Title: State v. Lanoue

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. 88-533



State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

    v.                                       On Appeal from
                                             District Court of Vermont,
Edmund A. Lanoue                             Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit

                                             March Term, 1990


Theodore S. Mandeville, Jr., J.

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

David A. Howard, Public Defender, Bennington, for defendant-appellant



PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.



     GIBSON, J.   Defendant appeals from his conviction of operating a motor
vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of 23
V.S.A. { 1201 (a)(2).  We affirm.
     On September 17, 1987, at 12:46 a.m., an officer of the Bennington
Police Department observed defendant operating a motor vehicle. The officer
believed defendant's right to operate was under suspension, and this sus-
picion was verified by a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) computer check.
The information provided by the computer check was later found to be
incorrect.  Pursuant to 23 V.S.A. { 110, defendant's right to operate had
been suspended on August 13, 1987 for twice submitting insufficiently funded
checks to the DMV.  Although his right to operate was reinstated at 12:01
a.m. on September 17, 1987, this information was not transferred to the DMV
computer until after the stop had been made.  There is also confusion as to
whether the DMV sent notice of this suspension to defendant's proper mailing
address, and whether the DMV waived his reinstatement fee.
     Defendant timely moved for suppression of all evidence obtained as a
result of the stop, claiming that the stop violated Chapter I, Article 11,
of the Vermont Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.  The motion was denied at pretrial hearing and again at trial.
      On appeal, defendant contends that the requisite cause for an
investigative stop cannot be sustained when it is based upon incorrect
information provided by the DMV.  An after-the-fact finding that the
information was incorrect will not, however, invalidate otherwise sufficient
reasonable suspicion.  See State v. Ewoldt,