State v. Fred Pilon

Decision Date04 January 1933
Citation163 A. 571,105 Vt. 55
PartiesSTATE v. FRED PILON
CourtVermont Supreme Court

October Term, 1932.

Searches and Seizures---Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Illegal Search and Seizure---Harmless Error.

1. Search and seizure in violation of protection afforded individual by Declaration of Rights, Vermont Constitution Ch. 1, Art. 11, cannot be legalized by what is found, though contraband.

2. In prosecution for unlawful possession and transportation of intoxicating liquor, admission of evidence though obtained by illegal search and seizure, held without error.

3. Doctrine of United States Supreme Court holding inadmissible evidence obtained by search and seizure contrary to federal Constitution is not binding upon State in interpreting search and seizure clause of its own Constitution.

4. Error, if any, in excluding evidence as to method used by officer in obtaining information on which he made search and seizure, held harmless, where even upon assumption that search and seizure were illegal, evidence obtained thereby was admissible.

INFORMATION charging respondent with unlawful possession and transportation of intoxicating liquor. Plea, not guilty. Trial by St. Albans city court, M. H. Alexander, City Judge. Finding of guilty, and judgment and sentence thereon. The respondent excepted. The opinion states the case.

Judgment that there is no error in the record and that the respondent takes nothing by his exceptions. Let execution be done.

Wm. R. McFeeters for the respondent.

A. B. Rowley, State's attorney, for the State.

Present: POWERS, C. J., SLACK, MOULTON, THOMPSON, and GRAHAM, JJ.

OPINION
POWERS

Acting on a "tip" that the respondent was on the road with intoxicating liquor in his car, the chief of police of the city of St. Albans went to a place outside that city and waited for him. When his car approached, the officer stopped it; and, without a warrant or other precept, he searched the car and found a small bottle of liquor in it. Then, noticing a bulging of the respondent's coat, he searched him and found and seized several bottles of liquor that were in the pockets of his clothing. Thereupon, he arrested the respondent and a complaint was brought against him for unlawful possession and unlawful transportation. At the trial in the city court of St. Albans, the respondent was convicted and sentenced. He excepted.

The principal question in the case is raised by the exception saved when the court admitted in evidence the liquor found on the respondent's person. For the purposes of this discussion, we assume, as the respondent contends, that the search of the respondent was in violation of the protection afforded him by our Bill of Rights, Art. 11, which declares that "the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers and possessions, free from search and seizure." This assumption strips the officer of all legal justification and stamps his search and seizure as illegal from the beginning. Such illegal acts are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Frank O'brien
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • January 4, 1934
    ...cited, in State v. Stacy, 104 Vt. 379, 401, 160 A. 257, 747, and the rule has been approved and followed, since then, in State v. Pilon, 105 Vt. 55, 57, 163 A. 571, and State v. Parker, 104 Vt. 494, 498, 162 A. 696. Furthermore, the motion to quash was not a right, but was addressed to the ......
  • State v. Orlando Coolidge
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • February 6, 1934
    ... ... State v. O'Brien, 106 Vt. 97, 170 A. 98 ... (decided January Term, 1934); State v ... Pilon, 105 Vt. 55, 57, 163 A. 571; State v ... Parker, 104 Vt. 494, 498, 162 A. 696; State ... v. Stacy, 104 Vt. 379, 401, 160 A. 257, 747, and ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT