Court Opinion

ID: 9767129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:10:56.212135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:28.777663
License: Public Domain

Dooley, J.,
dissenting. This case is factually indistinguishable from State v. Sutphin, 159 Vt. 9, 614 A.2d 792 (1992), where, in a concurring opinion, I stated my view that no seizure had occurred. Id. at 13, 614 A.2d at 794. Nothing in the interim has changed my opinion, and accordingly, I dissent from Parts I and II of the majority opinion.
I.
A major part of my disagreement with the majority is in its holding that use of flashing blue lights creates a seizure even though the vehicle was not stopped by the police officer. It reaches this conclu*263sion, in part, by warring with the facts found by the district court. As in Sutphin, the incident in question occurred after dark, in this case during a cold night in the winter. The district court found that the blue lights were activated “for the safety of other vehicles on the road.” While recognizing this finding, the majority states to the contrary that “defendant’s vehicle was the sole subject of the officer’s use of the flashing blue lights.” The main subject of the flashing lights was other motorists on the road who would come upon the two vehicles and needed to be warned to pass carefully. If the officer had activated blue lights in an area like an interstate highway rest area, the majority’s view would have some validity.
Second, the majority’s conclusion that a “stop” occurred in this case is clearly inconsistent with any common sense definition of that term. I understand our difference on whether a seizure has occurred, but the majority’s argument is not improved by labeling as a “stop” conduct that cannot be so characterized.
As I explained in my concurrence in Sutphin, I believe the decisions of the United States Supreme Court are moving away from labeling such minor restrictions on individual movement as seizures. To the extent the precedents relied upon by the majority support its position, they are outdated and not in accord with more recent analysis. A far more relevant precedent is State v. Hanson, 504 N.W.2d 219 (Minn. 1993), based on facts identical to those in this case.
In reversing the Court of Appeals and finding no seizure, the Minnesota Supreme Court reasoned:
The problem with the court of appeals’ decision is that it in effect says that whenever an officer turns on the squad car’s flashing red lights before getting out and approaching an already stopped car, the officer turns the encounter into a seizure. It may be that in many fact situations the officer’s use of the flashing lights likely would signal to a reasonable person that the officer is attempting to seize the person for investigative purposes. In this case, however, under all the facts, the officer’s conduct would not have communicated to a reasonable person in these physical circumstances that the officer was attempting to seize the person. A reasonable person would have assumed that the officer was not doing anything other than checking to see what was going on and to offer help if needed. A reasonable person in such a situation would not be surprised at the use of the flashing lights. It was dark out and the cars were on the shoulder of the highway far from any town. A reasonable person would know *264that while flashing lights may be used as a show of authority, they also serve other purposes, including warning oncoming motorists in such a situation to be careful.
Id. at 220 (emphasis in original). I believe that the Hanson analysis is the more appropriate way to analyze the facts of this case.
II.
Second, I agree with the State that if there was a seizure here, it was not unreasonable and thus there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. See State v. Record, 150 Vt. 84, 85, 548 A.2d 422, 423 (1988) (provisions in United States and Vermont Constitutions prohibit only “unreasonable” searches and seizures). As we pointed out in State v. Marcello, 157 Vt. 657, 658, 599 A.2d 357, 358 (1991) (mem.), “officers without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity are allowed to intrude on a person’s privacy to carry out ‘community caretaking’ functions to enhance public safety.” We emphasized that “[t]he key to such constitutionally permissible police action is reasonableness.” Id.
The Virginia Court of Appeals recently applied the community caretaking function to a situation very similar to that here except that by the time the officer activated his flashing lights, the defendant’s vehicle had already begun to leave the side of the road. Barrett v. Commonwealth, 447 S.E.2d 243 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). Recognizing that because defendant’s vehicle was in motion, a stop had occurred, the court found the officer’s action justified by the community caretaking function. Id. at 246. It held that this function was involved when the officer has reasonable and articulable suspicion, based on observed facts, that the operator “is in distress or in need of assistance.” Id. This suspicion was created by the presence of the vehicle off the shoulder of the road in the nighttime, circumstances consistent with “a situation of mechanical breakdown or personal distress.” Id. The court concluded that society expects a helping hand from police officers in such a situation.
A determination of reasonableness involves a balancing of the level of intrusiveness on privacy against the state’s interest in the intrusion and the degree to which the intrusion justifies that interest. See Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450 (1990) (DUI roadblocks). The United States Supreme Court has characterized the degree of intrusion involved in DUI roadblocks as “slight.” Id. at 451. The intrusion here is lesser still.
*265I explained in Sutphin that I believe that the officer’s actions are exactly what we want to encourage to protect the safety of the community, other operators on the road, and the persons in the parked vehicle. Even if the officer’s actions are motivated by the desire to find impaired drivers, we have found that interest weighty, State v. Record, 150 Vt. at 89-90, 548 A.2d at 426, and the conduct here is no less efficient than roadblocks in advancing that interest. I am at a loss to understand how we can uphold roadblocks and find the conduct here unreasonable.
The majority gives short shrift to the claim of reasonableness because the officer’s thought process involved the fact that it was a cold winter night and defendant was not in a rest area, stating these considerations would make “Fourth Amendment protections seasonal.” This analysis ignores that the over-arching standard is reasonableness. If something were physically wrong with the occupants of a stopped vehicle, the consequences are far more serious in the winter than in the summer. I see nothing unreasonable in the officer taking into account that risk in deciding whether to inquire of the occupants of the vehicle.
The majority’s conclusions will require police to abandon important community protection activities or to conduct them in a way that is more dangerous to the public and the individuals whose privacy the majority seeks to protect. Neither result is commanded or justified by the Fourth Amendment or Article 11. Accordingly, I dissent.