Case Title: State v. Curley-Egan

Citation: 180 Vt. 305, 2006 VT 95, 910 A.2d 200

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-09-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Curley-Egan (2005-492); 180 Vt. 305; 910 A.2d 200

2006 VT 95

[Filed 01-Sep-2006]


       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.


                                 2006 VT 95

                                No. 2005-492


  State of Vermont                               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

  James Curley-Egan                              March Term, 2006


  Edward J. Cashman, J.

  Robert Simpson, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall
    Johnson, Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Bradley S. Stetler of Stetler, Allen & Kampmann, Burlington, for
    Defendant-Appellee.

  Jeffrey J. Nolan of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Burlington, for Amicus
    Curiae The University of Vermont and State Agricultural College.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

        
       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.   This case requires us to determine whether 16
  V.S.A. § 2283, the statute empowering the trustees of the University of
  Vermont and State Agricultural College (UVM) to create a police force, is a
  valid, constitutional delegation of police power.  The district court
  concluded that it was not and granted defendant's motion to suppress
  evidence of a roadside stop made by a UVM police officer as well as
  defendant's motions to dismiss the Driving Under the Influence charge and
  civil suspension proceeding that resulted from the stop.  We hold that §
  2283 is a proper delegation of police power and reverse the decision of the
  district court.

       ¶  2.  The statute empowers the UVM Board of Trustees to "establish a
  department of police services and authorize the appointment thereto of
  police officers and a director of the department who shall be a police
  officer."  16 V.S.A. § 2283(a).  UVM police officers "shall have all law
  enforcement powers provided by section 1935 of Title 24."  Id.  That
  statute empowers municipal police officers.  24 V.S.A. § 1935.  All police
  officers must swear an oath, id., complete law enforcement officer training
  in conformity with chapter 151 of Title 20, id. § 2283(b), and UVM officers
  must be employed in good standing by the university. Id. § 2283(c). 
  Finally, the statute establishes a complaint procedure:

      Upon written complaint of misconduct by one or more persons
    concerning any police officer appointed under this section, the
    director of the department shall cause an investigation to be
    conducted in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures
    established by the board of trustees or its duly authorized
    representative for such purposes. The complainant may appeal the
    final action of the department to the president of the University
    of Vermont, who shall convene an advisory commission consisting of
    three persons, no more than one of whom has a direct or indirect
    university affiliation. The advisory commission shall provide
    advice and counsel to the president in assuring appropriate final
    disposition of the complaint.

  Id. § 2283(d).

       ¶  3.  The facts underlying the charges are not in dispute.  At
  approximately 1:15 a.m. on May 7, 2005, a UVM police officer was driving
  north on South Prospect Street in Burlington and saw a vehicle driving in
  the southbound lane with only one headlight.  The officer turned around and
  followed the vehicle onto Cliff Street and stopped the vehicle after it
  turned left onto Summit Street.  All of these streets lie outside UVM's
  property boundaries.
   
       ¶  4.  The officer found defendant behind the wheel.  The officer
  noticed that defendant's eyes were watery and bloodshot and that his speech
  was slurred.  The officer also observed an alcohol container behind the
  passenger seat.  Defendant had difficulty exiting the vehicle and stood
  with a slight sway.  He also showed signs of intoxication while performing
  field sobriety tests.  After refusing a preliminary breath test, defendant
  was arrested.  Defendant identified himself with a Massachusetts driver's
  license and gave a current address of "410 Wilkes Hall, UVM."  

       ¶  5.  Defendant was charged with a DUI violation under 23 V.S.A. §
  1201(a)(2), and the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles suspended his license
  under 23 V.S.A. § 1205.  Defendant moved to dismiss the case or, in the
  alternative, to suppress all evidence stemming from the stop, arguing that
  the operation of the UVM police department is unconstitutional.  He
  reasoned that the department is a private entity not exclusively governed
  by the people or their legal representatives as required for valid police
  authority under Chapter I, Article 5 of the Vermont Constitution.  
   
       ¶  6.  The district court agreed and granted defendant's motion. 
  The court began its legal analysis by observing that "[t]he only state
  supervision [of UVM police officers] arises from the initial training and
  certification."  The court focused on "the private status of the
  supervisors" of the UVM police department, namely, the UVM Board of
  Trustees, stressing that "[n]one of the Board of Trustees . . . must answer
  to an electorate made up of all those subject to the police jurisdiction." 
  It then reasoned that although the Legislature could properly delegate to
  UVM the authority to create a police force to serve the campus community,
  it is a "much different situation" when UVM police jurisdiction extends
  "beyond the real property boundaries of the University to encompass private
  citizens not otherwise connected to the University or to its educational
  functions."  The court also was concerned that a citizen would have no
  remedy for UVM police misconduct other than under 16 V.S.A. § 2283(d),
  which establishes only internal complaint and appeal procedures.  

       ¶  7.  As a result of the above analysis, the district court
  interpreted Article 5's requirement that the people, "by their legal
  representatives, have the sole, inherent, and exclusive right of governing
  and regulating the internal police," as requiring direct oversight of the
  UVM police force by elected officials.  Vt. Const. ch. I, art. 5.  Thus,
  the court concluded, by giving the UVM police jurisdiction to arrest a
  person unaffiliated with UVM on a city street outside UVM's property, §
  2283 creates a police force lacking "accountability to the legal
  representatives of this state" in violation of Chapter 1, Article 5 of the
  Vermont Constitution.  
   
       ¶  8.  The State appealed, and UVM was permitted to appear as amicus
  curiae.  The State and UVM argue that the court erred by characterizing UVM
  as a private entity and by interpreting Chapter I, Article 5 as requiring
  control by elected officials.  In their view, UVM is a sufficiently public
  institution, and the UVM charter vests the Legislature with sufficient
  authority over UVM to satisfy Chapter I, Article 5.  In response, defendant
  reiterates the core argument he made before the district court, which also
  formed the heart of the court's reasoning: because UVM is not a sovereign
  entity it is not a proper delegee of police power, and, therefore, § 2283
  delegates police power beyond the control of the people and their legal
  representatives, in violation of Chapter I, Article 5.  Defendant also
  posits that if UVM functions as a public entity, it does so only when
  pursuing its core educational purpose, which does not include operating a
  police force.  Finally, defendant asserts that § 2283 is invalid because it
  allocates statewide jurisdiction to the UVM police department.  We reject
  defendant's arguments and agree with the State and UVM that the Legislature
  properly delegated to UVM the authority to create and operate its police
  department.  Accordingly, we reverse.

                                     I.

       ¶  9.  Before assessing the propriety of § 2283, we review the
  contours of the police power as articulated in our past decisions.  The
  police power has long been understood to encompass "the general power of
  the legislative branch to enact laws for the common good of all the
  people."  State v. Theriault, 70 Vt. 617, 625, 41 A. 1030, 1033 (1898). 
  The "proper function" of the police power is to balance "the possession and
  enjoyment by the individual of all his rights" with "such reasonable
  regulations and restraints as are essential to the preservation of the
  health, safety, and welfare of the community."  State v. Morse, 84 Vt. 387,
  393, 80 A. 189, 191 (1911).  Thus, the police power is the practical
  manifestation of each individual's agreement, as part of the social
  compact, to subject his rights to the common good when a conflict arises.  

       ¶  10.  It follows that the police power "is not a grant derived from
  or under a written constitution"; rather, it is "inherent" in state
  government.  In re Guerra, 94 Vt. 1, 8, 110 A. 224, 227 (1920) ( "It is an
  attribute of sovereignty, or rather it is sovereignty itself."); see also
  Mut. Loan Co. v. Martell,