Title: State v. Roberts

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

STATE_V_ROBERTS.91-472; 160 Vt. 385; 631 A.2d 835


 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. 91-472


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont
                                              Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit

 Richard A. Roberts                           May Term, 1992


 Theodore S. Mandeville, Jr., J.

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant
   Attorney General, Montpelier, and Theresa St. Helaire, Bennington
   County Deputy State's Attorney, Bennington, for plaintiff-appellant

 Bonnie Barnes, Middlebury, for defendant-appellee


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.   In this interlocutory appeal, the State contests the
 trial court's suppression of defendant's inculpatory statement, and
 defendant appeals the trial court's failure to suppress the fruits of a
 search of his residence, which he claims violated his rights under both the
 Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Chapter I, Article
 11 of the Vermont Constitution.  We reverse the suppression of the statement
 and affirm the trial court's conclusion that the search did not violate
 defendant's constitutional rights.
      The search was conducted at a house leased to a John Cercena.
 Defendant was not a named lessee, but resided in the house in exchange for
 services provided to Cercena.  After the rent was two months in arrears, the
 phone had been disconnected, and attempts to reach Cercena had failed, the
 agent for the lessor went to the house to investigate and found on the front
 door a notice that electrical service had been discontinued.  She and a co-
 worker entered the house and discovered approximately fifteen cats.  There
 were several large bags of cat food open on the floor, and the cats had been
 urinating and defecating in the house, creating a strong, offensive odor.  A
 sliding glass door had been left partially open to allow the cats free
 access to the house.  The agent returned to her office and again attempted
 to contact Cercena.  She left a message on his son's answering machine at
 the son's residence in New York.  After waiting several days and still not
 hearing from Cercena, she contacted local police because of her concern for
 the cats.  A police officer accompanied her to the property to see whether
 the cats' condition required the attention of the animal control officer.
      While attempting to locate the cats in the house, the officer observed
 marijuana plants drying in an upstairs bedroom.  He also discovered a
 marijuana cultivation system in the cellar.  The officer was in the house
 for a total of five or ten minutes during the initial search, and later
 obtained a search warrant based on his observations.  Pursuant to the
 warrant, police seized marijuana and other evidence.  Some of that evidence
 -- mail, a birth certificate, and bottles of prescription medicine -- linked
 defendant to the premises.
      While on routine patrol the following day, a different officer recog-
 nized defendant operating a motor vehicle.  The officer stopped the vehicle
 and arrested defendant for felony cultivation of marijuana.  On the way to
 the station, defendant volunteered that he "[d]idn't have as big a hand in
 the operation as it appeared," or words to that effect.  The officer told
 defendant to say nothing further until he was processed.  During processing
 at the station, the officer explained to defendant that he had been arrested
 for a felony, that the officer would seek bail because defendant was from
 out-of-state, that another suspect, presumably Cercena, would be arrested
 and offered an opportunity to give a statement, and that if defendant made a
 statement the judge would probably consider it when determining the amount
 of bail.  When asked whether he wished to make a statement, defendant
 replied that he needed time to think about it.  A short while later, he
 advised the officer that he did want to make a statement.  After being
 informed of his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona,