Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed Aaron Rutter's conviction for second-offense driving under the influence. The court held that an officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Rutter after observing him stop and then proceed with squealing tires and a revving engine, supporting a suspected violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1063. The court also rejected Rutter's argument that the traffic violation was a pretext for investigating DUI, concluding that an objectively reasonable basis for the stop was sufficient.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion that Rutter violated 23 V.S.A. § 1063, thereby justifying the traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment and Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution.
- Whether the stop was invalid because the officer's alleged traffic-violation rationale was a pretext for investigating possible DUI.
Holdings
- The observed tire screeching and engine revving as Rutter moved from a stopped position, together with dry and clear road conditions, gave the officer an objectively reasonable and articulable suspicion that Rutter moved the vehicle without reasonable safety in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1063.
- Under Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution, an officer's subjective motive does not invalidate a vehicle stop supported by an objectively reasonable suspicion of a motor-vehicle violation.
Key quotations
“The relevant question is whether the officer had a reasonable basis to suspect that a motor vehicle violation was taking place, and the facts here provide that basis.” (15 A.3d at 135-136)
“It is the Legislature's prerogative to decide what types of driving behavior should be prohibited under the motor vehicle code.” (15 A.3d at 138)
Factual background
At approximately 2:00 a.m., a police officer observed Rutter stop at an intersection controlled by a flashing light and then turn onto Main Street. As Rutter proceeded from the stop, the officer heard tires screeching and the engine revving, observed dry and clear road conditions, and stopped the vehicle. The officer's subsequent observations led to a second-offense DUI charge. The district court credited the officer's account and rejected Rutter's explanation that the tires merely slipped on gravel.
Procedural history
The district court held a suppression hearing, credited the arresting officer's testimony, and found that Rutter screeched his tires and revved his engine while moving from a stop. The court concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion of a motor-vehicle infraction under 23 V.S.A. § 1063, denied the motion to suppress, and denied permission for an interlocutory appeal. Rutter entered a conditional guilty plea reserving his right to appeal, and the Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed.