Case Title: State v. Costin

Citation: 168 Vt. 175, 720 A.2d 866

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-07-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Costin  (96-624); 168 Vt. 175; 720 A.2d 866

[Filed 31-July-1998]

       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. 96-624

State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 2, Addison Circuit

Michael N. Costin                            September Term, 1997

Edward J. Cashman, J.

       William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Barry E. Griffith of Griffith & Lundeen, P.C., Rutland, for
  Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and Allen, C.J. (Ret.) and
          Gibson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       DOOLEY, J.   Defendant Michael Costin appeals the denial of his motion
  to suppress a videotape showing him cultivating marijuana plants in
  violation of 18 V.S.A. § 4230(a)(2). He contends that, under Chapter I,
  Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution, the police are required to obtain a
  warrant before conducting video surveillance on private property.  Thus, he
  argues, the warrantless video surveillance on his private property was
  unconstitutional and the videotape must be suppressed.  We disagree and
  affirm.

       Defendant owns and resides on thirty secluded acres of property in
  Ferrisburgh, Vermont.  The property can be reached by a dirt road, and
  defendant's house is situated some 700 feet from the dirt road at the edge
  of the woods.  There are no fences or signs prohibiting entry at the
  perimeter of the property.

       In August of 1992, a Vermont State Police trooper received a tip from
  an informant that the informant had observed marijuana plants growing on
  defendant's property.  On August 31,

 

  1992, the trooper and a fellow officer responded to the report by entering
  defendant's unposted property and observing a number of marijuana plants
  growing in a wooded section of the property, about 150 feet from
  defendant's house.  They also observed a foot path leading from defendant's
  house to the marijuana plants.

       Three days later, the trooper returned and installed a recording video
  camera in the woods approximately 65 feet from the marijuana plants.  The
  video camera was focused on the marijuana plants and a ten-foot portion of
  the path leading to the plants.  The trooper attached an infrared motion
  sensor to the video camera.  When the sensor detected human activity or
  other motion near the plants, it turned on the camera and recorder, which
  remained on for ten minutes.  Five days later, the trooper returned to the
  property and retrieved the camera.  The videotape showed defendant walking
  down the path and tending the marijuana plants in the garden.  Based on all
  of the above information, the trooper applied for and received a search
  warrant for defendant's house and property.  The subsequent search turned
  up five marijuana plants and various drug paraphernalia.

       Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized, claiming
  that the warrantless video surveillance was unconstitutional under the
  Vermont Constitution (FN1) and that it tainted the search pursuant to the
  warrant.  The trial court denied the motion, but recognized that the
  constitutionality of warrantless video surveillance had yet to be addressed
  by this Court.  We now reach the constitutionality of the video
  surveillance.

       Defendant's main argument is that he has a "reasonable expectation of
  privacy" such that he would not be videotaped on his land and that, under
  Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont

 

  Constitution, the police were required to obtain a search warrant before
  conducting video surveillance.  In framing the issue, defendant does not
  dispute that the marijuana plants observed by the video camera were located
  outside the curtilage of his house and thus were in "open fields."  Nor
  does he dispute that he took no steps to indicate to others that presence
  on his land outside the curtilage was prohibited.

       We addressed the scope of Article 11 protection with respect to "open
  field" searches in State v. Kirchoff, 156 Vt. 1, 587 A.2d 988 (1991).  In
  Kirchoff, the defendant was convicted of cultivating marijuana on a portion
  of his secluded property.  He had put up several "no trespassing" signs at
  the foot of his driveway and had posted "no hunting and fishing" signs at
  the perimeter of his property.  Nevertheless, the police ignored the signs,
  entered onto his property and discovered a marijuana patch about 100 yards
  from his house.  We acknowledged in Kirchoff that the police's walk-on
  search would have been permissible under the federal constitution, as
  construed in Oliver v. United States,