Case Title: State v. Lizee

Citation: 173 Vt. 473, 783 A.2d 445

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-09-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Lizee (2000-445); 173 Vt. 473; 783 A.2d 445

[Filed 26-Sep-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-445

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2001

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 2, Bennington Circuit
Zachary M. Lizee	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 1767-12-99 Bncr

                                                Trial Judge: David Howard  

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       The State appeals from a decision of the district court granting
  defendant's motion to suppress  evidence obtained from a search of his
  impounded vehicle.  The State contends that the court erred in  failing to
  uphold the seizure and subsequent search of the vehicle under the
  "community caretaking"  doctrine.  We affirm.  

       As found by the trial court, the facts were as follows: On the evening
  of December 10, 1999, a  police officer with the Winhall Police Department
  stopped defendant's vehicle for having a non-functioning rear plate light. 
  The stop occurred in a rural area.  Although defendant's vehicle was 
  pulled as far onto the shoulder as possible, part of the vehicle remained
  in the traveled portion of the  road.  The officer parked his cruiser
  behind defendant's car, approached the vehicle, and encountered  defendant
  and another person sitting in the passenger seat.  The officer informed
  defendant of the  reason for the stop and asked for his registration,
  license, and insurance material.  Defendant  presented his license and an
  expired insurance card, and failed to produce a registration.  The officer 
  asked defendant to accompany him to his cruiser, where a DMV check revealed
  that the registration  had expired and there was a pending suspension for
  lack of insurance, although it had not gone into  effect.  Despite the DMV
  information, defendant's vehicle had valid registration stickers on the 
  license plates;  defendant explained that he had personally registered the
  vehicle within the last two  days.  He also told the officer that he had
  recently failed to pay his insurance premium for lack of  funds.  

       The officer indicated that he planned to issue defendant a warning for
  the plate-light violation,  and citations for the insurance and
  registration violations.  The officer then returned to defendant's  car and
  questioned the passenger.  Believing that he detected the odor of
  marijuana, the officer asked  the passenger whether he was in possession of
  marijuana, which the passenger denied.  The officer  then returned to the
  cruiser, asked defendant if there was marijuana in the vehicle - which
  defendant  also denied - and requested consent to search the vehicle. 
  Defendant refused to give consent, stating  that there was nothing to find
  and that he was in a hurry to leave.  Undeterred, the officer pressed 
  defendant, asking if a canine would react to a search of the vehicle. 
  Defendant again insisted that  there was nothing in the vehicle, and
  requested permission to leave.   The officer told him to wait,  and radioed
  in to inquire about obtaining a canine search.  Learning that there was no
  canine within  an hour of their location, the officer again asked for
  permission to search the vehicle, and again was 

 

  denied.  He then had defendant and the passenger empty their pockets, which
  revealed nothing  illegal, and informed them that they were being
  "detained," not arrested.  The passenger was  eventually handcuffed and
  searched, again revealing nothing illegal.  By this time, a backup unit had 
  arrived, and both officers peered closely into defendant's vehicle with
  flashlights.  The investigating  officer also unsuccessfully tried calling
  an 800 number for defendant's insurance company.

       Failing to obtain consent to search, the officer then informed
  defendant that he could not  drive the vehicle away without proof of
  insurance, and that it would have to be towed.  The issue of  towing the
  vehicle due to the insurance issue had not come up at all during the prior
  portion of the  stop and processing. The officer called a local operator,
  Stuart Coleman, who often towed for the  police.  Coleman appeared with his
  tow truck, informed defendant that he was tired and would not  tow the
  vehicle any distance, but indicated that he could tow it to his garage and
  defendant could call  for a ride.  This ultimately occurred.  The officer
  informed defendant that he would have to show a  police officer proof of
  insurance before his vehicle would be released to him. Coleman kept 
  defendant's keys.   Defendant and his passenger were driven to a telephone
  to call friends for a ride.   Later that evening, the same officer stopped
  another vehicle for lack of a valid inspection sticker.   Defendant was a
  passenger in that vehicle.  After dealing with the violation, the officer
  allowed the  vehicle to proceed.  

       The following morning, the officer returned to Coleman's garage with a
  state police canine  unit.   The police dog alerted to the trunk of
  defendant's car, a search warrant was obtained, and the  ensuing search
  revealed three pounds of marijuana in the trunk.  Defendant later moved to
  suppress  the evidence, claiming that the police lacked a reasonable basis
  to take custody of the vehicle, and  the ensuing search was therefore
  unlawful.   Following a hearing, the court granted the motion,  finding
  that there was no consistent police policy or practice governing
  impoundment of vehicles for  civil traffic violations such as a failure to
  provide proof of insurance, and that the decision to  impound in this case
  was arbitrary and unsupported by the attendant circumstances.  This appeal 
  followed.   
  
       On appeal, the State contends that the warrantless search was
  justified as incident to the  impoundment of defendant's vehicle under the
  so-called "community caretaking" doctrine.   In State  v. Marcello, 157 Vt. 
  657, 658, 599 A.2d 357, 358 (1991) (mem.), we recognized that in some 
  circumstances the police may be justified in intruding upon a person's
  privacy - even absent  reasonable suspicion of criminal activity - "to
  carry out 'community caretaking' functions to enhance  public safety." 
  Marcello cited the United States Supreme Court decision in Cady v.
  Dombrowski,