Timothy Lueders-Dumont, Esq. is the Executive Director of the Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs and has played a key role in the state’s implementation of ERPO.
What role does the Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs play in ERPO implementation in the state, and how did you get involved in the process?
Between 2020 and 2023, Vermont saw about 100 ERPOs filed, spread across the 14 counties, with almost all filed by our department, the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs.
In Vermont, ERPOs are filed in the family division, as they are civil cases. Since the law’s passage in 2018, the landscape has evolved, but with little case law, much is still open to interpretation.
Our department plays a significant role in implementing ERPOs in Vermont. We share jurisdiction with the Attorney General’s Office, but as the primary legal representatives in each community, we handle the majority of cases. As of March 1, 2024, Vermont had 25,000 pending criminal, family, and civil cases, including ERPOs. Our department managed 99 percent of them, positioning us as the front-line responders for incidents involving violence or threats.
Before joining the central office that provides support through prosecution, training, policy, and legislative work, I worked as a deputy state’s attorney in Washington County, which includes the capital region. I managed a caseload that frequently included ERPO filings. Often, ERPOs were tied to ongoing criminal cases, but they could also precede criminal charges.
One notable update to the law, passed in 2023, allows household members to initiate ERPO filings. After the initial ex-parte order is issued, the state’s attorney adopts the case.
Over time, practitioners have become more comfortable filing ERPOs. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw around 30 filings, highlighting the importance of this tool in preventing potential harm. In my experience, filing an ERPO may achieve its primary goal: signaling an issue that demands attention. Whether the order is maintained long-term can be a secondary consideration. As both a practitioner and a trainer, my focus has been on equipping colleagues and communities to effectively utilize ERPOs to enhance public safety.
Who are the various stakeholders involved in the ERPO process?
The ERPO process involves a wide range of stakeholders across the state. Vermont’s law enforcement agencies are key ERPO partners. For example, when I worked as a deputy state’s attorney in Washington County, I collaborated closely with the Montpelier Police Department. Organizations like the Vermont Chiefs of Police, the Vermont State Police, the Vermont Sheriffs’ Association, and the Vermont Police Academy support law enforcement agencies by facilitating training and sharing information.
Other critical stakeholders include the Department of Children and Families, which often identifies potential issues within domestic settings. Schools are also key partners, as concerns frequently arise from observations made by teachers, principals, or superintendents. I’ve worked on cases involving schools where the initial issues surfaced in classrooms before extending to home environments. These school-based partnerships are essential, as children can be indirect witnesses to concerning behavior at home, even if they are not the direct subjects of an ERPO.
Mental health agencies are another crucial group. Vermont has designated agencies, like the Howard Center in Chittenden County and Washington County Mental Health, that provide mental health support and often become aware of threats.
Additionally, individuals working in public-facing roles, such as election workers are sometimes the subjects of threats. Victim advocacy also plays a part in the process, particularly for those who interact frequently with individuals involved in ERPO cases.
The judiciary is another key stakeholder, as judges require training on ERPO procedures, especially when legislative changes occur. For instance, the 2023 update allowing household members to file ERPOs required a learning curve, as the change introduced a new dynamic to the process. While household filings remain rare, I’ve assisted in clarifying misunderstandings to ensure this option is available when needed.
Lastly, attorneys can also play a role, either representing parties in ERPO cases or occasionally being the subjects of threats themselves. The Vermont Bar Association has a role in supporting these legal professionals.
Overall, ERPO implementation demands significant coordination among law enforcement, legal professionals, mental health providers, educational institutions, and victim support services to ensure effectiveness.
What is the process to file an ERPO, and how do the various stakeholders coordinate efforts?
The process to file an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) is highly collaborative, involving multiple stakeholders. Here’s an overview of how the process typically unfolds:
- Initial Assessment and Coordination
- Law Enforcement’s Role: Often, the process begins with law enforcement identifying a situation where an ERPO may be appropriate. They assess whether there is an immediate threat involving firearms or dangerous weapons.
- Prosecutor’s Role: Law enforcement consults with the state’s attorney to determine if the situation warrants both an ERPO and potential criminal charges. This step ensures alignment between the criminal and family courts, as ERPOs are civil matters but often intersect with criminal investigations.
