Case Title: State v. Peterson

Citation: 2007 VT 24

Docket Number: 2005-349

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Peterson (2005-349)

2007 VT 24

[Filed 06-Apr-2007]


       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.

                                 2007 VT 24

                                No. 2005-349
    

  State of Vermont                               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Addison Circuit

  James Peterson  May Term, 2006


  Christina C. Reiss, J.

  John T. Quinn, Addison County State's Attorney, and Christopher E. Perkett,
    Deputy State's Attorney, Middlebury, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Matthew F. Valerio, Defender General, and Kelly Green, Appellate Defender,
    Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.  The issue in this case is the scope of the
  exclusionary rule in criminal cases, specifically, whether physical
  evidence obtained as a result of a violation of defendant's Miranda rights
  must be excluded at trial.  We conclude that under the Vermont
  Constitution, Chapter I, Article 10, and the Vermont exclusionary rule,
  physical evidence obtained in violation of Miranda rights must be
  suppressed.  We reverse in part and remand.
   
       ¶  2.  Defendant James Peterson appeals the denial of two
  suppression motions.  Both involve a core set of undisputed facts. 
  Defendant was looking for his girlfriend and drove his car next to a police
  vehicle so that he and the officer could speak out of their windows.  Upon
  speaking to defendant, the officer smelled marijuana through the vehicle
  window.  During the conversation, defendant admitted that he had been
  convicted of a drug offense and that he had a marijuana "roach" in his
  vehicle.  The officer than asked defendant to exit the vehicle, which he
  did.

       ¶  3.  The officer patted defendant down; he found no weapons, but
  smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the front pocket of
  defendant's sweatshirt.  The officer patted the pocket and, feeling
  nothing, used his flashlight to look inside the pocket, where he saw green
  flakes of marijuana plant.  When asked, defendant admitted he had picked
  the marijuana earlier that day from a plant or two he had at home for
  personal use.  The officer then asked defendant for consent to search both
  his vehicle and his home; defendant consented to these searches both
  verbally and in writing.  The written consent form identified defendant's
  residence to be searched as "3141 Jersey St. & property" in Panton,
  Vermont.  

       ¶  4.  After searching defendant's vehicle and finding a burned
  marijuana cigarette as well as a blanket smelling of marijuana, the officer
  and a state police trooper proceeded to defendant's residence.  Defendant
  was placed in handcuffs for protection of the police, but was advised by
  the officer that he was not under arrest.  The handcuffs were removed upon
  arrival at defendant's residence and were intermittently taken on and off
  while the officers conducted the home search.  During the home search, the
  officer located a garbage bag containing a significant amount of marijuana
  and marijuana paraphernalia.  Defendant led the officers to one marijuana
  plant growing behind his house.
   
       ¶  5.  Upon completion of the home search, the officer informed
  defendant that they would proceed to the Vergennes Police Department for
  processing.  He placed defendant in handcuffs and instructed him to walk in
  front of the officer.  During the walk, the officer expressed  that he
  doubted so much marijuana came from just one plant, and asked defendant
  whether he had other marijuana plants.  He did not inform defendant of his
  Miranda rights.  Defendant eventually admitted to the existence of other
  plants.  The officer asked defendant to show him the other plants, and the
  two men walked through a wooded area with high brush to a plot where
  twenty-seven growing plants were located.  The plot where the twenty-seven
  plants were growing is not on, nor visible from, defendant's property.

       ¶  6.  As a result of the search, the police charged defendant with
  felony possession of more than twenty-five plants of marijuana, 18 V.S.A. §
  4230(a)(4), and felony possession of marijuana consisting of an aggregate
  weight of one pound or more.  Id. § 4230(a)(3).  Defendant moved to
  suppress "all evidence obtained by Vermont Law Enforcement Officials
  subsequent to his being taken into custody," asserting the officers in
  question violated his rights to be free from self-incrimination and
  unlawful search and seizure under both the Vermont and United States
  Constitutions.  Defendant's primary argument was that the police had
  engaged in custodial interrogation, but failed to give defendant the
  required warnings under Miranda v. Arizona,