Case Title: State v. Kirchoff

Citation: 

Docket Number: 87-603

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1989-03-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 87-603


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      Addison Superior Court


Robert Kirchoff                              March Term, 1989



Linda Levitt, J., at trial; Arthur J. O'Dea, J., at suppression hearing

John Quinn, Addison County State's Attorney, Middlebury, and Jo-Ann Gross,
  Legal Intern, Department of State's Attorneys, Montpelier, for plaintiff-
  appellee

Walter M. Morris, Jr., Defender General, Henry Hinton, Appellate Defender,
  and David J. Williams, Special Defender for Drug Offenses, Montpelier,
  for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Dooley and Morse, JJ., and Springer, D.J.
          (Ret.), Specially Assigned


     MORSE, J.   The sole issue in this appeal from a conviction for
cultivating marijuana is the legality under the Vermont Constitution of a
warrantless search of defendant's posted land.  We hold that this search
violated Chapter I, Article 11, of the Vermont Constitution, and accordingly
reverse.
     In 1982, defendant purchased thirty-nine acres of land, consisting of
woods, swamp, and meadows, in an isolated part of Lincoln, Vermont.  He
put up several "no trespassing" signs where the road turned into his
driveway and posted his land with signs that said, "POSTED Private Property.
Hunting, Fishing, Trapping or Trespassing for Any Purpose Is Strictly
Forbidden.  Violators Will Be Prosecuted," and recorded that fact with the
town clerk.  See 10 V.S.A. { 5201.  Although he gave specific permission to
certain neighbors to ride their bikes on trails that crossed his land,
defendant took actions to keep strangers off his property.
     Acting on an informant's tip that marijuana was growing on defendant's
land, a sheriff and another law enforcement officer went onto the land,
without a warrant, in September of 1986.  They first drove up defendant's
driveway where they noticed the "no trespassing" signs, as well as one that
read "Road Ends - Private Drive Ahead."  The officers parked at a
neighbor's house, crossed a fence, and walked along an old logging road
toward defendant's house.  They observed one or two old "no trespassing"
signs as they walked.  At some point, the officers left the road and walked
through woods and a marsh, coming upon a marijuana patch about 100 yards
from defendant's house.  The marijuana plants were not visible from any
road.
     The officers left the area to obtain a search warrant.  Two other
officers arrived to watch over the patch while waiting for the warrant.
Defendant was there tending the plants and was confronted by the officers.
He was talkative and confessed to cultivating marijuana.  Later, after the
warrant arrived, the officers searched the house, finding more evidence of
marijuana cultivation and seizing numerous plants.
     Defendant moved to suppress the evidence gathered during the search on
the ground that it was obtained in violation of the Vermont Constitution.
The motion was denied, and the evidence was admitted over defendant's
objection at trial.
                                    I.
     We begin by acknowledging that this "walk-on" search would be
permissible under the federal constitution.  The United States Supreme Court
has held that the Fourth Amendment permits the police to conduct a
warrantless search of an area in which a person does not have a "reasonable
expectation of privacy."  Katz v. United States,