- Filing the ERPO
- Affidavit and Form Preparation: Typically law enforcement prepares the necessary affidavit and submits the case to a state’s attorney for review, who in turn decides whether to file the case and completes a judicial ERPO form. The affidavit must detail the facts supporting the ERPO, including evidence of threats or dangerous behavior.
- Submission to the Court: The prosecutor or state’s attorney files the affidavit and the form with the court. In urgent situations, this is done swiftly—often within minutes. Prosecutors may notify court staff to expedite the review by a judge.
- Ex-Parte Order
- Temporary Order Issuance: The court issues a temporary ex-parte order, usually valid for 14 days. This order mandates the immediate removal of firearms or dangerous weapons from the subject of the ERPO.
- Enforcement: Law enforcement serves the temporary order and collects firearms. This can be a tense process, requiring careful coordination to prevent resistance or non-compliance.
- Final Hearing
- Timeline: A final hearing is scheduled within two weeks, although delays can occur due to court schedules or requests for legal representation.
- Evidence and Testimony: The state must present clear and convincing evidence to justify extending the ERPO. This involves witness testimony, documentation of threats, and ensuring compliance with procedural rules.
- Legal Representation: As ERPOs are civil cases, the subject does not have an automatic right to an attorney but may choose to hire one. Children involved in ERPO cases may require a guardian ad litem.
- Outcomes: The final hearing may result in a stipulated agreement (e.g., a three-month prohibition on firearm access combined with mental health treatment) or an ERPO issued for up to six months.
- Extension and Monitoring
- Renewal: If the threat persists, prosecutors must file for an extension before the ERPO’s expiration. This requires new affidavits and evidence to demonstrate ongoing risk.
- Coordination with Stakeholders: Law enforcement may monitor the individual during the ERPO period, aiming to ensure compliance while identifying any renewed risks.
- Special Circumstances
- Household Member Filings: Recent legislative changes allow household members to file ERPOs. This process mirrors restraining order filings and requires a higher burden of proof compared to state-filed ERPOs to prevent misuse (at the ex-parte stage). Household member filings trigger notification of the state’s attorney, who can decide whether to adopt the case.
- Conflicts of Interest: If a conflict arises (e.g., the subject of the ERPO has ties to the prosecutor’s office), the case may be transferred to another county or the attorney general’s office to maintain impartiality.
The ERPO process combines swift action for immediate safety with a longer-term focus on addressing the underlying causes of risk, requiring effective collaboration among all stakeholders.
Overall, ERPO implementation demands significant coordination among law enforcement, legal professionals, mental health providers, educational institutions, and victim support services to ensure effectiveness.
What do compliance efforts look like to ensure that firearms are relinquished after an ERPO is granted by the court?
Ensuring compliance after an ERPO is granted involves a careful balance between vigilance and de-escalation to guarantee firearms are relinquished without escalating risks. When a judge issues an ERPO, they mandate the individual to surrender all firearms, typically emphasized during the final hearing. Law enforcement then serves the order, prioritizing voluntary compliance by presenting the court’s directive. Officers often rely on de-escalation tactics, aiming to avoid confrontations that could endanger both parties. In some cases, respondents comply readily. For example, one individual initially denied making threats but willingly handed over their firearms, even returning to retrieve a forgotten one. However, ensuring that all firearms have been relinquished remains a persistent challenge.
Law enforcement must remain vigilant for signs of incomplete compliance, such as evidence of additional firearms stored in vehicles, safes, or other locations. Officers may question respondents about their firearm access, especially if they notice firearm equipment or other indicators. If suspicions arise to the level of probable cause, further action may include seeking a search warrant or filing criminal charges. For instance, if a respondent surrenders one firearm but later displays another in public, this would likely result in a criminal case for non-compliance and potentially a condition of release requiring law enforcement to remove all firearms.
Follow-up efforts are also critical to ensuring ongoing compliance. Law enforcement may conduct check-ins or rely on community reporting to monitor respondents. In some instances, respondents demonstrate a commitment to compliance by actively engaging with law enforcement or reporting their progress, such as voluntarily informing officers about attending counseling sessions. Prosecutors and officers often leverage these opportunities to foster rapport, treating the process as a chance for engagement rather than criminal prosecution.
More complex scenarios, such as those involving household members or minors, require additional precautions. When minors are involved, law enforcement might request affidavits from guardians affirming that children cannot access firearms in safes. In one case, a father refused to certify that his child couldn’t open a safe, leading prosecutors to file an ERPO. Similarly, household ERPOs necessitate sensitive handling to prevent domestic violence risks when serving orders.
Despite these efforts, compliance can feel tenuous. Respondents are trusted to disclose all firearms, but evidence of undisclosed weapons can emerge later. For example, one respondent handed over two rifles but was later found to have more weapons hidden. Officers must remain cautious, knowing that ERPO service often occurs in high-risk settings, such as waking someone in the middle of the night to inform them of the court order.
[M]ultiple safeguards are built into the [ERPO] process: a judge must approve the initial filing based on a defined burden of proof, and even after a final hearing, the orders are temporary, typically lasting six months.
Have there been any statewide trainings or efforts to raise awareness among key stakeholders?
Statewide efforts to raise awareness and provide training on ERPOs have included multiple initiatives, particularly following legislative changes. A key component has been the creation of a training document, which the Department of Public Safety developed with the assistance of the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs that I shared during the annual prosecutor training. This training reached state prosecutors and the Sheriffs’ Association, ensuring that leadership within law enforcement was aware of the updates.
The Criminal Justice Council, which certifies new law enforcement officers, also received the training document. While there hasn’t been direct confirmation that ERPO-specific training is part of their curriculum, the Department of Public Safety has taken steps to disseminate the information broadly, sharing the document with their department and the chiefs of police. The training I have been leading has primarily been aimed at prosecutors.
Within the state’s attorney offices, ongoing peer-to-peer learning plays a critical role in ensuring consistent application of ERPOs. The department fosters collaboration across its 14 county offices to minimize silos and encourage knowledge-sharing. For instance, when one office files an ERPO, they often share insights and tips with colleagues statewide to refine the process and improve outcomes. This collaborative approach helps build institutional expertise, as many filings come from these offices due to their experience and repetition.
Nevertheless, there are variations in how prosecutors handle ERPOs, reflecting the discretionary nature of their roles. Some may always pursue an ERPO alongside criminal cases, while others might rely on judges’ conditions of release in criminal cases, deeming an ERPO unnecessary in those instances. These nuanced decisions are regularly discussed during the annual training and through informal communication across offices, highlighting the commitment to aligning practices while respecting individual prosecutorial discretion.
What are the most common circumstances that you see ERPOs being used in?
ERPOs are most commonly used in sensitive situations where there is a heightened concern about the safety of individuals or the community. One key area involves school-related threats. This includes both external individuals threatening a school and members of the school community making potential threats. Unfortunately, schools are a significant focus area for ERPOs, given the critical importance of ensuring safety in these environments.
Another frequent scenario involves individuals with a history of domestic violence or firearm-related issues, particularly those who are already known to the criminal justice system. A particularly sensitive but rare situation involved seeking an ERPO against a sheriff for making illegal threats, emphasizing the seriousness of addressing threats even when they come from law enforcement personnel.
Ensuring compliance after an ERPO is granted involves a careful balance between vigilance and de-escalation to guarantee firearms are relinquished without escalating risks.
Mental health concerns also account for a significant portion of ERPOs. These situations often arise not from proven diagnoses but from observed behaviors or circumstances that raise concerns about an individual’s well-being or risk to others. For instance, there may be hints or reports of emotional distress, life events triggering instability, or long-standing issues that suggest the individual should not have access to firearms. These cases frequently involve individuals at risk of self-harm or those who pose a danger to their community.
The populations most often involved in these scenarios include youth experiencing significant changes, as well as adults facing mental health challenges. Often, tips leading to ERPO filings come from family members, school counselors, or mental health professionals who are mandatory reporters. These individuals may express uncertainty about the appropriate course of action but feel compelled to report their concerns.
