Case Title: In re ST

Citation: 161 Vt. 639, 641 A.2d 120

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1994-03-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
ENTRY_ORDER.93-364; 161 Vt. 639; 641 A.2d 120

[Filed 31-Mar-1994]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 93-364

                              MARCH TERM, 1994


 In re S.T., Juvenile              }          APPEALED FROM:
                                   }
                                   }
                                   }          Addison Family Court
                                   }
                                   }
                                   }          DOCKET NO. F8-2-93Anjv


              In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

      The juvenile S.T. appeals from the decision of the Addison Family
 Court denying his motion to suppress and adjudging him delinquent pursuant
 to 33 V.S.A. { 5526.  We reverse and remand.

      On the night of January 16, 1993, R.W., S.T.'s uncle and the local town
 constable, received a call asking him to come pick up his nephew.  The
 caller reported that S.T. had been drinking.  R.W. drove to the caller's
 house, but S.T. was not there, so he set out to search for his nephew.
 Unable to find S.T. and concerned about the cold weather, R.W. telephoned
 the state police to indicate that he might require assistance in his search.
 The trooper to whom he spoke agreed to help in the search once she attended
 to a few existing complaints.  Just prior to her conversation with R.W., the
 trooper had spoken with a local resident who complained that S.T. was one of
 a group of young men involved in an altercation with her husband.  As a
 result, when R.W. called to say that he had found S.T., the trooper asked
 that R.W. be brought to a restaurant to be questioned about the complaint.
 R.W. agreed to do so, first questioning S.T. about possible drinking
 because the boy appeared quite groggy, had bloodshot eyes and an odor of
 alcohol about him.  At the restaurant, the trooper questioned S.T. in her
 cruiser; she too noticed that S.T. smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot
 eyes.  In response to the trooper's question, S.T. admitted that he had
 consumed a couple of beers during the evening, but would not tell her where
 or from whom he had obtained the alcohol.

      Prior to trial, S.T. moved to suppress all evidence stemming from his
 conversation with the trooper because he was never given Miranda warnings;
 he renewed this motion at the close of evidence.  Following a recess, the
 court denied the motion, ruling that the conversation "was not custodial
 interrogation, it was an investigative detention and there's no need for
 Miranda, no need for the warnings."  This statement represents the whole of
 the court's findings and conclusions on the motion.  The juvenile argues
 that the findings are inadequate, and we agree.

      Criminal Rule 47(c) requires that when "factual issues are involved in
 determining a motion, the court shall state its essential findings on the

 

 record."  This rule applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings.  V.R.F.P.
 1(a)(3).  Its import is to require the court to state "the reasons for its
 decision."  Reporter's Notes, V.R.Cr.P. 12(d) (predecessor to V.R.Cr.P.
 47(c)).

      We agree with the court's suggestion that an investigative detention
 does not require the giving of Miranda warnings.  See State v. Willis, 145
 Vt. 459, 475,