Case Title: State v. Fuller

Citation: 163 Vt 523, 660 A.2d 302

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-04-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_FULLER.94-441; 163 Vt 523; 660 A.2d 302

[Filed 14-Apr-1995]


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. 


                                 No. 94-441


State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            District Court of Vermont,
                                                  Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit

Francis H. Fuller                                 January Term, 1995


M. Kathleen Manley, Acting J.

Robert L. Sand, Staff Attorney, Department of State's Attorneys, Montpelier,
for plaintiff- appellant 

Richard A. Axelrod of Axelrod & Adler, St. Johnsbury, for defendant-appellee



PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


     DOOLEY, J.   The State appeals an order of the Caledonia District Court
suppressing the results of a breath test because defendant did not execute a
written waiver of his right pursuant to 23 V.S.A.  1202(c) to consult an
attorney prior to submitting to the test.  We reverse. 

     On December 31, 1993, a police officer stopped defendant at a sobriety
checkpoint in West Danville, Vermont after observing defendant operate his
vehicle erratically.   The officer decided to process defendant for driving
while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI) after detecting the
smell of alcohol on his breath, and observing his slurred speech and
inability to perform field dexterity tests.  See 23 V.S.A.  1201.  The
officer placed defendant in custody and interrogated him.  Before doing so,
the officer notified defendant of his right to be represented by a lawyer and
the right to appointment of such a lawyer if defendant was a needy person. 
Thereafter, defendant signed a written waiver of these rights; this waiver is
not 

 

challenged here.  The waiver stated in part, "Knowing my rights, I agree
to waive them." Following the waiver of rights, the officer asked defendant a
series of questions, which defendant answered. 

     Following this questioning, the officer advised defendant of his rights
under Vermont's implied consent statute, 23 V.S.A.  1202, including
defendant's right to consult with an attorney prior to deciding whether to
submit to a breath test.  See id.  1202(c).  This was done by reading
statements from a form and checking a box each time the officer covered a
subject or received a response from defendant.  Defendant orally waived his
right to consult with an attorney.  The officer noted this waiver by checking
the appropriate box on the form.  After all the boxes were checked, defendant
signed the form.(FN1)  Thereafter, defendant took the breath test. 

     Defendant asked the court to suppress the breath test results during the
civil suspension hearing held pursuant to 23 V.S.A.  1205.  On August 10,
1994, the trial court ordered that the results be suppressed.  It reasoned
that the implied consent statute, when read in pari materia with 13 V.S.A.
 5234 and 5237 (provisions of the public defender act), required a
written waiver of a defendant's right to consult counsel as provided in the
implied consent law.  The court concluded that breath test results obtained
in the absence of such a waiver must be suppressed.  The State appealed. 

     The State's two principal arguments on appeal are that (1) a written
waiver of the right to counsel is not required if the right is conferred by a
statute other than the public defender act, and (2) even if a written waiver
is required, defendant executed a written waiver in this case. In the context
of this case, we agree with the first argument and do not reach the second
one. 

 

     Vermont's implied consent statute gives a person from whom a breath test
has been requested by a law enforcement officer a right to consult an
attorney prior to deciding whether to take the test.  23 V.S.A.  1202 (c). 
Subsection (d) of  1202 requires that the officer inform the person of this
right at the time the officer requests the test.  A person who is asked to
take a breath test must also be informed of the right to consult with an
attorney at public expense. State v. Gracey, 140 Vt. 199, 200-01,