Case Title: State v. Freeman

Citation: 177 Vt. 478, 2004 VT 56, 857 A.2d 295

Docket Number: 2003-260

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-06-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Freeman  (2003-260); 177 Vt. 478; 857 A.2d 295

2004 VT 56

[Filed 10-Jun-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 56

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-260

                              APRIL TERM, 2004

  State of Vermont                  }     APPEALED FROM:
                                    }
                                    }
       v.                           }     District Court of Vermont,
                                    }     Unit No. 3, Washington Circuit
                                    }     
  Jennifer Freeman                  }
                                    }     DOCKET NO. 166-11-01 Wncs
 
                                          Trial Judge: M. Patricia Zimmerman

            In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶ 1     Defendant Jennifer Freeman appeals from the trial court denial
  of her motion to suppress evidence in a civil license suspension
  proceeding.  Defendant claims that the trial court erred in admitting
  evidence obtained after the arresting officer ordered defendant to exit her
  vehicle because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing
  sufficient to support the order.  We affirm.

       ¶ 2     On November 25, 2001, at approximately 3:13 a.m., Vermont
  State Trooper Trevor Carbo was driving behind defendant's vehicle when he
  observed the vehicle crossing the center line while in a right curve on the
  roadway.  The car invaded the oncoming traffic to the point that the
  passenger side tires were on the center line.  This was done while another
  vehicle was approaching from the opposite direction.  The trooper stopped
  defendant and requested her license and registration.  The trooper informed
  defendant that she had crossed the center line, which defendant explained
  as a momentary distraction while reaching for her cellular phone.  The
  roadside conversation lasted a little over a minute.  Trooper Carbo then
  asked defendant to exit the vehicle and come back to his cruiser as he
  intended to issue her a written warning for crossing the center line.  Once
  in the cruiser, defendant acknowledged that she had been drinking earlier
  that evening.  During this conversation, the trooper made certain
  observations which were consistent with defendant being under the influence
  of alcohol.  The trooper then proceeded to administer field sobriety tests
  and a roadside preliminary breath test.  Based on the results, defendant
  was arrested and processed for DUI.  She submitted to a Datamaster breath
  test, which indicated a BAC of .136%.  She was given a notice of intention
  to suspend her license and a citation to appear for arraignment. 

       ¶ 3     In the license suspension hearing, defendant moved to suppress
  evidence obtained after the trooper told defendant to exit the vehicle,
  alleging that the evidence was illegally procured.  Defendant claimed that
  it was apparent from the videotape that captured the stop that defendant
  did not exhibit any signs of intoxication during the brief conversation
  prior to the exit order.  Thus, according to defendant, the order
  constituted an unlawful seizure because the trooper acted without
  reasonable suspicion sufficient to expand the scope of the initial
  detention. 
        
       ¶ 4      Trooper Carbo's testimony on direct examination
  contradicts defendant's assertions.  According to the trooper, he had been
  able to observe signs of defendant's intoxication prior to the exit order. 
  The trooper testified that during the conversation with defendant he
  perceived a faint odor of alcohol, and noticed that defendant's speech
  seemed slow and slightly slurred, her eyes bloodshot and watery, and her
  motor skills slow.  Trooper Carbo stated that defendant seemed somewhat
  confused.  Based upon these observations, the trooper determined defendant
  had consumed "a considerable amount" of alcohol.  The cross examination of
  Trooper Carbo focused on the videotape of the stop, where it is difficult
  to corroborate the trooper's assertions regarding defendant's speech.  On
  direct, the trooper was asked why had he told defendant to leave her car
  and sit in the cruiser while he issued a written warning.  The trooper
  explained that, because people are not comfortable about leaving their
  cars, "I try and kind of set them at ease that basically I'm going to give
  you a written warning. . . . It makes things go smoother."  On cross
  examination, however, the trooper acknowledged that he generally liked to
  bring people back to his cruiser so that he could better search for signs
  of intoxication.

       ¶ 5     The hearing court denied the motion because it found that
  Trooper Carbo had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that defendant was
  intoxicated, which justified asking defendant to exit her vehicle.  The
  court distinguished this case from State v. Sprague, 2003 VT 20, ¶ 22, 175
  Vt. 123,