The race for Vermont Attorney General is getting more interesting in a hurry. We’ve had the first dirty trick of the campaign, targeting Democratic challenger TJ Donovan. And the challenger has taken a big step in differentiating himself from incumbent Bill Sorrell on an important policy issue — calling for much more open access to police records in Vermont.
Donovan said current law in Vermont has a “presumption of secrecy” relating to requests for information about criminal investigations.
He went on to assert that the Attorney General should take a leading role in advocating changes in the law — offering some direct criticism, after a campaign that had been rather indirect so far.
“I think the Attorney General hasn’t been addressing this issue,” Donovan said. “The Attorney General is the state’s top lawyer. This is about leadership.”
Records secrecy should be a vulnerable point for Sorrell, especially in the Democratic primary, because he has consistently sought to keep records closed — especially in cases of possible abuses by law-enforcement officers and officials.
A few examples and Sorrell’s rebuttal… after the jump.
The very physical arrest in 2010 of Wayne Burwell inside his own home by Hartford police. VTDigger and the Valley News have sought release of police records; the police have refused, and Sorrell has backed them up. (This is one of three incidents involving the Hartford police in the past two years; in all three cases, Sorrell’s office exonerated the department.)
On New Year’s Eve 2010, Jamek Hart was arrested by Rutland police on a drunk-and-disorderly charge. While in custody, handcuffed in a holding cell, an officer repeatedly fired a pepper-ball gun at Hart. The officer later resigned. In the wake of the incident, Sorrell called for a state police investigation. I can find no record of a conclusion or report from that investigation; I will happily include that information if someone can provide it.
Sorrell played a legally dubious role in the regrettable case of convicted murderer Douglas Mason. It’s a very complicated situation, but the core of the problem is that the Vermont Parole Board issued a warrant containing false charges in an attempt to keep Mason in prison. And, as the Burlington Free Press noted:
The full story came to light only after U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions III ordered the state to release documents being withheld from federal prosecutors on the advice of the state Attorney General’s Office.
Hmm. I don’t know what the usual etiquette is in such situations, but it strikes me as a really bad idea for a state Attorney General to advise the withholding of documents from federal prosecutors.
A really, really bad idea.
And then there was the case of possession of child pornography by personnel at the Vermont Police Academy. After an investigation, Sorrell declined to bring any charges, and he fought an effort by the Rutland Herald to gain access to the state police files. The state Supreme Court ruled against the Herald in that case.
Sorrell has insisted that he isn’t too cozy with the cops; that he has prosecuted law enforcement officials when he believed it appropriate. In cases of access to police records, Sorrell claims that he is simply doing his job:
“I’ve been following the law as the Legislature has passed it, which I think the attorney general is supposed to do,” said Sorrell. “If we’re talking about proposed changes to the law, that’s something – if the Legislature asked for an opinion on the legality or for policy reasons – I’m happy to engage in that.”
A noble sentiment, but an astoundingly passive one. That passage from the Vermont Press Bureau is available here online. Sorrell went on to say that he has publicly supported a change in the law to allow access to records of police-misconduct probes. And then, in a passage that’s apparently behind the Herald/Times Argus paywall, he added the following:
Sorrell said he has been on the record with that proposal in the last two months. Asked why he didn’t start advocating that position sooner, he said: “The issue about changing or reviewing the access to public records has just come into the fore in the last six months or so, and we were waiting to be called into the Legislative committees looking into reviewing the exemptions and sort of waiting to be called on that.”
Again, curiously passive from the man who’s held the state’s top law-enforcement position for 15 years. “The issue…has just come into the fore in the last six months or so”? Completely false. It’s been brewing for several years, and has especially heated up in the past couple of years. And “waiting to be called into the Legislative committees”? Waiting? Waiting? You’re the Attorney General, for Pete’s sake. If you seriously believe it’s an issue, what in hell were you waiting for?
It’s weak, really weak. As Donovan said, “This is about leadership.” And on this issue, Bill Sorrell has failed to provide any.
Not exactly what I’d expect from a “two-fisted attorney general.”