Case Title: State v. Davis

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2006-058

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2007-07-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Davis (2006-058)

2007 VT 71

[Filed 25-Jul-2007]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2007 VT 71

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2006-058

                             JANUARY TERM, 2007


  State of Vermont                    }          APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
       v.                             }          District Court of Vermont,
                                      }          Unit No. 2, Chitteden Circuit
  Kelly Davis                         }
                                      }          DOCKET NO. 87-1-05 Cncr

                                                 Trial Judge: Edward J. Cashman

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       ¶  1.  The State appeals from a district court order suppressing all
  evidence gathered as a result of a traffic stop and dismissing the
  information for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI),
  third offense.  We affirm.  

       ¶  2.  In January of 2005, the State charged defendant with DUI,
  third offense.  23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(2).  Defendant filed a motion to
  suppress and dismiss, averring that the stop was unlawful and that she was
  refused permission to contact a lawyer while being questioned on the
  roadside.   

       ¶  3.  At the hearing on the motions  the arresting officer
  testified that at approximately 1:58 a.m. on December 25, 2004, the officer
  was on mobile patrol.  He entered Interstate 89 at Exit 14 in South
  Burlington and, while traveling north, observed defendant's vehicle in
  front of him proceeding in the same direction.  When he caught up to
  defendant's vehicle he observed the vehicle contact the center line and
  then glide onto the right-hand fog line on at least two occasions.  The
  officer then activated his cruiser's mobile video-recording system to
  record defendant's vehicle.  He then observed the vehicle move from the fog
  line to the center line additional times.  The officer activated his blue
  lights, but defendant did not respond to the signal.  He gave a couple
  blasts of the siren, but still, defendant did not stop.  The officer then
  activated his siren and left it on, and defendant stopped her vehicle. 
  Less than a minute passed from the time the officer attempted to stop the
  vehicle until it actually stopped.  What happened after the officer stopped
  the vehicle is not relevant to this appeal, which focuses solely on whether
  the stop was justified. 
   
       ¶  4.  After listening to the officer's testimony and watching the
  video recorded by the mobile video-recording system, the trial court
  concluded that the officer did not have a reasonable articulable suspicion
  that a crime was being committed to justify the stop.  Therefore, it
  suppressed the evidence and dismissed the charges.  The State appeals. 

       ¶  5.  A motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and
  fact.  State v. Simoneau, 2003 VT 83, ¶ 14, 176 Vt. 15,