Title: State v. Siergiey

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. 87-430


State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

     v.                                      On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Edward J. Siergiey                           Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

                                             January Term, 1990



Frank G. Mahady, J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and David E. Tartter, Assistant
   Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

Walter M. Morris, Jr., Defender General, William A. Nelson and Henry Hinton,
   Appellate Defenders, and Sheila D'Amico, Law Clerk (On the Brief),
   Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.


     PECK, J.   Defendant appeals his convictions of operating a motor
vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of 23
V.S.A. { 1201(a)(2), and driving while his license to operate was suspended,
contrary to the provisions of 23 V.S.A. { 674.  His appeal rests on three
claims: that the initial stop by the police that led to the charges was
unlawful; that certain testimony by the arresting officer was improperly
admitted at trial; and that the prosecutor's closing argument included facts
not in evidence.  We affirm.


                                    I.
     Defendant first claims that the police officer's "stop" of his car
violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution, in that
it was not based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a violation
of the motor vehicle laws was taking place.  See State v. Boardman, 148 Vt.
229, 231,