your words a little bit” and has “a strong smell of alcohol coming from your breath and person.” Despite these clear signs, Vekos refused any further tests or cooperation, arguing that she had only one drink with a meal.
A Legal Battle with Public Scrutiny
The incident did not sit well with the public or local lawmakers. Vekos temporarily lost her ability to practice law after refusing to provide information about her medical leave following her arrest to the state Supreme Court, further fueling concerns. Additionally, she faced backlash from law enforcement and victim advocates for an email where she expressed distrust in police and insulted their intelligence.
Public Pressure and Political Consequences
The controversy reached new heights when both the Vermont Democratic and Progressive Parties called for Vekos’s resignation. Governor Phil Scott, recognizing the sensitivity of the issue, agreed with these demands, stating that he too had to make similar decisions recently.
“We deserve to have a state’s attorney who has the trust of the public,” said Sen. Ruth Hardy, D-Addison County, in April 2024, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability within the justice system. The sentiment was echoed by other lawmakers, with all but one signing onto a letter calling for Vekos to step down.
No Contest Plea and Deferred Sentence
On Tuesday, December 16, 2025, Judge closed the book on this case when Vekos entered her no contest plea. This legal admission of guilt means she will not face a trial but also avoids jail time. Instead, she faces a deferred six-month sentence of probation.
If successful during this period, the DUI charge will be expunged from her record.
Adding to the complexity of Vekos’s situation is her upcoming term as state’s attorney, which ends in 2026. Despite her plans to run for reelection, it remains uncertain whether she can do so given the legal and public scrutiny surrounding her recent actions.
In a statement, Governor Scott emphasized the importance of accountability: “These decisions are never easy, but they are necessary when we see a violation that undermines public trust.” The case underscores the delicate balance between personal conduct and professional responsibility in high-profile positions within government and law enforcement.
