Case Title: State v. Jestice

Citation: 177 Vt. 513, 2004 VT 65, 861 A.2d 1060

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-08-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Jestice (2003-093); 177 Vt. 513; 861 A.2d 1060

2004 VT 65

[Filed 18-Aug-2004]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2004 VT 65

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2003-093

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2003

  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 2, Addison Circuit
  Talmage Jestice	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 710-10-02 Ancr

                                                Trial Judge: Helen M. Toor

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

       ¶  1.  Defendant, who entered a conditional guilty plea to
  possession of cocaine, argues that the district court erred in denying his
  motion to suppress evidence obtained from an unjustified seizure.  We
  reverse.

       ¶  2.  At approximately two o'clock in the morning on August 8,
  2002, a uniformed Middlebury police officer on routine patrol in a fully
  marked police cruiser entered a trailhead parking lot and observed a young
  man, defendant, and a young woman sitting in a parked car.  The officer
  pulled his police cruiser nose-to-nose to the car, leaving his engine
  running and headlights on.  He testified that his cruiser "was essentially
  blocking the exit."  After calling in his location and running a check on
  the vehicle's plates, the officer approached the passenger's side of the
  car where defendant was sitting, shone his flashlight inside the car, and
  asked the couple what they were doing.  They responded that they were not
  doing anything.  Noticing a razor blade on defendant's thigh, the officer
  asked defendant what it was for.  When defendant feigned ignorance, the
  officer asked him to hand it over.  Defendant did so, at which point the
  officer noticed a white powder on the edge of the razor blade.  The officer
  then asked defendant "where's the rest of it?" and defendant handed him a
  small box containing cocaine.
   
       ¶  3.  At the trial court proceedings, defendant filed a motion to
  suppress, arguing that the State's evidence was the product of an unlawful
  seizure.  The district court denied the motion, ruling that the officer's
  initial approach of the parked car was not a stop, and that in any event a
  stop would have been justified because it was late at night and there was a
  man and a woman alone in the car with no one else around.  In the court's
  view, given this situation, the officer had good reason both to investigate
  potential criminal violations and to engage in community caretaking duties. 
  The court also concluded that reasonable persons in the couple's position
  would have felt free to leave because there was enough room for them to
  back up their car and maneuver it around the cruiser.  Further, according
  to the court, once the officer approached defendant's vehicle, he had a
  reasonable basis to assume that the razor blade, which was in plain sight,
  was being used for drugs and could be used as a weapon.  Therefore, the
  court determined that the officer was justified in questioning the couple
  further.  Finally, the court concluded that defendant consented to the
  officer's request to hand over the razor blade and the box containing the
  cocaine.

       ¶  4.  On appeal, defendant argues that the encounter amounted to a
  seizure, and that there was no justifiable basis for the seizure.  He also
  contends that, even if the officer was justified in detaining him, he did
  not consent to turning over the cocaine to the officer, but rather
  submitted to the officer's show of authority.  We agree that there was an
  unjustified seizure and, therefore, reverse the trial court's order denying
  defendant's motion to suppress.  See State v. Lawrence, 2003 VT 68  ¶ ¶
  8-9, 834 A.2d 10 (mem.) (we apply clearly erroneous standard to trial
  court's historical facts, but review de novo its ultimate legal conclusion
  on motions to suppress).
   
       ¶  5.  "A 'stop' is a shorthand way of referring to a seizure that
  is more limited in scope and duration than an arrest," and thus "police
  need not force or signal a vehicle to the side of a road to effect a stop
  of persons in the vehicle."  State v. Burgess, 163 Vt. 259, 261,