Case Title: State v. Crandall

Citation: 162 Vt. 66, 644 A.2d 320

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1991-08-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_CRANDALL.90-131; 162 Vt. 66; 644 A.2d 320

Filed 20-May-1994

 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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
 that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 90-131


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

      v.                                      On Appeal from
                                              District Court of Vermont,
 Wayne D. Crandall                            Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit
 and Donna L. Crandall
                                              Special December Term, 1990


 Arthur J. O'Dea, J.

 Theresa St. Helaire, Bennington County Deputy State's Attorney, Bennington,
    for plaintiff-appellant

 E. M. Allen, Defender General, and Anna E. Saxman, Appellate Defender,
    Montpelier, for defendant-appellee Wayne Crandall

 Robert Katims of Martin & Paolini, P.C. Barre, for defendant-appellee, Donna
    Crandall


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      GIBSON, J.   The State appeals from the trial court's suppression of
 all evidence obtained from the stop and search of a vehicle occupied by
 defendants Wayne and Donna Crandall.  We remand for further fact-finding by
 the trial court.
                                     I.
      On Wednesday, March 15, 1989, Officer Gary Briggs met with an informant
 who volunteered information about persons he believed were dealing drugs in
 the Bennington area.  The informant named Wayne and Donna Crandall, told
 Briggs where they lived, identified some of their customers, and made a

 

 number of predictions about how and when the Crandalls would next purchase
 drugs.  The informant said the Crandalls usually collected from their
 customers on Friday nights and Saturday mornings.  He further indicated that
 they would borrow Jack Crandall's black pickup truck the next weekend, that
 they would head north on Route 7 to meet their supplier, and that Donna
 Crandall would be driving.
      Briggs verified that Jack Crandall owned a black pickup truck matching
 the informant's description and then attempted surveillance of the
 Crandalls on Saturday, March 18.  That morning, Briggs watched Donna
 Crandall drive away in the truck with Wayne Crandall as a passenger, but
 lost them as they proceeded out of Bennington.  He went back to the Crandall
 residence, and saw them return about noontime.
      Early the following week, Briggs again met the informant, who told him
 the Crandalls had changed their route and had left Bennington on Route 9 to
 go to the Mount Snow area, where they obtained about two pounds of mari-
 juana.  He predicted they would do the same thing on Saturday, March 25.
      Relying on this information, Bennington police officers and the Vermont
 State Police then organized a team surveillance effort.  Early on Saturday
 morning, a person identified by the informant as a Crandall customer arrived
 at their residence.  Shortly thereafter, defendants left, went to get the
 pickup truck, and with Donna driving, proceeded out of Bennington on Route 9
 to Wilmington, where they turned onto Route 100 toward Mount Snow.  Defend-
 ants took numerous side roads, were lost by the police at various times, but
 were eventually spotted and followed to a residence in a remote location.
 The trial court found this destination to be in the general area predicted
 by the informant.

 

      In mid morning, the supervisor of the field surveillance team
 telephoned Officer Baker in Bennington, and instructed him to stop the
 pickup truck when it reentered Bennington.  At about noon, Baker spotted the
 Crandall vehicle.  He followed it into Bennington, stopped it, and asked
 the driver, Donna, for registration, insurance identification, and a
 driver's license.  Officer Haverkoch soon joined him and took up a position
 from which he could watch Wayne.  After requesting Donna to get out of the
 vehicle, Baker asked her, and then Wayne separately, where they had gone and
 for what purpose.  There were minor conflicts in their stories.  Baker also
 sought, without success, to obtain Donna's consent to search the vehicle.
 Meanwhile, Haverkoch observed Wayne reach behind the seat, grab a brown
 grocery bag, and place it on the floor in the front of the truck.  When
 Haverkoch asked Wayne what was in the bag, Wayne replied, "[N]othing."
 Thereafter, Baker approached the passenger side door and asked Wayne to get
 out so he could search the vehicle.  When Wayne tried to take the bag with
 him, Baker told him to leave it in the truck.  Wayne threw the bag at
 Haverkoch, hitting him in the chest.  The bag, which contained approximately
 two pounds of marijuana, opened and some of the contents spilled onto
 Haverkoch's shirt.  Defendants were arrested, read their Miranda rights, and
 brought to the Bennington Police Station.
      The State has charged both defendants with possession of marijuana.
 Defendants filed a motion to suppress the marijuana, which the trial court
 granted on grounds that the police did not have probable cause to believe
 defendants were committing a crime at the time the police stopped their

 

 vehicle.(FN1) The State requested permission to appeal, pursuant to 13 V.S.A. {
 7403(c)(1) and V.R.A.P. 5(b)(1)(A).  The court granted the motion,
 certifying the following question:
           Did the trial court err in determining that the State
           did not establish sufficient probable cause to believe a
           crime was being committed thus justifying the officer in
           stopping the defendants in their vehicle?
      As drafted, the certified question confuses the degree of justification
 required for an investigatory stop with that required for an arrest, under
 the assumption that the police needed probable cause to arrest when they
 made the stop.  We are not, however, limited by this inaccuracy inasmuch as
 a certified question is a landmark, not a boundary, State v. Dreibelbis, 147
 Vt. 98, 100,