Berthier v. People of the Virgin Islands
2024 V.I. 35
Supreme Court of The Virgin Is...2024Background
- Shekil Berthier was arrested for allegedly sending threats and shooting into an occupied home while already on pretrial release for another matter.
- The Superior Court allowed Berthier pretrial release with conditions including 24-hour house arrest and electronic monitoring; he could leave for legal or medical appointments only.
- Berthier moved to modify his release, seeking to remove the electronic monitoring (or at least avoid its associated costs), and to obtain leave to work.
- The Superior Court granted Berthier leave to work but refused to remove the monitoring or its costs.
- Berthier later violated his pretrial conditions but the State did not move to revoke his release until after the relevant appeal; eventually, his bail was revoked in another matter, prompting an argument by the prosecution that his appeal was moot.
- The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands determined the appeal was not moot and proceeded to rule on the appropriateness of electronic monitoring and its costs under Virgin Islands law.
Issues
| Issue | Berthier's Argument | People's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to Order Electronic Monitoring | Superior Court lacks express rule/statute authorizing pretrial electronic monitoring | Superior Court has implied/existing powers under procedural rules to order monitoring | Superior Court has express authority to order electronic monitoring under Rule 5-1 |
| Constitutionality of Pretrial Electronic Monitoring | Monitoring violates Fourth Amendment/Section 3 protections, no framework to prevent infringement | Monitoring is constitutional, especially when consented to as a condition of release | Use of monitoring is a search, but is valid due to Berthier's explicit and implicit consent, so not an unreasonable search |
| Power to Impose Costs of Monitoring on Defendant | No statutory/rule authority to shift costs onto pretrial defendants; if allowed, ability to pay must be considered | Power implied or supported by need to aid court’s jurisdiction | Superior Court may not impose monitoring costs without Supreme Court rule/order; fee-shifting not allowed in current framework |
| Application of Criminal Rule 32.1 Instead of Rule 5-1 | Improper legal standard was used (Rule 32.1 governs post-conviction, not pretrial, matters) | Any error in reference to Rule 32.1 was harmless; Rule 5-1 suffices | Reference was error but harmless; real analysis and authority derived from Rule 5-1 |
Key Cases Cited
- Browne v. People, 50 V.I. 241 (V.I. 2008) (explaining when bail may be denied and the standard for excessive bail)
- Tobal v. People, 51 V.I. 147 (V.I. 2009) (reiterating that judges may set bail with conditions rather than deny outright except for capital offenses)
- Rieara v. People, 57 V.I. 659 (V.I. 2012) (requiring individualized determinations and least-restrictive bail conditions)
- Looby v. People, 68 V.I. 683 (V.I. 2018) (setting out standards for reviewing bail conditions and constitutional questions)