Updated at 4:35 p.m.
The Vermont Supreme Court has upheld the revocation of the police certification of Franklin County Sheriff John Grismore.
The Vermont Criminal Justice Council voted in December 2023 to permanently revoke Grismore’s law enforcement certification. The panel found that the sheriff violated the state’s use-of-force police when he kicked a detained man in August 2022.
Grismore appealed that decision to the Vermont Supreme Court, which affirmed the council’s decision in a ruling issued Friday.
“Respondent has failed to identify any violation of his due-process rights,” Justice Karen Carroll wrote in a 12-page unanimous decision.
Last month, a prosecutor dropped a criminal assault charge brought against Grismore stemming from the incident in which Grismore, then a sheriff’s department captain, kicked a shackled detainee. Video of that incident has since been widely distributed.
The decision by Grand Isle State’s Attorney Doug DiSabito to dismiss the misdemeanor charge followed two earlier trials that ended after jurors failed to reach verdicts on whether Grismore’s actions amounted to assault.
The action by the Vermont Criminal Justice Council to revoke Grismore’s police certification holds no legal bearing on his ability to serve as a sheriff under Vermont law. Sheriffs are independently elected officials in Vermont.
However, the decision does limit what he can do in that role. For example, he can no longer take part in many facets of standard police work, the criminal justice council’s chair said at the time of the revocation, such as investigating crimes or conducting patrols.
Grismore was elected to a four-year term as sheriff in Franklin County in November 2022, months after the kicking incident came to light.
Grismore, as part of his appeal of the council’s decision to revoke his police certification, argued that it was improper for attorney Kim McManus, a lawyer for the criminal justice council, to also serve as the prosecuting attorney for his contested hearing before the body.
Grismore contended that the council’s “familiarity with and loyalty” to McManus would prevent the panel members from acting impartially during the hearing.
The high court, in its decision Friday, stated that Grismore “has not demonstrated” any way in which the council “consciously or unconsciously” favored McManus.
“As such,” the ruling stated, “respondent has failed to rebut the presumption of honesty and integrity afforded to the Council under these circumstances.”
Grismore has maintained he did nothing wrong, contending that he was helping two other deputies bring the detained man under control.
Neither Grismore nor his attorney could immediately be reached Friday for comment.
