Case Title: State v. Emmi

Citation: 160 Vt. 377, 628 A.2d 939

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1993-02-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_EMMI.92-077; 160 Vt. 377; 628 A.2d 939


 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. 92-077


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

 Anthony Emmi                                 February Term, 1993


 Linda Levitt, J.

 Thomas M. Kelly, State's Attorneys & Sheriffs Department, Montpelier, for
    plaintiff-appellee

 William C. Kittell, Burlington, for defendant-appellant



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      JOHNSON, J.    Defendant was convicted in a jury trial of felony
 possession of marijuana under 18 V.S.A. { 4230(a)(3), and appeals from the
 trial court's denial of his motions (1) to quash the search warrant as the
 product of an unconstitutional search, and (2) to compel the State to
 produce the confidential informant.  We affirm.
      At some point during the seventy-two hours before March 7, 1991, a
 police informant entered defendant's home wearing an electronic audio
 transmitter, for which the police had not obtained a warrant.  He observed a
 "brick" of marijuana and a large amount of cash, and believed there was
 additional marijuana in a safe.  Through the transmitter worn by the
 informant, the police were able to hear a conversation between the informant
 and defendant, and the informant later gave the police additional
 information based on his observations.
      On March 7, 1991, the State Police obtained a warrant to search
 defendant's home, supported by the affidavit of officer William Sheets,
 which in turn was based on information obtained from the confidential
 informant's electronic transmissions and his subsequent personal
 statements.(FN1) Armed with the warrant, the police then searched defendant's
 apartment, where they seized approximately three pounds of marijuana from
 defendant's safe, and over $1,000 in cash, scales, records, and other items.
 The informant was not present during the search and nor was he called as a
 witness at trial.
      Defendant was charged with felony possession of marijuana.  He moved
 for production of the electronic monitoring tapes and for suppression of the
 evidence seized during the search, asserting that the recorded statements
 were taped illegally, without judicial authorization, and could therefore
 not be used to form probable cause.  At the hearing on the motion,
 defendant's counsel explained:
           . . . I feel that the Court should examine the
           legitimacy of the electronic surveillance and if it
           decides that electronic surveillance should not be done
           in the home without warranting or without a search
           warrant, to then read the affidavit for the search
           warrant, excising any reference to electronic
           transmissions.

 The motions were denied, the jury found defendant guilty, and the present
 appeal followed.
                                     I.
      Defendant makes two attacks on the validity of the search warrant.
 First, he argues that the search warrant was invalid because the information
 on which it was based was obtained by an informant employing warrantless
 electronic monitoring equipment, and because the use of electronic
 monitoring without a warrant tainted any direct observations made by the
 informant while illegally wired.  This argument was not offered at trial and
 will not be considered for the first time on appeal, absent plain error.
 State v. Ringler, 153 Vt. 375, 379, 571 A.2d 668, 670 (1989).  Second,
 defendant contends that even if this Court considers the validity of the
 search warrant only on the basis of the informant's direct sight and sound
 observations, there was no probable cause for the warrant because the
 reliability of the confidential informant was not established prior to
 issuance.
      Under V.R.Cr.P. 41(c), a finding of probable cause sufficient for
 issuance of a warrant may be based on hearsay as long as "there is a
 substantial basis for believing the source of the hearsay to be credible and
 for believing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished."
 V.R.Cr.P. 41(c).  In State v. Ballou, 148 Vt. 427, 433,