Title: State v. Nault

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Nault (2005-103); 180 Vt. 567; 908 A.2d 408

2006 VT 42

[Filed 12-May-2006]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 09-Jun-2006]

[Motion to Stay Mandate Denied 19-Jul-2006]


                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2006 VT 42

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2005-103

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2005

  State of Vermont                    }          APPEALED FROM:
                                      }
                                      }
       v.                             }          District Court of Vermont,
                                      }          Unit No. 3, Orleans Circuit
  Dennis Nault                        }
                                      }          DOCKET NOS. 593-11-04 Oscr
                                                             82-11-04 Oscs

                                                 Trial Judge:  Dennis R. Pearson

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Defendant Dennis Nault appeals the district court decisions
  denying his motion to suppress evidence he maintains was acquired as a
  result of an illegal traffic stop and entering judgment for the State in
  defendant's civil license suspension proceeding.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  At around 9:45 p.m. on October 30, 2004, Chief Paul Duquette of
  the Newport Police Department was on patrol in an unmarked police cruiser. 
  He was accompanied by a prospective employee who was a police officer in
  another state (FN1) and was in the cruiser for a "ride along."  While
  driving along Derby Road, Chief Duquette noticed a car parked in a farm
  stand parking lot; the farm stand was closed for the season.  He also
  observed an occupant in the driver's seat.  He pulled his cruiser along the
  side of the parked vehicle and stopped it at an angle about ten to twelve
  feet away.  He left the headlights of the unmarked cruiser on, but did not
  activate its blue flashing lights.  He exited the cruiser, taking a
  flashlight with him.  His gun was holstered, and he was dressed in civilian
  clothes.  The prospective employee was wearing a dark blue sweatshirt which
  "said something like 'Montague Police' across the back."  The trial court
  concluded that the prospective employee "took a 'back up' position about
  8-10 feet behind Duquette, also on the driver's side of the parked car." 

       ¶  3.  Chief Duquette approached the driver side window of
  defendant's car and illuminated the interior with his flashlight.  He
  noticed defendant asleep in the driver's seat, with his head back against
  the head rest.  He recognized defendant from past personal experience.  He
  tapped a few times on the glass window in attempts to wake defendant from
  his sleep, and eventually defendant woke up.  Chief Duquette then told
  defendant to "open the door."  Defendant complied and opened the door. 
  Chief Duquette did not order defendant to exit the vehicle at that time. 
   
       ¶  4.  When defendant opened his door, Chief Duquette smelled a
  heavy odor of alcohol and saw an open can of Michelob Light beer next to
  defendant.  Defendant's eyes appeared bloodshot and watery.  The Chief then
  asked defendant if he knew where he was, to which defendant replied that he
  was "in my driveway."  Defendant's speech was slurred, and he was mumbling. 
  Chief Duquette suspected defendant was intoxicated and had been in control
  of his vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.  He
  radioed for police back-up.  When he told defendant what he was doing,
  defendant started up the car.  Chief Duquette immediately ordered defendant
  to turn off the car and hand over the keys, which defendant did.  About two
  minutes later, the second patrol car arrived and parked "directly behind
  Defendant's vehicle, blocking him in."  Officers subsequently asked
  defendant to perform field sobriety tests, which he failed.  Ultimately,
  defendant was taken back to police headquarters for processing for a
  violation of  23 V.S.A. § 1201(a) (DUI), and for refusal to provide a
  breath sample, 23 V.S.A. § 1205(a).

       ¶  5.  On appeal, defendant argues that two essential findings of
  fact by the trial court are clearly erroneous, and that the trial court
  erred in concluding that no seizure had occurred when law enforcement
  officers approached his car and asked him to open the door.  Defendant
  claims that all evidence obtained as a result of the illegal seizure should
  be suppressed.  

       ¶  6.  The first finding defendant contests is the finding that the
  prospective employee was positioned next to defendant's vehicle during
  defendant's interaction with the Chief, as opposed to behind the vehicle as
  defendant contends.  The trial court found that:

    Without discussion from or direction from Duquette, [the
    prospective employee] exited the cruiser and took a "back up"
    position about 8-10 feet behind Duquette, also on the driver's
    side of the parked car.  There is no evidence she said anything,
    or did anything more than just stand there and observe.

  Defendant's second issue is with the trial court's finding of the point at
  which Chief Duquette decided defendant was not free to leave.  The trial
  court found:

    Chief Duquette did not make the determination in his own mind that
    Defendant would not be "free" to drive away[] until after Nault
    had woken up and the Chief observed the strong smell of alcohol,
    and Defendant's bloodshot eyes, mumbled speech and impaired motor
    skills.
 
       ¶  7.  On appeal from a denial of a motion to suppress, this Court
  applies a deferential standard of review to the trial court's finding of
  facts.  State v. Rheaume, 2005 VT 106, ¶ 6, 16 Vt. L. Wk. 278,