Case Title: State v. Trudeau

Citation: 165 Vt 355, 683 A.2d 725

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-07-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Trudeau (95-494); 165 Vt 355; 683 A.2d 725

[Opinion Filed 26-Jul-1996]


       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. 95-494


State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
     v.                                           District Court of Vermont,
                                                  Unit No. 2, Addison Circuit

Alex Trudeau                                      April Term, 1996


Matthew I. Katz, J.

       Sandra W. Everitt, Addison County Deputy State's Attorney, Middlebury,
  for plaintiff-appellant

       Robert Appel, Defender General, and Judith A. Ianelli, Appellate
  Attorney, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       ALLEN, C.J.   The State of Vermont appeals a decision by the Addison
  District Court granting defendant's motion to suppress marijuana seized
  from his vehicle by a police officer during a DUI investigation.  We
  reverse.

       On December 31, 1994, at approximately 1:30 a.m., a Middlebury police
  officer observed a vehicle being operated in an erratic manner.  Before the
  officer could stop the vehicle, it turned into the parking lot of
  Middlebury Beef and Supply, which was closed.  The vehicle was occupied by
  defendant and two passengers.  While speaking with defendant, the officer
  noticed signs that defendant was under the influence of alcohol, including
  an odor of alcohol, watery eyes, and slurred speech.  The officer used his
  flashlight to look into the passenger compartment of the vehicle and
  observed an open can of beer on the floor behind the driver's seat.  After
  conducting field sobriety tests, the officer determined that defendant had
  been driving while under the influence.

       Before placing defendant in the cruiser, the officer conducted a "pat
  down" search and

 

  discovered a small pipe with burnt residue in defendant's pocket.  At that
  time, the officer noticed an odor of marijuana on defendant's person.  The
  officer handcuffed defendant and placed him inside the police cruiser.

       During the preceding events, the two passengers exited defendant's
  vehicle.  One passenger walked over and proceeded to get into another
  vehicle, which he said that he owned. He shortly returned to the other
  passenger, and both remained near defendant's vehicle.  The officer noticed
  that the passengers also appeared intoxicated.  After placing defendant in
  the cruiser, the officer approached the passengers to inquire if they
  needed assistance in contacting rides home.

       The officer then returned to defendant's vehicle to retrieve the beer
  can as evidence.  He opened the rear door of defendant's vehicle, and while
  reaching for the can, noticed a partially exposed, clear-plastic baggie
  under the back seat containing green "plantish material."  When the officer
  removed the bag, which was later found to contain 4.3 grams of marijuana,
  he also recovered a second pipe.  The officer conducted a further search of
  the passenger compartment and found 0.4 grams of marijuana in a zippered
  coin purse.(FN1)

       Defendant was charged with possession of marijuana in violation of 18
  V.S.A. § 4230(a)(1).  Defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the
  marijuana, arguing that it was seized pursuant to a warrantless search
  without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United
  States Constitution and Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. 
  The trial court granted the motion to suppress, concluding that the beer
  can had de minimis evidentiary value in a DUI prosecution and was therefore
  a pretext for the seizure of other evidence not in plain view.  The State
  appeals.

       The State argues that the court erred by granting the motion to
  suppress because the seizure of the marijuana was valid under the "plain
  view" exception to the warrant requirement.

 

  During the officer's questioning of defendant, he observed an open beer can
  on the floor of defendant's vehicle.  While retrieving the beer can as
  evidence, the officer's vantage point changed and the partially exposed
  baggie of marijuana came into view.  Therefore, in order to determine if
  seizing the marijuana fits the plain-view exception to the warrant
  requirement, we must first decide if the officer's retrieval of the beer
  can was proper under the plain-view doctrine.

       In Horton v. California,