The footage documents an operation involving a tactical team from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, South Burlington police, Vermont State Police and protesters. It also records police activity in and around Dorset Street and at a command post at South Burlington City Hall.

Three immigrants who refused to leave the home were detained after the ICE team entered it, VTDigger reported. The operation drew a crowd reported to include more than 200 people.

Footage records police response

The newly examined video centers on how local and state officers operated during an extended standoff between federal agents and protesters. South Burlington Deputy Police Chief Sean Briscoe and Police Chief Bill Breault are among the city officials identified in the reporting and in the city’s account of its response.

The city said in a March 20 update that it was continuing to respond to the March 11 federal ICE actions and described the role of South Burlington police in public safety. That official account addresses the city’s role; it does not make South Burlington police responsible for actions taken by ICE or Vermont State Police.

VTDigger’s July report builds on its earlier coverage of the raid, public outcry and accounts from police. It also refers to allegations of constitutional violations. Those allegations are not the same as an established legal finding, and the released footage should not be treated on its own as proof of wrongdoing.

Why the video record matters

The volume of footage offers the public a fuller view of the prolonged and highly visible enforcement action than isolated clips or accounts alone. It documents the presence of several agencies with distinct roles: ICE conducted the federal operation, while South Burlington police and Vermont State Police were present during the response around the home and the crowd.

For South Burlington residents, the record is relevant to continuing scrutiny of how local police participated in or managed public safety during a federal immigration action. The report describes both the large gathering outside the property and the command arrangements involving City Hall, underscoring the scale of the response.

No newer official investigative finding or scheduled next public action was identified in the approved materials following VTDigger’s July 17 report. The available record establishes the release and examination of the footage, while legal conclusions about the March 11 operation remain separate from that documentation.

The decision concerns Trooper Ryan Criss, according to Vermont Public’s June 24, 2026, report on the attorney general’s determination. Garvey was the one person killed in the incident.

The attorney general’s action is a criminal charging decision. It means the state will not bring criminal charges against the trooper based on the shooting. The available report does not establish whether any administrative review, civil matter or other process remains open.

Response followed mental-health crisis report

The shooting occurred as police responded to Garvey in Putney while he was experiencing a mental-health crisis. The available account does not provide further details about his condition, the sequence of the encounter or the circumstances immediately before the shooting.

Before the shooting, police had obtained two judicial warrants: a criminal arrest warrant and an emergency-evaluation warrant. The warrants were both in place before the fatal encounter, according to the report.

An arrest warrant and an emergency-evaluation warrant serve distinct functions, but the available reporting does not specify the underlying allegations supporting the arrest warrant or the terms of the emergency-evaluation warrant. The report also does not describe what actions were taken under either warrant before the shooting.

Scope of the attorney general’s decision

Clark’s determination addresses whether the trooper would face criminal charges. It should not be read as a broader finding about every aspect of the police response, the emergency-evaluation process or possible civil liability. The source packet does not establish any conclusion on those questions.

Likewise, the charging decision does not add factual detail about the use of force beyond the reported outcome: Garvey was fatally shot by a state trooper during the July 7, 2025, response. The available report does not provide a court finding, conviction, civil judgment or final administrative finding related to the incident.

For public-safety agencies and residents, the case places attention on the intersection of law-enforcement responses, criminal warrants and emergency evaluations when a person is described as experiencing a behavioral-health crisis. The record provided for this report, however, does not identify any policy change, safety directive or additional agency action arising from the decision.

Family says death was preventable

Garvey’s family has maintained that his death was preventable. That is the family’s position, not a finding contained in the attorney general’s criminal charging decision.

The reported determination leaves the family without a criminal prosecution of the trooper. The available information does not say whether the family has pursued, plans to pursue or has resolved any civil claim.

No further court date, hearing or agency deadline is identified in the available report. The known official development is the attorney general’s decision not to file criminal charges against Criss.

The shooting took place in Putney, Vermont, and involved the Vermont State Police. The attorney general’s determination was reported June 24, 2026, nearly a year after the July 2025 incident.