Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court held that Vermont's implied consent statute does not preclude a defendant from challenging the voluntariness of consent to an evidentiary breath test under Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. Because the trial court denied the defendant's suppression motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, the Court reversed and remanded for a hearing to determine voluntariness based on the totality of the circumstances.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Vermont's implied-consent statute precludes a defendant from challenging the voluntariness of consent to an evidentiary breath test under Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution.
- Whether the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing after defendant specifically challenged the voluntariness of his consent.
Holdings
- Vermont's implied-consent statute does not substitute for actual voluntary consent and does not preclude a defendant from arguing that consent to an evidentiary breath test was involuntary under Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution.
- When a defendant specifically challenges the voluntariness of consent to an evidentiary breath test, the State must make the required showing of voluntariness, and the trial court must conduct adequate factfinding, ordinarily through an evidentiary hearing.
Key quotations
“An evidentiary breath test is a consent search, albeit a consent search wherein the Legislature has paired the requirement that law enforcement have some suspicion of criminality tantamount to probable cause with consequences for refusal to comply with law enforcement's reasonable request.” (at 560)
“But when a specific challenge is made in a given case, the State must make the required showing that the defendant voluntarily submitted to the breath test.” (at 561)
Factual background
Police stopped defendant after receiving a tip that a vehicle with out-of-state plates was having difficulty maintaining its speed and lane position. The officer observed signs of impairment, including the odor of alcohol and dilated pupils, and field sobriety exercises and a preliminary breath test indicated impairment. After arresting defendant for driving under the influence, the officer read Vermont's implied-consent law, and defendant stated that he understood, declined to consult an attorney, and agreed to provide an evidentiary breath sample showing a blood alcohol content of .127.
Procedural history
After being charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence, defendant moved to suppress the evidentiary breath-test results and dismiss the charge, arguing that the sample was obtained without a warrant or valid consent under the Fourth Amendment and Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. The trial court denied both motions without an evidentiary hearing, ruling that Vermont's implied-consent statute barred a voluntariness challenge. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Remand instructions
Conduct an evidentiary hearing and determine, under the totality of the circumstances, whether defendant voluntarily consented to the evidentiary breath test. The State bears the burden of demonstrating that consent was freely given and not coerced.