The Attorney General’s Office today announced the conclusion of their independent review of the officer-involved shooting incident that occurred on July 14, 2024, in Burke, Vermont. Attorney General Charity Clark has declined to prosecute Vermont State Police Sergeant Joshua Mikkola and Trooper Richard Berlandy for any charges related to the use of potentially deadly force in a shooting incident involving Brenden Sackal. The Caledonia County State’s Attorney’s Office also declined to prosecute the case after completing its own independent review.
Based on the facts and circumstances and consistent with Vermont law, Attorney General Clark concluded that the use of force by Sergeant Mikkola and Trooper Berlandy was objectively reasonable and justified. Under the totality of the circumstances, Sergeant Mikkola and Trooper Berlandy reasonably believed that they, and other officers, were in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm at the hands of Mr. Sackal, and that they used necessary and appropriate force to defend themselves and others. In reaching this decision, the Attorney General’s Office reviewed all materials provided by the Vermont State Police, who conducted the investigation.
The incident began on July 14, 2024, when Rhode Island State Police issued an advisory that was received by Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies to be on the lookout for Brenden Sackal, a potentially armed and dangerous subject, who was wanted on felony warrants, and was reported to have made threats to shoot officers if encountered. Mr. Sackal had warrants for possessing altered firearms with large capacity magazines. US Border Patrol Agents attempted a motor vehicle stop in Pittsburgh, New Hampshire, however, this was unsuccessful, and a pursuit ensued. When the pursuit crossed into the state of Vermont near Canaan, Vermont, Border Patrol successfully spiked Mr. Sackal’s tires but it did not deter Mr. Sackal as he continued to flee from officers on the rims of his tires. Thereafter, VSP officers joined the pursuit, along with a member of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office.
Sergeant Mikkola, Trooper Berlandy, and another VSP Trooper, all in separate cruisers, joined Border Patrol agents in the area of Morgan, Vermont, and decided to conduct a rolling roadblock in an attempt to stop Mr. Sackal’s vehicle. Mr. Sackal continued to try and evade law enforcement, using his vehicle to strike Sergeant Mikkola’s cruiser. During a second attempt to get Mr. Sackal to stop, Trooper Berlandy was able to get in front of Mr. Sackal’s vehicle when Mr. Sackal rammed his car into Trooper Berlandy’s driver’s side, which pinned Trooper Berlandy inside the vehicle. After ramming Trooper Berlandy’s driver’s side door, Mr. Sackal’s car became inoperable and seemed to be stuck in a ditch. Mr. Sackal immediately exited his vehicle, wearing a tactical helmet and brandishing an automatic weapon. Trooper Berlandy discharged his firearm as Mr. Sackal fired an “automatic” weapon towards the officers. Sergeant Mikkola fired at Mr. Sackal and Mr. Sackal fired at Sergeant Mikkola. After this exchange, Mr. Sackal, seemingly out of ammunition, surrendered and was taken into custody. Mr. Sackal was later treated for a non-fatal gunshot wound to the chest.
Mr. Sackal has since been charged by the Caledonia State’s Attorney’s Office with various crimes including Attempted Aggravated Murder, Aggravated Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer, and Possession of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices.
Pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 2305(3), under the totality of the circumstances, Sergeant Mikkola and Trooper Berlandy reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm and were, therefore, justified in using deadly force to defend themselves.
Under Vermont law, an officer may use deadly force to repel an imminent threat to cause death or serious bodily injury when the officer objectively and reasonably believes 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) and 2068(c)(1)(A). Furthermore, the use of deadly force is deemed 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, during and leading up to the shooting, an objectively reasonable officer in Sergeant Mikkola’s and Trooper Berlandy’s position would have concluded that there was no other reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force to prevent their death or serious bodily injury.
CONTACT: Amelia Vath, Outreach and Communications Coordinator, 802-828-3171