Case Title: State v. Chapman

Citation: 173 Vt. 400, 800 A.2d 446

Docket Number: 2000-442

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-04-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Chapman (2000-442); 173 Vt. 400; 800 A.2d 446

[Filed 12-Apr-2002]

       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. 2000-442

State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

David E. Chapman	                         May Term, 2001

Michael S. Kupersmith, J.

Lauren Bowerman, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall Johnson, 
  Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Bradley S. Stetler of Stetler, Allen & Kampmann, Burlington, for 
  Defendant-Appellant.

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

       SKOGLUND, J.   Defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated
  and a civil  suspension proceeding was held pursuant to 23 V.S.A. § 1205. 
  He appeals the denial of his motion  to suppress all statements and
  evidence in his civil suspension proceeding arguing that he was  subjected
  to a de facto arrest without probable cause in violation of the United
  States and Vermont  Constitutions.  In the alternative, he argues that the
  stop and detention were done without reasonable  and articulable suspicion
  of wrongdoing, also in violation of his constitutional rights.  We agree
  and  reverse.

 

       The following facts are uncontested.  On March 16, 2000, at
  approximately 9:10 p.m.,  Colchester Police Officer Roy received a dispatch
  that a vehicle was off the roadway near Route 7  and Poor Farm Road.  The
  officer arrived at that location and observed an unoccupied Ford Explorer 
  approximately four feet off the west side of Route 7.  He also noticed a
  set of footprints in the snow  leading from the car and heading north along
  the road for fifty to seventy-five yards.  He then drove  north to the
  Colchester variety store, where he asked the store owner if anyone had come
  to the store  to report their vehicle off the road and was informed that
  there had been a person at the pay phone on  the side of the building just
  prior to the officer's arrival.  The officer found no one at the pay phone, 
  but did see fresh footprints at the pay phone that were similar to those he
  saw leaving the Explorer.   He followed the tracks to the rear of the
  store, then along the rear of the building and behind an  adjacent storage
  building. 

       As the officer followed the tracks he came to a place where an off-set
  in the building created  a darkened nook.  He saw a person's head "lean
  forward and peek out" of the darkened area.  At this  time the officer
  unholstered his gun, ordered the person to "freeze," and told him to come
  out.  He  then ordered the person to put his hands where the officer could
  see them, and turn around.  The  defendant testified that at this time the
  officer ordered him to get down on his knees and then frisked  him.  The
  officer testified that he did not remember ordering the defendant to his
  knees and frisking  him but agreed it was possible it had happened.  The
  officer asked defendant if he had any weapons,  and the defendant answered
  negatively.  After holstering his gun, the officer conducted a field 
  interview, asked the person who he was, what he was doing behind the
  building, and whether he was  the proprietor of the Ford Explorer that was
  off the road on Route 7.  The person identified himself  as defendant,
  David Chapman, and stated that he had gone behind the building to urinate
  and that 

 

  the Explorer was his vehicle.  At this time the officer noticed an odor of
  intoxicants coming from  defendant.  The officer then asked defendant to go
  back to the police cruiser with him.  There, the  officer conducted field
  dexterity tests and ultimately processed defendant for DUI. 

       We review motions to suppress de novo.  State v. Graves, 170 Vt. 646,
  646,