Case Title: State v. Chicoine

Citation: 2007 VT 43

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Chicoine (2005-529)

2007 VT 43

[Filed 24-May-2007]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2007 VT 43

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-529

                              MARCH TERM, 2007


  State of Vermont                   }           APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
       v.                            }           District Court of Vermont,
                                     }           Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
  Philip Chicoine                    }
                                     }           DOCKET NO. 926-2-05 Cncr

                                                 Trial Judge: Edward J. Cashman 

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Defendant Philip Chicoine entered a conditional guilty plea
  to one count of felony possession of cocaine, 18 V.S.A. § 4231(a)(2), after
  the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence discovered in the
  course of a police officer's pat-down following a traffic stop.  On appeal,
  the State did not seek to justify the warrantless search as a frisk for
  weapons, but defended the court's conclusion that the pat-down was
  reasonable as incident to a valid arrest for drug possession.  We find,
  however, that the investigating officer lacked probable cause to arrest, so
  the warrantless pat-down search was not justified by the exigency of
  arrest.  We therefore reverse the denial of suppression.

       ¶  2.  The trial court made the following factual findings. (FN1)  On
  December 30, 2004, the investigating officer and his partner drove to an
  address in South Burlington to conduct a search for illicit drugs.  When
  they arrived they saw a car exit the driveway.  The officers followed the
  car, noticed that one of its rear brake lights did not operate, and
  activated their cruiser's blue lights.  Defendant did not pull over right
  away.  After activating the cruiser's siren, both officers saw defendant's
  passenger quickly lean over and appear to place something in defendant's
  mouth before defendant pulled into a parking lot and came to a stop.    
   
       ¶  3.  Believing that defendant and his passenger were attempting to
  dispose of illicit drugs, the officer rushed to defendant's car, opened the
  driver's-side door, and asked defendant to open his mouth.  Defendant
  complied, and the officer found no illicit substances.  The officer
  proceeded with the traffic stop and informed defendant of his inoperable
  brake light.  The video shows that when asked where he was coming from,
  defendant said he had been visiting a coworker at the same house targeted
  by the police for the drug search.  Defendant voluntarily exited his
  vehicle to inspect the light, and the officer informed him that he was not
  going to issue a ticket.  Instead, the officer asked if defendant possessed
  any drugs and inquired about the passenger's activity prior to the stop. 
  Defendant said he neither possessed nor destroyed any drugs.  Upon request,
  defendant agreed to empty his pockets, but, based on the video depiction,
  apparently did not do so completely, saying "That's about it."

       ¶  4.  At this point the officer noticed defendant shielding the
  left side of his body and conducted a pat-down search without defendant's
  consent.  He felt a soft package in defendant's left jacket pocket, which
  defendant insisted was napkins.  The officer then handcuffed defendant,
  reached into the jacket pocket, and seized twenty-four grams of cocaine.  

       ¶  5.  Police officers may conduct a warrantless pat-down search
  with the driver's consent, State v. Zaccaro, 154 Vt. 83, 87, 574 A.2d 1256,
  1259 (1990), or if they reasonably believe that the driver may be armed and
  dangerous, State v. Jewett, 148 Vt. 324, 328-29,