State v. Weisler, State v. King

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court consolidated appeals by Michael Weisler and Raymond King challenging the denial of their motion to suppress evidence seized from a vehicle. The court held that the voluntariness of consent to search is reviewed de novo as a legal or constitutional-fact determination, while underlying historical facts receive clear-error review. It concluded that the vehicle owner’s consent was voluntary and not tainted by an unlawful de facto arrest, and affirmed the convictions.

Holdings

1. A trial court’s underlying historical findings concerning consent are reviewed for clear error, but the ultimate constitutional determination whether consent to search was voluntary is reviewed independently de novo.
2. Stone’s consent was voluntary, and the evidence seized during the warrantless search was not subject to suppression.
3. Stone’s consent was not tainted by an unlawful detention or de facto arrest. The initial detention was supported by reasonable suspicion, and the intervening events sufficiently attenuated any connection between that detention and the later consent. In any event, the officer had probable cause to arrest based on his observations of suspected drugs and drug-packaging materials.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the voluntariness of consent to search is reviewed de novo or for clear error on appeal.
2. Whether Stone’s consent to the warrantless search of his vehicle was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
3. Whether Stone’s consent was tainted by an unlawful de facto arrest or earlier detention.

Disposition

affirmed