State v. Chaplin
191 Vt. 583
| Vt. | 2012Background
- Burglary at Bob's Auto in Essex in the early morning of August 10, 2009; items stolen included over 100 Vermont inspection stickers, a speaker, and Snap-On tools.
- Detective applied for a warrant to search defendant Chaplin's residence based on a twelve-paragraph probable-cause affidavit.
- Affidavit relied on surveillance video, statements of a named informant, and statements of two confidential informants (CS 63 and CS 60).
- Surveillance video described a dark minivan passing the scene, suggesting可能 vehicle damage; informants described Chaplin and his residence and minivan ownership.
- Warrant issued August 28, 2009 and executed September 1, 2009; evidence gathered was challenged; superior court suppressed the evidence, and State appealed.
- Court held the affidavit failed to establish probable cause under V.R.Cr.P. 41(c) and affirmed suppression of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit established probable cause under Aguilar-Spinelli. | State contends informant’s credibility and basis support probable cause. | Chaplin argues lack of factual basis and reliability for informant statements. | No; the informant’s basis of knowledge and reliability were lacking. |
| Whether the named informant’s statements satisfy Aguilar-Spinelli. | State asserts credibility from named informant and sworn statements. | Chaplin contends insufficient basis for the informant’s conclusions. | No; the affidavit failed both prongs of Aguilar-Spinelli. |
| Whether hearsay from informants could elevate nonhearsay observations to probable cause. | State argues hearsay could bolster nonhearsay evidence (e.g., minivan observations). | Chaplin contends nonhearsay observations cannot cure inadequate hearsay. | No; hearsay did not independently and sufficiently elevate to probable cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barrett, 132 Vt. 369, 320 A.2d 621 (1974) (basis-of-knowledge requirement for informants)
- State v. McManis, 188 Vt. 187, 5 A.3d 890 (2010) (probable cause review limited to four corners of affidavit)
- State v. Arrington, 188 Vt. 460, 8 A.3d 483 (2010) (informant reliability factors; named vs. confidential informants)
- State v. Ballou, 148 Vt. 427, 535 A.2d 1284 (1987) (caution against hypertechnical scrutiny; corroboration limits)
- State v. Goldberg, 178 Vt. 96, 872 A.2d 378 (2005) (two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli test in Vermont under a common-sense approach)
- Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) (two-pronged test for informant credibility and basis of knowledge)
- Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969) (reliability and basis for information from informants)