State v. Clinton-Aimable
| Decision Date | 20 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-355,18-355 |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. Henry M. CLINTON-AIMABLE |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
David Tartter and James Pepper, Deputy State's Attorneys, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew Valerio, Defender General, and Dawn Matthews, Appellate Defender, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Robinson and Eaton, JJ., and Dooley, J. (Ret.) and Pearson, Supr. J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned
DOOLEY, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.
¶ 1. Defendant appeals his conviction of knowing and unlawful possession of more than one ounce of cocaine. On appeal, he argues that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We conclude that the seizure of defendant's car was not supported by probable cause and that therefore the evidence seized from defendant's car was not admissible. Accordingly, we reverse the court's order denying the motion to suppress and vacate defendant's conviction.
¶ 2. Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine following a traffic stop. Prior to trial, he moved to suppress the cocaine recovered from his vehicle on several grounds. The court found the following facts relative to his motion to suppress.
¶ 3. In July 2016, Officer Murawski of the Bennington Police Department received a tip about possible illegal drug activity. The person providing the tip was known to the officer but had not provided information in the past. The tipster said that a particular type of vehicle might be engaged in illegal drug activity and the driver would be the son of a man, named by the tipster, who police knew to have past drug involvement. The tipster said that the vehicle would be coming from Springfield, Massachusetts between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m. Officer Murawski did not believe that the information provided a sufficient basis to stop a vehicle matching the description provided but shared the information with some officers, including Officer Cole.
¶ 4. Aware of this information, Officer Cole was parked south of Bennington on Route 7 in an unmarked vehicle. He observed a vehicle, that matched the description in the tip to Officer Murawski, traveling north, pull into a gas station without signaling and then turn around and proceed south. Officer Cole activated his blue lights and followed the vehicle. The vehicle went 700 to 1000 yards before pulling over.
¶ 5. Officer Murawski was parked further north on Route 7 in a marked cruiser and drove to where Officer Cole had stopped the vehicle. When he arrived, the other vehicles were parked, and he stopped in front of defendant's vehicle. Officer Grande also responded in an unmarked vehicle. He parked away from the others and approached on foot.
¶ 6. Officer Grande informed the others that he did not think the vehicle was in park because the brake lights were on, and this put the officers on alert to a possible safety issue because the operator could quickly drive off. All three officers drew their firearms. Officer Cole held his down at his side; Officer Murawski held his behind his back; and Officer Grande was some distance away and behind the vehicle. The weapons were not visible to the vehicle occupant. The weapons were holstered after the officers approached the car and confirmed that defendant's vehicle was in park.
¶ 7. Defendant was the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle. Officer Cole spoke to defendant and asked for his license and registration. He did not observe any weapons in the car. Defendant provided a valid license. The registration indicated the vehicle had been rented.1 Defendant's last name was not the same as that of the person given in the tip as the father of the driver. None of the officers asked defendant whether he was the son of the man named in the tip.2
¶ 8. Officer Murawski was at the passenger window and detected an odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. In response to this officer's questions about defendant's travel, defendant reported that he was going to Albany, New York, to see his sister and was coming from Pittsfield, Massachusetts. He said he was in Bennington to see a girl but did not provide details about where the girl lived or where he was meeting her although he was asked to give those details. He did not explain why he turned around in the gas station to go south. Officer Murawski noted aerosol cans in the vehicle and that defendant was smoking. He explained in his affidavit that in his training and experience, smoking and air fresheners can be used to mask the odor of drugs and rental cars are often used to transport drugs. During defendant's interaction with the officers, he was extremely nervous, he was not making eye contact, and his hands were shaking.
¶ 9. Officer Murawski asked defendant to voluntarily leave the vehicle, and defendant declined. Officer Murawski then ordered defendant to exit the vehicle and briefly drew his weapon when he could not see defendant's hands. Defendant raised his hands on leaving the vehicle. He continued to be noticeably nervous. The officer told defendant not to move. Defendant surrendered a bag of 4.5 grams of marijuana after the officers expressed suspicion that defendant had drugs and stated that they smelled marijuana. The officers could not see any drugs or weapons in the car.
