Case Title: State v. Demers

Citation: 167 Vt. 349, 707 A.2d 276

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1997-12-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Demers  (96-452); 167 Vt. 349; 707 A.2d 276

[Filed 26-Dec-1997]

       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. 96-452

State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit

Michael J. Demers                            June Term, 1997

Walter M. Morris, Jr., J.

       Robert Butterfield, Caledonia County Deputy State's Attorney, St.
  Johnsbury, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Robert P. Keiner of Keiner & Dumont, P.C., Middlebury, for
  Defendant-Appellant.

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

       AMESTOY, C.J.   Defendant appeals the Caledonia District Court's
  denial of his motion to suppress evidence of marijuana found when officers
  searched a freezer in his home pursuant to a warrant issued on suspicion
  that defendant had illegally shot a deer.  Defendant contends there was
  insufficient probable cause to issue the deer meat warrant because (1) the
  game warden's affidavit did not contain sufficient information to find
  probable cause, (2) the affidavit contained factual inaccuracies and
  omissions that misled the judge, and (3) the six-month time delay from the
  alleged deer jacking to issuance of the search warrant made the affidavit's
  information too stale to support probable cause.  We affirm.

       On the evening of November 15, 1994, in the town of Hardwick, officers
  with the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department received a report of weapons
  fired in an area known for illegal deer hunting.  Approximately twenty
  minutes after the report, in the immediate vicinity of the suspected
  shooting, a warden observed defendant's car being driven without headlights
  illuminated.  The warden stopped the car, spoke with defendant, and
  observed a fresh

 

  semicircular cut above defendant's eye, which the warden believed came from
  the scope of a recoiling gun.  Defendant, a resident of the area, explained
  that he and his two passengers were driving without headlights because they
  believed suspicious activity was taking place in the vicinity.  He
  explained that the cut above his eye was from clearing bushes.  The warden
  requested and received defendant's permission to search the vehicle. 
  Although he did not find a deer carcass or weapons in defendant's vehicle,
  the warden found in the trunk fresh deer blood and hair, samples of which
  he took for DNA testing.

       The next day, in searching the field where the suspected shooting had
  occurred, a game warden discovered the distinct marks of a deer dragged
  from the field to the road.  The warden observed tire tracks at the end of
  the drag marks.  Taking samples of deer blood and hair from the marks, the
  warden then proceeded to defendant's home, where he discovered and took
  similar samples of marks from a deer dragged across defendant's front yard. 
  The warden observed that the tire marks on the road were similar to the
  pattern on defendant's car tires.

       Approximately four weeks after the suspected deer jacking, a game
  warden sent the deer hair and blood samples to an out-of-state wildlife
  forensics laboratory for DNA analysis.  The warden testified later that the
  delay in sending out the samples was attributable to the high volume of
  activity surrounding hunting season in Vermont.

       Test results from the forensics laboratory came back on May 8, 1995,
  and indicated that the same deer had been the source of the samples taken
  at the scene of the alleged deer jacking and those taken from drag marks in
  defendant's yard.  The results showed, however, that the deer blood and
  hair found in defendant's car trunk had come from a different deer.

       The game warden then prepared an affidavit to support a warrant to
  search defendant's home for evidence of the illegally-taken deer.  The
  judge issued the warrant on May 18, 1995, six months after the suspected
  deer jacking.

       In the course of searching defendant's home on May 21, 1995, wardens
  discovered marijuana in defendant's home freezer.  Pursuant to a second
  search warrant based on that discovery, police officers discovered
  substantial quantities of marijuana in a trailer located on

 

  defendant's property.  After the district court denied defendant's motion
  to suppress the marijuana evidence found as a result of the searches,
  defendant entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere to felony charges
  of marijuana possession and cultivation.

       Defendant's central argument on appeal is that the district court
  erred in not suppressing the marijuana evidence found pursuant to the May
  18, 1995 deer meat search warrant and subsequent searches.  Defendant
  advances three principal reasons why probable cause to issue the search
  warrant did not exist: (1) the warden's affidavit supporting the search
  warrant did not allege sufficient facts to find probable cause that
  defendant had illegally shot a deer; (2) even if the affidavit set forth
  sufficient information, it contained false information and omissions that
  misled the issuing judge to find probable cause; and (3) the six-month time
  lapse between the alleged deer jacking and the warrant's issuance made the
  information supporting the warrant stale.

       A search warrant may be issued only upon a finding by a judicial
  officer of probable cause that a crime was committed and that evidence of
  the crime will be found at the place to be searched.  V.R.Cr.P. 41(c).  In
  determining whether probable cause to issue the warrant exists, the "key
  inquiry is `whether the information provided in the affidavit reveals
  circumstances from which a person of reasonable caution would conclude that
  a crime has been committed and that evidence of the crime will be found in
  the place to be searched.'"  State v. Cooper, 163 Vt. 44, 51,