Gregory W. Zullo v. State of Vermont

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court considered whether Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution creates an implied private right of action for damages arising from unlawful searches and seizures. The Court held that such an action is available, is not governed by the Vermont Tort Claims Act, and is not barred by sovereign immunity, subject to heightened culpability requirements. It further held that the traffic stop and warrantless seizure and subsequent search of the plaintiff’s vehicle violated Article 11, reversed summary judgment for the State, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. Article 11 is self-executing and supports an implied private right of action for damages when the plaintiff lacks a meaningful alternative remedy.
2. The Vermont Tort Claims Act does not govern an Article 11 constitutional-tort claim lacking a comparable private analog, and common-law sovereign immunity is not an absolute jurisdictional bar to such an action against the State.
3. A plaintiff seeking damages against the State directly under Article 11 for a law-enforcement violation must show that the officer violated Article 11, no meaningful alternative remedy exists, and the officer either knew or should have known that the conduct violated clearly established law or acted in bad faith.
4. The stop violated Article 11 because the former version of 23 V.S.A. § 511 did not make an obscured registration sticker a violation and the trooper lacked a reasonable and articulable suspicion of a motor-vehicle violation.
5. The exit order did not violate Article 11 because the odor of burnt marijuana, together with the air freshener and Visine, provided an articulable and reasonable basis to investigate possible impaired driving.
6. The warrantless seizure of the vehicle violated Article 11 because the faint odor of burnt marijuana, without more, did not establish probable cause that marijuana would be found in the vehicle; the later warrant search itself was supported by probable cause based in part on the drug-detection dog's alerts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution provides an implied private right of action for damages against the State.
2. Whether the Vermont Tort Claims Act or common-law sovereign immunity bars an Article 11 constitutional-tort action.
3. What limitations apply to a damages action brought directly under Article 11.
4. Whether the traffic stop violated Article 11 because it was based on an alleged violation involving an obscured registration sticker.
5. Whether the exit order violated Article 11.
6. Whether the seizure and subsequent search of the vehicle violated Article 11.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded