Title: State v. Quigley

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Quigley (2004-165); 179 Vt. 567; 892 A.2d 211
         
2005 VT 128

[Filed 15-Dec-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 128

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-165

                              MARCH TERM, 2005

  State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }	District Court of Vermont,
       v.	                       }	Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit
                                       }	
  Jay D. Quigley	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 6072-9-02 Cncr

                                                Trial Judge: James R. Crucitti

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  The State appeals the Chittenden District Court's decision
  suppressing evidence obtained from defendant's locked bedroom during the
  execution of a warrant to search the apartment where he lived with two
  other full-time students.  The State contends that investigating officers
  reasonably believed that defendant, Jay Quigley, lived in a "communal"
  living situation, such that a single warrant generally describing the
  entire apartment justified their search of his locked bedroom.  After
  reviewing the district court's findings, and the record on which they are
  based, we conclude that the State's position is unsupported.  Therefore, we
  affirm.

       ¶  2.  On the morning of September 26, 2002, Chris Linquist summoned
  emergency personnel after finding one of his roommates unconscious and
  foaming from the mouth in the living room of their apartment.  Police
  officers Eric Bergstresser and James Goslin from the South Burlington
  Police Department arrived at the scene along with medical personnel who
  transported the individual to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. 
  Accounts from individuals who had been with the deceased during the
  previous evening led the officers to believe that alcohol and oxycontin may
  have contributed to the untimely death.  Linquist gave the police officers
  verbal consent to search the apartment.

       ¶  3.  Officers Bergstresser and Goslin, and Detective Andrew
  Chaulk, who arrived on the scene shortly after the initial responders,
  conducted a preliminary search of the apartment pursuant to Linquist's
  verbal consent.  The investigating officers found marijuana and three pipes
  used for smoking marijuana in the deceased's bedroom.  Officers also found
  marijuana in the living room of the apartment.  According to Officer
  Bergstresser's deposition testimony, the investigating officers noticed a
  third bedroom, Quigley's, during their initial search of the apartment, but
  they were unable to enter the room at that time because the door was
  locked.  At this point, the investigating officers decided to halt their
  search and apply for a search warrant because, as Detective Chaulk
  indicated in his deposition testimony, they felt that they were "starting
  to go into other people's private areas" and that Linquist's verbal consent
  to search the whole apartment "probably wouldn't stand up."  Detective
  Chaulk left the apartment to apply for a search warrant while Officer
  Goslin stayed behind to secure the scene. 
   
       ¶  4.  While the officers were applying for a search warrant,
  Quigley returned to the apartment and attempted to remove some of his
  belongings from his bedroom.  Officer Goslin limited the number of items
  Quigley took from his room and examined these items before Quigley left the
  apartment.  After Quigley departed, Detective Chaulk returned with a
  warrant to search the apartment for "[a]ny information that may assist in
  the untimely death investigation."  The investigating officers proceeded to
  search Quigley's bedroom in execution of the warrant.  Because Quigley's
  bedroom door was locked, the investigating officers had to use a pen to
  unlock the door and enter the room.  Once inside Quigley's bedroom, the
  investigating officers found cocaine in a container in the closet. 

       ¶  5.  Quigley was charged with felony possession of cocaine in
  violation of 18 V.S.A. § 4231(a)(3).  Prior to trial, Quigley moved to
  suppress all evidence the investigating officers seized during their search
  of his bedroom.  Judge Crucitti, who granted the search warrant at issue in
  this case, presided over Quigley's motion.  Quigley argued that the
  affidavit in support of the application for the search warrant failed to
  establish probable cause that evidence of a crime would be found in his
  locked bedroom.  Though the supporting affidavit specifically named
  Linquist and the deceased, it did not indicate the existence of a third
  bedroom, or that Quigley also resided in the apartment, even though the
  investigating officers were aware of these details.  The district court
  found that the affidavit failed to link Quigley or his bedroom to any
  criminal activity.  Moreover, the court found that the affidavit created
  the impression that only two individuals occupied the apartment, the
  deceased and Linquist.

       ¶  6.  The district court concluded that probable cause premised on
  a single warrant generally describing the entire apartment could not
  logically extend to Quigley's locked bedroom because the other tenants did
  not have access to that room.  The court concluded that Quigley had a
  reasonable expectation of privacy based on the fact that the door to his
  bedroom was locked.  The court drew this conclusion after considering
  inquest testimony presented as part of the motion, which indicated that
  Quigley routinely locked his bedroom door and was seldom in the apartment. 
  The court further concluded that the presence of marijuana in the living
  room of the apartment did not justify the investigating officers' search of
  Quigley's locked bedroom because nothing in the affidavit linked him to
  criminal activity and, furthermore, it was unreasonable to assume that the
  individuals mentioned in the affidavit, the deceased and Linquist, could
  have concealed evidence of a crime in an area of the apartment to which
  they did not have access.  Thus, the district court granted Quigley's
  motion to suppress the cocaine.

       ¶  7.  In reviewing the magistrate's finding of probable cause, the
  "key inquiry" is whether the affidavit provides information sufficient to
  justify the search.  State v. Cooper, 163 Vt. 44, 51,