State v. Laflin, s. 92-162 and 92-197
| Docket Nº | Nos. 92-162 and 92-197 |
| Citation | 627 A.2d 344, 160 Vt. 198 |
| Case Date | April 09, 1993 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
Page 344
v.
Roy B. LAFLIN.
STATE of Vermont,
v.
Vaughn R. LAFLIN.
Edward D. Sutton, Chittenden County Deputy State's Atty., Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee.
Karen Rush Shingler, Burlington, for defendant-appellant Roy B. Laflin.
Page 345
Norman R. Blais, Burlington, for defendant-appellant Vaughn R. Laflin.
Before ALLEN, C.J., GIBSON, DOOLEY, MORSE and JOHNSON, JJ.
GIBSON, Justice.
Defendants pled nolo contendere to misdemeanor violations of 10 V.S.A. § 4747 (taking big game) and 10 V.S.A. § 4781 (possessing big game), reserving the right to appeal the district court's denial of their motions to suppress. They argue that their arrests without warrant constituted violations of [160 Vt. 199] V.R.Cr.P. 3 and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and, therefore, evidence seized pursuant to the arrests must be suppressed. We reverse.
On September 18, 1991, state game wardens received an anonymous tip that defendant Vaughn Laflin was engaged in taking big game on the National Guard firing range in Jericho. The wardens located defendant's truck later that evening and waited nearly four hours until it left the area. They then proceeded to Vaughn's residence, where they discovered the same truck parked in the driveway.
The wardens could hear two voices in an outbuilding located on the premises, but because the windows were boarded up, they could see only shadows from interior lights. They also noticed fresh blood and tallow in both the truck bed and on the threshold to the outbuilding. One of the wardens knocked on the door of the building and identified himself. When he received no reply, he announced through the closed door that he was applying for a search warrant, and that they could choose to remain inside or come out. When there was still no response, he latched the door to the shed from the outside, thus locking the occupants in the building. The wardens then contacted a deputy prosecutor by cellular telephone to procure a warrant.
Approximately one hour after the officials had arrived at the scene, one of the officers noticed that Vaughn had opened a window in an attempt to reach the latch on the door. Vaughn said to the officer, "What, do you have us locked in?" The officials then unlatched the door and ordered Vaughn out of the building. Vaughn opened the door and was again told to come out. The four officers had their guns drawn, and the cruiser headlights were turned on the building throughout the incident. Vaughn exited and was handcuffed.
Through the open door, the officers could see the hindquarters of a moose in the building. They entered the structure to conduct a "security sweep" and noticed several items, including a large piece of fur, knives, a whetstone and saw, a gambrel used to hoist a large carcass to the ceiling, and a trap door in the ceiling. One of the officers pushed on the trap door, felt resistance, and ordered the person pushing on the door to come out. The door opened, and the officials repeated their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Barker, 22383-0-II.
...of the warrant in this case implicated a fundamental, constitutional concern and suppression is therefore appropriate."); State v. Laflin, 160 Vt. 198, 627 A.2d 344, 346 (1993) ("We hold that V.R.Cr.P. 3 was designed to both codify and enhance protections conferred by the Fourth Amendment, ......
-
State v. Chapman, 00-442.
...trial of unlawfully obtained 800 A.2d 452 evidence, and evidence that is the fruit of unlawful police conduct. See, e.g., State v. Laflin, 160 Vt. 198, 201, 627 A.2d 344, 346 (1993); State v. Badger, 141 Vt. 430, 452-53, 450 A.2d 336, 349 (1982). See also State v. Lussier, 171 Vt. 19, 33, 7......
-
State v. Forcier, 92-530
...Amendment," the remedy for violation of Rule 3 is suppression of the evidence seized under the exclusionary doctrine. State v. Laflin, 160 Vt. 198, 201, 627 A.2d 344, 346 Defendant's first argument is that he was formally arrested more than two hours from the time of the alleged offense and......
-
State v. Robinson, 95-556
...of the search. He is correct that a search incident to an illegal arrest requires suppression of the evidence obtained. State v. Laflin, 160 Vt. 198, 201, 627 A.2d 344, 346 (1993). Because of the unique nature of summary contempt, however, the policies behind the exclusionary rule do not re......