Title: State v. Coburn

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Coburn  (95-537); 165 Vt 318; 683 A.2d 1343

[Opinion Filed 12-Jul-1996]


       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. 95-537


State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            District Court of Vermont
                                                  Unit No. 3, Orange Circuit

William C. Coburn                                 April Term, 1996


Marilyn S. Skoglund, J.

       Lamar Enzor, Rutland County Deputy State's Attorney, Rutland, for
  plaintiff-appellee

       Matthew I. Levine of Griffin & Levine, White River Junction, for
  defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



       ALLEN, C.J.   Defendant entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere
  to a charge of possessing marijuana (18 V.S.A. § 4230(a)(3) and 13 V.S.A. §
  9) and appeals the Orange District Court's denial of his motion to suppress
  evidence.  We affirm.

       On August 6, 1994, defendant arrived at the John F. Kennedy
  International Airport in New York City on an Air Jamaica flight, direct
  from Jamaica, W.I.  Traveling with him were two suitcases, each with an
  airline identification tag, and one with the name of "Bill Coburn" and a
  Randolph, Vermont address.  A narcotics dog on the tarmac alerted United
  States Customs Officer Mesmore to one of defendant's suitcases as luggage
  was loaded on a conveyor belt leading to the terminal baggage claim area. 
  Officer Mesmore removed that suitcase from the conveyor belt; defendant's
  second suitcase continued inside on the conveyor belt.  Inside the terminal
  baggage claim area, another narcotics dog alerted Customs Officer Strasser
  to defendant's second suitcase as it was sitting next to the conveyor belt
  inside the terminal.

       When all of the passengers had cleared the baggage claim area, both
  suitcases were delivered to Customs Inspector Irwin, who asked Air Jamaica
  officials to open the suitcases.

 

  Inspector Irwin noticed a strong odor of glue when one of the suitcases was
  opened.  He removed the liner from the suitcase and discovered a number of
  bags, wrapped in opaque brown tape, secured to the inside perimeter of the
  suitcase.  A small sample was taken from a bag and field tested; the test
  was positive for marijuana.  Inspector Irwin replaced all of the items in
  the suitcase, including the bags of marijuana, and transferred custody of
  the suitcases to Customs Agent Michael.  Because federal authorities were
  not interested in pursuing criminal charges against defendant, Agent
  Michael telephoned Customs Agent Lussier in Burlington.  Agent Lussier was
  instructed to contact Vermont State Police about possible state prosecution
  of defendant.

       Agent Michael removed the packets of marijuana from the  suitcase in
  which they were found, placed them in a box, and sealed the box as
  evidence.  He then emptied that suitcase and put all of the clothing and
  other personal items into the second suitcase.  He delivered the sealed
  evidence box containing the marijuana to the evidence custodian for Customs
  at the JFK Airport. Agent Michael delivered the other suitcase containing
  defendant's clothing and other personal items to an Air Jamaica
  representative.

       A person subsequently telephoned Air Jamaica on behalf of defendant
  requesting the suitcases.  On August 9, 1994, Agent Michael personally
  delivered both suitcases and the sealed evidence box to Agent Lussier in
  Burlington.

       Agent Lussier delivered custody of the three items to Vermont State
  Police Detective Cucinelli, who photographed the insides of both suitcases
  and examined their contents.  He then placed all of the bags of marijuana
  into the empty suitcase; defendant's clothing and other personal items
  remained in the other suitcase.  He closed both suitcases and placed them
  in the evidence locker at the Williston Barracks.

       Detective Cucinelli removed the suitcases on August 10, 1994, and
  transported them to the Vermont State Police Laboratory for fingerprinting
  and drug analysis.  A drug analysis was performed, which was positive for
  the presence of marijuana.  At no time was a warrant obtained for any of
  the searches or testing by either Customs officials or the Vermont State

 

   Police.

       After the laboratory tests were completed, Detective Cucinelli made a
  controlled delivery to defendant, who was immediately arrested.  The next
  day the suitcases were again delivered to the Vermont State Police
  Laboratory for further testing, again without a warrant.

       Defendant was charged with possession of marijuana and entered his
  nolo plea, subject to the trial court's ruling on his motion to suppress
  evidence.  The court denied his motion, and the present appeal followed.

                                I.

       Defendant concedes the legality of the canine sniff of his luggage at
  JFK airport.  He argues, however, that this initially lawful search of his
  luggage became unlawful when Customs officials, and later the Vermont State
  Police, opened his luggage and examined the contents without a warrant.  He
  also argues that the initially lawful seizure of his luggage became
  unlawful when Customs officials and Vermont police retained his luggage for
  five days and when his luggage was transferred from one jurisdiction to
  another, all without a warrant.

       Defendant first contends that the Customs agents should have obtained
  a warrant to open his luggage and examine its contents after the canine
  sniff indicated the presence of illegal drugs. Defendant's argument is
  contrary to United States Supreme Court precedent.  When persons enter the
  United States at a border crossing, a routine search of those persons and
  their belongings without reasonable suspicion or probable cause and without
  a warrant is per se reasonable.  United States v. Montoya de Hernandez,