Case Title: State v. Sutphin

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-12-01T00:00:00Z

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. 90-258


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 2, Addison Circuit

 Donna Sutphin                                December Term, 1990



 Linda Levitt, J.

 William T. Keefe, Addison County Deputy State's Attorney, Middlebury,
   for plaintiff-appellee

 Bonnie Barnes of Sessions, Keiner, Dumont, Barnes & Everitt, Middlebury,
   for defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant appeals from the trial court's denial of her
 motion to suppress evidence.  She was charged with driving while intoxi-
 cated, a violation of 23 V.S.A. { 1201.  Defendant contends that the "stop"
 of her vehicle constituted an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment to
 the United States Constitution.  We hold that the Fourth Amendment was not
 violated, and affirm.
      On September 24, 1989, at approximately 1:15 a.m., an Addison County
 Deputy Sheriff came up behind a vehicle "inappropriately" signaling a right
 turn in an area where there was no right turn.  The vehicle was being
 operated at varying rates of speed as it headed up a hill toward a curve.
 After traveling around a left-hand curve, the vehicle pulled off to the side
 of the highway, outside the white line, and came to a stop.  The officer
 pulled up behind the vehicle and activated his blue lights.  He then exited
 his vehicle and requested that defendant produce her operator's license and
 registration.  As a result of his observations during this interview, the
 officer processed defendant for DUI.
      The trial court found that, under all the circumstances, it was reason-
 able for the officer to speak to defendant.  The issue on appeal is whether
 the trial court erred in finding that the officer had reasonable grounds for
 an investigative detention under the circumstances presented.  We will not
 disturb a trial court's findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence
 or are clearly erroneous.  State v. Zaccaro, 154 Vt. 83, 86, 574 A.2d 1256,
 1258 (1990).
      The parties disagree over whether the officer's action constituted an
 investigatory stop within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, but it is
 unnecessary to resolve this question because there were grounds for a stop,
 assuming a stop occurred.  A "reasonable and articulable suspicion" of
 wrongdoing is necessary for a police officer to stop a motor vehicle that is
 being operated on the highway.  State v. Emilo, 144 Vt. 477, 481,