¶ 10. The officers asked defendant to consent to a search of his vehicle, and he declined. The officers then announced they were seizing the vehicle. They arranged for a tow truck to transport the vehicle to a storage location. With defendant's consent, the officers retrieved some items for defendant from the vehicle. Defendant received a ticket for failing to use his turn signal when he turned off the road into the gas station lot.
¶ 11. Police obtained a search warrant for the vehicle, and drugs were found in a concealed area in the trunk. Defendant was then charged with possession of cocaine.
¶ 12. Defendant moved to suppress the drugs found in the vehicle on several bases. First, he argued that he was subject to a de facto arrest without probable cause when three officers from three different vehicles approached him with their guns drawn. Second, defendant contended that the facts and circumstances did not provide reasonable suspicion warranting an exit order from his vehicle. Third, he argued that the police lacked probable cause to seize the vehicle and to obtain a warrant to search it.
¶ 13. Following a hearing, and based on the facts set forth above, the court denied the motion to suppress. The court concluded that defendant's failure to use a directional signal provided grounds to stop the vehicle and that the initial stop was not converted into an illegal arrest without probable cause. The court reasoned that because of defendant's unusual operation and the use of the brake, which caused the brake lights to remain on, the officers were justified in drawing but not brandishing their weapons. In addition, the court held that the totality of the circumstances justified extending the stop. These facts included the general information from the tip that the vehicle could be involved in drug activity.3 The court found that ordering defendant out of the car was reasonable given the odor of marijuana, defendant's unusual behavior in pulling into the gas station and then abruptly turning around, the contradictory information provided by defendant about his travel plans, and the other facts that in the officers’ training and experience indicated possible drug activity—the rental car, the aerosol and smoking to cover the odor of drugs, and defendant's extreme nervousness. The court further concluded that this information, along with the marijuana surrendered by defendant, provided probable cause to seize and search the vehicle. Accordingly, the court denied the motion to suppress.
¶ 14. Defendant waived a jury trial, and the court held a bench trial on the charge. In a written order, the court denied defendant's motion to reconsider the suppression motion. The court found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and defendant appealed.
¶ 15. On appeal, defendant argues that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress. He generally reasserts the bases argued below: (1) police action during the traffic stop was so intrusive that it amounted to an illegal arrest without probable cause; (2) police lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the exit order; and (3) the seizure of the vehicle and warrant to search it were not supported by probable cause.
¶ 16. "A trial court's decision on a motion to suppress is a mixed question of fact and law, that is, whether the factual findings supported by the record lead to the conclusion that, as a matter of law, suppression of evidence was or was not necessary." State v. Allis, 2017 VT 96, ¶ 6, 205 Vt. 620, 178 A.3d 993 (quotation omitted). We apply a clearly erroneous standard to the trial court's factual findings and review de novo the legal conclusions. Id.
¶ 17. Police officers may "make an investigatory stop based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity or of a traffic violation." State v. Davis, 2007 VT 71, ¶ 7, 182 Vt. 573, 933 A.2d 224 (mem.) (quotation and citation omitted). Police can require an operator to exit a vehicle under Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution if " ‘objective facts and circumstances would support a reasonable suspicion that the safety of the officer, or of others, was at risk or that a crime has been committed.’ " State v. Dubaniewicz, 2019 VT 13, ¶ 15, 209 Vt. 490, 208 A.3d 619 (quoting State v. Sprague, 2003 VT 20, ¶ 16, 175 Vt. 123, 824 A.2d 539 ). In addition, officers can extend a detention if "during the course of an investigative stop, an officer gathers additional information providing reasonable suspicion that some other criminal activity is afoot." Id. (quotation omitted).
¶ 18. Probable cause is required to execute a warrantless seizure of a vehicle. State v. Platt, 154 Vt. 179, 184-85, 574 A.2d 789, 792 (1990). In addition, a warrant to search the...
To continue reading
Request your trial