Court Opinion

ID: 9637779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:20:24.641619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:00.547360
License: Public Domain

Dooley, J.,
concurring as to Part II. I join in all parts of the majority opinion except for Part II, which is unnecessarily grounded on whether there was a showing of probable cause to support the warrant. The issue is entirely controlled by State v. Brooks, 157 Vt. 490, 494, 601 A.2d 963, 965 (1991), which holds that “warrantless electronic participant monitoring of face-to-face conversations” in cases like this “does not violate the protections of Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution.” The applicable federal law under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is similar. See United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 750-51 (1979); United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745, 751 (1971). Thus, the participant monitoring in this case is valid without a warrant and without a finding of probable cause. The motion to suppress was properly denied, and there is no reason to go further. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Allen and Justice Gibson join in this concurrence.