Title: State v. Langlois

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

STATE_V_LANGLOIS.94-031; 164 Vt 173; 667 A.2d 46

[Filed 01-Sep-1995]

       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. 94-031


State of Vermont                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            District Court of Vermont,
                                                  Unit No. 1, Bennington Circuit

Brian D. Langlois                                 June Term, 1995


Gordon P. Black, Acting, J.

       William D. Wright, Bennington County State's Attorney, and David R.
  Fenster, Deputy State's Attorney, Bennington, for plaintiff-appellee

       Robert M. Paolini of Martin & Paolini, Barre, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       DOOLEY, J.   Following the entry of a conditional guilty plea,
  defendant Brian Langlois appeals the Bennington District Court denial of
  his motion to suppress evidence obtained in a search of his motor vehicle. 
  Defendant claims on appeal that (1) the trial court erroneously concluded
  that probable cause existed to search his vehicle without a warrant, and
  (2) defendant's consent to search a paper bag found in the vehicle was
  coerced by a misrepresentation of the police officer's power.  We need not
  address the last claim because we conclude that no probable cause existed
  to search the vehicle, and accordingly, reverse.

       On April 28, 1992, a Bennington police officer received a telephone
  call from a man who identified himself by name, but stated he was a
  stranger who would soon leave the area.  The police have never seen or
  heard from the informant since that date.  The caller told the officer that
  defendant was selling marijuana, and was currently "driving around" Main
  Street in Bennington in a 1989 grey, four-wheel-drive, GMC pick-up truck,
  and that the truck had fresh front-end damage.  He said that earlier that
  night he had seen a paper bag filled with marijuana

 

  behind the front seat of the truck.

       The officer ran a registration check on defendant and learned that he
  owned the type of truck the caller had described.  The officer had seen the
  truck recently and remembered noticing it had front-end damage.  Based on
  this information, the officer began patrolling Main Street, and when he saw
  the vehicle, he observed that no front license plate was visible.  In light
  of this fact and the tip from the caller, he stopped defendant's truck.

       The officer verified defendant's identity via his license and
  registration, and then requested that defendant step out of the vehicle. 
  After defendant exited the truck, the officer pushed the seat of the truck
  forward revealing a large paper bag.  The bag could not be seen with the
  seat in the upright position.  The officer asked defendant what was in the
  bag, and defendant responded by asking the officer if he had a warrant. 
  The officer informed defendant that he did not have a warrant, but that
  unless defendant consented to a search of the bag, the officer would seize
  the truck and then obtain a search warrant to search the truck.  Defendant
  consented to the search of the paper bag, and the officer discovered that
  it contained several individual baggies of a substance that appeared to be
  marijuana.

       Defendant was charged with possession of marijuana, 18 V.S.A. §
  4230(a)(2), and moved to suppress the bag and its contents.  Following an
  adverse ruling on the motion, he entered a guilty plea conditional on his
  right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress.  He was sentenced to
  six months to three years in prison, all but sixty days suspended.  This
  sentence was stayed pending appeal.

       Defendant claims that the search of the vehicle which revealed the bag
  was unlawful under both the Fourth Amendment to the United States
  Constitution and Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution because
  the officer lacked both a warrant and probable cause to search.  Although
  the officer was justified in stopping defendant's vehicle because the front
  license plate was not visible, see State v. Crandall, ___ Vt ___, ___,