Case Title: State v. Boyea

Citation: 171 Vt. 401, 765 A.2d 862

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Boyea (99-061); ; 171 Vt. 401; 765 A.2d 862 

[Filed 01-Dec-2000]

       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. 99-061

State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         District Court of Vermont
                                                 Unit No. 3, Washington Circuit

Vicki Boyea	                                 November Term, 1999

Alan W. Cheever, J.

Paul Finnerty, Washington County Deputy State's Attorney, Barre, for 
  Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert Appel, Defender General, and Henry Hinton, Appellate Attorney, 
  Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.

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

       MORSE, J.   To appreciate the realities underlying today's decision,
  consider the following  alternative scenarios based upon the record
  evidence.  Having received a State Police radio dispatch - derived from an
  unnamed informant - reporting a specifically described vehicle with New
  York  plates traveling in a certain direction on I-89 operating
  "erratically," a police officer locates the car,  observes it exit the
  highway, and pulls out in pursuit.  The officer catches up with the vehicle
  within  minutes, but then faces a difficult decision.  He could, as the
  officer here, stop the vehicle as soon as  possible, thereby revealing a
  driver with a blood alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit 

 

  and a prior DUI conviction.  Or, in the alternative,  he could follow the
  vehicle for some period of  time to corroborate the report of erratic
  driving.  This could lead to one of several endings.  The  vehicle could
  continue without incident for several miles, leading the officer to abandon
  the  surveillance.  The vehicle could drift erratically - though harmlessly
  - onto the shoulder,  providing  the corroboration that the officer was
  seeking for an investigative detention.  Or, finally, the vehicle  could
  veer precipitously into oncoming traffic, causing an accident.     

       These are not improbable scenarios.  Sooner or later, depending upon
  the outcome of this  case, one or all of them could occur.   The dissenting
  Justices would hold that the constitutional right  to privacy leaves the
  officer no choice but to wait, at whatever risk to the driver and the
  public. We  are not persuaded  that the Constitution compels this result. 
  Rather, an anonymous report of erratic  driving must be evaluated in light
  of the imminent risks that a drunk driver poses to himself and the  public. 
  We hold that, on the facts of this case, the officer's expeditious stop of
  the vehicle was based  upon sufficiently reliable information,
  notwithstanding the absence of any personal observation of  incriminating
  behavior by the driver.  Accordingly, we affirm. 

       The undisputed facts were as follows.  On July 18, 1998, at
  approximately 3:00 p.m., a  Vermont state trooper received a radio dispatch
  of a "blue-purple Volkswagen Jetta with New York  plates, traveling south
  on I-89 in between Exits 10 and 11, operating erratically."  The officer,
  who  was patrolling nearby, parked his cruiser in the median just north of
  Exit 10 to wait for the vehicle.   Within five minutes, the officer spotted
  a purple Volkswagen Jetta with New York plates traveling  south on I-89. 
  The officer observed the vehicle turn off the interstate at Exit 10, and
  immediately  pulled out to follow.   The officer lost sight of the vehicle
  after it exited, but regained visual contact  as it turned onto Route 2,
  and caught up with it shortly thereafter.  The officer activated his blue

 

  lights, and the vehicle pulled over.  Based upon his subsequent
  observations, the officer arrested  defendant for DUI.   The trial court
  denied a motion to suppress, and defendant  entered a conditional  plea of
  guilty to DUI, second offense.  This appeal followed.

       Defendant contends that, because nothing the officer observed during
  the mile and a half that  he  "followed" defendant confirmed the anonymous
  report of erratic driving, the officer lacked a   reasonable and
  articulable suspicion to justify the stop.  See Terry v. Ohio,