Title: State v. Geraw

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Geraw (2000-459); 173 Vt. 350; 795 A.2d 1219

[Filed 15-Mar-2002]

       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. 2000-459

State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

John E. Geraw	                                 October Term, 2001 

Linda Levitt (motion to suppress) and Michael S. Kupersmith (motion for 
  permission to appeal), JJ.

Lauren Bowerman, Chittenden County State's Attorney, and Pamela Hall Johnson, 
  Deputy State's Attorney, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

E.M. Allen of Stetler Allen & Kampmann, Burlington, for Defendant-Appellee.

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

       JOHNSON, J.   The question presented is whether Vermont citizens must
  accept the risk  that police interviews in the privacy of their home are
  being secretly recorded without the protection  of a judicially authorized
  warrant. We conclude that Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont 
  Constitution prohibits such secret recording.  Accordingly, we affirm the
  order of the Chittenden  District Court granting defendant's motion to
  suppress.

       The material facts are few and undisputed. On April 17, 2000, two
  police detectives  interviewed defendant at his residence in Essex
  Junction.  The detectives were investigating an  allegation that defendant
  had engaged in sexual acts with a foster child.  The officers identified 
  themselves, and defendant  invited them into his residence.  They sat down
  at defendant's kitchen 

 

  table, where the officers interviewed defendant about his relationship with
  the minor.  Unbeknownst  to defendant, the officers secretly tape recorded
  the conversation.

       Defendant was later charged with one count of sexual assault of a
  minor, in violation of 13  V.S.A. § 3252(b)(1).  He moved to suppress the
  audio recording of the interview, alleging that it was  unlawfully obtained
  without a warrant, in violation of Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont 
  Constitution. (FN1)  Following a hearing, the trial court issued a written
  decision and order, granting  the motion.  The court concluded that
  defendant enjoyed a reasonable expectation that a conversation  in the
  privacy of his home would not be secretly recorded, and therefore that the
  recording  violated  his fundamental right to privacy under Article 11 and
  must be suppressed.  The trial court  subsequently granted, and this Court
  accepted, the State's request for an interlocutory appeal.

       In reviewing the trial court's ruling, we benefit from a series of
  decisions over the last two  decades dealing with the requisite standards
  and permissible scope of searches and seizures under  Article 11.  We begin
  with the fundamental proposition that, as stated in State v. Jewett, 148
  Vt. 324,  328,