State v. Rajda, s. 17-051 & 17-126

Decision Date20 July 2018
Docket NumberNos. 17-051 & 17-126,s. 17-051 & 17-126
CourtVermont Supreme Court
Parties STATE of Vermont v. Shannon RAJDA State of Vermont v. Albert Lee Lape, Jr.

196 A.3d 1108

STATE of Vermont
v.
Shannon RAJDA

State of Vermont
v.
Albert Lee Lape, Jr.

Nos. 17-051 & 17-126

Supreme Court of Vermont.

November Term, 2017
July 20, 2018
Reargument Denied September 4, 2018


Rosemary M. Kennedy, Rutland County State's Attorney, and John D.G. Waszak and Travis Weaver, Deputy State's Attorneys, Rutland, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Matthew Valerio, Defender General, and Joshua O'Hara, Appellate Defender, Montpelier, for Defendants-Appellees.

PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Robinson, Eaton and Carroll, JJ., and Davenport, Supr. J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

REIBER, C.J.

¶ 1. In the above consolidated cases, the State appeals the trial court's interlocutory orders granting defendants' motions in limine seeking to suppress evidence of their refusal to submit to blood tests to determine if they were operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs (DUI). The trial court granted the motions in limine based on its conclusion that in Birchfield v. North Dakota, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2160, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right, pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to refuse to submit to a warrantless blood test. In the trial court's view, that constitutional right supersedes Vermont's implied consent law and precludes the State from introducing evidence of defendants' refusal at their criminal DUI trial. The State challenges the trial court's interpretation of Birchfield, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court indicated therein that evidence of a refusal to take a warrantless blood test in the context of a DUI arrest and prosecution could be admitted at trial as evidence of guilt. Defendants respond that the constitutional issue has been effectively mooted by a post- Birchfield amendment to Vermont's implied consent law and that, in any event, the trial court correctly construed Birchfield and other related federal law to prohibit the admission of evidence of a refusal to consent to a warrantless blood test. We conclude that the amendment to the implied consent law did not moot the constitutional issue before us. We further conclude that the trial court erred in determining that, following the Birchfield decision, the Fourth Amendment prohibits admitting in a criminal DUI proceeding evidence of a defendant's refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test requested pursuant to Vermont's implied consent law. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's decisions granting defendants' motions in limine and remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Facts and Procedural History

¶ 2. In State v. Rajda, the trial court accepted as true the following facts set forth in the State's affidavits. On September 3, 2015, a state trooper responded to a report of a motor vehicle accident in

196 A.3d 1110

Shrewsbury, Vermont. At the scene, the trooper interviewed defendant, who stated that she "blacked out" while driving on the road and regained consciousness immediately before crashing her vehicle. She told the trooper that her driver's license had been suspended following a conviction for DUI. She also stated that she had a history of alcohol use and opiate addiction. She denied having had anything to drink before the crash, and a preliminary breath test indicated a 0.00 blood-alcohol content (BAC).

¶ 3. The trooper then arrested defendant on suspicion of DUI and driving with a suspended license. Following the arrest, a drug recognition expert evaluated defendant and determined that she was under the influence of a central nervous system depressant. When asked to submit to a blood test, defendant refused.

¶ 4. The State originally charged defendant with: DUI, third offense1 ; criminal refusal; operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license; reckless endangerment; and cruelty to a child under ten years of age. Following the Birchfield decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that a motorist suspected of DUI could not be criminally prosecuted for refusing to take a blood test, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. at 2184-86, the State dismissed the criminal refusal charge. Defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to suppress evidence of her refusal to submit to a blood test, arguing that under Birchfield she had a constitutional right to refuse to submit to the test and thus the State could not present evidence of her refusal to do so. In opposition to the motion, the State argued that the holding in Birchfield prohibited only a separate prosecution for a refusal and did not extend to prohibiting admission of evidence of a refusal at a DUI prosecution.

¶ 5. In a February 1, 2017 decision, the trial court agreed with defendant, ruling that after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Birchfield, the Fourth Amendment prohibited admission of evidence of a refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test. Accordingly, the court concluded that the provision in Vermont's implied consent law explicitly allowing the introduction of evidence of a refusal to take an evidentiary test, defined as either a breath or blood test, was unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution to the extent it applied to blood tests.

¶ 6. Two months later, the same trial court judge, by entry order, granted defendant's motion in limine in State v. Lape. As in Rajda, a drug recognition expert found defendant to be impaired after he was arrested for DUI. Defendant was initially charged with DUI-fourth offense, criminal refusal-third offense, driving with a suspended license, and possession of a narcotic drug. In response to defendant's motion in limine, the State dismissed the criminal refusal charge. The trial court concluded that no facts distinguished this case from State v. Rajda with respect to its legal analysis.

¶ 7. In each case, the State filed a motion for permission to file an interlocutory appeal, and the trial court granted the motions. We accepted the interlocutory appeals and consolidated the cases for purposes of briefing and argument.

