Summary
The Vermont Supreme Court affirms the denial of Kent Eaton’s motion to suppress an evidentiary breath-test result in a DUI case. The court holds that an inaccurate statement by a processing officer to an on-call attorney did not deprive Eaton of a meaningful opportunity to consult counsel under 23 V.S.A. § 1202(c), and declines to overrule State v. Fredette and State v. Clark. The court also concludes that the asserted coercion and lack of knowing consent did not require suppression under the circumstances presented.
Holdings
- The statutory right to consult counsel is satisfied when law enforcement makes reasonable efforts to permit the arrestee to consult privately with counsel. The right does not guarantee accurate or flawless advice, and an officer's unintentional provision of inaccurate information to the on-call attorney does not, without more, violate the statute.
- The State need not prove voluntariness as a threshold matter unless the defendant makes a sufficiently particularized challenge asserting that the consent was coerced, granted only in submission to a claim of lawful authority, or otherwise involuntary. Defendant's allegation that an officer inadvertently misstated his prior conviction history did not sufficiently raise coercion under the circumstances presented.
- The State was not required to prove that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived a constitutional right before admitting the evidentiary breath-test results; the applicable inquiry was whether defendant voluntarily consented to the test.
Questions Presented
- Whether an incorrect, unintentional statement by a processing officer to an on-call attorney about a defendant's prior DUI history denied defendant a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel under 23 V.S.A. § 1202(c).
- Whether defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his consent was sufficiently particularized to require the State to prove that he voluntarily submitted to the evidentiary breath test.
- Whether the State had to prove that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to refuse the evidentiary breath test.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (28)
- State v. Fredette, 167 Vt. 586, 705 A.2d 548 (1997) (mem.)(followed)
- State v. Ford, 2007 VT 107, ¶ 4, 182 Vt. 421, 940 A.2d 687(followed)
- State v. Bryant, 2008 VT 39, ¶ 9, 183 Vt. 355, 950 A.2d 467(followed)
- Pfeil v. Rutland Dist. Ct., 147 Vt. 305, 515 A.2d 1052 (1986)(followed)
- State v. West, 151 Vt. 140, 557 A.2d 873 (1988)(followed)
- State v. Clark, 164 Vt. 626, 671 A.2d 1276 (1995) (mem.)(followed)
- State v. Lynaugh, 158 Vt. 72, 604 A.2d 785 (1992)(followed)
- State v. Aiken, 2015 VT 99, 200 Vt. 247, 129 A.3d 87(followed)
- State v. Ironside, 167 Vt. 628, 711 A.2d 663 (1998) (mem.)(followed)
- State v. Velez, 2003 VT 1, 175 Vt. 23, 819 A.2d 712(followed)
Showing top 10 of 28.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…