Court Opinion

ID: 9731447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:45:59.431466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:18.207793
License: Public Domain

Allen, C.J.,
dissenting. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that arrest or continued custody would have been appropriate under the facts presented pursuant to V.R.Cr.P. 3(c)(2)(E), but believe that this conclusion requires a different result.
The officer was in possession of information indicating that defendant’s license was under suspension. Following the stop, he asked defendant to exit his vehicle while the officer performed a license check to determine whether defendant had a valid license; the officer learned from that check that the license was under suspension for failure to appear in New Hampshire. He was concerned about defendant’s ties to the community because defendant was claiming to be a Vermont resident but had a Louisiana driver’s license and was coming from Massachusetts. The officer clearly had probable cause to believe that a misdemeanor had been committed in his presence and could continue the custody of defendant for the purpose of determining whether his community ties were sufficient to assure his appearance. V.R.Cr.P. 3(c)(2)(D),(E). The officer testified that defendant was in his custody for driving with a suspended license (DLS), in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 674.
The evil that the line of cases beginning with United States v. Atkinson, 450 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1971), seeks to prevent is a sham arrest at the outset which is totally unrelated to the crime for which probable cause to arrest exists. The facts here do not suggest post-hoc justification for an otherwise invalid arrest condemned in Atkinson. It is unnecessary in this case to conduct an Atkinson inquiry as to whether the officer “could have” arrested for a related crime. The initial detention was for DLS; the continued custody was for the purpose of determining whether the Rule 3(c)(2) exceptions applied. A citation to appear was issued for both DLS and possession of marijuana, and defendant was ultimately charged with both. While the arrest *97for marijuana possession may have been unlawful, continued custody to determine whether the V.R.Cr.P. 3(c)(2) exceptions applied for the DLS offense was lawful. I would reverse.