Title: State v. Defranceaux

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Defranceaux (98-210); 170 Vt. 561; 743 A.2d 1074

[Filed 28-Oct-1999]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 98-210

                               JUNE TERM, 1999

State of Vermont                       }	APPEALED FROM:
	                               }
	                               }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
	                               }	Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit
Carter Defranceaux	               }
	                               }	DOCKET NO. 148-2-96 Cacr

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant appeals from a conviction for possession of marijuana,
  pursuant to a conditional  plea under which he may appeal the denial of a
  motion to suppress certain evidence gathered  pursuant to a search warrant. 
  We affirm.

       The facts are not in dispute.  On June 12, 1995, an employee of Mail
  Boxes, Etc., in  Tucson, Arizona, contacted the local police narcotics
  squad to investigate two suspicious  packages to be delivered to Vermont. 
  The packages were opened pursuant to a policy of Mail  Boxes, Etc.  A
  Tucson officer responded and took the packages.  Believing them to contain 
  contraband, the officer contacted police in Vermont and eventually
  communicated with the  Vermont State Police.  The officer told the trooper
  that each package contained a white, five-gallon, plastic bucket in which
  there was a large bundle of marijuana wrapped in duct tape, and  that the
  total weight of the marijuana was about twenty pounds. The officer also
  indicated that  the return address was fictitious and that the listed
  sender was "T-SHIRT DESIGN AND  COLOR," a business that could not be
  located by Tucson directory assistance.  The listed  contents of the
  package were t-shirts and dye.  The officer took a sample of the marijuana
  and  photographed the packages before sending them to Vermont.

       The addressee of the packages was Jason Marshall of RD#3, Box 83A, St.
  Johnsbury,  Vermont.  The trooper investigated but could not find a mailbox
  identified as 83A.  The  packages arrived at the state police barracks on
  June 14, and troopers, posing as UPS carriers,  attempted a delivery on
  June 15.  By that time, a formerly unmarked mailbox was marked as  Box 83A,
  and the troopers delivered to the house corresponding to the mailbox.  When
  the  troopers knocked, defendant answered and indicated he would sign for
  Jason Marshall, who was  not there at the time.  The troopers noted that
  defendant was "very nervous" but appeared glad to  receive the packages.

 

       The troopers left a surveillance team on the road from the house and
  drove away.  Shortly  thereafter, the surveillance team indicated that a
  truck was leaving the house.  Troopers stopped  the truck, which contained
  defendant and one other person, and returned with it to the house.  
  Meanwhile, the delivery troopers returned to the house and entered it,
  determining that the  packages were within the house, unopened.

       Based on the above information, the investigating trooper obtained a
  search warrant for the  house and the truck.  Marijuana, in addition to
  that shipped, was found in the house and in the  truck.  Defendant moved to
  suppress the fruits of the search on four main theories: (1) the  affidavit
  in support of the warrant application was insufficient to establish
  probable cause because  it did not show how the substance in the package
  was identified as marijuana; (2) the affidavit  was based on information
  gathered in the initial, unwarranted search of the house by the delivery 
  troopers, and that search was unlawful; (3) the description of items to be
  searched for was over-broad; and (4) the search warrant did not authorize
  a search for the marijuana delivered to the  house or for other contraband. 
  The district court rejected each of these contentions, and  defendant
  renews them on appeal.

       The standard for probable cause for a search is whether "a person of
  reasonable caution  would conclude that a crime has been committed and that
  evidence of the crime will be found in  the place to be searched."  State
  v. Platt, 154 Vt. 179, 185, 574 A.2d 789, 793 (1990).   Affidavits in
  support of probable cause "must be viewed in a common sense manner and not
  be  subject to hyper-technical scrutiny."  State v. Ballou, 148 Vt. 427,
  434,