Case Title: State v. Caron

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-09-01T00:00:00Z

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. 89-329


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit

Richard D. Caron                             September Term, 1990


Francis B. McCaffrey, J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

Walter M. Morris, Jr., Defender General, and Anna E. Saxman, Appellate
  Defender, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     DOOLEY, J.   Defendant Richard Caron entered a conditional plea of
guilty to a burglary charge and was sentenced to four to thirteen years of
imprisonment.  Defendant appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to
suppress evidence, claiming that the evidence was obtained pursuant to an
illegal arrest.  Defendant also appeals the denial of his motion to
suppress statements, claiming that statements and his waiver of his
constitutional rights were obtained in violation of the Vermont
Constitution and that the waiver of his right to counsel violated the
requirements of the Vermont Public Defender Act, 13 V.S.A { 5237.  We
affirm.


                                    I.
     On December 13, 1987, at approximately 11:40 p.m., the Bennington
Police Department received a call from Mary Flanders, reporting that she and
her husband had been robbed and assaulted in their Bennington home.  Police
officers were dispatched to the Flanders' home, where the Flanders told them
that two men had entered their home, beaten them, and robbed them of a safe
and a pocketbook.  Mrs. Flanders stated that one of the assailants was
named "Gary."  The police department also received a call from Donald Mears,
who described seeing and hearing an older model pickup truck pull up and
park in front of his home, which was located across the street from the
Flanders' residence.  According to Mr. Mears, the truck sounded as if it had
no muffler, its engine skipped, and it had a cap over the truck bed.  Mr.
Mears stated that a man exited the truck, stood in front of the Flanders'
home for several minutes, and then returned to the vehicle.  The truck drove
off, but Mr. Mears heard what he believed to be the same vehicle return and
leave several times over the next half hour and finally leave at a high
rate of speed.  Mr. Mears also noticed that there was oil on the ground
where the truck had been parked.
     Based on the information received from the Flanders and Mr. Mears, the
Bennington Police department issued two "be on the lookout" (BOL) bulletins
to neighboring Vermont, New York, and Massachusetts police units.  The first
BOL, issued at 12:28 a.m., stated:
         BOL for the following vehicle in connection with a
         robbery that just occurred in Bennington, Vermont.  A
         pickup truck, unknown reg[istration] or make.  Loud
         exhaust, leaking oil, sputtering.  Two male occupants,
         one with long hair and one with the first name of Gary.
         Should be in the possession of a small safe.  This
         robbery took place on Grove St[reet] in Bennington.  The
         two males driving the above vehicle beat and injured an
         elderly couple before robbing them at their residence.

A follow-up bulletin, broadcast at 12:48 a.m., contained this additional
information:
         The vehicle's described as a late model full size pickup
         truck with oversized taillights.  The rear of the truck
         is closed in (possible cab [sic] on back) and has some
         sort of a fin or spoiler on rear of it.  One of the male
         subjects is described as being 5[']10["], 160 [pounds],
         wearing light colored pants.

     At approximately 1:30 a.m., Officer Davendonis from the Hoosick Falls,
New York police department, observed a pickup truck which appeared to match
the vehicle described in the BOLs.  The truck had two occupants who matched
the BOL descriptions and appeared frightened and disconcerted.  He followed
it to a convenience store where the driver bought a quart of oil.  He
finally encountered the vehicle while it was parked behind a school bus
garage.  The officer approached the vehicle and asked the driver to step out
of the truck and provide identification.  The driver identified himself as
Gary Skidmore but did not have a license or registration.  Attempts to
obtain information on the vehicle registration number or the name failed
because Vermont's computer that provides such information was not operating.
The officer then radioed for assistance from the New York State Police.
While waiting for assistance, the officer asked Skidmore where he was coming
from and going to, and Skidmore provided inconsistent responses to these
questions.
     Two New York State Police officers, Troopers Duff and Overdorf,
arrived in response to the call for assistance.  Trooper Duff observed a
shotgun in the pickup truck and asked the passenger, later identified as the
defendant, to step out of the cab so that he could remove the shotgun.
Defendant exited the vehicle.  While Trooper Duff was removing the shotgun,
he observed a paper sack, open at the top, which appeared to contain
shredded paper currency.  Officer Duff then asked the other officers to
handcuff Skidmore and defendant.  Defendant was handcuffed and placed into
the rear of a police vehicle.  Skidmore, however, pushed Trooper Overdorf
and escaped into the surrounding woods.  Skidmore surrendered to police
officers the following day.
     Officers Briggs and Colgan of the Bennington Police Department arrived
at the scene to participate in the investigation.  Officer Briggs was
familiar with defendant and approached him.  After Officer Briggs
identified himself, defendant immediately stated, "I'll tell you one thing,
I didn't beat those old people."  There was no further conversation with
defendant until 3:15 a.m. at the Hoosick Falls police barracks when Officer
Briggs read defendant his Miranda rights from a form consisting of seven
parts, each followed by a question asking defendant whether he understood
the preceding part. (FN1) Defendant answered "yes" to each question, and Officer
Briggs recorded each response on the form.  In answering the seventh
question, defendant indicated that he had his rights in mind and wished to
talk with Officer Briggs.  At 3:17 a.m., defendant signed a provision at the
bottom of the form stating that he had been advised of his rights,
understood them, and agreed to waive them.  Defendant asked for a cigarette
and was given a pack.  He indicated that he would not sign a statement.  He
described his participation in the robbery but denied that he had assaulted
the Flanders.  He identified Gary Skidmore as his accomplice.  The
questioning ended approximately forty-five minutes later, after which
defendant was brought to a jail cell and allowed to sleep.
     Approximately four hours later, defendant was questioned by an officer
of the New York State Police Department. (FN2) He was read a version of the
Miranda rights from a New York State Police form.  He was not required to
respond to each part, but he acknowledged verbally that he had been advised
of and understood his rights and that he agreed to waive these rights and
speak with the officer.  Although he refused to sign the form or a written
statement, he again admitted that he had participated in the robbery.  The
interview was concluded at approximately 11:00 a.m.
     The two officers who took statements noted that defendant had been
drinking during the evening, but both concluded that defendant showed no
signs of impairment before or after giving his statements.  After he was
returned to Vermont, defendant filed several pretrial motions to suppress
physical evidence and his own statements.  He entered a conditional guilty
plea to a charge of burglary, reserving the right to appeal the denial of
his suppression motions.
                                    II.
     Defendant first challenges the legality of the initial stop by Officer
Davendonis and the trial court's refusal to suppress evidence obtained from
Skidmore's pickup truck during that stop.  Defendant contends that the
evidence should have been suppressed under the federal and Vermont
Constitutions because there was no probable cause to arrest him or conduct a
search either at the time Officer Davendonis stopped the vehicle or soon
thereafter.  The trial court held that the officer had probable cause to
arrest defendant at the time of the stop, and further concluded that, if
probable cause did not exist initially, there was reasonable suspicion to
warrant an investigatory stop, and that this reasonable suspicion quickly
ripened into probable cause.
     Police officers may conduct a warrantless investigatory stop when
specific and articulable facts, taken together with rational inferences from
those facts, warrant a reasonable belief that a suspect is engaging in
criminal activity.  Terry v. Ohio,