H 409 Vermont House · 2025-2026 Regular Session

An act relating to appeals of orders denying bail revocation

H.409 updates Vermont's bail revocation rules to align with court rulings like *State v. Sauve*. It clarifies when a defendant’s bail can be revoked - such as repeated failures to appear in court or violating release conditions that disrupt prosecutions - and requires courts to find a "compelling State interest" before revoking bail. Prosecutors must prove violations by a "preponderance of evidence" (more likely than not), and courts must schedule a trial within 60 days of revocation if the defendant remains jailed. This directly affects defendants on pretrial release, prosecutors seeking revocation, and courts managing bail hearings.
Bill status passed 3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2025
Committee Review
Jan 2026
House Passage
Jan 2026
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 27, 2025 Last action Jan 15, 2026
Maddy AI version diff · 2 comparisons

What changed between versions

As Passed By the House (UnofficialOpens in a new window) As Passed By the House (OfficialOpens in a new window) · 8 edits · Jan 13, 2026
MODERATE
The official version of H.409 adds a substantial new bail revocation procedure (amending 13 V.S.A. section 7575) that was absent from the unofficial version, along with a legislative intent statement and expanded definitions. The new provisions establish specific grounds for revoking bail, require the State to prove its case by a preponderance of evidence, authorize warrantless arrest after a revocation order, and impose a 60-day speedy trial deadline following revocation. These changes give courts a clear statutory framework for taking back a defendant's release when conditions are violated or new charges arise.
SCOPE

A new Section 1 (Intent) declares that the bail revocation statute is consistent with State v. Sauve and State v. Gates, and that repeated failures to appear, repeated condition violations, and other court order violations constitute a compelling State interest falling within the definition of 'disrupts the prosecution.'

The bill title broadens from 'An act relating to appeals of orders denying bail revocation' to also include 'An act relating to the procedures for bail revocation,' reflecting the addition of the full revocation procedure.

REQUIREMENT

A new Section 2 amends 13 V.S.A. section 7575 to establish the full bail revocation procedure, including five specific grounds for revocation: intimidating or harassing a victim/witness/juror, repeatedly violating conditions in a way that disrupts prosecution, violating conditions that threaten judicial integrity, failing to appear without just cause, and being charged with a felony or crime against a person after release.

The new procedure requires the court to find a 'legitimate and compelling State interest' before issuing a revocation order and to make a specific finding that the State met its burden of proof in the order itself.

ENFORCEMENT

The new procedure requires the State to prove revocation grounds by a preponderance of evidence, allows affidavits or sworn statements but guarantees the defendant an opportunity to present direct evidence at a hearing, and authorizes law enforcement officers to arrest the defendant without a warrant after a revocation order is issued.

TIMELINE

A new speedy trial provision requires the court to set the defendant's case for trial within 60 days of a bail revocation order. If trial is not commenced within 60 days and the delay is not attributable to the defense, the court must immediately schedule a new bail hearing.

The official version splits the effective date: the new bail revocation sections (Intent, section 7575, section 7576) take effect on July 1, 2025, while the original amendments to sections 7551 and 7556 take effect on passage.

DEFINITION

A new Section 3 amends 13 V.S.A. section 7576 to add an expanded definition of 'disrupt the prosecution' (requiring that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably mitigate flight risk, public safety risk, or ensure compliance) and a new definition of 'needs screening,' while renumbering existing definitions.

Floor votes

How they voted

No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
11
Key actions
2
Committee
2
Amendments
3
Jan 15, 2026
Introduced
Read 1st time & referred to Committee on Judiciary
upper
Jan 13, 2026
Introduced
Rep. Goodnow of Brattleboro moved to amend the bill, which was agreed to
lower
Jan 9, 2026
Lower · Passed
Report of Committee on Judiciary agreed to
lower
Jan 9, 2026
Lower · Passed
Rep. Goodnow of Brattleboro reported for the Committee on Judiciary
lower
Jan 9, 2026
Introduced
Action Calendar: Favorable with Amendment
lower
Jan 8, 2026
Introduced
Notice Calendar: Favorable with Amendment
lower
Feb 27, 2025
Introduced
Read first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors

Sponsors

Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Photo of Martin LaLonde
Martin LaLonde
DDemocratic
VT
Chittenden-12