Case Title: State v. Beauregard

Citation: 175 Vt. 472, 2003 VT 3, 820 A.2d 183

Docket Number: 2002-208

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-01-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Beauregard (2002-208); 175 Vt. 472; 820 A.2d 183

2003 VT 3

[Filed 2-Jan-2003]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                  2003 VT 3

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-208

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2002

  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 1, Windsor Circuit
  David A. Beauregard	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 1158-8-01 Wrcr

                                                Trial Judge:  Paul F. Hudson

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

       ¶  1.  Defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while
  under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI), second offense, 23 V.S.A.
  § 1201(a)(2).  He entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving the right
  to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence based on his
  contention that the initial traffic stop was illegal.  On appeal, defendant
  argues that the stop was a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United
  States Constitution and that Vermont's defective equipment statute is
  unconstitutionally vague as applied in the context of noisy mufflers.  We
  affirm.

       ¶  2.  The trial court's decision was based upon testimony from
  Trooper Vincent DiMauro that on the evening of July 20, 2001, he was on
  duty, sitting stationary in his cruiser at a highway exit in Hartland,
  Vermont.  The time was around dusk, and his windows were open.  The
  Trooper's attention was drawn to an older Jeep Wagoneer approaching without
  its headlights on.  The Trooper described the sound of the exhaust as "a
  loud raspy noise versus a low mellow sound from a modified exhaust system." 
  The trial court found that Trooper DiMauro was an "experienced listener" on
  the basis of testimony that the trooper had once owned an older model Jeep
  and had experience working on automobile exhaust systems.  The trooper
  thought that the sound was consistent with a perforated muffler.  He stated
  that he stopped the Jeep, which was driven by Beauregard, because he
  thought that the car was being operated in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1244,
  which requires that drivers illuminate headlights when necessary to provide
  adequate visibility, and in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1221, which prohibits
  the operation of a motor vehicle that is not in good mechanical condition
  on a highway.  Beauregard was subsequently arrested and processed for DUI. 
  Defendant moved to suppress the evidence from the stop on the grounds that
  he did not violate 23 V.S.A. § 1244 because the stop occurred within thirty
  minutes of sunset and light was adequate to meet the statutory
  requirements, and that he did not violate 23 V.S.A. § 1221 because there
  are no standards for noise emissions from motor vehicles and noise was not
  a reasonable basis for believing that Beauregard's vehicle had defective
  equipment.  

       ¶  3.  The lower court denied the motion to suppress.  The court
  agreed with defendant that there was no headlight violation, but it held
  that the trooper could conduct a motor vehicle stop on the basis of a noisy
  exhaust system.  This appeal followed. 
   
       ¶  4.  The issue on appeal is whether a noisy exhaust system can
  provide a reasonable basis for a motor vehicle stop given that there is no
  specific statute regulating noise emissions.  Since this is a question of
  law, we review it de novo.  See State v. Longe, 170 Vt. 35, 36,