State v. District Court of Vt. Unit No. 1, Rutland Circuit, 141-70
| Decision Date | 02 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 141-70,141-70 |
| Citation | 129 Vt. 212,274 A.2d 685 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | . 1, RUTLAND CIRCUIT. Supreme Court of Vermont |
Robert I. Tepper, State's Atty., for petitioner.
James P. Carroll, Rutland, for petitionee, Ellis James Flanders.
Before HOLDEN, C. J., BARNEY, SMITH and KEYSER, JJ., and MARTIN, Supr. J.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari. It relates to a so-called 'reasonableness' hearing held in district court in connection with a charge of driving while intoxicated. The case is State of Vermont v. Ellis James Flanders, docket number 1886-70 Rcr, in the Rutland Circuit of the District Court. Such a hearing is called for by 23 V.S.A. § 1205. No right of appellate review is provided, which accounts for the resort to certiorari. State v. Muzzy, 124 Vt. 222, 225, 202 A.2d 267; Royalton College, Inc. v. State Bd. of Education, 127 Vt. 436, 438, 251 A.2d 498.
The review thus given is not the same as that of an ordinary appeal. It is limited to a review of judicial action by inferior courts and tribunals and confined to substantial questions of law affecting the merits. In re Petition of Town of Essex, 125 Vt. 170, 171, 212 A.2d 623. The party affected by the reasonableness hearing has challenged the existence of any such error, irregularity or substantial question of law, affecting the merits of the case, by filing a motion to dismiss.
If the issue were merely one questioning the correctness of the court's ruling on a matter of the admissibility of certain evidence, not putting at issue the due process sufficiency of the proceeding, this review would go no further. But the ruling below excluded an entire class of evidence, and involves the substantive nature and purpose of the hearing itself.
Thus, we must further examine the question raised. The issue in a 'reasonableness' hearing is set out in the provisions of 23 V.S.A. § 1205:
If the person refuses to submit to a chemical test, it shall not be given. If the person is charged with a violation of the vehicle laws and upon arraignment enters a plea of not guilty, the court at the arraignment or as soon thereafter as is practicable shall hold a summary hearing, and take evidence relating to the reasonableness of the officer's belief that the respondent was operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. Upon a finding by the court that the officer has sufficient reason to believe that the respondent was so operating the respondent's operator's license or non-resident operating privilege or the privilege of an unlicensed operator to operate a motor vehicle shall be suspended for a period of six months and the respondent shall deliver his operator's license, if any, to the court and the court shall forward it forthwith to the commissioner of motor vehicles.
The trial court denied the state the right to introduce any evidence in support of the officer's belief that was not first-hand or direct evidence. Anything based on inquiry of others or reported to him outside of his own observation was excluded. The court then found the evidence allowed before it insufficient to support a reasonable belief in the officer that the person charged was operating his motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicants.
This is not a criminal prosecution. It is a hearing to determine whether there should be a suspension of an operator's driving privilege because of his refusal to carry through his implied consent to submit to a sobriety test. State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lussier
...is free to determine whether defense is issue to be considered in civil suspension hearing). Relying primarily on State v. District Court, 129 Vt. 212, 274 A.2d 685 (1971), Justice Skoglund states that it has been this Court's "understanding" for nearly thirty years that "reasonable grounds......
-
State v. Welch
...should be subject to having his operator's license suspended. State v. Mastaler, 130 Vt. 44, 285 A.2d 776 (1971); State v. District Court, 129 Vt. 212, 274 A.2d 685 (1971). The necessity for holding such a "reasonableness" hearing is, of course, obviated if the respondent consents to take t......
-
Kent v. Katz
...driving privilege because of his refusal to carry through his implied consent to submit to a sobriety test." State v. District Court, 129 Vt. 212, 214, 274 A.2d 685, 686 (1971) (discussing prior version of § 1205). Consequently, the issues are different, and the driver may well have less of......
-
State v. Perley
...that" individual was DUI is similar to probable cause determination made to obtain search or arrest warrant); State v. Dist. Ct., 129 Vt. 212, 215, 274 A.2d 685, 686 (1971) (stating that, like probable cause hearing, determination of whether office had reasonable grounds to believe that ind......