Case Title: State v. Pierce

Citation: 173 Vt. 151, 787 A.2d 1284

Docket Number: 2001-100

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-11-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Pierce (2001-100); 173 Vt. 151; 787 A.2d 1284

[Filed 16-Nov-2001]

       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, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any  errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                No. 2001-100

State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 1, Orange Circuit

Adam Pierce	                                 October Term, 2001

Alan W. Cook, J.

Robert DiBartolo, Orange County Deputy State's Attorney, Chelsea, for 
  Plaintiff-Appellee.

George Ostler and Christopher A. Dall of DesMeules, Olmstead & Ostler, Norwich,
  for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       DOOLEY, J.   Defendant, Adam Pierce, appeals from the trial court's
  denial of his motion to  suppress evidence obtained by a state police
  officer when he stopped defendant's vehicle.  On appeal,  defendant argues
  that it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States
  Constitution  and of Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont
  Constitution (FN1) for a police officer to stop defendant in  his
  automobile and question him as a witness to another person's driving under
  the influence of  intoxicating liquor (DUI).  We affirm.

 

       After midnight, a state police officer who had just exited from the
  south lane of Interstate 91  observed a Saab automobile backing down Route
  113 towards the off-ramp of the north lane of the  interstate.  The Saab
  came to a stop side-by-side to defendant's Honda automobile, which was 
  stopped at the intersection of the off-ramp and Route 113.  The officer
  pulled his police cruiser up to  the two cars, shining his headlights on
  both of them.  He approached the Saab to question its driver  and noticed
  that she smelled of alcohol.  At this time, defendant started to drive
  away.  The officer  motioned defendant to stop and said "hold on a second,
  I want to talk to you."  The officer  approached defendant to question him
  about the possible DUI of the Saab driver.  He determined that  defendant
  also smelled of alcohol.

       Eventually, the officer processed both drivers for suspected DUI, and,
  as a result of the blood  alcohol test he administered, charged defendant. 
  In district court defendant argued that he had been  seized unlawfully and
  moved to suppress all evidence obtained in connection with his stop.  The  
  court denied his motion.  We review motions to suppress de novo.  State v.
  Graves, 170 Vt. 646,  646,