Attorney General’s Office Concludes Review of Vermont State Police Officer-Involved Shooting and Deems Use of Force Justified

The Attorney General's Office today announced the conclusion of its independent review of a fatal officer-involved shooting that occurred on July 7, 2025, in Putney, Vermont. Attorney General Charity Clark has declined to prosecute Vermont State Police (VSP) Trooper Peter Romeo for charges related to the use of deadly force in the fatal shooting of Scott Garvey. A timeline of events that occurred on July 6 and July 7, 2025, follows.

On Sunday, July 6, 2025, at approximately 10:20 p.m., a call was placed to 911 and was transferred to VSP's Westminster barracks dispatch. The caller reported that Scott Garvey had barricaded himself in the apartment at 23 Neumann Lane in Putney, and that smoke was coming from the apartment and he was trying to kill himself with chemicals. Local fire department and emergency medical service personnel were dispatched to the scene.

Minutes later, the caller called back with an update, reporting that the smoke inside the apartment had come from a fire extinguisher. The caller reported that Mr. Garvey was alone in the apartment and that he had not threatened to harm anyone. The VSP trooper assigned to the case requested that dispatch call a local mental health agency to have the agency contact Mr. Garvey. Dispatch also identified a relative of Mr. Garvey's and left a voicemail for them.

Shortly after midnight, the mental health agency reported to dispatch that they had spoken with Mr. Garvey, and that he was calm and not suicidal or homicidal. The agency advised that Mr. Garvey had just moved to Putney less than a week ago and that he suffered from auditory hallucinations and schizophrenia. VSP closed out the investigation.

On the morning of Monday, July 7, 2025, at approximately 7:14 a.m., Mr. Garvey called VSP's Westminster barracks dispatch and reported that he had been in an altercation with a neighbor the day before and that the neighbor may have a firearm. Mr. Garvey voiced concern that people were in the woods with guns, and that someone had tried to break into his house with a gun a few nights before, but he had stacked boxes in front of the door and fought them off. No record existed with VSP of any calls from Mr. Garvey or any other evidence to corroborate the events he described.

VSP, with knowledge of the July 6incident hours before, assigned a trooper to the case. The trooper called Mr. Garvey shortly before 9:00 a.m. but was unable to reach him and left a voicemail.

At approximately 11:15 a.m., VSP Westminster barracks dispatch received a call from a neighbor of Mr. Garvey's who reported that a male was banging on the windows and stating that the voices are telling him to kill everyone. The neighbor and Mr. Garvey both resided at 23 Neumann Lane, a multi-unit apartment complex consisting of three residential buildings. Trooper Mark Pepperman and an embedded mental health clinician were dispatched to the residence and arrived at approximately 11:34 a.m.

Trooper Peter Romeo arrived on scene shortly after, followed by another embedded mental health clinician. Trooper Romeo spoke with two neighbors who reported that a resident of apartment 103, Scott Garvey, had been walking around their apartment striking their windows while talking to himself, including that he was hearing voices telling him to kill them. The neighbors reported feeling scared. Trooper Romeo reviewed videos of Mr. Garvey from that morning taken by the neighbors, which corroborated the neighbors' report of Mr. Garvey's threatening behavior.

Meanwhile, Trooper Pepperman and an embedded mental health clinician went to apartment 103 to speak to Mr. Garvey. They spoke with Mr. Garvey through his front door as he refused to open it. At times, Mr. Garvey indicated he possessed a firearm. The embedded mental health clinician relayed that Mr. Garvey "said he had a gun" and "if he came out, you would have your guns drawn, and he would have his as well." Additional VSP officers arrived on scene and after considering the evidence from the neighbors, determined that there was probable cause to arrest Mr. Garvey.

VSP and an embedded mental health clinician engaged in lengthy, repeated conversations with Mr. Garvey over multiple hours, both through the front door of Mr. Garvey's home and over the phone. VSP officers estimated that they and others on the scene spent approximately 4.5 hours communicating with Mr. Garvey to try to de-escalate him without success. This included extended negotiations by phone with Mr. Garvey, urging him to voluntarily go to the hospital; deploying the skills of an embedded mental health clinician to build rapport with the goal of voluntary compliance; and disengaging from active contact at times to give Mr. Garvey space to de-escalate on his own.

Ultimately, these conversations were unsuccessful in convincing Mr. Garvey to leave his apartment. Mr. Garvey also refused to allow VSP officers with the embedded mental health clinicians to enter the residence. Throughout, Mr. Garvey never denied that he was in possession of a firearm while in the apartment.

During this timeframe, VSP officers spoke with members of Mr. Garvey's family on multiple occasions to gather information about him, including the events that occurred the night before, his current mental health status, whether he had any weapons inside the home, and any suggestions on methods that may convince him to exit his residence without issue.

VSP also spoke with Mr. Garvey's neighbors to gather further information, and the embedded mental health clinician contacted the local mental health agency to gather more information about Mr. Garvey and discuss the possibility of seeking a warrant to conduct an involuntary emergency mental health evaluation for possible involuntary treatment and commitment for Mr. Garvey.

Both VSP and the embedded mental health clinicians agreed that it was unsafe for the public - including the other residents of 23 Neumann Lane - if VSP left the scene without taking Mr. Garvey into custody.

VSP sought a search warrant to enter Mr. Garvey's apartment to arrest him for disorderly conduct and criminal threatening. At the same time, the embedded mental health clinician, in conjunction with the local mental health agency, sought a mental health evaluation warrant for an involuntary temporary commitment to conduct an emergency mental health evaluation. Both VSP's search warrant and the mental health evaluation warrant were granted by a Vermont Superior Court judge.

At approximately 4:30 p.m., nearly five hours after arriving at the residence, VSP carried out the search warrant by unlocking the doors of Mr. Garvey's apartment with a key that had been provided to them.

Consistent with VSP's operational plan, two troopers remained at Mr. Garvey's front door, knocked and announced their presence and that they had a warrant. At this time, three other troopers were arranged in a tactical line at the rear entrance of Mr. Garvey's apartment.

Per standard police practices and procedures, the first trooper in the line, Trooper McManus, was at the rear entrance equipped with a ballistics shield. Trooper Romeo was positioned second in the line formation and was responsible for providing lethal cover with his police-issued firearm. A third officer, Trooper Maldonado, stood behind Trooper Romeo and was responsible for providing less-lethal cover in the form of a taser. A fourth officer, Sergeant Hughes, was also present and took a position beside the rear entrance.

During the operational plan, VSP discussed non-lethal alternatives, such as tasers and bean-bag guns, and ultimately decided on using the taser as bean-bag deployments at that close range could potentially cause serious injury.

As the officers' tactical line formation attempted to enter the residence through its rear door, both Trooper Romeo and Trooper McManus became stuck in the entrance as the door had been barricaded from the inside. While stuck in the doorway, Trooper Romeo observed Mr. Garvey partially visible behind items in the apartment. Trooper Romeo saw that Mr. Garvey was holding an object which Trooper Romeo was not able to initially identify and suspected it to be the barrel of a rifle. Mr. Garvey was holding the object in a manner consistent with a rifle held at the "low ready" position.

Trooper Romeo ordered Mr. Garvey to show his hands three times and ordered Mr. Garvey to "put it down" twice. When asked what he had seen by Sergeant Hughes, Trooper Romeo responded "I don't know." Trooper Romeo again instructed Mr. Garvey to show his hands three times and said "don't [expletive] do this shit" to Mr. Garvey. Trooper Romeo again told Sergeant Hughes he was unsure whether the object was a gun when asked by Sergeant Hughes. Mr. Garvey responded by telling Trooper Romeo, "[expletive] you" and to "shoot me in the head," multiple times while Trooper Romeo further commanded Mr. Garvey to show his hands an additional four times, then to "move," and then to show his hands three more times.

After approximately thirty seconds of Trooper Romeo issuing repeated commands, while also remaining stuck in the doorway and his view of Mr. Garvey largely obstructed by items between them, Trooper Romeo saw Mr. Garvey raise the object that appeared to resemble the barrel of a rifle up to his cheek and point it at Trooper Romeo and the other troopers, who could not easily take cover as they were stuck in a line formation in the doorway. At that point, Trooper Romeo believed the object to be a rifle ready to fire.

Trooper Romeo responded by firing seven shots at Mr. Garvey until he fell to the floor and the officers were able to observe Mr. Garvey's hands move away from the object. Immediately after, Trooper Romeo is heard on a bodycam saying that Mr. Garvey had a rifle. The officers then forced complete entry through the barricade that blocked both the rear and front entrances, secured Mr. Garvey, and immediately began administering emergency medical assistance.

Upon approaching Mr. Garvey, a VSP officer saw what appeared to be the object that Mr. Garvey pointed at the officers, which was a long and hollow metal pole. Ultimately, Mr. Garvey was shot three times and did not survive the incident.

The Attorney General's Office concludes that, pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 2305(3), under the totality of the circumstances, Trooper Romeo reasonably believed that he and the other troopers were placed in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm when Mr. Garvey refused repeated commands to put down what Trooper Romeo believed was the barrel of a rifle and suddenly changed the position of the object, drawing it to his cheek as if readying to fire; therefore, Trooper Romeo was justified in using deadly force.

Under Vermont law, an officer may use deadly force to repel an imminent threat to cause death or serious bodily injury to themselves when they objectively and reasonably believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury. 20 V.S.A. §§ 2368(a)(4), (c)(1)(A). Further, the use of deadly force is necessary when, given the totality of the circumstances, an objectively reasonable officer in the same situation would conclude that there was no reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force that would prevent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person. 20 V.S.A. § 2368(c)(2).

Under the totality of these circumstances - including, but not limited to, Mr. Garvey's prior behavior, threats of harm to others, his assertion that he had a gun, and his refusal of commands to drop what he had in his hands - an objectively reasonable officer in Trooper Romeo's position would have concluded that there was no other reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself and others.

In reviewing this incident, the Attorney General's Office engaged a use-of-force expert who performed an independent analysis and determined that Trooper Romeo's use of deadly force was reasonable and necessary considering the totality of the circumstances.

Washington County State's Attorney Michelle Donnelly, acting as conflict counsel on behalf of the Windham County State's Attorney's Office, also declined to prosecute the case after completing her own independent review. In reaching their decisions, the Attorney General's Office and the Washington County State's Attorney's Office reviewed all materials provided by Vermont State Police, who conducted the investigation.

Contact: Lauren Jandl, Chief of Staff, 802-828-3171