Court Opinion

ID: 9727207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:26:11.532823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:34.862031
License: Public Domain

Amestoy, C.J.,
dissenting. Contrary to the conclusion of the majority, I believe the Vermont General Assembly could reasonably exclude from consideration in a civil license suspension hearing a defendant’s challenge to the underlying motor vehicle stop, and did so in the explicit language of 23 V.S.A. § 1205(h)(1). I also believe the majority errs in deciding that application of the exclusionary rule is necessary to deter unlawful police conduct in the context of civil suspension proceedings. I therefore respectfully dissent.
As the majority correctly observes, the issues at a final civil license suspension hearing “shall be limited” to five. 23 V.S.A. § 1205(h) (emphasis added). The first of these is “whether the law enforcement officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person was operating, attempting to operate or in actual physical control of a vehicle in violation of section 1201 of this title.” Id. § 1205(h)(1). Section 1201 sets forth the prohibition against operating, attempting to operate, or physically controlling a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.
As we recently explained in State v. Pollander, 167 Vt. 301, 308, 707 A.2d 1359, 1363 (1997), “[t]he plain language of 23 V.S.A. § 1205(g)* indicates the Legislature’s intent to limit the issues that may be *38presented at a civil suspension hearing to those enumerated in the statute.” (emphasis added). We noted in this regard that the summary suspension system was created for the legitimate purpose of “protecting public safety by quickly removing ‘potentially dangerous drivers from the road.’” Id. at 307-08, 707 A.2d at 1363 (quoting State v. Strong, 158 Vt. 56, 61, 605 A.2d 510, 513 (1992)). Thus, limiting the cognizable issues at a civil suspension hearing to those specifically enumerated “serves the goals of the statute by minimizing procedural delay.” Id. at 309, 707 A.2d at 1363. Accordingly, we held in Pollander that the defendant’s attempted assertion of the necessity defense was barred by the plain language of § 1205(h), and that no further analysis of legislative intent was necessary or proper. See id.
Defendants here, as in Pollander, raised a defense in a civil suspension proceeding that was not among those enumerated in § 1205(h). They claimed in each case that the arresting officer had no reasonable and articulable suspicion that a motor vehicle violation was taking place, and hence no valid basis for the stop. See State v. Sutphin, 159 Vt. 9, 11, 614 A.2d 792, 793 (1992). Notwithstanding the absence of this issue among those set forth in § 1205(h), the majority concludes that defendants were entitled to assert the claim because “the Legislature assumed that a constitutional stop would be a necessary predicate” to finding that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant was driving while intoxicated. 171 Vt. at 23, 757 A.2d at 1020 (emphasis added).
As ably articulated in Justice Skoglund’s dissenting opinion, the majority’s conclusion does not withstand analysis. Nothing on the face of the statute or logically implicit in the text supports an assumption that the Legislature considered a legal stop to be a “necessary predicate” to a reasonable belief that a person was driving under the influence. The issue that defendants attempted to raise was whether the arresting officer had a reasonable and articulable basis to stop them for motor vehicle violations. This is an entirely different question from whether the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that defendants were operating a vehicle in violation of § 1201, i.e., while under the influence of alcohol. The former is not logically subsumed within the latter.
The majority’s construction of § 1205(h)(1) strains logic and reason. A plain reading of the statute would limit the cognizable issue in these cases to whether the officers had reasonable grounds, at the time they requested the blood alcohol tests, to believe that defendants had been driving or in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the *39influence of alcohol. And the only facts logically relevant to this issue occurred after the motor vehicle stops, when the officers observed signs of intoxication in both drivers. Expanding the scope of a suspension hearing beyond these circumstances to include claims relating to the initial motor vehicle stop adds a new category to § 1205(h) which is neither logically implied nor clearly necessary to its effective implementation. See State v. O’Neill, 165 Vt. 270, 275, 682 A.2d 943, 946 (1996) (Court must not “read into a statute something which is not there unless it is necessary in order to make the statute effective”). Indeed, a number of other courts have so concluded, interpreting similar or identical statutes to hold that the validity of the underlying motor vehicle stop lies outside the scope of issues to be determined in a civil suspension proceeding. See, e.g., Powell v. Secretary of State, 614 A.2d 1303, 1305-06 (Me. 1992); Beavers v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 851 P.2d 432, 434-35 (Nev. 1993); Commonwealth v. Wysocki, 535 A.2d 77, 79 (Pa. 1987).
