The troubles of Franklin County Sheriff John Grismore appear to be stacking up.
On Wednesday, the Vermont House took a key step in its plans to impeach him. That same day, the sheriff was also barred from access to Valcour, the computer-aided dispatch and records management system used by police throughout the state.
Grismore had earlier lost access to the National Crime Information Center, a national criminal records database crucial to policing work, after he was charged with assaulting a man who’d been detained by the sheriff’s department last year. He has pleaded not guilty, and his prosecution continues.
Under the rules, other authorized users at the Franklin County Sheriff’s Department can continue to use the national database and Valcour, but are barred from sharing the information with Grismore.
At a meeting Wednesday morning, the Valcour Governance Board adopted a set of policies that outline when users should be blocked from the system. They took effect immediately, said board chair Mark Anderson, who is the Windham County sheriff.
The policies state that once the Vermont Crime Information Center — which regulates the state’s access to the National Crime Information Center — revokes a person’s permission to use that database, the person’s access to Valcour will also be suspended.
The head of the agency that employs the person is primarily responsible for disabling that user’s Valcour account, but the governance board can also assist. If it’s an agency head that should lose access — such as a sheriff — the board will flip off the switch.
The new policies supplement the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Policy, which has guided Valcour users for years.
Valcour is a secure system designed to help public safety agencies to dispatch services, gather data, exchange information and manage records, such as reported crimes, stolen and recovered property, and people who are arrested.
The Valcour Governance Board wanted to issue more specific policies for its users earlier, but because of the need for legal review, couldn’t do so until this week, Anderson said.
When asked if Grismore’s criminal charge led to the adoption of the new policies, Anderson said the guidelines weren’t designed to respond to any specific case, but the sheriff’s case did inform the governance board’s decision-making.
“The circumstances of his criminal charges, certainly, are reflected in this policy,” he said in an interview.
Anderson said the board had been operating on a premise that users facing criminal charges would be barred from access to the system, and now the board is making that explicit. The board, he said, plans to issue a more comprehensive set of policies by this summer.
Grismore would have lost his access to the National Crime Information Center when Vermont State Police cited him for the misdemeanor charge of simple assault last August, according to the policy that governs use of the database.
“From when we’re advised that they’ve been arrested for that crime, their access is suspended until the process plays itself out,” said Jeff Wallin, director of the Vermont Crime Information Center. If the defendant is later found not guilty, he said, the person needs to file an appeal to regain access to the national database developed by the FBI.
The database holds information that includes wanted and missing persons, stolen property and domestic violence protection orders. Users can also run criminal history checks and get into the national sex offender registry.
When an agency head loses access to the national criminal records database, Wallin said, the agency’s other authorized users will maintain theirs. But, he said, the remaining users are prohibited from providing their boss with information from the database, which is not open to the public.
“Whether it’s the agency head or another officer who is currently denied access for a pending charge, no one else would be in a position to provide them that information,” he said.
As for who ensures that the policy is followed, Wallin said it’s up to affected law enforcement agencies to advise their personnel of what they can and cannot do.
It’s unclear if all members of the Franklin County Sheriff’s Department are aware of these database restrictions against Grismore, or how the sheriff’s loss of access to these critical systems has affected his day-to-day work as a law enforcement official.
Grismore has not responded to multiple requests for comment by phone and email, including detailed questions sent via email.
Anderson, of the governance board, is also president of the Vermont Sheriffs’ Association. He said losing access to Valcour and the national database can hamper the work of a law enforcement agency head, but that there are coping strategies.
Depending on an agency’s size, Anderson said, the head can appoint one or more deputies to manage police case work within the restricted databases as a standing procedure.
In December, while Grismore was sheriff-elect, Franklin County State’s Attorney John Lavoie issued him a Brady letter, which flag law enforcement officers with known credibility issues such as lying or exhibiting bias. It can be used by a defense attorney to question the credibility of an investigating officer in a criminal case.
Lavoie said the Brady letter against Grismore is based on statements he’d made regarding his assault charge. The prosecutor said Grismore’s account conflicted with the sworn statements of two law enforcement officers who witnessed the event.