Court Opinion

ID: 9522881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:33:17.392768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:04:12.523516
License: Public Domain

Dooley, J.,
¶ 42. concurring and dissenting. In general, we should not decide constitutional questions if we can avoid them, especially novel and difficult questions like whether dog sniffs are searches under Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. State v. Bauder, 2007 VT 16, ¶ 27, 181 Vt. 392, 924 A.2d 38. Here, of course, the plurality decision9 has not avoided constitutional adjudication; it has simply resolved the case on a different constitutional ground than the one stressed by defendant. More importantly, the path the plurality has taken to avoid the primary *423constitutional question here ignores the fact-finding of the trial court and contradicts the undisputed facts of this case. The plurality justifies this course of action based on a supposed concession of the State. I cannot read the concession of the State as broadly as the plurality does, and question whether we should ignore a legal question squarely presented to us by relying on such a concession in the first place. Thus, the plurality has not resolved this case on the basis of an “adequate lesser ground.” Id. Nor can it do so. Because I believe there is no principled way to avoid the primary constitutional question presented in this appeal, I would hold that we must decide whether the dog sniff is a search under Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution and direct the State to file a brief on this question.10
¶ 43. By contrast, the plurality’s resolution of this case depends on a conclusion that, in both instances where defendant’s car was stopped, the period of detention was extended only in order to enable the drug-sniffing dog to reach defendant’s vehicle. The problem with this conclusion is that it lacks any factual support. Even if we put aside the issues related to the officer’s suspicion that defendant was transporting drugs, defendant was, on both occasions, driving with a suspended license, without a registration, without insurance, and without identification. These were the circumstances in which defendant traveled on May 5 and May 17. Because of these circumstances, the officer impounded the car in each instance and directed that it be towed to a nearby garage. Under the circumstances, defendant would not have driven the car away, at least for hours, if not for days. Even if the towing occurred before the dogs reached the vehicles, the dogs could have sniffed the vehicles at the garages to which they were taken.
*424¶ 44. This case involves a routine application of the “inevitable discovery” rule. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984). Under the' rule, if the preponderance of the evidence establishes “that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means,” the exclusionary rule does not apply. Id. Here, it was the officers’ decision to detain defendant that was unlawful. But the drugs in the car would have inevitably been discovered by the dogs even if defendant had been released, because, in each instance, the police were lawfully holding the car in which contraband was discovered. The plurality’s answer — that we have no idea “what might actually have happened had defendant gone on his way before the dog arrived” ante, n.7 — is clearly wrong. We do know, in this case, what the result of the dog sniff would have been. Moreover, all inevitable discovery cases involve some degree of prediction. See Nix, 467 U.S. at 444 (explaining that the prosecution has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that evidence would have been discovered by lawful means).
¶ 45. The proceeding discussion assumes that the plurality is right that officers in both cases extended the detention of defendant until the dogs arrived. This conclusion, however, depends upon appellate fact-finding that is directly contrary to the fact-finding of the trial court. Defendant’s noncompliance with the motor vehicle operating laws meant that he committed four offenses for which the officer had to issue him citations and after which the officer had to arrange for the towing and storage of defendant’s car. These activities necessarily lengthened the stop. Thus, in both instances, the dog arrived while the officer was still writing tickets. With respect to the second stop, the trial court found that “any seizure resulting from delay in the Burlington canine’s arrival was minimal; the officer had four tickets to write and had completed only three when the canine arrived.” The court’s conclusion that the delay was minimal is plainly at odds with the plurality’s conclusion that the officer unduly extended the stop in order to enable the dog to arrive.
¶46. The plurality explains its rejection of the trial court’s finding by asserting that the court’s conclusions as to the length of the stop are internally inconsistent. I find this criticism of the court to be nitpicking, but however one views the court’s finding on point, it directly contradicts the plurality’s finding of fact that the delay was substantial. The plurality has based a wholesale *425rejection of the trial court’s fact-finding on a mere quibble over choice of terminology.
¶ 47. The plurality is aware of these facts; they are discussed in footnote 7 of the plurality decision.11 It answers that the State conceded that “defendant’s detention was prolonged by waiting for the canine unit.” Ante, n.2. I do not believe the State made the concession that the plurality attributes to it. Although the State agreed that reasonable suspicion was required to justify the search of the car, the State also stated that “[djefendant makes much of the fact that Officer Trudeau was still writing tickets when the canine units arrived but provides no basis for the assertion that this was a stalling tactic on the part of Officer Trudeau.” The oral argument in this case proceeded as much on the theory that reasonable suspicion was required by Article 11 for dog sniffs generally as on the theory that some defect in the officer’s actions before the dog sniffs triggered that standard. Indeed, the best explanation for the State’s position is that it agrees with the trial court, which held that:
An officer must have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of drug activity before summoning a canine unit and allowing a traffic stop to extend into a longer investigative pre-arrest detention. Here, Officer Trudeau had specific and articulable suspicions pointing to drug activity and on that basis properly summoned the canine unit.
Under this theory, the decision to call for the dog required reasonable suspicion even if the dog appeared very quickly. In adopting this decision, the trial court did not shy away from *426ruling on the constitutionality of the dog sniffs. I would surmise that the plurality has not analyzed this theory because it is inextricably intertwined with the question of the constitutional validity of dog sniffs.
¶ 48. The far more significant answer to the plurality’s concession theory is that the concession attributed to the State is irrelevant. It does not matter that the detention was extended if the dogs would have sniffed the vehicles in any case. Indisputably, the dogs would have done so here.
¶ 49. I am also troubled by the effect that the plurality has given to the State’s concession as it construes it. It is one thing to concede disputed facts; it is quite another to war with undisputed facts. We can affirm a trial court decision on any grounds. Bloomer v. Gibson, 2006 VT 104, ¶ 26 n.4, 180 Vt. 397, 912 A.2d 424. We should at least determine whether to do so by following the undisputed facts and consider whether the sniff by the dogs was a search.
¶ 50. I recognize that the State has not only made a vague concession, but it has also failed to brief and argue the main constitutional question presented by defendant. Ordinarily, I would say that we should decide the question without the benefit of the State’s position or argument. Certainly, the State has defaulted on its obligation to defend its position before this Court.12
¶ 51. In this case, however, the question before us is so important, both practically and theoretically, that we should not decide it without adversary briefing. See State v. Jewett, 146 Vt. 221, 229, 500 A.2d 233, 238 (1985) (explaining that it is the responsibility of this Court to order rebriefing “when the briefs [on state constitutional issues] do not pass muster”). In Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 409 (2005), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a dog sniff is not a search under the Fourth Amendment. Defendant argues that we should not follow this precedent because it was wrongly decided and is, in any event, inconsistent with our jurisprudence under Article 11. In similar cases, where this Court has been asked to define the meaning of a search under Article 11 in an area where the United States *427Supreme Court has ruled, this Court has usually divided, producing multiple opinions, each offering complex analysis. See State v. Costin, 168 Vt. 175, 179, 720 A.2d 866, 869 (1998) (interpretation of Article 11 in the context of warrantless video surveillance of area beyond curtilage of defendant’s home); State v. Morris, 165 Vt. 111, 126, 680 A.2d 90, 100 (1996) (whether Article 11 recognizes expectation of privacy in the contents of opaque trash bags); State v. Kirchoff, 156 Vt. 1, 10, 587 A.2d 988, 994 (1991) (whether property owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy in open fields when various indicia would suggest to a reasonable observer that the area is private). Apart from the significance of the case before the Court to the parties involved, this decision is very important because it will help to develop our Article 11 jurisprudence and greatly influence future decisions with different facts. We must decide such cases carefully and cautiously.
¶ 52. The State’s default puts us in the uncomfortable position of doing the research on the State’s side of the issue, with no help from the State. I would not do this work for the State but would instead direct it to file a brief on whether dog sniffs are searches and decide that issue under Article 11, as the facts of this case demand.
¶ 53. In voting as I have, I am also not adopting the position of the concurrence. The concurrence concludes that a reasonable suspicion of drug-related criminal conduct is required before the police may call for the dog in the first instance. Whether we adopt the position of defendant, or the position of the concurrence, the result is exactly the same: dog sniffs require reasonable suspicion. I would require the State to brief that question before reaching that conclusion.

