After Vermont passed its 2000 fingerprinting law, did liquor control investigators still get access to Criminal Information Center records, or were they suddenly cut off because their division didn't spend half its budget on criminal justice?
Plain-English summary
The 2000 fingerprinting and criminal history records law (Act 151) added 20 V.S.A. § 2056a, which restricted dissemination of Criminal Information Center records to "criminal justice agencies." The new statute defined that term as governmental agencies, or subunits, that allocate at least 50 percent of their annual appropriation to criminal justice purposes. The House General Affairs Committee asked whether that definition cut off liquor control investigators, who were police officers under 7 V.S.A. § 561(a) but worked in a division of the Department of Liquor Control whose parent budget was mostly devoted to non-criminal regulation.
Chief Assistant Attorney General William E. Griffin said no. He read the statute against the larger Vermont scheme for sharing criminal records, which had long contemplated cooperation with municipal police, sheriffs, and other "law enforcement officers." The 1972 statute on the Criminal Information Center, 20 V.S.A. § 2053(a), explicitly directed cooperation with that broader law enforcement community.
The mechanical 50% test would have produced absurd results if applied at the parent-agency level, since it would have cut off many law enforcement subunits, including municipal police departments (subunits of larger municipal governments) and the AG's own Criminal Division. Instead, "agency or subunit" should be read so that the 50% test applied at the subunit level. Liquor Control Enforcement, which spent essentially all its appropriation on liquor-criminal-law enforcement, qualified.
The opinion also identified the cleanest workable definition: criminal records should be shared with departments, offices, and divisions staffed by the law enforcement officers listed in 20 V.S.A. § 2358(c)(1), plus other named entities like courts and the Department of Corrections.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2001. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
The Vermont Crime Information Center (now under the Department of Public Safety) has updated its access rules and user agreements many times since 2001. The criminal justice training council statute, 20 V.S.A. § 2358, has also been revised. Anyone evaluating current access by liquor control investigators or any other agency should check the present statutory text and the current VCIC user-agreement framework.
Historical summary
For state law enforcement managers (at the time): Liquor control investigators kept their records access through a user agreement with the VCIC. The opinion confirmed the practical understanding that "law enforcement officer" under § 2358(c)(1) defined who could receive records.
For statutory interpretation researchers: The opinion declined a literal reading of "agency" because the literal reading would have rendered the statute "practically meaningless" by cutting out the very entities the legislature had built the records system to serve. The opinion is a useful illustration of how Vermont AGs handle absurd-result reasoning.
For criminal records policy researchers: The opinion identifies a definitional fault line that recurs in records statutes: whether the percentage test for "criminal justice agency" applies at the parent or the subunit level. The AG read it at the subunit level, which kept the records pipeline open.
Common questions
Did the opinion authorize records access for any subunit a department wanted to call "criminal justice"?
No. The opinion tied the analysis to the law enforcement officer list in 20 V.S.A. § 2358(c)(1), which Vermont treats as the gold-standard definition. Subunits that did not employ those statutorily defined officers would not have qualified.
Did the opinion address fingerprinting submission, as opposed to records receipt?
The question was about dissemination to liquor control investigators. The opinion focused on § 2056a's outbound rules. The fingerprinting submission side of Act 151 was outside the scope.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- 20 V.S.A. § 2056a (dissemination of criminal history records to criminal justice agencies)
- 20 V.S.A. § 2053(a) (Criminal Information Center; cooperation with law enforcement)
- 20 V.S.A. § 2358(c)(1) (definition of "law enforcement officer")
- 20 V.S.A. §§ 3019(a)(2), 4016; 23 V.S.A. § 1200(5); 33 V.S.A. § 702(11) (parallel "law enforcement officer" definitions)
- 7 V.S.A. § 561(a) (liquor control investigators are police officers)
- 7 V.S.A. §§ 651-71 (alcoholic beverages criminal statutes)
- 3 V.S.A. §§ 213(a)-(b), 2101 (general definitions of agencies and cabinet)
- 28 V.S.A. § 1 (purpose of Department of Corrections)
- Act 151 (2000), An Act Relating to Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records
Source
- Landing page: https://ago.vermont.gov/about-attorney-generals-office/attorney-general-opinions
- Original PDF: https://ago.vermont.gov/sites/ago/files/2025-11/IO%204-18-01.pdf
Original opinion text
Informal Opinion No. 2001-2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Committee on General, Housing & Military Affairs
FROM:
William E. Griffin, Chief Assistant Attorney General
DATE:
April 18, 2001
RE:
Criminal Records
The House General Affairs Committee has asked whether a new statute, 20
V.S.A. §2056a, should be interpreted to deny liquor control investigators access to
criminal records. My opinion is that the statute should not be interpreted that way.
