Opinion ID: 1057296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Taint of Prior Illegality

Text: ¶ 20. Defendant argues that the search of his car and the backpack are tainted by the prior illegality of the unwarned custodial interrogation, and therefore, the fruits of the searches must be suppressed. This argument depends on defendant's misplaced reliance on State v. Peterson, 2007 VT 24, 181 Vt. 436, 923 A.2d 585, a case in which we extended the exclusionary rule to physical evidence obtained in violation of Miranda and the Vermont Constitution's privilege against self-incrimination, Vt. Const. ch. I, art. 10. Even though such nontestimonial evidence would not be excluded under the federal Fifth Amendment, see United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630, 124 S.Ct. 2620, 159 L.Ed.2d 667 (2004), this Court determined to disallow such evidence as fruit of the poisonous tree lest investigators be induced to flout Miranda [and Article 10] when there may be physical evidence to be gained. Peterson, 2007 VT 24, ¶¶ 24-28, 181 Vt. 436, 923 A.2d 585 (quotations omitted). ¶ 21. Peterson shares many facts in common with the instant case, but is ultimately inapposite. Suspect Peterson's misadventure began with Peterson pulling his car alongside a police vehicle to initiate a conversation with a law-enforcement officer. Law-enforcement officers detected the smell of marijuana in Peterson's car, and thereafter proceeded with a roadside pat-down, which produced evidence of marijuana from Peterson's person, and inquiries that elicited Peterson's admissions of growing marijuana at home. This segued to a search of his car and house after he executed a consent-to-search form. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. At his house, the suspect was subjected to further unwarned interrogation, this time while under arrest, leading to his disclosure of twenty-seven marijuana plants growing behind his property. Id. ¶ 5. Declining to follow Patane, as explained above, we ruled to reverse the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress the twenty-seven plants last disclosed. [2] ¶ 22. Peterson is of no application here because we have already held that Miranda warnings are not necessary before law enforcement officials request consent to search. State v. Crannell, 170 Vt. 387, 393, 750 A.2d 1002, 1009 (2000), overruled on other grounds by State v. Brillon, 2008 VT 35, ¶ 14, 183 Vt. 475, 955 A.2d 1108, cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 30, 171 L.Ed.2d 932 (2008). Miranda warnings are not required because a consent request is not designed to elicit an incriminating response; the request calls for no testimonial response and thus is not an interrogation. Id. at 392-93, 750 A.2d at 1009 (citing Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301-02, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980)). Nothing in Peterson stands to the contrary because the evidence suppressed there was gained from the suspect's testimonial response to an unwarned interrogation, an entirely different situation than a consent request, where no warnings are required. The privilege against self-incrimination is simply not at issue when considering the validity of a suspect's consent to search.