 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Campbell12/17/2001
ENTRY ORDER
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Defendant Sarah Campbell appeals from the judgment entered in the Windsor County District Court on her conditional plea of guilty to a charge of driving under the influence . Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained when a police officer approached defendant's parked vehicle and inquired whether its occupants needed assistance. We hold that the officer acted within the community care taking exception to the warrant requirement and accordingly affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. On October 6, 2000, at approximately two a.m., an officer of the Hartford Police Department was traveling west on Route 4 in a marked police cruiser. The night was dark and rainy, and there were no other vehicles in the vicinity. As the officer approached the Quechee Gorge information booth, he noticed a car pulled off the eastbound side of the road. As the officer passed the vehicle it flashed its lights once. Concerned that he was being signaled for assistance, the officer turned his cruiser, illuminating his blue lights as he pulled behind the vehicle.
When the officer stepped out of the cruiser, he observed two passengers in the vehicle who appeared to be romantically engaged. He approached the vehicle, the engine of which was running, and tapped on the driver's side window with his flashlight. Defendant was in the driver's seat and rolled down the window at which point the officer smelled intoxicants and asked defendant whether she had been drinking. Defendant was subsequently arrested and processed for driving under the influence . A breath test revealed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.236.
Defendant was arraigned and filed a motion to suppress all evidence derived from the stop and seizure of her vehicle. A hearing was held in Windsor County District Court on December 21, 2000, and the trial court denied the motion to suppress from the bench, finding the officer's testimony to be credible and concluding that given the circumstances, the officer's reasonable inquiry to determine whether the passengers of the vehicle needed assistance was within the community care taking doctrine. On March 14, 2001, defendant entered a plea of guilty conditioned on this appeal.
The state concedes that there was a seizure in this case. Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution, a seizure requires reasonable and articulable suspicion that the defendant is engaged in unlawful activity. State v. Marcello, 157 Vt. 657, 658, 599 A.2d 357, 358 (1991) (mem.).
"This does not mean, however, that suspicion of criminal conduct is the only possible justification for a seizure. Indeed, we have recognized in other contexts that a seizure can be reasonable even in the absence of such suspicion." State v. Pierce, 12 Vt. L.W. 335, 336 (2001).
A seizure does not require suspicion of criminal conduct where police officers are acting under the community care taking doctrine, "an essential role as public servants to 'assist those in distress and to maintain and foster public safety.'" Marcello, 157 Vt. at 658, 599 A.2d at 358 (quoting State v. Pinkham, 565 A.2d 318, 319 (Me. 1989)). The distinguishing feature of a stop and seizure under the community care taking exception is that it is "generated from a desire to aid victims rather than investigate criminals." State v. Mountford, ___, Vt. ___, ___, 769 A.2d 639, 645 (2000). A police officer acting under the community care taking doctrine must have "specific and articulable facts" that led
Page 1 2 Vermont DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|