stories: legal-system

| Home | Search | Administrative Add Build All |

STATE’S ATTORNEY THOMAS J. DONOVAN CONCLUDES INVESTIGATION

- VT—Chittenden County State’s Attorney Thomas J. Donovan announced today he has completed his inquiry into circumstances surrounding a Colchester police officer’s suspected failure to properly investigate an off-duty Burlington police officer for allegedly operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Donovan stated no criminal charges will be filed against Burlington Sgt. Donald Lilja or Colchester Officer Dale Trombley arising from incidents that occurred on November 2, 2007 in Colchester. Donovan stated there was insufficient reliable admissible evidence to prove Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Neglect of Duty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Donovan relied on the following facts to make his decision: On November 2, 2007, two off–duty Vermont State Troopers observed a Chevy Impala swerve in the parking lot at Burger King on Roosevelt Highway in Colchester. The Troopers called Vermont State Police dispatch about a possible DUI, which subsequently called Colchester Police Department. Officer Dale Trombley of the Colchester Police Department was dispatched to the scene. Officer Trombley observed the Chevy Impala drive onto Interstate 89 North. The video from Officer Trombley’s cruiser shows the vehicle swerve four times over the fog line. As a result, Officer Trombley effected a motor vehicle stop on the Chevy Impala. The video shows Officer Trombley exit his police cruiser and approach the vehicle. Officer Trombley then talks with the operator, never ordering the operator to exit the vehicle. Officer Trombley walks back to his cruiser and the video is shut off. In his report to the Colchester Police Department, Officer Trombley states that the operator of the Chevy Impala was identified as Donald Lilja. Officer Trombley further states that his investigation revealed Lilja was tired and no further action was required. Donald Lilja admitted operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol. See BPD Statement to the Community Dec. 18, 2007.

Two off-duty Troopers, while not smelling alcohol, were concerned about a possible impaired driver based upon the operation of the vehicle. Given those facts, the cruiser video being shut off and Officer Trombley’s statement that Lilja was merely tired, raises questions about what actually transpired at the scene. Roadside preliminary screening for impairment should have occurred. The absence of such screening withholds critical evidence from the State, thereby making it difficult to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence such as roadside sobriety exercises, questions regarding drinking patterns and one’s blood alcohol content is critical to proving a DUI charge. While there may be probable cause to charge Donald Lilja for DUI, given the lack of evidence, the State could not meet its burden in proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Without evidence of actual impairment, the State is unable to determine if neglect of duty actually occurred. Therefore we decline to prosecute these matters.

It should be noted that neither Don Lilja’s statements to the Burlington Police Department nor Dale Trombley’s statements to the Colchester Police Department during its internal investigation would be admissible in criminal court. A police department may compel its employees to testify in an internal investigation. The State has no such right; to attempt to do so would violate one’s right against self-incrimination. Statements given during an internal investigation cannot be used as a springboard for a criminal investigation. The State’s investigation into criminal conduct must be independent of any internal investigation. Neither Dale Trombley nor Donald Lilja would agree to be interviewed, as is their right, by the State’s Attorney’s Office for the purpose of this investigation.

While operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol is a serious issue of public safety, a law enforcement officer who is less than trustworthy is far more damaging to the public trust. It is imperative that law enforcement officers maintain the highest standards of trustworthiness at all times. Sergeant Donald Lilja had an exemplary police career for 24 years. We are saddened that two careers have ended by lapses in judgment.

We also note the difficulty any officer would find being placed in these circumstances. It is critical that policies be in place or existing policies be reviewed in order to avoid this happening again. The Chittenden County Law Enforcement Executives, led by Colchester Police Chief Charles Kirker, are working on implementing a countywide policy that would establish a protocol for an officer’s actions when a police officer from any police agency or any public official is subject to an arrest, citation, or, investigation for any criminal offense in this or any other jurisdiction. The intent is to minimize potential concerns of favoritism and therefore public concern that could erode the public’s trust in law enforcement. This policy will work to improve the public trust in law enforcement in Chittenden County.

The law enforcement community in Chittenden County is a highly professional, dedicated, and ethical group committed to keeping our community safe. While this incident is unfortunate and has rightfully caused concern, the Colchester Police Department has handled this difficult and time-consuming matter with diligence and fairness to all involved. State’s Attorney Donovan has and will continue to have the utmost faith and confidence in every police department in our community. ^new ( Display, modify, or delete resource in a separate tab or window.)

