State v. Vanhouten, s. 94-599
Citation | 679 A.2d 900,165 Vt. 572 |
Decision Date | 16 May 1996 |
Docket Number | 94-600,Nos. 94-599,s. 94-599 |
Parties | STATE of Vermont v. Gregory D. VANHOUTEN. STATE of Vermont v. Arthur J. BUSHELL. |
Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Before ALLEN, C.J., and GIBSON, DOOLEY, MORSE and JOHNSON, JJ.
In this consolidated action, the State of Vermont appeals from Franklin District Court's dismissal of three DWI actions. The court dismissed the cases on the ground that Vermont did not have jurisdiction because the alleged offenses occurred within a federal enclave. We reverse and remand.
Defendants were detained by federal authorities at the port of entry at Highgate Springs while en route from Canada to Vermont on Interstate 89. The authorities, suspecting that defendants were under the influence of alcohol, alerted state police. State police subsequently effected warrantless arrests of defendants within the port of entry, which is a federal enclave. At trial, defendants moved for dismissal arguing that, under 1 V.S.A. § 551, state police do not have authority to make warrantless arrests within a federal enclave. Although the information in the cases charged the DWI violations as occurring on Interstate 89 in Highgate, Vermont, the trial court found that the violations took place within the federal enclave and dismissed on the basis that state police do not have jurisdiction over violations of state law that occur within federal enclaves.
As we noted in State v. Dreibelbis, 147 Vt. 98, 99, 511 A.2d 307, 308 (1986), there is a short stretch of land between the Canadian border and the federal enclave. Thus the court ruling is inconsistent with the facts, and the court did not address the question defendants raised--whether state police are authorized to make warrantless arrests within federal enclaves for violations that occur outside the enclave, on property subject to state jurisdiction. See id. at 99-100, 511 A.2d at 307-08 ( ); 23 V.S.A. § 1004(a), (b) ( ). We reverse and remand for a determination of that question, see Strong v. Strong, 144 Vt. 44, 46, 472 A.2d 1245, 1247 (1984) ( ), and in the event the arrest is found to be extrajurisdictional, for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Graves
...defendant's argument. The question of authority to make warrantless arrests within the federal enclave was raised in State v. Vanhouten, 165 Vt. 572, 679 A.2d 900 (1996) (mem.), but not reached due to our remand for further factual findings. See id. at 573, 679 A.2d at 901. Thus, to date, w......