 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Dimick12/26/2001
ENTRY ORDER
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
The Caledonia District Court granted defendant's motion to exclude evidence in a civil suspension hearing for operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor on the grounds that the arresting officer violated Vermont State Police Rules & Regulations, Operational Policies & Procedures, when he failed to make a videotape of the roadside stop. The State appeals that decision arguing that defendant had no constitutional nor statutory right to have the roadside stop, and ensuing sobriety tests, videotaped by the arresting officer. We agree and reverse.
The uncontested facts in the case are as follows. On February 23, 2001, at approximately 11 p.m., a state police officer witnessed defendant fail to stop at a stop sign, in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1048. The officer activated his blue lights and pulled defendant to the side of the road. After observing several signs that defendant had been drinking, including limited dexterity when handing the officer his license and registration, mumbling, bloodshot, watery eyes and the smell of intoxicating liquor, the officer asked defendant to complete a series of field sobriety tests which defendant failed. Defendant was arrested and taken to the station for DUI processing. A breath test revealed a blood alcohol concentration of .118. The officer's cruiser was equipped with a mobile video recording (MVR) unit but because the unit was broken, the officer did not videotape the incident.
Defendant was arraigned on, and pled not guilty to, driving under the influence in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1201(a)(1). Prior to a March 23, 2001 civil suspension hearing, defendant filed a motion to exclude all evidence derived from the stop of defendant's vehicle, asserting that the officer's failure to videotape the roadside stop and tests violated defendant's due process rights and breached a statutory duty to "preserve and produce" a recording that might provide exculpatory evidence.
At the hearing, defendant abandoned his constitutional argument. Relying instead on Vermont State Police Rules & Regulations, Operational Policies & Procedures, defendant claimed the polices and procedures create a legal obligation for officers to videotape roadside stops and the ensuing tests. Defendant argued that the officer's failure to keep the MVR equipment in working order, and subsequent use of the cruiser despite the knowledge that the MVR equipment was not working, amount to negligence. The trial court granted defendant's motion to exclude evidence, concluding that Vermont State Police Rules & Regulations, Operational Policies & Procedures, § 5, Article 10, 3.1 and 4.1 create a duty for officers to videotape stops.
We disagree. The error in the court's analysis is that it assumes the regulations at issue are either explicitly or implicitly premised on a statutory duty to videotape every major motor vehicle and criminal enforcement stop. While there is no doubt that the Legislature could compel the Vermont State Police to videotape all such stops, and indeed, provide sanctions for the failure to do so, we cannot find any basis, in statute or regulation, for concluding the legislature intended the result reached by the trial court in this case.
In interpreting a statute our primary goal is to effectuate the intent of the legislature. Tarrant v. Dep't of Taxes, 169 Vt. 189, 197, 733 A.2d 733, 739 (1999). We look first to the plain meaning and where the intent of the legislature is apparent from the language we will enforce the statute "according to its terms without resorting to statutory construction." Id. Title 23 § 1
Page 1 2 Vermont DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|