Vague law keeps neighbors in the dark
about sex offenders

- By Emily Stone -- Free Press Staff Writer
Saturday, February 22, 2003

The director of the Chittenden Unit for Special Investigations wanted to alert the public last year when a high-risk sex offender moved to Burlington.

The man, who came from another state, had sex crime convictions dating back 30 years and had refused treatment, Sgt. Jennifer Morrison said. He was enough of a public threat that she prepared a news release to notify the community.

She said she thought Vermont's 1996 sex offender registry law allowed police to tell the public about dangerous sex offenders. Instead, she learned that confusion over the law has prevented its use.

The question is one of interpretation. Morrison said CUSI's lawyer told her that the state law is too vague and she should scrap the news release. Other police chiefs agree. Officials in the Department of Public Safety, however, read the law differently and say the law does not prohibit public warnings. Whatever the correct answer, the fact remains that police officers are reluctant to provide information that they want to make public.

The issue might be taken up in the Legislature this session.

"I want the ability to protect the public in extreme cases," Morrison said. CUSI investigates sex crimes and crimes against children in the county. She said the man in question has not been arrested for any new sex crimes since moving to Vermont.

Vermont's sex offender registry was created seven years ago to comply with federal requirements, known as Megan's Law. States chose how to keep their registry and how to provide the public with information about people on the list. Some states have their entire registry on the Internet. Others, including Vermont, keep the list more confidential.

The Vermont Crime Information Center handles the state's registry. The registry holds the names of about 1,800 people who have been convicted of a class of crimes such as sexual assault, lewd and lascivious conduct and sexual exploitation of a child.

Offenders give the state their name, physical description and current address. They are required to register for 10 years after being released from the Department of Corrections. Some high-risk offenders must stay on the list for life. There are 76 life-long registrants in Vermont.

The public can get information about people on the list if a person has a specific concern about his or her safety or the safety of a family member. If, for example, a mother calls to say her neighbor has an inappropriate interest in her daughter, she can learn if that neighbor is on the list.

The confusion comes from the part of the law that addresses public notification when there is no specific request for information.

Max Schlueter, director of the Vermont Crime Information Center, said a section of the law titled "Immunity" gives police the ability to inform the public about high-risk offenders. The section states that nothing in the law prevents officers from notifying people who are exposed to danger from people on the registry.

Attorney Janet Murnane, a CUSI board member, said the law is unclear.

Granting police immunity is different than giving police the explicit authority to notify the public about offenders, she said.

"The statute is very confusing in this directive to law enforcement on whether they can release a general press release and if so under what standards," she said.

Milton Police Chief Brett Van Noordt said this ambiguity is keeping officers from issuing alerts to the public.

"Unless it's specifically set out, I don't think you're going to find too many people who are going to go out on a limb and start releasing information," he said.

Van Noordt is the president of the Vermont Association of Chiefs of Police. He said the issue is not among the group's top legislative concerns, however it might be something he asks the Legislature to review.

A bill in the Senate would make some changes to the sex offender registry law, primarily to keep up to date with federal requirements. The bill does not specifically address how police should notify the public.

Sen. John Bloomer, who co-sponsored the bill, said he hopes that the debate over the bill includes a discussion of when police can notify the public about dangerous offenders.

"We need to make it clearer," said Bloomer, R-Rutland. "We don't want there to be uncertainly, especially when it can potentially deal with public safety."

He said public notification without a specific request from a concerned person should not be the norm, but should be allowed in certain circumstances.

Morrison said her aim is to protect people, not cause undo alarm in the community or increase vigilantism. News releases would be reserved for the most extreme cases.

She said there have been two people in her 18 months as director of CUSI who she thought warranted community-wide notification. In other cases, she would like to alert neighbors or a nearby day care center when a high-risk offender moves to town.

Morrison said she is worried that word will get out that sex offenders can stay below the radar in Vermont.

"I don't want to see Vermont become a safe haven for registered sex offenders," she said.
Contact Emily Stone at 660-1898 or estone@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com
^new ( Display, modify, or delete resource in a separate tab or window.)