Nor, apart from the statutory language, is there any overriding constitutional imperative to conclude that the Legislature must have “assumed” that a valid motor vehicle stop was a necessary predicate to a finding that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person was DUI. Although we have reserved the question whether due process rights may trump the statutory limitations of § 1205(h), see Pollander, 167 Vt. at 307 n.4, 707 A.2d at 1362 n.4, we have generally held that the exclusion of unlawfully seized evidence is not a personal constitutional right, but a judicially created remedy. See State v. Robinson, 165 Vt. 351, 354, 683 A.2d 1005, 1007 (1996); see also Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 486 (1976). But cf. State v. Oakes, 157 Vt. 171, 174, 598 A.2d 119, 121 (1991). Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has never seen fit to apply the exclusionary rule in a civil proceeding, nor — until today — has this Court. See United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 447 (1976) (noting that Supreme Court “never has applied [exclusionary rule] to exclude evidence from a civil proceeding, federal or state” and refusing to extend rule to civil tax assessment proceeding); Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1051 (1984) (declining to extend exclusionary rule to federal deportation proceeding); see also United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 351-52 (1974) (holding exclusionary rule inapplicable in grand jury proceeding). Recognizing that the exclusionary rule is designed primarily to deter unlawful police conduct, the Supreme Court has regularly applied a cost-benefit analysis in its decisions, balancing the potential deterrent effect of *40excluding unlawfully seized but reliable evidence against the resulting costs to societal interests. See Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. at 1041. This Court has applied a similar test, while emphasizing the importance of individual rights and liberties in any cost-benefit equation. See Oakes, 157 Vt. at 174, 598 A.2d at 121.
Although this Court has not previously applied such a cost-benefits analysis in the civil suspension context, other state courts have considered the issue. As the majority notes, these decisions are divided, with a significant number determining that the societal costs of excluding reliable and relevant evidence that licensed operators have driven intoxicated far outweigh the incremental deterrent effect of applying the exclusionary rule. See, e.g., Fishbein v. Kozlowski, 748 A.2d 1110, 1118-19 (Conn. 1999); Westendorf v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 400 N.W.2d 553, 557 (Iowa 1987); Powell, 614 A.2d at 1306-07; Riche v. Director of Revenue, 987 S.W.2d 331, 334-35 (Mo. 1999); Holte v. State Highway Comm’r, 436 N.W.2d 250, 252 (N.D. 1989). The reasoning of the courts in these decisions is persuasive. They conclude that the imposition of an exclusionary sanction in a civil suspension proceeding adds only marginally to its deterrent effect in the related criminal proceeding, while its costs in terms of public safety are substantial. See Fishbein, 743 A.2d at 1118-19; Westendorf, 400 N.W.2d at 557; Riche, 987 S.W.2d at 335; Powell, 614 A.2d at 1307; Holte, 436 N.W.2d at 252. As the Maine Supreme Court succinctly explained:
Because the evidence has already been excluded from the criminal proceeding, there is little additional deterrent effect on police conduct by preventing consideration of the evidence by the hearing examiner. The costs to society resulting from excluding the evidence, on the other hand, would be substantial. The purpose of administrative license suspensions is to protect the public. Because of the great danger posed by persons operating motor vehicles while intoxicated, it is very much in the public interest that such persons be removed from our highways.
Powell, 614 A.2d at 1306-07 (citation omitted).
