Addison County State’s Attorney Eva Vekos asked a trooper investigating her for driving under the influence if he knew that “discretion was allowed” and questioned another officer whether he could just have a friend come get her, according to newly released charging documents.
Vekos, 54, is set to be arraigned Feb. 12 in Addison County Superior criminal court in Middlebury on the misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence.
The charge stems from her arrest after she was called by police on Jan. 25 to check out the scene of a suspicious death investigation in Bridport.
David Sleigh, a St. Johnsbury attorney representing Vekos, on Wednesday challenged whether Vekos’ reported comments in the affidavit had nefarious intent. He also said the police affidavits made public this week don’t show any evidence of his client driving erratically.
“What I see are some troopers saying that they detected what they perceived to be an odor of alcohol and slurred speech,” the defense attorney said. “Clearly, we’re going to want to examine the context of those observations and the basis for those observations.”
Chief Superior Judge Thomas Zonay, who is presiding in the case, found probable cause for the charge against Vekos on Tuesday, allowing paperwork to become public and providing a more detailed account of the allegations against the state’s attorney. Among the documents are affidavits filed by Vermont State Police troopers who were involved in Vekos’ arrest.
Vekos drove to the scene, arriving around 8:50 p.m. on Jan. 25, the charging documents stated.
Several troopers observed signs of impairment, such as slurred speech and an “odor of intoxicants” on Vekos after she arrived at the Bridport residence, according to an affidavit signed by state police Sgt. Eden Neary.
At around 9:20 p.m., Detective Trooper Ryan Anthony, along with trooper Kelsey Dobson who turned on his body cam, approached Vekos, who had returned to the driver’s seat of her vehicle, according to the affidavit.
VTDigger has asked for any police video or audio from the Vekos’ arrest, but state police would not release the material, stating, in part, that it could harm the investigation and prosecution of the case.
Anthony asked Vekos how much alcohol she had consumed, according to the filing, and “she stated one gin and tonic with dinner and stated she had a burger for dinner.”
In a separate affidavit filed by Anthony, he wrote that when he asked Vekos to perform field sobriety tests, she replied, “Are you serious Ryan, can’t you just have a friend come and get me.”
Anthony told her that was not an option, according to his affidavit, and asked her to perform field sobriety tests.
Vekos, he added, then replied, “It doesn’t matter if I do the tests or not, however I perform, you’re going to take me under arrest.”
When she refused a second time, Anthony told Vekos she was under arrest, handcuffed her and took her to the state police barracks in New Haven, the affidavit stated.
Neary, in his affidavit, wrote that he had received a call from dispatch asking him to go to the New Haven barracks, where he met Vekos in the holding cell.
“While speaking with Vekos, I detected a moderate odor of intoxicants emanating from her, her eyes were watery, and she had mumbled speech at times,” Neary wrote in the filing.
Vekos asked him why he was sent and who made the decision to send him, according to the affidavit.
“Vekos then asked me if I knew that discretion was allowed, and I informed her we as a Department do not take discretion with DUI,” Neary stated in his affidavit. “Vekos said there was no DUI.”
Neary wrote he told her that there were enough indicators to warrant an evidentiary test, and she disagreed.
“She then stated this was going to damage the relationship with her office which she has worked hard to build with law enforcement because Ryan doesn’t know how to apply discretion and he didn’t go to his supervisors,” Neary’s filing stated. “I told her I was not going to argue with her about it and that was a discussion for another day.”
Vekos, Neary wrote, declined to answer questions and refused to take the breath test. She also declined to have her fingerprints and photograph taken, he added. She was then issued a citation to appear in court for an arraignment at a later date, according to the affidavit.
“Vekos requested I take photographs of her wrists as she had marks from the handcuffs,” Neary wrote.
Sleigh, Vekos’ attorney, said Wednesday he was not exactly sure what Vekos meant by reportedly asking the trooper to have a friend drive her home.
However, he said, it would make sense for somebody who police had concerns about their ability to drive, but hadn’t seen driving erratically, to ask the police to “exercise caution” and have someone take them home.
“That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to suggest by somebody who is assessing the situation, not in their own self-interest necessarily, but in the interest of all concerned,” he said.
As for the reported comment by his client regarding the use of discretion, Sleigh replied that police use discretion all the time. “You always can make a decision about whether you think your case warrants prosecution or not,” he said.
The Vermont Attorney General’s Office is prosecuting the case to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. Lauren Jandl, chief of staff to Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark, declined comment as the matter is currently pending in court.
Assistant Attorney General Rose Kennedy, the prosecutor in the case, wrote in a filing submitted along with the charging documents that she wanted an order from the judge requiring Vekos to submit to fingerprinting and photographing.
“A complete and clear record ensures that law enforcement, no matter where the jurisdiction is, has a proper and complete notice of her identity and what has transpired in Vermont,” Kennedy wrote in the filing.
Following her arrest, Vekos had an email exchange late last month with several police leaders in Addison County regarding the filing of paperwork. At one point, Vekos wrote in an email that she no longer felt safe around law enforcement and as a result would be attending an upcoming meeting with them by video.
If convicted, the charge of driving under the influence, first offense, carries a possible maximum penalty of up to two years in jail and a fine of up to $750.
