Case Title: State v. Brooks

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1989-09-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

                                No. 87-339


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

      v.                                     On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont
Edward Brooks                                Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

                                             September Term, 1989


John P. Connarn, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

Walter M. Morris, Jr., Defender General, and David Williams, Drug Defense
  Unit, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Dooley and Morse, JJ., and Barney, C.J. (Ret.),
          Specially Assigned


     ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained when
police, without a warrant, electronically overheard and recorded his con-
versation with a "bugged" police informant, on the ground that his rights
under Chapter I, Article 11 (FN1) of the Vermont Constitution were violated.  
The trial court denied the motion and defendant brought this interlocutory
appeal.  We affirm.
      State police, investigating a series of burglaries at automotive
businesses, arrested one Keith Gordon for possession of stolen property.
Gordon implicated defendant and agreed to cooperate with authorities.  On
the same day, Gordon called defendant on the telephone and they arranged to
meet an hour later in a shopping center parking lot.  The phone conversation
was taped.  Defendant expressed some doubt about the security of talking to
Gordon, saying "is it cool?" and "this ain't a set up?"  The two later met
as agreed.
     At the shopping center, Gordon, equipped with a concealed transmitting
device, drove alongside defendant's vehicle and they talked through open
windows.  A detective and another officer, parked about fifty yards away,
tape recorded the conversation transmitted from Gordon's device.  The
officers were able to see Gordon and defendant talking.  Defendant made a
number of incriminating statements regarding his involvement in the
burglaries.  Based on the recorded conversation, police obtained a warrant
to search defendant's car and home.  They found stolen property and charged
defendant with multiple counts of burglary, possession of stolen property
and possession of a regulated drug.
     Defendant moved "to suppress the use at trial of any evidence resulting
from voice monitoring devices used by the State to listen to and record
defendant's private conversations."  The trial court denied the motion,
relying on Barrett v. Fish, 72 Vt. 18, 47 A. 174 (1899), where this Court
denied a motion to enjoin the production at trial of certain letters.
Barrett is inapposite, however.  That case did not involve a search and
seizure under Article 11 because the government played no role in procuring
the letters.  Id. at 19, 47 A.  at 175.  The trial court also relied on
United States v. White,