Title: State v. Hall

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Hall  (97-160); 168 Vt. 327; 719 A.2d 435

[Filed 11-Sep-1998]

       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. 97-160

State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       District Court of Vermont,
                                             Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit

Timothy J. Hall                              March Term, 1998

Walter M. Morris, Jr., J.

       Dale O. Gray, Caledonia County State's Attorney, and Alan M. Singer,
  Deputy State's Attorney, St. Johnsbury, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

       David J. Williams of Sleigh & Williams, St. Johnsbury, for
  Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       SKOGLUND, J.  Defendant Timothy Hall appeals the Caledonia District
  Court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of drug paraphernalia
  seized in his house pursuant to a search warrant.  Defendant argues the
  warrant was improperly granted because:  (1) to obtain the information
  underlying the warrant, a police officer impermissibly walked on
  defendant's property to confirm an informant's tip; (2) the officer did not
  find any marijuana plants to corroborate the tip, but failed to include
  this exculpatory information in his affidavit in support of the warrant
  application; and (3) the affidavit failed to establish a nexus between the
  marijuana growing on defendant's lawn and his residence.  We affirm.

       On September 16, 1996, a confidential informant contacted the Hardwick
  Police Department to report that defendant was cultivating marijuana in his
  yard.  That evening, when a Hardwick police officer contacted the
  informant, he told the officer that defendant had a healthy marijuana plant
  growing in his yard and forty to fifty marijuana plants growing along

 

  the edge of the yard.  He also stated he had seen a bong in defendant's
  house.

       On September 17, 1996, two officers and a State game warden searched
  for the large clump of forty to fifty marijuana plants in the woods behind
  defendant's residence.  To search this area they used a network of
  well-marked and well-used trails.  They observed no signs prohibiting
  entry.  Two of the trails terminated at defendant's property.  After
  searching unsuccessfully for the plants, the officer concluded that they
  were looking in the wrong place.

       On the following day, the officer returned to the property with the
  informant, who immediately led the officer to a vantage point five to ten
  feet from defendant's lawn in the woods behind defendant's house.  No
  fences obstructed the officer's view or limited access to defendant's yard,
  nor were any "no trespassing" signs posted.  From this vantage point, the
  officer observed a marijuana plant growing on defendant's lawn.  The plant
  appeared to be well-tended and had been tied down with fishing line. 
  Before they could locate any other plants, the officer and the informant
  left the area to avoid being seen by someone driving up defendant's
  driveway.  While driving back to the police station along the public
  highway, which passes approximately twenty to twenty-five yards from
  defendant's yard, the officer saw the marijuana plant from the road.

       Later that day, the officer prepared a search warrant affidavit.  In
  his affidavit, the officer did not mention the first search in which he
  failed to locate any marijuana plants.  On September 18, 1996, a warrant
  was issued.  On September 20, 1996, officers searched defendant's residence
  and found three marijuana plants in his yard as well as marijuana and drug
  paraphernalia in his home.  Defendant was charged with unlawful possession
  of marijuana in violation of 18 V.S.A. § 4230(a)(2).  He moved to suppress
  the evidence seized under authority of the search warrant.  The trial court
  denied the motion, finding that the officer and informant did not enter the
  curtilage of defendant's property.  Defendant appeals this ruling.

  

                                     I.

       Defendant contends that the officer violated both the Fourth Amendment
  of the United States Constitution and Article 11 of Chapter I of the
  Vermont Constitution by initially entering the property without a warrant. 
  The Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to permit warrantless entry onto
  "open fields," or areas outside of the curtilage where there is no
  reasonable expectation of privacy.  See Oliver v. United States,