Title: State v. Sheehan

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Sheehan (99-546); 171 Vt. 642; 768 A.2d 1275 

[Filed 29-Dec-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-546

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2000

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit
George W. Sheehan	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 390-3-99 Wmcr

                                                Trial Judge: Paul F. Hudson

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant George Sheehan appeals his conviction for driving while
  under the influence of  intoxicating liquor, 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(2).   He
  argues that the district court erred in refusing to  suppress all evidence
  derived from the warrantless nighttime entry into his home by police.  We 
  affirm.

       At 8:50 p.m. on February 26, 1999, two uniformed Wilmington police
  officers responded to a  dispatch of a motor vehicle accident without
  injuries on Route 100.  At the scene, they observed a  purple Pontiac Grand
  Am at rest on the side of the snow covered road.  No operator, passengers,
  or  keys were in the car.   Through a motor vehicle inquiry, the police
  discovered that the car was  registered to defendant's wife.  A witness
  observed the car skid off the road and the operator leave  the scene.  The
  witness gave police a description of the operator and shared his belief
  that the  operator was intoxicated.  Defendant's daughter drove by the
  scene and reported that her father  regularly drove the car, although her
  mother was the registered owner.  The daughter expressed  concern for her
  father's safety.

       At approximately 10:00 p.m., the police arrived at defendant's home
  and through a window  observed a man inside matching the description of
  that given by the witness.   The officers knocked  at defendant's door,
  identified themselves, requested defendant to identify himself and asked if
  they  could come inside to talk to him.   Defendant identified himself and
  allowed the officers inside his  home responding "sure, come on in."  Once
  inside, the officers asked defendant if he was okay, and  he responded that
  he was.  The officers observed defendant's eyes to be watery, and they
  smelled the  odor of intoxicating beverages on his breath.  Defendant was
  unsteady and swaying.   The officers  inquired about defendant's activities
  earlier in the evening.  Defendant became upset and asked what  the police
  were talking about.  One officer told defendant that they had removed his
  vehicle from a  field on Route 100.  Again, defendant asked what the police
  were talking about. One officer asked  defendant what type of car he drove. 
  Defendant started to say "Pontiac"  but stopped 

 

  himself.  The officer completed the word and defendant added "grape
  colored."  The officers asked  defendant where the car was located, and he
  responded that it was in the garage. The three walked  outside the house to
  the detached garage, but the vehicle was not there.   Defendant then led
  the  officers back into the house.  After this second entry, the officers
  advised defendant of their  suspicion that he had been driving while
  intoxicated.  They asked if he had been drinking and when  he had arrived
  home.  Defendant responded that he had his last drink at around 6:30 p.m.
  and that he  had been home since 6:30 p.m.  The officers asked if they
  could perform field sobriety tests on  defendant.  Defendant refused and
  was taken into custody and processed for DUI.  He consulted with  counsel
  before supplying a breath sample of .17.

       Defendant moved to suppress all evidence derived from the warrantless
  entry and arrest in his  home contending it violated Chapter I, Article
  Eleven of the Vermont Constitution because no  exigency existed and his
  consent was obtained by misrepresentation.  The court denied the motion 
  concluding that  there was no constitutional violation as defendant
  consented to the police officers'  entry and there was no evidence that the
  consent was not voluntary.  Defendant entered a conditional  plea of
  guilty, pursuant to V.R.Cr.P. 11 (a)(2), to DUI in violation of 23 V.S.A. §
  1201 (a)(2).  

       On appeal, defendant raises two issues: (1) does Article Eleven
  prohibit a warrantless  misdemeanor arrest in the home absent exigent
  circumstances or voluntary consent; and (2) is a  suspect's consent free
  and voluntary if he is not informed of the purpose for which the police
  seek to  enter his home at ten o'clock at night.  Resolution of both issues
  turns on whether defendant's consent  was voluntary.   "[T]he inquiry in a
  consent search context is restricted to whether the consent was  voluntary,
  not whether there was a 'knowing' and 'intelligent' waiver of a
  constitutional right."    State  v. Zaccaro, 154 Vt. 83, 88, 574 A.2d 1256,
  1259 (1990) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,