State v. Chester, 88-074
| Decision Date | 29 January 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-074,88-074 |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. Gary CHESTER. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Before ALLEN, C.J., and PECK, * GIBSON, DOOLEY and MORSE, JJ.
This is a companion case to State v. Kirchoff, 156 Vt. 1, 587 A.2d 988 (1991), and is here on interlocutory appeal to answer whether the Vermont Constitution allows "police officers to make a warrantless entry onto land not immediately surrounding the house of a defendant" to search for marijuana plants. The plants found during the police search of defendant's land were located in fields which were cleared to accommodate and seclude the marijuana plants. They were located by walking on the land and by an aerial overflight of the land. The parties stipulated that none of the police officers who walked on the land encountered "any barricades, no-trespassing signs, land posted signs or any other indicia of posting on the property."
Kirchoff holds that the State must have a warrant to enter land when it is apparent to a reasonable person that the owner or occupant intends to exclude the public. Id. at ----, 587 A.2d at 994. This standard is intended to define instances where a landowner's expectation of privacy in an area is reasonable or legitimate. Id. at ----, 587 A.2d at 995. The State has the burden to show that a warrantless search was authorized under this standard. Id. at ----, 587 A.2d at 996.
In this case, there were no barriers to entry to indicate defendant's intent to exclude the public. Where land is left unimproved and unbounded, the owner or occupant has not taken sufficient steps to exclude the public to trigger the protection of Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. Cf. State v. Dixson/Digby, 307 Or. 195, 211-12, 766 P.2d 1015, 1024 (1988) (). On the stipulated facts, the State has met its burden to justify the warrantless search that occurred in this case.
The certified question is answered in the affirmative.
* Concurring in the result only.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Geraw
...does not protect such areas when the owner or occupant has not taken sufficient steps to exclude the public. See State v. Chester, 156 Vt. 638, 638, 587 A.2d 1008, 1009 (1991) (mem.). This distinction was reaffirmed in Costin, where a majority of the Court held that Article 11 does not proh......
-
State v. Costin
...to exclude the public is made clear by two other cases, where we held that no Article 11 violation had occurred.2 In State v. Chester, 156 Vt. 638, 587 A.2d 1008 (1991) (mem.), decided four days after Kirchoff, the defendant had erected neither signs indicating entry to his land was prohibi......
-
State v. Dupuis
...barriers to land rather than "change caused by defendant's actions," he enjoyed no Article 11 protection); State v. Chester, 156 Vt. 638, 638, 587 A.2d 1008, 1008-09 (1991) (mem.) (holding that because "there were no barriers to entry to indicate defendant's intent to exclude the public" wa......
-
State v. Rogers
...defendant's intention to prohibit entry. See Kirchoff, 156 Vt. at 14, 587 A.2d at 996. In the companion case of State v. Chester, 156 Vt. 638, 638, 587 A.2d 1008, 1009 (1991), we found no constitutional violation in the police observation of marijuana on defendant's undeveloped land because......