Title: Stevens v. Stearns

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Stevens v. Stearns (2002-077); 175 Vt. 428; 833 A.2d 835

2003 VT 74

[Filed 01-Aug-2003]

       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.

                                 2003 VT 74

                                No. 2002-077

  Peggy Stevens and Doreen Jarvis	         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Windsor Superior Court

  Theodore R. Stearns, et al.	                 November Term, 2002

  Stephen B. Martin, J.

  Franz P. Frechette of Frechette Law Office, PLLC, Brattleboro, and
    Gary H. Schall, Tunbridge, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Mark J. Patane,
    Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for Defendants-Appellees.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse (FN1) and Johnson, JJ., and Carroll,
            Supr. J., Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  AMESTOY, C.J.  This case stems from defendants' unannounced
  inspection of plaintiffs' property, conducted pursuant to the terms of a
  probation order that had allegedly expired.  Plaintiffs initially sought
  relief against defendants in federal court and then filed the instant
  action, raising various tort and constitutional claims.  The trial court
  granted summary judgment for defendants, finding them entitled to immunity
  after giving preclusive effect to the federal court's determination that
  defendants had performed discretionary acts in an "objectively reasonable"
  manner.  Plaintiffs argue that issue preclusion is inappropriate here
  because the standard for establishing qualified immunity in cases involving
  alleged violations of Chapter I, Article Eleven of the Vermont Constitution
  should be more stringent than those cases involving qualified immunity for
  alleged Fourth Amendment violations brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  We
  affirm. 

       ¶  2.  After ninety-two animals were seized from her property,
  plaintiff Peggy Stevens was charged with multiple counts of animal cruelty. 
  She was convicted of one count and sentenced on April 18, 1996 to three to
  six months, suspended, with a stipulated year's probation.  Stevens'
  probation order required that she allow unannounced inspections of her
  property, and it contained the parties' stipulation that probation would
  last one year.  The order also stated that Stevens would remain on
  probation "until further order of the Court."  Stevens did not sign the
  order until August 6, 1996.

       ¶  3.  On July 11, 1997, Probation Officer Theodore Stearns conducted
  an unannounced inspection of Stevens' property.  Defendants Susan Skaskiw,
  Linda Noiseux, and Pat Audsley, humane society volunteers, accompanied
  Officer Stearns and acted under his authority.  Over Stevens' objections,
  defendants inspected her home and the surrounding premises, including the
  room in which plaintiff Doreen Jarvis was living.  Officer Stearns noted
  several probation violations, which the State declined to prosecute.  On
  July 28, 1997, the district court ostensibly discharged Stevens from
  probation.  
   
       ¶  4.  In April 1998, Stevens and Jarvis filed suit in state court
  against defendants Stearns, Skaskiw, Noiseux, Audsley, William Eck, Jr.,
  the Department of Corrections, and the State, seeking damages under 42
  U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment of the United
  States Constitution, and asserting state law claims for invasion of
  privacy, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach
  of contract, and gross misconduct.  The case was subsequently removed to
  federal court. 

       ¶  5.  In June 1999, the federal district court dismissed plaintiffs'
  state law claims without prejudice and granted defendants' motion for
  summary judgment.  The court found the individual defendants entitled to
  qualified immunity after applying the objective good faith test enunciated
  in Harlow v. Fitzgerald,