Case Title: State v. Benoit

Citation: 173 Vt. 583, 795 A.2d 1188

Docket Number: 2001-130

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2002-02-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Benoit (2001-130); 173 Vt. 583; 795 A.2d 1188

[Filed 20-Feb-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-130

                             JANUARY TERM, 2002

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
Joseph B. Benoit	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 5455-9-00 Cncr

                                                Trial Judge: Helen M. Toor

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

       Defendant Joseph B. Benoit appeals the Chittenden District Court's
  decision denying his  motion to suppress evidence arising out of a civil
  citation for minor in the possession of alcohol and  a later arrest for
  DUI.  Defendant argues that the district court erred because: (1) the court
  failed to  find that defendant was in custody when he was given a
  breathalyzer test prior to the civil citation;  (2) the State did not meet
  its burden of proving that the defendant's submission to the Breathalyzer 
  was a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights; and
  (3) without the illegally  obtained evidence the officer had no reasonable
  basis for his subsequent suspicion that defendant  was driving under the
  influence of alcohol.  We affirm.

       On August 22, 2000, at approximately midnight, two officers from the
  Colchester Police  Department responded to a noise complaint at a home on
  East Lakeshore Drive in Colchester.   Looking through the windows, the
  officers saw alcohol containers and several people they suspected  to be
  under age.  The officers knocked and were given consent to enter the home. 
  Once inside, the  officers asked the twenty to twenty-five people in the
  home to separate into groups, based on whether  they were over or under
  twenty one, and checked the identification of those claiming to be over the 
  legal drinking age.  The officers remained at the scene for twenty to
  twenty five minutes,  administering breath tests and issuing civil
  citations to those minors in possession of alcohol.   Defendant was present
  at the scene and was issued a citation for minor in possession of alcohol. 
  One  of the officers present called defendant's parents and asked them to
  come pick him up, so as to avoid  the defendant driving home.   

       At approximately 2:30 a.m., later that same morning, one of the
  officers present at the East  Lakeshore Drive home at midnight drove by
  again, and saw a car turning into the driveway.  The  officer observed
  defendant slump down in the front seat of the car, and eventually get out
  of the car  and enter the house.  The officer ran a check on the license
  plate which revealed the car belonged to 

 

  defendant's parents.  The officer had been present earlier in the evening,
  had seen defendant, was  aware that he had been issued a civil citation and
  that defendant's parents had been called to pick him  up, and therefore was
  suspicious that defendant had been driving under the influence of alcohol.   

       The officer approached the house and asked for defendant.  Defendant
  came to the door, and  the officer asked defendant if he had been driving
  the car.  Defendant denied that he had, which the  officer knew to be
  untrue.  The officer observed defendant's bloodshot and watery eyes and
  odor of  intoxicants.  The officer requested that defendant perform
  dexterity tests, and defendant refused.  The  officer arrested defendant
  for driving under the influence and took him to the station for processing, 
  included the administering a blood alcohol test.  Defendant was charged
  with criminal DUI as well  as a civil violation.  

       Defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence from the earlier
  incident at the home as well  as all evidence from the DUI arrest, and
  dismiss both the criminal and civil suspension charges.  The  Chittenden
  District Court denied defendant's motion and on February 27, 2001,
  defendant entered  into a plea agreement, conditioned on this appeal. 
  Defendant argues that he was under custodial  interrogation at the time of
  the initial citation and therefore that the state has the burden of 
  establishing that he was given his Miranda rights, and that his submission
  to the initial breath test  was a knowing, voluntary waiver of his rights. 
  He further asserts that the evidence obtained from the  violation of his
  Miranda rights was the sole basis for the officer's later DUI stop and that
  accordingly,  all evidence from that stop must be excluded as "fruits of
  the poisonous tree."

       Defendant's appeal centers on his contention that he was in custody at
  the time of the initial  breath test and citation, and therefore, should
  have been administered a Miranda warning.  In  Miranda v. Arizona,