 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Benoit2/20/2002
ENTRY ORDER
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Defendant Joseph B. Benoit appeals the Chittenden District Court's decision denying his motion to suppress evidence arising out of a civil citation for minor in the possession of alcohol and a later arrest for DUI. Defendant argues that the district court erred because: (1) the court failed to find that defendant was in custody when he was given a breathalyzer test prior to the civil citation; (2) the State did not meet its burden of proving that the defendant's submission to the Breathalyzer was a knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights; and (3) without the illegally obtained evidence the officer had no reasonable basis for his subsequent suspicion that defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol. We affirm.
On August 22, 2000, at approximately midnight, two officers from the Colchester Police Department responded to a noise complaint at a home on East Lakeshore Drive in Colchester. Looking through the windows, the officers saw alcohol containers and several people they suspected to be under age. The officers knocked and were given consent to enter the home. Once inside, the officers asked the twenty to twenty-five people in the home to separate into groups, based on whether they were over or under twenty one, and checked the identification of those claiming to be over the legal drinking age. The officers remained at the scene for twenty to twenty five minutes, administering breath tests and issuing civil citations to those minors in possession of alcohol. Defendant was present at the scene and was issued a citation for minor in possession of alcohol. One of the officers present called defendant's parents and asked them to come pick him up, so as to avoid the defendant driving home.
At approximately 2:30 a.m., later that same morning, one of the officers present at the East Lakeshore Drive home at midnight drove by again, and saw a car turning into the driveway. The officer observed defendant slump down in the front seat of the car, and eventually get out of the car and enter the house. The officer ran a check on the license plate which revealed the car belonged to defendant's parents. The officer had been present earlier in the evening, had seen defendant, was aware that he had been issued a civil citation and that defendant's parents had been called to pick him up, and therefore was suspicious that defendant had been driving under the influence of alcohol.
The officer approached the house and asked for defendant. Defendant came to the door, and the officer asked defendant if he had been driving the car. Defendant denied that he had, which the officer knew to be untrue. The officer observed defendant's bloodshot and watery eyes and odor of intoxicants. The officer requested that defendant perform dexterity tests, and defendant refused. The officer arrested defendant for driving under the influence and took him to the station for processing, included the administering a blood alcohol test. Defendant was charged with criminal DUI as well as a civil violation.
Defendant filed a motion to suppress all evidence from the earlier incident at the home as well as all evidence from the DUI arrest, and dismiss both the criminal and civil suspension charges. The Chittenden District Court denied defendant's motion and on February 27, 2001, defendant entered into a plea agreement, conditioned on this appeal. Defendant argues that he was under custodial interrogation at the time of the initial citation and therefore that the state has the burden of establishing that he was given his Miranda rights, and that his submission to the initial breath test was a kn
Page 1 2 Vermont DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|