Across Vermont, a familiar frustration keeps surfacing in backyards, downtowns, and business corridors: repeat theft, chronic disturbances, and the same small group of offenders cycling through the same locations with little apparent consequence.

The usual explanation points upstream—state’s attorneys, court backlogs, judicial discretion. Those factors are real. They’re not the whole picture. What often gets missed is that municipalities are not limited to waiting on the criminal system to act.

They operate under a different set of tools entirely.

Two Systems, Two Very Different Paths

At the state level, crimes like retail theft are defined and prosecuted through a formal pipeline: police investigation, prosecutor discretion, court process, and sentencing.

Municipalities don’t control that pipeline, and they can’t rewrite it. They don’t get to create their own version of theft law because they’re dissatisfied with how the state handles it.

But that doesn’t mean they’re stuck.

Local governments in Vermont have the authority to adopt both civil and criminal ordinances—rules governing conduct within their communities, so long as they stay within powers granted by state law.

🍁 Make a One-Time Contribution — Stand Up for Accountability in Vermont 🍁

Most municipalities lean on civil ordinances, which are enforced outside the traditional criminal process. These violations don’t go through a prosecutor, don’t result in a criminal record, and are typically handled through the Vermont Judicial Bureau.

Municipalities can also adopt criminal ordinances, where violations are treated as misdemeanors. But those come with more complexity—prosecutorial involvement, higher burdens of proof, and tighter constraints to avoid conflicting with state law—so they are used more selectively.

That distinction matters.

It determines not just how cases are handled, but how quickly—and whether—anything happens at all.

Why Civil Ordinances Get Overlooked

Civil ordinances are faster, more predictable, and less dependent on the priorities of the criminal justice system. For certain types of behavior—disorderly conduct, nuisance activity, repeated disruptions—they can provide a more direct path to consequence.

But there’s a catch.

Civil penalties tend to work best on people who have something to lose—income, credit, stability. For individuals who are transient or indigent, fines alone don’t carry much weight. A $50 penalty and a $500 penalty are functionally the same if neither is ever paid.

That’s where some municipalities hit a wall—and stop. In practice, that often means the individuals generating the most disruption are the least affected by the tool being used.

When Fines Don’t Work, Access Does

Instead of relying solely on fines, some towns look at how behavior interacts with access.

Not abstract punishment, but whether someone continues to be allowed in a specific place after repeated problems.

That’s where trespass comes into play.

Under Vermont law, a person can be barred from private property by the owner—or by law enforcement acting on the owner’s behalf. Many larger retailers already use this system. Some provide advance authorization so officers can issue trespass notices without needing to track down a manager in the moment.

It’s a small shift, but it changes the dynamic.

Taking the Decision Off the Front Line

Instead of a tired clerk being forced to decide whether to escalate a situation, the decision is effectively made upstream—by policy, by ownership, by agreement.

Law enforcement handles the execution. For frontline staff, that removes a moment of discretion that can quickly turn into confrontation.

The interaction becomes cleaner, faster, and less personal.

And importantly, it creates a clear line: return after notice, and the issue is no longer about the original behavior—it’s about trespass, which is simpler to prove and enforce.

Used consistently, that kind of system doesn’t eliminate problem behavior, but it does contain it. A location that enforces boundaries stops being an easy target. Repeat disruptions become harder to sustain in the same place.

Looking at Patterns, Not Just Incidents

Some municipalities take that a step further—not by rewriting criminal law, but by focusing on patterns.

Repeated calls for service to the same address. The same individuals generating repeated police responses. The same locations cycling through the same issues. At that point, the issue is no longer a single incident—it’s a pattern.

That’s where nuisance-style approaches come in.

Rather than treating each incident in isolation, towns can look at the aggregate: how often is this happening, and what is the burden on public resources? At a certain point, the focus shifts—not just to the individual causing the disruption, but to how the location is being managed.

That can mean requiring mitigation steps. It can mean formalizing policies around trespass authorization. It can mean shifting some responsibility back onto the property side of the equation.

None of that requires a new criminal statute.

The Limits Still Matter

There are limits.

Municipalities can regulate conduct; they can’t declare entire categories of people unwelcome. They can enforce rules on specific properties; they can’t ban individuals from existing in public spaces.

And they still depend on consistent follow-through—from officers writing citations to courts upholding them.

But within those limits, there is more room to operate than is often acknowledged.

A Different Way to Use What Already Exists

The difference comes down to approach.

One model waits for the criminal system to produce results, case by case.

The other builds a framework where repeated behavior leads to increasingly constrained access, enforced locally, and applied consistently.

Neither approach is perfect. But one of them uses more of the tools already on the table—and asks more of the systems closest to the problem.

In a state where communities are actively debating how to balance public order, business stability, and individual rights, that distinction is starting to matter more.

If you found this information valuable and want to support independent journalism in Vermont, become a supporter for just $5/month today!

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Instagram

#fyivt #vermont #localgovernment #publicsafety

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!