Liquor control investigators and other state and local law enforcement officers should
continue to have access to Criminal Information Center records in accordance with the
terms of the statute.
Section 2056a took effect last year with the passage of Act No. 151, An Act
Relating to Fingerprinting and Criminal History Records. The section is entitled
"Dissemination of criminal history records to criminal justice agencies." It added
language to prior laws on the subject of criminal records, and provided that these
records may be released to criminal justice agencies. It imposed penalties for the
unauthorized disclosure of records obtained under the new statute.
Investigators in the Enforcement Division of the Department of Liquor Control are
police officers. They have "the same powers and immunities as those conferred on the
state police." 7 V.S.A. §561(a). Their special jurisdiction is the enforcement of alcoholic
beverages statutes, which carry criminal penalties. 7 V.S.A. §§651-71.
Liquor investigators obtain criminal records from the Vermont Criminal
Information Center under a Network User Agreement between the Enforcement Division
and the Center. The investigators use these records in the performance of their
statutory duties, which include the investigation of liquor law violations and liquor license
applications. The Committee did not suggest that any investigator had used criminal
records for other purposes or otherwise breached the User Agreement. The issue is
simply one of statutory interpretation.
House General Affairs Committee
April 18, 2001
Page 2
Subsection (b) of the records statute provides that "a criminal justice agency"
may obtain criminal history records from the Vermont Criminal Information Center.
Records may be obtained "for criminal justice purposes or other purposes authorized by
state or federal law." 20 V.S.A. §2056a(b). The question is whether the Enforcement
Division of the Department of Liquor Control is a "criminal justice agency."
Subsection (a) of the statute defines "criminal justice agencies" to mean
"governmental agencies or subunits thereof that allocate at least 50 percent of the
agency's annual appropriation to criminal justice purposes." 20 V.S.A. §2056a(a)(2).
This language is ambiguous and requires interpretation because it leaves three
questions unanswered:
1. What are "governmental agencies"?
2. What are the "subunits thereof"?
3. What is meant by the phrase "50 percent of the agency's annual
appropriations"?
The terms "agencies" and "subunits" are not defined in the statutes that govern
the Criminal Information Center (Title 20, chapter 117) or elsewhere in Title 20.
Agencies and various subunits of agencies are defined by some general laws that
discuss the organization of state government, but those general laws do not resolve the
immediate issue. The general definitions draw a distinction between the "agencies" of
state government, which "shall be headed by secretaries," and the "departments" and
"divisions," which are headed by commissioners and directors. 3 V.S.A. §213(a) and
(b). See also 3 V.S.A. §2101 ("A cabinet is created in the executive branch of
government which shall consist of the secretaries of such agencies as are created by
law.")
According to these general definitions, not even the Department of Public Safety
or the Office of Attorney General are "agencies." Nor are they "subunits thereof." The
only agencies of state government are the agencies of administration, commerce,
human services, natural resources and transportation. Therefore a literal reading of the
terms "agencies" and "subunits thereof" would make the criminal records laws
practically meaningless.
The records laws, including the new statute, can be given effect only by avoiding
a literal interpretation and by considering the real purpose of Vermont's criminal records
system. The original laws (still in effect) established the Criminal Information Center "to
House General Affairs Committee
April 18, 2001
Page 3
develop and carry on a uniform and complete state, interstate, national and international
system of records of criminal activities and information." 20 V.S.A. §2053(a). The
Center was placed within the Department of Public Safety and was directed to
cooperate with "municipal police departments, sheriffs and other law enforcement
officers in this state." Id. (emphasis added).
The reference to "law enforcement officers" is useful because the Legislature has
taken particular care to identify the personnel who are authorized to enforce criminal
laws. The statutes that create the Criminal Justice Training Council define "law
enforcement officer" to mean:
a member of the department of public safety who exercises
law enforcement powers, a member of the state police, a
municipal police officer, a constable who exercises law
enforcement powers, a motor vehicle inspector, an
employee of the department of liquor control who exercises
law enforcement powers, a full time state investigator
employed by the attorney general or a state's attorney, a fish
and game warden, a sheriff or deputy sheriff who exercises
law enforcement powers, or a railroad police officer
commissioned [by the commissioner of public safety]
pursuant to 30 V.S.A. chapter 45, subchapter 8 …."