¶ 8. On appeal, the State argues that there is no constitutional basis for excluding refusal evidence in DUI prosecutions and that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision

196 A.3d 1111

in Birchfield strongly suggested that the evidentiary consequences of a refusal to submit to a blood test in such circumstances are not constitutionally barred. Defendants respond that: (1) the appeals should be dismissed as moot in light of an amendment, effective July 1, 2017, to Vermont's implied consent law that continues to expressly allow the admission of a refusal to submit to a warrantless breath test, but no longer expressly allows the admission of a refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test; and (2) in any event, the trial court correctly ruled that, after Birchfield, the admission of evidence at a criminal DUI prosecution of a defendant's refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

II. Statutory Amendment

¶ 9. Defendants first argue that we need not resolve the constitutional issue raised in these appeals because the Legislature has amended the implied consent statute to make it clear that evidence of a refusal to take a blood test, as opposed to a breath test, may not be admitted at a criminal DUI prosecution. We disagree.

¶ 10. Under Vermont's implied consent law, any person operating a motor vehicle on a highway within the state "is deemed to have given consent to an evidentiary test of that person's breath for the purpose of determining the person's alcohol concentration or the presence of other drug in the blood." 23 V.S.A. § 1202(a)(1) (emphasis added). Further, a motor vehicle operator "is deemed to have given consent to the taking of an evidentiary sample of blood" in situations where "breath testing equipment is not reasonably available or ... the officer has reason to believe that the person is unable to give a sufficient sample of breath for testing or ... the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is under the influence of a drug other than alcohol." Id. § 1202(a)(2) (emphasis added). When an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is operating a motor vehicle while impaired, in violation of 23 V.S.A. § 1201, an "evidentiary test shall be required." Id. § 1202(a)(3). An evidentiary test is defined by statute as "a breath or blood test which indicates the person's alcohol concentration or the presence of other drug and which is intended to be introduced as evidence." Id. § 1200(3). The implied consent law criminalizes refusing a reasonable request to take "an evidentiary test" when either the person has a prior DUI conviction or was involved in an accident that resulted in serious bodily injury or death to another. Id. § 1201(b) - (c).

¶ 11. In June 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Birchfield that, absent exigent circumstances, "the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving," but does not permit the taking of warrantless blood tests either incident to an arrest for drunk driving or based on the driver's legally implied consent to submit to the test. ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. at 2184-86. In an apparent response to this decision, the Legislature amended § 1202 as follows. First, at the end of the subsection on blood tests, § 1202(a)(2), the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Kilby
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • June 18, 2021
    ...evidence of her refusal to provide a breath sample" because there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment); State v. Rajda , 208 Vt. 324, 196 A.3d 1108, 1118–19 (2018) (analyzing Birchfield to conclude the Fourth Amendment does not bar admission into evidence that defendant refused to subm......
  • Commonwealth v. Bell
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • July 17, 2019
    ...test in the context of a DUI prosecution does not warrant the same constitutional protection.’ " Id. at 28, quoting State v. Rajda , 196 A.3d 1108, 1121 (Vt. 2018).Regarding public policy, the Commonwealth argues Section 1547(e) does not infringe upon privacy rights as the subsection applie......
  • State v. Williams
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • October 16, 2020
    ...assistance, without unconstitutionally burdening [his] Fourth Amendment right"); see also State v. Rajda, 2018 VT 72, ¶¶ 32-39, 208 Vt. 324, 196 A.3d 1108 (applying unconstitutional-conditions doctrine to determine that Fourth Amendment does not bar evidence of defendant's refusal to submit......
  • State v. Levanduski
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • July 1, 2020
    ...that "in Birchfield , the Supreme Court acknowledged the continued validity of Neville "); State v. Rajda , 2018 VT 72, ¶30, 208 Vt. 324, 196 A.3d 1108 (noting that in Birchfield "the Court went out of its way to endorse the constitutionality of implied consent laws and strongly suggested t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Special needs' and other fourth amendment searches
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Suppressing Criminal Evidence - 2020 Contents
    • July 31, 2020
    ...Ct. App. 2018). Lower courts interpreting Birchield have permitted evidence of the refusal to be admitted in DWI cases. State v. Rajda , 196 A.3d 1108 (Vt. 2018); Fitzgerald v. People , 394 P.3d 671 (2017). In states where an accused intoxicated driver does not have a choice of whether to s......
  • Special needs' and other fourth amendment searches
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Fourth amendment searches and seizures
    • April 1, 2022
    ...Ct. App. 2018). Lower courts interpreting Birchfield have permitted evidence of the refusal to be admitted in DWI cases. State v. Rajda , 196 A.3d 1108 (Vt. 2018); Fitzgerald v. People , 394 P.3d 671 (2017). Note that the holding in Birchfield raises the issue of whether an arrestee’s conse......

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