Case Title: State v. Dimick

Citation: 173 Vt. 547, 790 A.2d 435

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-12-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Dimick (2001-152); 173 Vt. 547; 790 A.2d 435

[Filed 26-Dec-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-152

                             DECEMBER TERM, 2001

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit
Robert B. Dimick	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 10-3-01 Cacs

                                                Trial Judge: Mark J. Keller

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

       The Caledonia District Court granted defendant's motion to exclude
  evidence in a civil  suspension hearing for operating a vehicle under the
  influence of intoxicating liquor on the  grounds that the arresting officer
  violated Vermont State Police Rules & Regulations, Operational  Policies &
  Procedures, when he failed to make a videotape of the roadside stop.  The
  State  appeals that decision arguing that defendant had no constitutional
  nor statutory right to have the  roadside stop, and ensuing sobriety tests,
  videotaped by the arresting officer.  We agree and  reverse.
    
       The uncontested facts in the case are as follows.  On February 23,
  2001, at approximately  11 p.m., a state police officer witnessed defendant
  fail to stop at a stop sign, in violation of 23  V.S.A. § 1048.  The
  officer activated his blue lights and pulled defendant to the side of the
  road.   After observing several signs that defendant had been drinking,
  including limited dexterity when  handing the officer his license and
  registration, mumbling, bloodshot, watery eyes and the smell  of
  intoxicating liquor, the officer asked defendant to complete a series of
  field sobriety tests  which defendant failed.  Defendant was arrested and
  taken to the station for DUI processing.  A  breath test revealed a blood
  alcohol concentration of .118.   The officer's cruiser was equipped  with a
  mobile video recording (MVR) unit but because the unit was broken, the
  officer did not  videotape the incident.  

       Defendant was arraigned on, and pled not guilty to, driving under the
  influence in violation  of 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(1).  Prior to a March 23,
  2001 civil suspension hearing, defendant filed a  motion to exclude all
  evidence derived from the stop of defendant's vehicle, asserting that the 

 

  officer's failure to videotape the roadside stop and tests violated
  defendant's due process rights  and breached a statutory duty to "preserve
  and produce" a recording that might provide  exculpatory evidence.

       At the hearing, defendant abandoned his constitutional argument. (FN1) 
  Relying instead  on Vermont State Police Rules & Regulations, Operational
  Policies & Procedures, defendant  claimed the polices and procedures create
  a legal obligation for officers to videotape roadside  stops and the
  ensuing tests.  Defendant argued that the officer's failure to keep the MVR 
  equipment in working order, and subsequent use of the cruiser despite the
  knowledge that the  MVR equipment was not working, amount to negligence. 
  The trial court granted defendant's  motion to exclude evidence, concluding
  that Vermont State Police Rules & Regulations,  Operational Policies &
  Procedures, § 5, Article 10, 3.1 and 4.1 create a duty for officers to 
  videotape stops.

       We disagree.  The error in the court's analysis is that it assumes the
  regulations at issue are  either explicitly or implicitly premised on a
  statutory duty to videotape every major motor vehicle  and criminal
  enforcement stop.  While there is no doubt that the Legislature could
  compel the  Vermont State Police to videotape all such stops, and indeed,
  provide sanctions for the failure to  do so, we cannot find any basis, in
  statute or regulation, for concluding the legislature intended  the result
  reached by the trial court in this case.  

       In interpreting a statute our primary goal is to effectuate the intent
  of the legislature.   Tarrant v. Dep't of Taxes, 169 Vt. 189, 197,