techniques, such as a chokehold, that can result in injury or death. An officer employing such restraints could be found guilty of a new crime carrying a maximum sentence of up to 20 years in prison.
At the same time, that legislation amended the state’s “justifiable homicide” statute, stating that a homicide is justifiable when committed by a police officer who’s complying with the use-of-force policy laid out in the legislation.
LaLonde said Wednesday that the House Judiciary Committee heard “very legitimate” concerns from law enforcement about situations in which an officer is “grappling” with a person, and the confrontation becomes a life-or-death circumstance.
“Why should that officer not use what makes a lot of sense,” LaLonde said of a chokehold, “particularly if you say, ‘Well, instead use your firearm.’”
Under the legislation, an officer would have to release the chokehold as soon as the individual no longer posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
“The current statute is an indirect way of getting to the conclusion that use of a chokehold is permitted if deadly force is otherwise justified,” LaLonde wrote in an email after the hearing. “What we are doing with this bill is clarifying what is only implied in current law.”
Several witnesses testified on Wednesday. The panel will take more testimony later this week.
During the hearing, Rep. Kenneth Goslant, R-Northfield, asked South Burlington Police Chief Shawn Burke if he knew how frequently chokeholds had been used.
Burke said Vermont has no centralized database for such reports. “I can recall one time in one instance greater than a decade ago where a lateral neck restraint was used in the field,” he said.
Falko Schilling, advocacy director for the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, told the panel Wednesday he did not oppose the proposed change.
Rep. Selene Colburn, P-Burlington and a committee member, asked him how he felt about “carving out that exception on the chokehold and what message it sends to do that, rather just rely on the justifiable homicide statute.”
“Solely relying on the justifiable homicide statute would require that there was a homicide to use that defense,” Schilling replied. “We do not object to carving that out and making that more explicit.”
The legislation would also prevent the Vermont Police Academy from offering training on chokeholds, except to prevent its use.
“Seems a little odd to me,” said Rep. William Notte, D-Rutland City and a committee member. “If we’re going to allow them to employ chokeholds in life-or-death situations, I’m not certain I’m comfortable with the idea that they are not going to be trained on how to employ one.”
LaLonde asked Maj. Ingrid Jonas of the Vermont State Police if chokeholds are currently being taught at the police academy.
“Those maneuvers have not been taught at the Vermont Police Academy for quite some time,” Jonas replied.
