State v. Nichole L. Dubaniewicz

2019 VT 13, 208 A.3d 619 · Supreme Court of Vermont · March 1, 2019 · No. 2018-092

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court reversed Nichole L. Dubaniewicz’s conviction for possession of one gram or more of heroin. The court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to order her out of the vehicle based on possible impairment, but lacked sufficient additional evidence to extend the traffic stop into a drug investigation. Evidence obtained after that point, including the heroin discovered during the subsequent search, should have been suppressed.

Court
Supreme Court of Vermont
Writing for the Court
Skoglund, J.; Reiber, C.J.; Robinson, J.; Eaton, J.; Pearson, Supr. J. (Ret.), specially assigned
Jurisdiction
Vermont
Decision date
March 1, 2019
Docket number
2018-092
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed her jury conviction for possession of one gram or more of heroin after the trial court denied her motions to suppress evidence and dismiss the charge.
Standard of review
The court reviewed factual findings on a suppression motion for clear error and reviewed legal issues de novo.
Precedential value
Published Vermont Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Nichole L. Dubaniewicz v. State of Vermont
Disposition
reversed

Topics

search and seizuresuppression of evidencecriminal procedureprobable cause

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional criminal proceduresearch and seizuresuppression of evidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the sergeant's order directing defendant to exit the vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion.
  2. Whether the sergeant unlawfully extended the traffic stop into a drug investigation after determining that defendant was not impaired.
  3. Whether evidence obtained after the unsupported extension of the stop should have been suppressed.

Holdings

  1. The exit order was supported by reasonable suspicion that defendant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence and that an investigation of suspected impairment was necessary.
  2. The sergeant lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop into a drug investigation after determining that defendant was not operating under the influence.
  3. Evidence gathered after the sergeant determined that defendant was not operating under the influence, including the heroin discovered in the vehicle, should have been suppressed.

Key quotations

The inquiry is objective, and we will “not countenance a seizure based on luck and hunch.” (¶ 15)
Therefore, the continuation of the traffic stop and expansion into a drug investigation required further evidence developed during the roadside investigation to support a reasonable suspicion of that particular type of illegal activity, beyond the possibility that defendant was driving under the influence. (¶ 18)

Factual background

A Vermont State Police sergeant initially stopped a vehicle for speeding and issued the driver a warning. After observing defendant and the driver and learning information suggesting possible drug activity, the sergeant later stopped the vehicle again, ordered defendant out, and questioned her in his cruiser. Although the sergeant initially suspected defendant might be driving under the influence, he concluded during the roadside encounter that she was not impaired, yet detained the vehicle for approximately forty minutes until a canine unit arrived; the subsequent search led to the discovery of heroin.

Procedural history

The Superior Court, Windham Unit, Criminal Division denied jointly heard motions to suppress and dismiss filed by defendant and J.S. Defendant was subsequently tried by a jury and convicted of possessing one gram or more of heroin. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the traffic stop was unlawfully extended into a drug investigation without reasonable suspicion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…