Title: State v. Campbell

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Campbell (2001-146); 173 Vt. 575; 789 A.2d 926

[Filed 17-Dec-2001]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 04-Feb-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-146

                             NOVEMBER TERM, 2001

State of Vermont	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	District Court of Vermont,
                                       }	Unit No. 1, Windsor Circuit
Sarah B. Campbell	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 1583-10-00 Wrcr

                                                Trial Judge: Walter M. Morris

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

       Defendant Sarah Campbell appeals from the judgment entered in the
  Windsor County District  Court on her conditional plea of guilty to a
  charge of driving under the influence.  Defendant argues  that the trial
  court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained when a
  police officer  approached defendant's parked vehicle and inquired whether
  its occupants needed assistance.  We  hold that the officer acted within
  the community care taking exception to the warrant requirement  and
  accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court.

       The relevant facts are not in dispute.  On October 6, 2000, at
  approximately two a.m., an  officer of the Hartford Police Department was
  traveling west on Route 4 in a marked police cruiser.   The night was dark
  and rainy, and there were no other vehicles in the vicinity.  As the
  officer  approached the Quechee Gorge information booth, he noticed a car
  pulled off the eastbound side of  the road.  As the officer passed the
  vehicle it flashed its lights once.  Concerned that he was being  signaled
  for assistance, the officer turned his cruiser, illuminating his blue
  lights as he pulled behind  the vehicle. 

       When the officer stepped out of the cruiser, he observed two
  passengers in the vehicle who  appeared to be romantically engaged.  He
  approached the vehicle, the engine of which was running,  and tapped on the
  driver's side window with his flashlight.  Defendant was in the driver's
  seat and  rolled down the window at which point the officer smelled
  intoxicants and asked defendant whether  she had been drinking.  Defendant
  was subsequently arrested and processed for driving under the influence. 

       Defendant was arraigned and filed a motion to suppress all evidence
  derived from the stop and  seizure of her vehicle.  A hearing was held in
  Windsor County District Court on December 21, 2000,  and the trial court
  denied the motion to suppress from the bench, finding the officer's
  testimony to be  credible and concluding that given the circumstances, the
  officer's reasonable inquiry to 
                                      
 
 
  determine whether the passengers of the vehicle needed assistance was
  within the community care  taking doctrine.  On March 14, 2001, defendant
  entered a plea of guilty conditioned on this appeal. 

       The state concedes that there was a seizure in this case.  Under the
  Fourth Amendment to the  United States Constitution and Chapter I, Article
  11 of the Vermont Constitution, a seizure requires  reasonable and
  articulable suspicion that the defendant is engaged in unlawful activity. 
  State v.  Marcello, 157 Vt. 657, 658, 599 A.2d 357, 358 (1991) (mem.). 
  "This does not mean, however, that  suspicion of criminal conduct is the
  only possible justification for a seizure.  Indeed, we have  recognized in
  other contexts that a seizure can be reasonable even in the absence of such
  suspicion."   State v. Pierce, 12 Vt. L.W. 335, 336 (2001).  

       A seizure does not require suspicion of criminal conduct where police
  officers are acting   under the community care taking doctrine, "an
  essential role as public servants to 'assist those in  distress and to
  maintain and foster public safety.'"  Marcello, 157 Vt. at 658, 599 A.2d  at
  358  (quoting State v. Pinkham,