Title: State v. Platt

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
   that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.
 
 
                                   No. 89-130
 
 
   State of Vermont                             Supreme Court
 
        v.                                      On Appeal from
                                                District Court of Vermont,
   David Platt, Jr.                             Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit
 
                                                October Term, 1989
 
   Robert Grussing III, J.
 
   Dan M. Davis, Windham County State's Attorney, and Karen E. Russell, Deputy
       State's Attorney, Brattleboro, for plaintiff-appellant
 
   Hedy A. Harris, Brattleboro, and Kenneth J. Fishman of Bailey & Fishman,
      Boston, Massachusetts, for defendant-appellee
 
 
   PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Peck, Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ.
 
 
        GIBSON, J.   Appellant State of Vermont, by interlocutory appeal,
   seeks reversal of a pretrial order suppressing evidence obtained from
   defendant's automobile, which had been seized without a warrant pursuant to
   a murder investigation.  We reverse and remand the case to the trial court
   for further proceedings.
                                       I.
        In February of 1987, the Vermont state police became involved in the
   investigation of a homicide when the New Hampshire state police, who had
   found an unidentified body in a rest area in that state, linked the victim
   to a residence in Vermont.  Based on information supplied by two informants,
   the police suspected that defendant and another individual had committed the
   homicide.  On March 16, 1987, the two suspects, having learned of police
   suspicions, left Vermont and headed for New York.  The police searched
   defendant's room that same day with the consent of his landlord, and on the
   three subsequent days pursuant to two warrants.  The second warrant, issued
   on March 19, was partly predicated on new information provided by another
   informant, who, after previous denials, confessed that he himself had acted
   as a lookout while defendant and another individual committed the crime.
        On that same day, an arrest warrant was issued for defendant and the
   other suspect, and the Vermont police sent out a teletype to other
   jurisdictions, including Massachusetts, requesting that authorities arrest
   the suspects and hold their vehicle.  No warrant was issued for the search
   or seizure of the vehicle.  Having been informed that defendant's car may
   have been left in Greenfield, Massachusetts, the Vermont police telephoned
   the Massachusetts state police on March 20 and asked them to look for the
   car there.
        The Massachusetts police located the car legally parked in a large
   parking lot in an open mall and seized the vehicle without searching it and
   without knowing whether Vermont had a warrant to seize it.  Relying on the
   fact that Massachusetts law permitted them to seize a vehicle without a
   warrant if there were probable cause that it was connected to a homicide,
   the police seized defendant's car based solely on the assertion by the
   Vermont police that it could contain evidence of a homicide.  The car was
   transported to Brattleboro, where, on March 24, the Vermont police obtained
   a search warrant and then proceeded to search the car for the first time.
   Meanwhile, also on March 24, the two suspects were arrested in New York
   City.
        Defendant was arraigned on April 14, 1987 on a charge of first-degree
   murder.  On December 28, 1988, after an evidentiary hearing on pretrial
   motions, the district court granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence
   seized from the car.  The court concluded that a warrantless seizure of an
   automobile required both probable cause and exigent circumstances, and that
   exigent circumstances were not present in the instant case; accordingly, the
   court ordered that all evidence obtained from the subsequent search be
   suppressed as "tainted fruit of the poisonous tree."  The State appeals from
   this order, claiming that (1) the warrantless seizure of the car was valid
   because the defendant had abandoned the car, (2) the warrantless seizure was
   proper under the "automobile exception," and (3) the search of the car
   pursuant to warrant was valid because the warrant was based on information
   wholly independent of any evidence that might have been illegally seized.
        We conclude that, although the evidence does not support a finding of
   abandonment, the warrantless seizure and subsequent authorized search of
   defendant's car were proper under both the United States and the Vermont
   Constitutions; accordingly, evidence obtained as a result thereof is
   admissible at defendant's trial.
                                       II.
        Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution provides:
               That the people have a right to hold themselves, their
             houses, papers, and possessions, free from search or
             seizure; and therefore warrants, without oath or affirm-
             ation first made, affording sufficient foundation for
             them, and whereby by any officer or messenger may be
             commanded or required to search suspected places, or to
             seize any person or persons, his, her or their property,
             not particularly described, are contrary to that right,
             and ought not to be granted.
Although Article 11 generally requires that a warrant be obtained before an
official search or seizure, "it does not contemplate an absolute prohibition
on warrantless searches and seizures."  State v. Jewett, 148 Vt. 324, 328,