Title: State v. Mountford

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Mountford (98-540); 171 Vt. 487; 769 A.2d 639 

[Filed 29-Dec-2000]

       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. 1998-540

State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit

Joseph W. Mountford	                         May Term, 1999

Mary Miles Teachout and Alan W. Cook, JJ.

Dale O. Gray, Caledonia County State's Attorney, and Alan M. Singer, Deputy 
  State's Attorney, St. Johnsbury, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David C. Sleigh of Sleigh & Williams, St. Johnsbury, for defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       DOOLEY, J.   Defendant Joseph Mountford appeals from a judgment
  entered in the  Caledonia District Court on his conditional plea of guilty
  to a charge of possession of alcohol by a  minor in violation of 7 V.S.A. §
  657.  Summoned by an early morning complaint of a loud party at 
  defendant's home, police arrived to find the premises in disarray and
  defendant visible through a  window, apparently watching television.  When
  defendant ignored their entreaties, the police entered  without a warrant. 
  Defendant now challenges the district court's refusal to suppress the
  evidence  thereby acquired.  We conclude that the police were justified in
  entering the premises on an  emergency basis, but cannot determine from the
  record the subjective motive for their entry or  whether they exceeded the
  scope of constitutionally permissible activity.  Accordingly, we remand 
  the matter for further evidence and fact finding.

       After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court made the
  following findings.  Early  in the morning of March 15, 1998, the state
  police received a call from a resident of Lyndonville  complaining of a
  loud party next door at a residence to which state police had been summoned
  twice 

 

  before.  The two officers who responded found no party in progress when
  they arrived, but they did  notice beer cans and bottles strewn upon the
  lawn and front porch.  They proceeded to the front  porch and found the
  front door of the home open, the storm door closed and the glass in the
  upper  portion of the storm door  broken.  Through the door they observed
  that beer bottles and other debris  were strewn about the kitchen and that
  a telephone appeared to have been torn from the wall.  They  knocked on the
  door and announced themselves, receiving no response.  The officers then
  looked  through a window with a view into the living room and observed
  defendant seated on a couch and  staring at a television.  The officers
  sought to attract defendant's attention, first by shouting and  knocking
  and then by shining their flashlights through the window into defendant's
  eyes.  Defendant  was unresponsive.  The officers resumed knocking on the
  front door.

       At this point, defendant stood and walked toward another room.  He
  walked directly into a  wall, stumbled backward and then stumbled into the
  other room, disappearing from the officers'  sight.  The officers resumed
  knocking and announcing their presence.  Again receiving no response,  and
  believing that defendant was extremely intoxicated and/or in need of
  medical attention, the  officers entered the home and found defendant
  seated on the couch.  They questioned defendant and  learned that he was
  nineteen years of age, that he had been drinking, and that others had been
  present  but had left.  During the questioning, the troopers saw several
  more beer bottles and "illicit drug  paraphernalia" scattered about the
  residence.  One hour after they first arrived, they administered a  breath
  test to defendant and found that he had a BAC of .211.  They released him
  into the custody of  a roommate who arrived, after first giving him a
  citation to appear to answer a charge of possession  of alcohol by a minor. 

       Defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained by the officers as a
  result of their  warrantless entry into his home.  The district court
  conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied  defendant's motion based on
  the so-called "community caretaking" exception to the constitutional 
  requirement of a search warrant.  See Cady v. Dombrowski,