Notwithstanding these sound and well-reasoned decisions from other states, the majority concludes that application of the exclusionary rule in the civil suspension context is “appropriate” for three reasons: (1) “to protect the core value of privacy” under the Vermont Constitution; (2) “to promote the public’s trust in the judicial system”; *41and (3) “to assure that unlawful police conduct is not encouraged.” 171 Vt. at 33, 757 A.2d at 1026-27.1 do not believe these reasons withstand scrutiny.
First, the majority notes that any cost-benefit analysis must focus on the constitutional right at stake, suggesting that the “core value of privacy” and ‘“sacred rights’” at issue here far outweigh any countervailing public interest. Id. at 33, 757 A.2d at 1027 (quoting State v. Badger, 141 Vt. 430, 452-53, 450 A.2d 336, 349 (1982)). Despite the rhetoric, the majority fails to focus on the specific interest at issue. We have repeatedly observed that privacy is a fluid concept, contingent upon the specific circumstances presented. Its scope must be determined by the “reasonable expectation of privacy in the affairs or possessions intruded upon.” State v. Morris, 165 Vt. 111, 120, 680 A.2d 90, 96 (1996). The “intrusion” in this, as in most civil suspension proceedings, consists of an ordinary traffic stop, “a temporary and brief detention that is exposed to public view.” State v. Zumbo, 157 Vt. 589, 592, 601 A.2d 986, 988 (1991). Defendants here were briefly detained and questioned. Containers from inside their vehicles were not searched without a warrant, cf. State v. Savva, 159 Vt. 75, 86-87, 616 A.2d 774, 780-81 (1991); possessions were not seized, nor confessions obtained, pursuant to coercive police questioning, cf. Badger, 141 Vt. at 440-43, 450 A.2d at 342-44; residences were not searched based on warrants lacking probable cause. Cf. Oakes, 157 Vt. at 172-73, 598 A.2d at 120. The degree of police intrusion here did not begin to approach the level in these and other decisions in which this Court has justifiably excluded illegally obtained evidence. Thus, while automobile drivers may assuredly assert the exclusionary rule in a criminal action, where substantial liberty interests are at stake, withholding that defense in a civil suspension proceeding simply does not, as the majority claims, implicate “the core value of privacy” embraced by our Constitution. 171 Vt. at 33, 757 A.2d at 1026.
This conclusion is in no way altered when one considers “the public’s trust in the judicial system,” the majority’s second ostensible reason for holding the exclusionary rule to be “appropriate” in this context. Id Recognizing that such considerations are purely speculative, I would nevertheless dispute the conclusion that reading the exclusionary rule into a statute where it does not appear in the text, rejecting the considered holdings of other states that have declined similar invitations to judicial legislation, excluding otherwise reliable evidence of intoxicated driving, and allowing inebriated drivers to return to the public highways with their licenses intact, is the way to *42inspire public trust in our judicial system. This Court has in the past recognized “the serious threat posed to public safety by the frequency with which individuals, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, continue to operate motor vehicles on the public highways.” State v. Martin, 145 Vt. 562, 568, 496 A.2d 442, 447 (1985). I respectfully suggest that Vermonters, acting through their elected representatives, could reach a similar conclusion. Therefore, to the extent relevant, fostering public trust in the judiciary clearly mandates application of the civil suspension statute as it was written, without the judicial gloss imposed by the majority.
Turning to its final reason, the majority suggests that application of the exclusionary rule is necessary to “assure that unlawful police conduct is not encouraged.” 171 Vt. at 33, 757 A.2d at 1027. Expanding on this point, the majority explains that if the exclusionary rule were not available in civil suspension proceedings, law enforcement officers would have an incentive to make investigatory stops “based on hunches or stereotypical beliefs, or for any or no reason whatsoever.” Id. at 32, 757 A.2d at 1026. The police stops in these cases and in the two pending appeals that raise similar issues, State v. Nickerson, Docket No. 98-530 and State v. Rash, Docket No. 98-531, do not provide even a remote basis for the majority’s alarm. Indeed, in none of the cases is there even a suggestion that the vehicles were stopped on the basis of “stereotypical beliefs” or “hunches.” See Nickerson (defendant, stopped at border after Canadian customs officials observed him to be visibly intoxicated, revealed BAC of .204); Rash (defendant, stopped after citizen informant reported defendant driving intoxicated and described vehicle, tested for BAC of .160). Nor is there an allegation that the defendants were unlucky intoxicated drivers caught in a web of “random stops” that also netted sober drivers. Since in each of the four cases considered the defendant had a BAC of .08 or greater at the time of the stop, one would have to suspend the laws of probability to believe — as the majority apparently does — that Vermont law enforcement officers are making investigatory stops of drivers “for any or no reason whatsoever.” 171 Vt. at 32, 757 A.2d at 1026.
