Facts of Law: State of Vermont's Misclassification Leads to Failed Prosecution of Justin Gamache

Docket no. 1127-10-13 Bncr

Misclassification of Offense and Legal Status
The charge brought against Mr. Gamache in 2013 under 13 V.S.A. § 3002 (Impersonation of an Officer) was a first-time, nonviolent, and misdemeanor offense. According to the statute:

“A person who, without authority, exercises or attempts to exercise the functions of a public servant... shall be imprisoned not more than six months or fined not more than $500.00, or both.”
13 V.S.A. § 3002

Despite the plain language of the statute, the offense was improperly treated by prosecutorial and judicial authorities as though it carried the weight of a predicate or felony offense—contrary to the classification standards outlined in 13 V.S.A. § 1:

“Offenses which are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than two years are misdemeanors.”

Accordingly, the state’s characterization of this misdemeanor as a disqualifying offense for purposes of relief, privacy, or expungement constitutes a legal misclassification. See also State v. Putnam, 2020 VT 94, ¶¶ 18–19 (holding that courts must adhere to the statutory framework in assessing eligibility for expungement).

Failure of the Prosecution to Meet Evidentiary Standards
No admissible evidence beyond the plea exists linking Mr. Gamache to criminal behavior beyond the single offense. The Vermont Rules of Evidence prohibit the admission of hearsay and irrelevant allegations:

V.R.E. 401 – Evidence must be relevant.
V.R.E. 402 – Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.
V.R.E. 802 – Hearsay is not admissible unless an exception applies.
Further, in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court held that all elements of a criminal offense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. No such evidentiary threshold was satisfied in any subsequent allegation against Mr. Gamache.

Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection
The state’s continued use of the conviction against Mr. Gamache, including through data dissemination and denial of rights, constitutes a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Chapter I, Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (procedural due process is required when the state impairs liberty or reputation); Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (judicial bias or appearance thereof violates due process).

Violation of Privacy and Sealing Statutes
The release or reference to the 2013 conviction after more than a decade—particularly in light of expungement eligibility—violates both state and federal privacy laws:

5 U.S.C. § 552a(b) (Privacy Act) – prohibits unauthorized disclosure of personal records.
13 V.S.A. § 7607(d) – upon expungement, the person “shall be treated in all respects as if he or she had never been convicted.”
1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(7) – personal records not subject to public inspection or copying.
Remedy and Legal Entitlement
Mr. Gamache has satisfied the conditions for expungement under:

13 V.S.A. § 7602(a)(1)(A) – misdemeanor conviction with no subsequent offenses.
13 V.S.A. § 7606(b) – mandatory expungement upon satisfaction of statutory criteria.
In re A.M., 2015 VT 109 – purpose of expungement is to remove stigma and restore civil standing.
The failure to recognize Mr. Gamache’s eligibility, and the State’s continued dissemination of protected or irrelevant information, is legally unsustainable and contrary to Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004), which confirms actionable injury under the Privacy Act for unauthorized disclosures.