Title: State v. Beresford

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 88-248


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
John Beresford                               Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

                                             Special January Term, 1990



Alden T. Bryan, J.   (suppression hearing)
George T. Costes, J. (trial)

Thomas M. Kelly, Drug Prosecutor, Department of State's Attorneys,
   Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

Mikell & Mikell, P.C., Burlington, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


      GIBSON, J.   Defendant appeals from his conviction of possession of a
regulated drug, claiming the court erred in denying his motion to suppress
evidence obtained without consent or warrant from inside a small zipped
shaving kit found at the scene of a traffic accident.  We reverse.
     On May 22, 1987, defendant and a passenger were driving north on Route
116 at a speed of fifty to sixty miles per hour when defendant lost control
of his pickup truck.  The truck overturned and landed on its rooftop off
the the west side of the highway.  Shortly after the accident, while state
police were interviewing defendant, a fireman led a police officer to a
shaving kit he had found near the overturned truck.  The kit was
approximately twenty to twenty-five feet from the truck, lying beside a
telephone pole that was between the truck and the highway.  The kit was
visible from the truck but not the road.  Other debris from the truck was
scattered some fifteen feet east of the telephone pole thirty-five to forty
feet from the truck.  Without determining whether the shaving kit belonged
to the occupants of the truck, the officer unzipped the kit and found two
plastic baggies containing psychoactive mushrooms.  At trial, the officer
testified that he unzipped the kit to "determine if there was anything that
could hurt anybody around the area" and to "check[] for any intoxicants that
were in the bag."  Believing that the baggies contained an illegal
substance, the officer presented them to defendant, who initially denied,
but later admitted, owning them.
     At the suppression hearing, the court made the following findings:
            Well, I find the property was by the pole twenty-five
          feet from the car that overturned after the accident,
          the Defendant was apparently one of the operators.
          There was a simple shaving kit type bag . . . apparently
          in no one's custody. . . .  There's no showing that the
          property was owned by anyone in particular at the time
          the officer came upon it.  He picked it up, looked
          inside.  I see no impediment to that.  No showing that
          the Defendant had any particular expectation of privacy
          or that he had any control over it at that point, just
          left it there.

At trial, the court found as follows:

            The Court will deny the suppression.  The bag was
          between 20 and 25 feet from the highway and appears to
          be on the other side of the pole where it wasn't
          visible from the highway by passersby, and the bag was
          there and the officer also tried to find out who it was
          -- who owned it; looked for identification, looked for
          whatever [] might be in it.  Might be something harmful
          to persons or people or -- and it was investigatory,
          investigation taking place by the police officer. . . .

            Looked like there is some evidence it belonged to the
          defendant and the operator of the vehicle, so we'll
          confirm the denial [of] the motion to suppress . . . .
     Both at the suppression hearing and at trial, the court appears to have
based denial of defendant's motion on the fact that the bag had been
abandoned, although it is unclear whether either court placed the burden of
establishing abandonment on the State.  Assuming the State was obligated to
prove abandonment by a preponderance of the evidence as opposed to some
higher standard, compare United States v. Levasseur,