Case Title: State v. Hayes

Citation: 170 Vt. 618, 752 A.2d 16

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Hayes (98-567); 170 Vt. 618; 752 A.2d 16

[Filed 01-Mar-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-567

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 1999

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
                                       }
Gordon F. Hayes	                       }	DOCKET NO. 1268-3-98Cncr

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

       Defendant Gordon Hayes, who pleaded guilty to two counts of delivery
  of marijuana, appeals the  district court's denial of his motion to
  suppress.  The issues raised on appeal are whether, under  the federal or
  state constitutions, (1) any undercover investigation in a private
  workplace is  constitutionally permitted; (2) due process requires the
  government to have reasonable suspicion  of illegal conduct before
  instituting an undercover investigation in a private workplace; and (3) 
  the court erred in dismissing defendant's entrapment defense.  We affirm.

       A confidential informant agreed to assist the Northern Vermont Drug
  Task Force with an  investigation into the distribution of marijuana in the
  Colchester area.  Informant asked his fellow  employees at work whether
  they knew of anyone in and around the workplace from whom he  could
  purchase marijuana.(FN1)  Defendant was suggested as a source, and a
  co-worker introduced  informant to defendant, who gave informant his
  telephone number.

       Defendant received a call from informant, and he later agreed to sell
  informant an ounce of  marijuana.  Informant and an undercover police
  officer met defendant at the arranged time and  place to make the buy. 
  During the transaction, defendant made several comments to them  suggestive
  of defendant's regular involvement in drug trafficking.  Defendant used
  drug-culture  slang, said that he might be willing to sell marijuana to the
  undercover officer, and said that  although he normally did not sell
  cocaine, he might be able to supply it to the officer.

 

       The State charged defendant with four counts of delivery and one count
  of possession of  marijuana.  Defendant moved to suppress, which the court
  denied.  Defendant then entered a  conditional plea to two counts of
  delivery, specifically reserving his right to appeal the denial of  his
  motion.

       Defendant first contends that due process under both the federal and
  Vermont constitutions  prohibits the government from conducting undercover
  investigations in private workplaces absent  a reason to believe that
  illegal activity is afoot.  This very argument has been squarely rejected 
  by several federal circuit courts.  See United States v. Allibhai, 939 F.2d 244, 249 (5th Cir. 1991)  (citing opinions issued by Second, Third,
  Seventh, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits); see also United  States v. Luttrell,
  923 F.2d 764, 764 (9th Cir. 1991).  The Fifth Circuit stated that "these 
  decisions are premised upon the realization that '[a defendant] has no
  constitutional right to be free  from investigation.'" Allibhai, 939 F.2d 
  at 249 (quoting United States v. Jacobson, 916 F.2d 467,  469 (8th Cir.
  1990)).  We note, moreover, that, unlike Allibhai, the investigation as
  conducted  through informant did not initially focus on defendant; rather,
  it encompassed generally those in  and around the workplace.  We see no
  reason to find that the State violated defendant's right to  due process
  under the federal constitution.

       The State's investigation also did not violate due process under
  Chapter I, Article 10 of the  Vermont Constitution.  Although "[w]e have
  long recognized that, 'as final interpreter of the  Vermont Constitution,
  this Court has final say on what process is due in any given situation,'" 
  it is defendant's burden to explain how and why this Court should interpret
  the Vermont  Constitution as providing greater protection than its federal
  counterpart.  State v. Porter, 164 Vt.  515, 518,