It was about 1:15 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 9.

Employees at White Cap Business Park in Williston were in the middle of a normal workday when roughly 30 protesters arrived at the privately owned, multi-tenant commercial building. Their grievance was with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which leases space there.

The protesters were demanding, among other things, that White Cap's property managers terminate ICE's leases. Some entered the building despite no-trespassing signs.

Vermont State Police eventually arrested 11 people and cited two more after they refused to leave.

Police acknowledged the protesters' right to demonstrate, while also noting that owners of private buildings have the right to restrict people from entering and occupying their property.

The protest was nonviolent.

But the political dispute was with the federal government. The property being occupied was not government property.

Government protests, private consequences

Vermont saw numerous demonstrations against ICE and federal policy during the following months, including large protests at government buildings and in public spaces.

A review of reported Vermont demonstrations between February and July found no comparable incident in which protesters repeatedly entered a government-owned Vermont office building, refused requests to leave, interfered with access and required police removal for trespassing.

That does not establish that no such incident occurred. It does show a notable distinction in the publicly reported protests.

At White Cap, a private property owner and other commercial tenants became the physical pressure point in a political dispute directed at the federal government.

George declines all 13 cases

On Feb. 25, Chittenden County State's Attorney Sarah George declined to prosecute all 13 trespass cases from the February protest.

Her written decisions did not conclude that protesters had a constitutional right to remain inside the building or that Vermont's trespass law did not apply.

George instead exercised prosecutorial discretion.

Her office, she wrote, considers both the likelihood of success at trial and whether criminal prosecution is the best way to serve justice. George said her office focuses on "solving problems and meeting needs instead of simply obtaining convictions."

George emphasized that the protesters were nonviolent, that police affidavits contained no sworn statements from the property managers, and that there was no indication protest noise had disrupted other tenants or generated complaints.

She then addressed the disruption at the property.

"The most significant impact of the protestors' actions appeared to be due to the property manager's choice to lock down the atrium," George wrote.

The sequence was straightforward: protesters entered private property and refused to leave. The property manager responded by restricting access. In deciding whether the protesters should be prosecuted, George identified the manager's response as the apparent source of the greatest impact.

George concluded that prosecution would not serve the ends of justice or the best interests of Chittenden County residents.

But George included a warning

The declinations were not unconditional.

George wrote that information directly from White Cap tenants about effects on their operations could cause her office to reconsider.

She also warned individual defendants that escalation — or returning to the building to protest — could change the outcome.

If a defendant's behavior escalated or the person "re-enter[ed] the building for the purposes of protesting," George wrote, her office would reconsider the merits of the case.

Peter Booth received that warning after his February trespass case was declined.

On May 14, Booth was back.

The protests return

Four people were arrested during another protest at White Cap that day after protesters again blocked access and refused to leave. Booth was among those arrested.

Property manager Normand Stanislas said the action affected other businesses in the building, and a café closed for the day.

Those circumstances closely resembled the conditions George had identified in February as grounds for reconsideration: a defendant returning to protest and reported effects on other tenants.

The protests returned again on July 24.

This time, organizers said the purpose was to prevent ICE employees from accessing the facility at the beginning of the workday.

About 30 people gathered inside or outside the property beginning around 7:30 a.m. Police said the business park's owner asked that protesters be removed after they refused to leave.

Thirteen were arrested. At least 12 were charged with unlawful trespass.

Some had previously been arrested at the same facility.

What Vermont law says

Vermont's unlawful-trespass statute, 13 V.S.A. § 3705, does not require violence, property damage or documented financial loss.

The basic issue is whether someone, without legal authority or consent, enters or remains on property after notice has been given that entry or continued presence is prohibited.

That leaves two distinct questions.

The first is whether a lawful possessor has the right to control access to private property. Vermont law says yes.

The second is whether every apparent violation must be prosecuted. It does not. Prosecutors retain discretion over whether criminal charges serve the interests of justice.

George exercised that discretion in February while explicitly identifying circumstances that could cause her to reconsider.

The protesters returned anyway.

For the property owner, that leaves a practical question alongside the legal one: what does the right to exclude people from private property mean when police repeatedly enforce it at the door, but the same conduct continues?

George's own February letters established the point at which she said that calculation could change.

The subsequent protests provided that test.

George won the Democratic nomination for another term on Aug. 11 and, with no Republican or Progressive candidate on the November ballot, is expected to remain Chittenden County State's Attorney.