Finally, there have been instances where government or public employees faced threats, prompting the use of ERPOs to mitigate potential dangers. These cases highlight the breadth of circumstances where ERPOs can play a critical role in preventing harm and ensuring safety.
How much resistance do you see among prosecutors and law enforcement about the use of ERPOs, and what persuades them around the merits and utility of this tool?
One persuasive factor for those initially hesitant about ERPOs is the recognition of the balance these laws strike between public safety and individual rights. ERPOs are not issued lightly. Across Vermont, the 14 elected prosecutors are judicious in their filings, ensuring they are used only when the circumstances truly warrant it. Additionally, multiple safeguards are built into the process: a judge must approve the initial filing based on a defined burden of proof, and even after a final hearing, the orders are temporary, typically lasting six months. Extending an ERPO requires additional work and evidence, reinforcing that these measures are not overly restrictive or permanent.
A helpful comparison is to how driving privileges are curtailed in DUI cases. While driving is not a constitutional right, both involve managing potentially dangerous tools in the interest of public safety. This analogy often resonates, as it frames ERPOs as common-sense measures to prevent harm, particularly when dealing with individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others. The idea is not to penalize responsible gun owners but to intervene in situations where firearms present a significant risk.
The tragic outcomes of inaction, such as domestic violence fatalities, also lend weight to the argument for ERPOs. Vermont has a history of such fatalities, often involving firearms, and the removal of guns from volatile situations can be a crucial preventive measure. While it’s impossible to measure the crimes or tragedies prevented by ERPOs, their potential to save lives—especially in cases involving children or domestic partners—positions them as a critical tool. Even those initially skeptical are often reassured by the thoughtful implementation of ERPOs and the evidence supporting their utility.
What are some challenges with ERPO implementation in the state and some opportunities for improvement?
Implementing ERPOs in Vermont has faced challenges typical of any new law, primarily around awareness and adoption. Initially, one of the significant hurdles was ensuring that both law enforcement and prosecutors understood the law’s purpose and mechanics. Familiarity and comfort with the process take time, and early stages required substantial effort to normalize the use of ERPOs and clarify their distinct role from criminal prosecutions. The challenge was particularly nuanced given that ERPOs are preventative, not punitive—there’s no threat of jail time or fines, which distinguishes them from other legal actions and necessitates a mindset shift for those implementing them.
Another challenge is demonstrating the efficacy of ERPOs without tangible evidence of what has been prevented. Since ERPOs aim to avert potential harm, the absence of a catastrophic event is inherently challenging to quantify or present as proof of success. This lack of measurable outcomes can make it harder to showcase the law’s utility to stakeholders who may be skeptical about its value or impact.
While it’s impossible to measure the crimes or tragedies prevented by ERPOs, their potential to save lives—especially in cases involving children or domestic partners—positions them as a critical tool.
Moreover, Vermont’s historically permissive approach to gun laws adds an additional layer of complexity. While the state’s political environment has shifted to support bipartisan collaboration on firearm safety in recent years, fostering a cultural shift remains an ongoing process. Building confidence in ERPOs requires consistent communication about their common-sense application and a clear distinction from broader gun control debates.
Opportunities for improvement lie in expanding training and outreach efforts to ensure all stakeholders—law enforcement, prosecutors, and the general public—understand ERPOs’ purpose and potential. Continued collaboration with national organizations can play a key role in this, bringing insights from other states and offering a broader context to Vermont’s efforts. For legislators, hearing about successful implementations and lessons learned elsewhere helps frame ERPOs as part of a national movement, reinforcing that Vermont is not isolated in addressing gun safety proactively.
About Timothy Lueders-Dumont, Esq.
Timothy Lueders-Dumont, Esq. is the current Executive Director of the Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs. He has worked for the Department since May 2021, first as a Deputy State’s Attorney in Washington County, and then as the Department’s Legislative Attorney, with responsibilities for the Department’s legislative, policy, public records, study committee work, and other related duties. Prior to working with the Department, he worked as a US District Court Judicial Extern; a Judicial Fellow for Fair and Just Prosecution; a Legal Intern for former Attorney General T.J. Donovan; a Policy Director for former Treasurer Beth Pearce; and a Staff Assistant for then-Congressman Peter Welch.