Before suggesting that the exclusionary rule must be applied in this context “‘to avoid the taint of partnership in official lawlessness,”’ some showing of the “lawlessness” ought to be required. Id. at 33, 757 A.2d at 1027 (quoting Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. at 1060 (Marshall, J., dissenting)). There is no evidence of it in these cases and, in my view, it is a great disservice to law enforcement officials, and the public they *43serve, to conclude — as the majority’s exclusionary rationale must — that the potential risk of unlawful police conduct in Vermont far exceeds the actual risk of drunk driving. The majority disclaims that its holding has anything “to do with the likelihood of whether police officers will act in good faith or how often they will make illegal stops.” Id. The majority’s expressed concern over police “‘lawlessness,’” id., and “unlawful government intrusions,” id., suggests otherwise.
Finally, I take exception to the majority’s description of my rationale as one which would allow police “to briefly detain and question motorists for any or no reason at all.” Id. at 34 n.2, 757 A.2d at 1027. I assume the majority does not intend to replace accuracy with hyperbole, so I respectfully emphasize that I do not believe police can detain and question motorists for any or no reason at all. Systematic stops without particularized suspicion must adhere to the requirements of State v. Record, 150 Vt. 84, 89, 548 A.2d 422, 425 (1988) (upholding sobriety checkpoints that satisfy minimal guidelines).
It is conceivable, of course, that law enforcement officers undeterred by the exclusion of evidence in a criminal DUI proceeding would engage in a pattern of stopping motorists “for any or no reason at all” in the hope of securing evidence of intoxication for use in a civil suspension hearing. But there is nothing in the record to support the majority’s claim that affirmance of the judgments would lead to this result, or “strip Vermonters of their constitutional right to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into their private affairs.” 171 Vt. at 24 n.1, 757 A.2d at 1020 n.l. The majority does not cite a single instance, much less any pattern, of unwarranted police intrusion into Vermonters’ private affairs (unless the majority is suggesting that the officer’s mistaken judgment concerning the requisite number of rear license plate lights on defendant Robert Lussier’s vehicle was such an invasion). Absent such a showing of abuse, application of the exclusionary rule in this context is unsupported by precedent, logic, or experience.
This Court has often stressed that the purpose of civil suspension is to protect “public safety by quickly removing potentially dangerous drivers from the roads,” Strong, 158 Vt. at 61, 605 A.2d at 513, that it is intended as a “remedial,” not a criminal sanction, id. at 60, 605 A.2d at 513, and consequently that due process rights which traditionally apply in a criminal proceeding may be superseded in the civil context in the interest of saving lives. See id. at 62, 605 A.2d at 614 (license *44suspension is not criminal punishment invoking double jeopardy protection); Shaw v. District Court, 152 Vt. 1, 7, 563 A.2d 636, 640 (1989) (no right to jury trial in civil suspension proceeding). The protection of individual privacy rights may well compel the suppression of otherwise reliable evidence in a criminal prosecution, even at the cost of insulating a guilty driver from criminal sanctions. The protection of privacy does not, however, require insulating intoxicated drivers from civil suspension of their driving privileges where the State has relevant and reliable evidence of intoxication. Or so, at the very least, the Legislature could reasonably have concluded.
For the foregoing reasons, therefore, I would affirm the judgments. I am authorized to state that Justice Skoglund joins in this dissent.

‘Former § 1205(g) has since been redesignated as § 1205(h).