Title: State v. Schofner

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Schofner (99-541); 174 Vt. 430; 800 A.2d 1072

[Filed 02-May-2002]


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 1999-541

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2000


State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit
Cindy L. Schofner	               }
Peter C. Tripp	                       }	DOCKET NOS. 575 & 581-6-99 Cacr


             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


       The State appeals, pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7403, from an order of the
  Caledonia District Court  suppressing evidence of marijuana cultivation and
  possession seized with a warrant.  The court  concluded that the
  information supporting the warrant, discovered by town listers during a
  site visit,  was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the
  United States Constitution.  We do not  decide whether the listers were
  lawfully on defendants' land.  We conclude that whether or not the  listers
  were on defendants' property lawfully, the evidence of defendants'
  possession of marijuana  plants and drug paraphernalia is admissible in
  this criminal proceeding. (FN1)  Accordingly, we  reverse and remand.

       In May 1999, two tax listers for the town of Walden were examining
  property for appraisal  purposes.  While conducting this appraisal, they
  noticed a new addition on the neighboring house,  which belonged to
  defendant.  The addition had not been part of defendants' property
  appraisal in the  past.  To determine the value of the addition, the
  listers entered defendants' property and 

 

  proceeded to the house.  They knocked on the front door, but found that no
  one was home.  They  then walked around the perimeter of the house and
  measured the size of the addition.  During her  observation of the external
  dimensions of the house, one of the listers saw eighteen potted marijuana 
  plants on a short, stone walkway about fifteen feet from a basement door. 
  She reported her findings  to the state police, who obtained a warrant to
  search defendants' house based on her observation of  the marijuana plants.
  The search revealed twenty-three marijuana plants and other drug 
  paraphernalia.

       Defendants were charged by information with felony marijuana
  cultivation in violation of 18  V.S.A. § 4230(a)(3), and misdemeanor
  possession of marijuana in violation of 18 V.S.A.  § 4230(a)(1).  Pursuant
  to V.R.Cr.P 41(f), defendants moved that the court suppress all evidence 
  obtained pursuant to the search warrant.  They argued that the warrantless
  entry onto their property  by the listers was an unreasonable search by a
  government official and violated the Fourth  Amendment to the United States
  Constitution and Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution.  The
  court granted the motion, and the State appeals.  On appeal, the State
  argues that: (1) the actions  of the town lister do not trigger the
  protections of the Fourth Amendment; and (2) even if the Fourth  Amendment
  is triggered, the lister's actions were reasonable.  We consider the first
  issue raised by  the State.  Because of our resolution of the first issue,
  we do not reach the second issue.

       The Fourth Amendment to United States Constitution states that "[t]he
  right of the people to  be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
  effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,  shall not be
  violated."  U.S. Const. amend. IV.  The Fourth Amendment is, of course,
  applicable to  the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.  The basic
  purpose of the Fourth Amendment is "to  safeguard the privacy and security
  of individuals against arbitrary invasions by government  officials." 
  Camara v. Municipal Court,