State v. Dreibelbis
| Decision Date | 18 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-590,84-590 |
| Citation | 511 A.2d 307,147 Vt. 98 |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. Jesse DREIBELBIS. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Philip H. White, Orleans County State's Atty., Newport, for plaintiff-appellee.
Duncan F. Kilmartin and Peter E. Yeager of Rexford & Kilmartin, Newport, for defendant-appellant.
Before ALLEN, C.J., and HILL, PECK, GIBSON and HAYES, JJ.
Federal inspectors at the Immigration and Customs Inspection Station at Derby Line discovered two pounds of hashish in the trunk of the defendant's automobile during a routine border inspection. After arresting the defendant, the federal officials notified the Vermont State Police, who arrested him at the federal border station. He was later charged with violating 18 V.S.A. § 4224(e)(1)(B), 1 but moved before trial to suppress the evidence seized by the federal authorities on grounds that use of the federally seized evidence in a state prosecution violated his constitutional rights. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and we granted an interlocutory appeal under V.R.A.P. 5. We affirm.
We note that the offense charged in the information included possession not only in the federal enclave in which the hashish was discovered, but also possession in Vermont, since the car in which the defendant was riding had passed through a short stretch of state land in Derby Line between the Canadian border and the Immigration Station.
Defendant objects to consideration of the issue of possession in Derby Line since the controlling question of law set forth by defendant under V.R.A.P. 5(b)(1) was limited to "a crime of possession of hashish, committed in the United States Customs and Immigration Service building at Derby Line." The objection is without merit. We made clear in State v. Carpenter, 138 Vt. 140, 146, 412 A.2d 285, 289 (1980), that the stated question in an interlocutory appeal The information was not limited to possession within the federal enclave, and judicial economy would be ill served by ignoring the full scope of issues raised by the defendant's suppression motion.
Defendant next contends that since the state police are held to a probable cause standard in searches under the Fourth Amendment, evidence received from federal customs officials whose "border search" authority is not based on probable cause must be excluded. That contention misunderstands the applicable law. So long as the evidence seized in a permissible, routine customs border inspection meets federal standards for such searches, see 19 U.S.C. § 1582, 2 it is no violation of the defendant's constitutional rights if the evidence is later used in a state prosecution. People v. St. George Matthews, 112 Cal.App.3d 11, 169 Cal.Rptr. 263 (1980); State v. Smith, 399 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); People v. Materon, 107 A.D.2d 408, 411, 487 N.Y.S.2d 334, 338-39 (1985); and see Ross v. State, 411 So.2d 247 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982); People v. Van Horn, 76 A.D.2d 378, 430 N.Y.S.2d 646 (1980); People v. Nissen, 97 Misc.2d 1000, 412 N.Y.S.2d 999 (Sup.Ct.1979).
The court below determined only that the State had the authority to prosecute the defendant under its laws for possession of hashish within the federal enclave. Since the State may validly proceed on its theory of possession in Vermont, we do not reach the question of whether Vermont could also prosecute the defendant solely on his alleged possession within the federal enclave. Even if this Court wanted to answer this latter question, the present record is inadequate to allow a full examination of the issue.
Though our decision is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mollica
...(evidence seized by Coast Guard in manner inconsistent with state standards is admissible in state criminal trial); State v. Dreibelbis, 147 Vt. 98, 511 A.2d 307 (1986) (affirming conviction for transporting drugs within state when evidence used was obtained by federal officers using method......
-
State v. Walker-Brazie
...Line border station discovered two pounds of hashish in the trunk of the defendant's vehicle during a routine border inspection. 147 Vt. 98, 511 A.2d 307 (1986). After federal Customs officials notified the Vermont State Police of the discovery, the State charged the defendant with a drug o......
-
State v. Ramirez
...v. State , 746 S.W.2d 515, 519 (Tex. Ct. App. 1988) ; State v. Coburn, 165 Vt. 318, 683 A.2d 1343, 1347 (1996) ; State v. Dreibelbis , 147 Vt. 98, 511 A.2d 307, 308 (1986) ; State v. Bradley , 105 Wash.2d 898, 719 P.2d 546, 549 (1986) (en banc); State v. Gwinner , 59 Wash.App. 119, 796 P.2d......
-
State v. Walker-Brazie
...Line border station discovered two pounds of hashish in the trunk of the defendant's vehicle during a routine border inspection. 147 Vt. 98, 511 A.2d 307 (1986). After Customs officials notified the Vermont State Police of the discovery, the state charged the defendant with a drug offense i......