 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Thompson12/30/2002
arties' arguments and leave them until another day.
6. The Vermont Periodic Inspection Manual, which sets forth the equipment requirements for the annual inspection of all motor vehicles, requires, inter alia, that any motor vehicle manufactured or assembled with a bumper must have a bumper, and that any motor vehicle manufactured or assembled with a driver's side rearview mirror must have such a mirror. [FN1] **553 Defendants' vehicles did *472 not meet these requirements; had these defects existed at the time of inspection, these vehicles would not have received a certification of inspection. Thus, at the time of the stops, there was a reasonable possibility that defendants were committing a traffic offense--operating a vehicle without a valid inspection certification. See 23 V.S.A. § 1222 (prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle "unless it has been inspected as required by this section and has a valid certification of inspection affixed to it"); id. § 2201 (violation of any section of Title 23 is a traffic offense). This situation, and the fact that both vehicles were stopped after dark, making a passing examination of the date of the vehicles' current inspection certification difficult or impossible, are sufficient to establish a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a traffic offense was being committed. [FN2] As such, the officers legally stopped defendants' vehicles in order to investigate possible wrongdoing. Lussier, 171 Vt. at 34, 757 A.2d at 1027.
FN1. Defendant Hotte contends that the inspection manual requires only that if a driver's side rearview mirror is present on the vehicle, it must meet certain requirements, not that a vehicle must have a driver's side rearview mirror. We disagree. The manual states that "[a]ll
vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1968 were equipped at the factory with a left-hand exterior rearview mirror," and instructs the inspector to reject the vehicle based on defects in the mirror that would prevent "a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the rear." Clearly, the fact that the lack of a driver's side rearview mirror would prevent "a clear and reasonably unobstructed view to the rear" indicates that such a mirror is required on all vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1968.
FN2. We recognize that the legal basis for the stop given by the officer who stopped defendant Thompson's vehicle--that he stopped defendant for a defective equipment violation--differs from the basis that we have found to have provided the officer with a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing--that is, the possibility that defendant was operating his vehicle without a valid inspection certification. This is a difference without a distinction because, whatever the legal theory, the officer was stopping the vehicle because of missing equipment. In any event, the test of reasonable suspicion is not the officer's subjective motivation for making the stop, but whether "from an objective standpoint ... given all of the circumstances, the officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion of wrongdoing." Lussier, 171 Vt. at 24, 757 A.2d at 1020.
The denial of defendant Hotte's motion to suppress and dismiss is affirmed. The grant of defendant Thompson's motion to suppress and dismiss is reversed and the matter is remanded.
Page 1 2 Vermont DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|