Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court considers a defendant’s appeal from convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful possession of a firearm, and violation of conditions of release. The court holds that the defendant had standing under Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution to challenge the search and that the trooper exceeded the scope of any implied license by actively looking for incriminating evidence in the curtilage. The court reverses and remands, while providing guidance concerning the admission of racially charged statements.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defendant had standing under Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution to challenge the seizure of the cartridge from his girlfriend's property.
- Whether the trooper exceeded the scope of his implied license to enter and leave the home's curtilage for a welfare check by actively looking for incriminating evidence, so that the plain-view exception did not apply.
- Whether the trial court applied the proper legal standard to the suppression motion and made sufficient factual findings regarding the trooper's conduct.
- What principles should govern the trial court's Rule 403 analysis if the State again seeks to introduce evidence of defendant's racially charged statements.
Holdings
- Defendant had standing to challenge the search because he possessed a participatory interest in the cartridge: his alleged criminal conduct generated the evidence seized from the location of the alleged crime.
- The plain-view doctrine does not authorize police to actively search for incriminating evidence within the home's curtilage merely because they are lawfully present there pursuant to a limited license. The officer's license is limited by both the area and the specific purpose of the entry.
- State v. Bovat is overruled to the extent it suggested that portions of a home's curtilage may be treated as unprotected semiprivate areas or that observations from such areas are categorically outside Article 11 and Fourth Amendment protection.
- The trial court erred by applying the incorrect semiprivate-area legal standard and by failing to make necessary factual findings concerning whether the trooper actively searched for the cartridge. The suppression ruling could not be affirmed on the existing record.
- The Court did not decide whether the evidence was admissible in the prior trial. If the issue arises on remand, the trial court must determine the evidence's probative value and whether its prejudicial impact substantially outweighs that value under Vermont Rule of Evidence 403, with some indication that actual balancing occurred.
Key quotations
“To establish standing under Article 11, “a defendant need only assert a possessory, proprietary or participatory interest in the item seized or the area searched.”” (¶ 13)
“The scope of a license—express or implied—is limited not only to a particular area but also to a specific purpose.” (¶ 24)
“It cannot be used as the occasion for a general voyage of discovery unrelated to the purpose of the entry.” (¶ 28)
“What an officer is doing is just as important as where the officer is when making the challenged observation.” (¶ 31)
Factual background
Witnesses reported that defendant threatened them with a handgun at his girlfriend's home and that a cartridge or bullet had ejected when the gun was cocked. Two days later, a state trooper went to the girlfriend's home for a welfare check, entered through an unlocked door, and searched the interior for people. While leaving through the driveway, the trooper deliberately looked toward the location where he believed the altercation occurred and observed a cartridge in the grass, possibly using a flashlight. The State also sought to introduce testimony that defendant used racially charged language when referring to the complaining witnesses.
Procedural history
The State charged defendant in September 2019 in connection with an alleged handgun threat. After a suppression hearing, the Superior Court, Windham Unit, Criminal Division denied defendant's motion to suppress a cartridge found near his girlfriend's driveway. Following a jury trial and convictions, defendant appealed. The Vermont Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further factual findings concerning the search and for a new trial consistent with its opinion.
Remand instructions
The trial court must make factual findings concerning the trooper's conduct in locating the cartridge under the proper Article 11 and Fourth Amendment standard, reconsider the suppression issue, and conduct a new trial consistent with the opinion. If the State again offers the racially charged statements, the trial court must apply Vermont Rule of Evidence 403 to the evidence as presented.