Vermont Business Magazine (WARNING: THIS ARTICLE INCLUDES HARSH LANGUAGE) The Vermont Attorney General’s Office has completed a review of a Vermont State Police investigation of a police officer involved shooting incident that occurred on December 22, 2015, in Burlington, Vermont. The Office has concluded, in a statement released today, as a matter of law, that Vermont State Police (VSP) Detective Trooper Matthew Cannon and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Agent Timothy Hoffmann were legally justified in the use of deadly force when they discharged their firearms at Kenneth Stephens (DOB: 12/5/59) while executing a search warrant at Mr Stephens’ apartment in Burlington. The legal standard for the use of deadly force is whether the officer reasonably believed that he or a third party was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, and that deadly force was necessary to respond to that threat.
On December 21, 2015, DEA obtained a federal “no-knock” warrant as part of an investigation of Kenneth Stephens for distributing controlled substances. In preparation for executing the warrant, the search warrant team was told that Mr. Stephens had a rifle at his residence, a lengthy criminal history, and that DEA had conducted a series of controlled buys from him with the help of a cooperating individual. The following day, December 22nd, the team was also advised that Mr. Stephens had been home most of the day using controlled substances. At approximately 7 p.m. that evening, the team assembled to execute the search warrant.
Law enforcement officers from a number of agencies were present - nine officers were lined up in a stack at the door with additional officers on the perimeter. A DEA agent - tasked with breaching the door – was at the front of the stack. Immediately behind him were Trooper Cannon and Agent Hoffman. A Burlington Police Department officer wearing a body worn camera was near the back of the stack, around the side of the building and not in direct view of the door.
The door was rammed multiple times in an attempt to gain entry. During this process, law enforcement officers were shouting statements such as “police” and “don’t move.” Mr. Stephens could be heard to yell statements such as, “come on, hit it” and “hit it harder.”
Once the door was breached Trooper Cannon was the first law enforcement officer through the doorway. He heard Mr. Stephens say “who wants to die.” He then saw Stephens standing in a shooting position, holding a large rifle, 10 to 12 feet away. The rifle was pointed directly at Trooper Cannon and Cannon recalled that he could see down the barrel. Trooper Cannon feared for his life and fired. He kept firing until Stephens fell to the floor.
Agent Hoffmann heard Mr. Stephens say “who wants to fucking die” as the door opened. Agent Hoffman moved up to the threshold of the door beside Trooper Cannon and saw Stephens facing Cannon pointing a rifle at him about 10 to 12 feet away. He saw that Stephens’ left hand was up near the barrel and his right hand was on the trigger. Agent Hoffmann believed that Stephens was going to shoot. As Hoffmann began firing at Mr. Stephens, Stephens moved towards him and Trooper Cannon, and then fell forward rotating counter clockwise and falling to the ground and dropping the gun. Agent Hoffmann fired multiple times until he believed the threat was neutralized when Stephens fell and dropped his gun.
Stephens was shot in both hands, the right side abdomen, the left arm, five times in the right rear side of his torso, and the back lower portion of the skull. In addition, six shots hit the wall behind where Mr. Stephens was located. Officers administered first aid but Mr. Stephens was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after he was shot.
Under the facts of this case, the Attorney General’s Office concluded that Trooper Cannon and Agent Hoffmann were reasonable in their belief that they and other officers were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury when they fired at Kenneth Stephens. Given what reasonably appeared to be an imminent and serious threat to their lives, the officers’ response of using deadly force was reasonable and justified.