20 V.S.A. §2358(c)(1) (emphasis added). This definition has become the gold standard
for deciding who is and who is not a law enforcement officer. See, e.g., 20 V.S.A.
§3019(a)(2) (defining "law enforcement officer" as person certified under 20 V.S.A.
§2358); 20 V.S.A. §4016 (same); 23 V.S.A. §1200(5) (same); 33 V.S.A. §702(11)
(same).
The Legislature's intent that the Criminal Records Center cooperate with state
and local law enforcement and its intent that records be disseminated to "agencies" that
serve criminal justice purposes can both be served by giving "agencies" a practical
definition consistent with the parallel statutes. Criminal records should be provided to
governmental entities, however labeled, that spend the major part of their budgets on
law enforcement and criminal justice. Records may not be withheld from an otherwise
eligible governmental entity because it is organized as a department, division or office,
and not as an "agency."
House General Affairs Committee
April 18, 2001
Page 4
Therefore criminal records should continue to be shared with the governmental
departments, offices and divisions that are staffed by the law enforcement officers listed
in 20 V.S.A. §2358(c)(1). This group would include the Department of Public Safety,
municipal police departments, the Enforcement Divisions of the Motor Vehicle, Liquor
Control and Fish and Wildlife Departments, the Criminal Division in the Attorney
General's Office and the several State's Attorneys Offices.
Records should also be shared with certain criminal justice entities outside the
law enforcement group. This category would include "all Vermont courts," meaning the
civil as well as the criminal courts, because they are expressly named in the statute. 20
V.S.A. §2056a(a)(2). And it would include the Department of Corrections, because
records may be shared with agencies responsible for the "correction of persons
suspected, charged or convicted of criminal offenses." 20 V.S.A. §2056a(a)(3);
compare 28 V.S.A. §1 (purpose of Department of Corrections is administration of
correctional program).
A committee member suggested that criminal records might be withheld from the
Liquor Control Enforcement Division on grounds that (1) the Division is a subunit of a
Department; and (2) the Department spends less than 50 percent of the Department
budget on criminal justice activities. I do not think the statutory language ("50 percent of
the agency's annual appropriations") requires that result. Nor do I think that was the
legislative intent.
The statutory language does not require that the 50 percent test be applied to the
budget of the parent agency (or department, or municipality) because, although the
language could be read that way, that reading would make the reference to "subunits"
superfluous. If the standard was meant to be the budget of the parent agency, there
was no need to add the language about subunits. The Legislature could have referred
simply to "governmental agencies that allocate at least 50 percent of their annual
appropriation to criminal justice purposes."
Also, if the standard was meant to be the budget of the parent agency, criminal
records would be denied to large segments of the law enforcement community.
Municipal police departments are subunits of much larger political subdivisions; the
Enforcement Division of the Fish and Wildlife Department is a subunit of that
Department, which itself is a subunit of the Agency of Natural Resources; the Criminal
Division of the Attorney General's Office is a subunit of the Office and accounts for less
than half of the Office budget.
House General Affairs Committee
April 18, 2001
Page 5
Thus a too literal reading of the fifty-percent rule would mean radical changes in
police access to records and the relationship between the Criminal Information Center
and Vermont's principal law enforcement agencies. The legislative findings that
prompted the enactment of the fingerprinting and criminal records law speak in terms of
"the effectiveness of the use of criminal histories" and "public safety," and say nothing
about denying records to liquor control investigators or other police officers. If that was
the legislative intent, the Legislature would have said so directly.
In summary, it is my opinion that the Criminal Information Center is authorized to
provide criminal records to other law enforcement agencies including the Enforcement
Division of the Department of Liquor Control. The records must be provided pursuant to
user agreements, 20 V.S.A. §2056a(c), and may only be used "for criminal justice
purposes or other purposes authorized by state or federal law," 20 V.S.A. §2056a(b). In
the case of the Liquor Control Enforcement Division these purposes would include the
investigation of liquor law violations and the investigation of liquor license applications.