Case Title: State v. Theetge

Citation: 171 Vt. 167, 759 A.2d 496

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-07-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Theetge (99-367); 171 Vt. 167; 759 A.2d 496 

[Filed 14-Jul-2000]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 21-Aug-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. 99-367

State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         District Court of Vermont
                                                 Unit No. 1, Windsor Circuit

Eugene M. Theetge	                         March Term, 2000

Theodore S. Mandeville, Jr., J. (Ret.)

Robert L. Sand, Windsor County State's Attorney, White River Junction, for 
  Plaintiff-Appellant.

Robert Appel, Defender General, and Anna Saxman, Appellate Attorney, Montpelier, 
  for Defendant-Appellee.

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

       AMESTOY, C.J.   In this Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) case, the
  State has filed an  interlocutory appeal from a Windsor District Court
  decision granting defendant Eugene Theetge's  motion to suppress evidence
  obtained from a seizure.  The State argues that a seizure did not occur, 
  or, in the alternative, if a seizure did occur, the officer's actions were
  lawful.  We reverse.

       On March 2, 1999, at 11:30 p.m., Vermont State Police Trooper Timothy
  Clouatre observed  defendant's stopped vehicle in the southbound breakdown
  lane of Interstate-91 in Hartland.  The  officer pulled his cruiser into
  the breakdown lane behind defendant's vehicle and activated the  cruiser's
  blue lights and spotlight.  The officer exited his vehicle and approached
  defendant's vehicle

 

  with a flashlight in one hand and his drawn weapon in the other.  Trooper
  Clouatre's first exchange  with defendant was to request his license and
  registration as well as ordering defendant to keep his  hands visible.  The
  officer then verified that defendant was not in need of assistance. 
  Trooper  Clouatre observed that defendant's eyes were watery and bloodshot,
  his speech was slurred and  mumbled, and his breath strongly smelled of
  alcohol.  He also noticed alcoholic beverages in the  back seat. 
  Suspecting that defendant was under the influence of alcohol, he informed
  defendant to  "hang tight" while he went back to his cruiser to process
  defendant's information.  Additionally,  Trooper Clouatre requested the
  assistance of another officer.

       When another officer arrived, approximately twelve minutes later,
  Trooper Clouatre  explained that he observed defendant's vehicle initially
  stopped in the breakdown lane and  investigated for that reason.  With the
  other officer watching the passenger, Trooper Clouatre  conducted a series
  of standard tests which tended to show that defendant was intoxicated.  
  Consequently, the State charged defendant with DWI, in violation of 23
  V.S.A.  1201.

       Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress all evidence in the case,
  arguing that the officer  had illegally seized him.  The trial court held a
  hearing, at which the State called Trooper Clouatre as  its sole witness. 
  Further, the State introduced and played portions of a videotape from a
  dashboard-mounted camera that had been activated when the officer pulled
  his cruiser into the breakdown lane  behind defendant's vehicle.  On
  cross-examination, the officer testified that defendant was not free to 
  leave and that, had defendant attempted to leave, the officer would have
  pursued him.  

       In its written decision, the court concluded that the officer had
  seized defendant, but that he  had no reasonable and articulable suspicion
  that defendant was engaged in unlawful activity.  The 

 

  court also rejected the State's argument that the stop constituted an
  exception to the reasonable and  articulable suspicion requirement under
  the "community caretaking" doctrine, concluding that  Trooper Clouatre's
  initial request for defendant's license and registration before inquiring
  whether  there was an emergency precluded applying the exception.  Having
  found neither a reasonable and  articulable suspicion nor a community
  caretaking exception to justify the seizure, the court granted  defendant's
  suppression motion.  The State filed this interlocutory appeal.

                                     I.

       The State first argues that the use of the cruiser's blue lights, when
  pulling behind a vehicle  already parked in the breakdown lane of the
  interstate, does not create a seizure.  In doing so, it  invites us to
  overrule our decision in State v. Burgess, 163 Vt. 259, 261,