 There is, of course, no plurality decision in this ease, because two opinions command two votes each. Simply to differentiate between the opinions, I have called Chief Justice Reiber’s opinion the plurality and Justice Skoglund’s opinion the concurrence. Most of this opinion outlines my differences with the plurality. My disagreement with the concurrence is more straightforward and therefore more easily explained; that explanation is in the last paragraph of my opinion.

 On appeal, defendant also raised the issues of whether the exit order and search of his person during the May 5 search were constitutional. The plurality states that it has not considered the constitutionality of those acts because of the rationale underlying its opinion. Ante, ¶ 28. I do not understand this explanation insofar as the constitutionality of at least one of those acts must be determined in order to rule on the suppression of the drugs found on defendant’s person. In any event, I assume from the breadth of its statement in ¶ 38 that the plurality intends to suppress the drugs found in all places. Since the concurrence clearly intends to suppress all the drugs found, I understand that there is a majority for that result. Although there were clearly grounds for an exit order because the car was being towed away, I agree that those grounds did not amount to reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify the search of defendant’s person. In this respect, I concur in the decision of the plurality and the concurrence.

 The plurality suggests that I have concluded that an impounded vehicle can be searched “without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and without regard to the motivations for, or procedures followed in, that search.” Ante, n.7. I have not taken that position, but I acknowledge that the State is free to do so if it desires. Rather, I am assuming that the question of whether the dog sniff is a search is the same if the dog sniffs the impounded ear as opposed to sniffing a car that is not impounded. That is, the significance of the car impoundment is that there is no nexus between the length of defendant’s detention and the access of the dogs to the car to sniff it. Irrespective of how long defendant was detained, the dogs would have reached the vehicles to sniff them. Thus, the results of the dog sniffs could not be the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” State v. Phillips, 140 Vt. 210, 218, 436 A.2d 746, 751 (1981) (applying doctrine whereby evidence is excluded if it “ ‘has been come at by exploitation of . . . illegality’ ” rather than “ ‘by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint’ ” (quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963)).

 The plurality suggests we apply the rule that we do not consider issues inadequately briefed. See ante, n.5; see also State v. Taylor, 145 Vt. 437, 439, 491 A.2d 1034, 1035 (1985). This is a rule for when the appellant inadequately briefs an issue, not for inadequate briefing by an appellee. Obviously, the appellee cannot prevent consideration of an issue against its interest by inadequately briefing it.