Case Title: State v. Riefenstahl

Citation: 172 Vt. 597, 779 A.2d 675

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-07-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Riefenstahl (2000=252); 172 Vt. 597; 779 A.2d 675

[Filed 18-Jul-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-252

                              MARCH TERM, 2001

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
                                       }
Alan Riefenstahl                       }	DOCKET NO. 6742-11-99 Cncr

                                                Trial Judge: Michael S. Kupersmith

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

       Defendant Alan Riefenstahl was charged with operating a motor vehicle
  while under the  influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of 23 V.S.A.
  § 1201(a)(2), with a third offense felony  enhancement.  Defendant pleaded
  guilty pursuant to a conditional plea agreement that reserved his  right to
  appeal the denial of his motions to suppress and dismiss for lack of
  probable cause to stop  defendant and to strike his prior convictions. 
  Defendant contends the trial court erred by: (1)  denying his motion to
  suppress evidence derived from a stop of his vehicle based upon information 
  supplied by a named informant; and (2) failing to grant his motion to
  strike his prior convictions  because they did not comply with V.R.Cr.P.
  11.  We affirm.

       On October 26, 1999, at approximately 5:00 p.m., a South Burlington
  police officer received a  dispatch that a sales clerk at the South
  Burlington Shell station, had reported that the male operator  of a black
  Ford Bronco with Vermont licence plate BNR 139 "was possibly intoxicated
  and driving."  The informant identified himself by name to the police, and
  the informant's name was also provided  in the dispatch to the officer. 
  The informant reported that the Bronco was heading south on  Shelburne
  Road.  The officer proceeded north on Shelburne Road until she located the
  Bronco, and  then turned around and followed the vehicle.  While she
  attempted to catch up to the Bronco, there  were first three other cars in
  traffic between the officer and the Bronco, and eventually only one other 
  car between them.  The officer testified that, while in pursuit, she did
  not observe any signs of erratic  driving, but that she could not properly
  observe the Bronco because of weather conditions and the  other traffic. 
  She then observed the Bronco pull into a driveway.  The officer activated
  her vehicle's  blue lights and followed it into the driveway.  Defendant
  exited the Bronco and stood next to it, with  the door open, until the
  officer approached.  The officer initiated field sobriety tests, which
  defendant  failed.  Subsequently, defendant was arraigned on the charge of
  DUI with a felony enhancement for a  third offense.  The information
  alleged that defendant had previously been convicted of DUI on  January 9,
  1995, September 11, 1991, and September 18, 1985. 

       Defendant moved to dismiss the charges, claiming that the officer
  lacked probable cause to  stop him and process him for DUI.  The court
  rejected his argument, ruling that under the totality 

 

  of the circumstances the detailed information provided by the named
  informant, which the officer  was able to confirm, justified the stop.  See
  State v. Lamb, 168 Vt. 194, 197,