Title: State v. Rheaume

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Rheaume (2004-166); 179 Vt. 39; 889 A.2d 711

2005 VT 106

[Filed 26-Aug-2005]


       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.


                                 2005 VT 106

                                No. 2004-166


  State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 3, Franklin Circuit

  Adam Rheaume	                                 April Term, 2005


  Michael S. Kupersmith, J.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and John Treadwell, Assistant
    Attorney General, Montpelier for Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Matthew F. Valerio, Defender General, Henry Hinton, Appellate Defender, and
    Dawn Matthews, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund, JJ., and 
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.),  Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.   Defendant Adam Rheaume entered a conditional
  plea of guilty to the charge of driving under the influence of intoxicating
  liquor (first offense) in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1201.  Pursuant to the
  conditional plea, defendant preserved the right to appeal solely on the
  issue of whether a law enforcement officer's warrantless entry into the
  treatment area in a hospital emergency room violated defendant's rights
  under Chapter 1, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution.  We hold that
  defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the
  hospital's emergency room treatment area.  Accordingly, we affirm the
  ruling of the trial court. 
   
       ¶  2.  On May 19, 2002, defendant was involved in a single-car
  accident in the Town of Highgate and was transported to the Northwest
  Medical Center in St. Albans for treatment of his injuries.  Rescue
  personnel at the scene of the accident informed State Trooper Jeffrey Smith
  that defendant was likely intoxicated.  Trooper Smith then proceeded to the
  nurses' station in the hospital's emergency department, where he asked for
  permission to see defendant.  The hospital's official written policy
  considers law enforcement officers to be "authorized personnel" who are
  permitted access into the emergency room as long as their presence does not
  interfere with ongoing treatment of a patient.  In addition to doctors,
  nurses, and patients, clerical staff, housekeeping staff, facilities staff,
  family, and other agencies may also be present in the emergency room area.

       ¶  3.  The nurse on duty directed Trooper Smith to the "trauma room,"
  which is located within the emergency room roughly fifteen to twenty feet
  from the nurses' station and consists of two patient beds that can be
  separated by a curtain.  The door to the trauma room was open, and Trooper
  Smith entered without asking defendant's permission.  Defendant was lying
  on a gurney.  Trooper Smith observed cuts to defendant's lip and tongue, as
  well as gauze wrapped around his bleeding hands.
   
       ¶  4.  After informing defendant of his Miranda rights, Trooper
  Smith asked defendant if he would be willing to discuss the accident. 
  Defendant refused to speak with the officer because he was in too much
  pain.  Trooper Smith then advised defendant of his rights under the implied
  consent law and asked defendant to provide a blood sample.  Defendant
  refused, and Trooper Smith then cited defendant for DUI.  At some point
  before defendant was removed from the trauma room for X-rays, he yelled out
  that he knew the officer was there to give him a DUI and that he would not
  have been drinking and driving were it not for a fight at a party he
  attended before the accident.  Defendant was not responding to any question
  by the officer when he made that exclamation.

       ¶  5.  Defendant moved to suppress his emergency room statements and
  to exclude his refusal to submit to a blood test, asserting violations of
  both Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the
  United States Constitution.  The court denied the motion.  Defendant
  entered into a plea agreement that preserved his right to appeal on
  constitutional privacy grounds, with the stipulation that he would be
  permitted to withdraw his plea if the Supreme Court reversed on appeal. 
  Defendant then filed this appeal. 

       ¶  6.  On appeal from a denial of a motion to suppress, this Court
  applies a deferential standard of review to the trial court's findings of
  fact.  State v. Lawrence, 2003 VT 68, ¶ 8, 175 Vt. 600,