State v. Delaoz, 22 A.3d 388

Police respond to a noise complaint on Brattleboro’s South Main Street; three individuals, including Delaoz, are questioned.
Delaoz provides a false name; officer informs him of an extraditable Florida warrant and Delaoz denies Florida visits.
Delaoz drops a folded dollar bill pouch in front of the officer; pouch is immediately perceived as a drug container.
Delaoz hands the pouch to the officer; after opening it, cocaine is found and Delaoz makes incriminating statements.
Delaoz is arrested; searches of his person at the scene uncover cocaine, marijuana, a handcuff key in a shoe, and other items.
At the police station, processing occurs; the officer forces removal of cocaine from Delaoz’s underpants, leading to further bystander evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the physical evidence tainted by unwarned statements?	Delaoz argues Miranda violation tainted evidence.	State contends independent probable cause justifies seizure and search.	Evidence valid; independent probable cause supersedes unwarned statements.
Was the handcuff key testimony admissible and probative?	Key evidence shows intent to possess drugs knowingly.	Evidence is prejudicial and irrelevant to guilt on all charges.	Court did not abuse discretion; handcuff key admissible for intent.
Did the sentencing rely on impermissible information or improper inference of drug selling?	Judicial experience can inform sentencing; prior drug history relevant.	Court erred by inferring drug sale propensity and relying on prosecutor experience.	Some reliance on experience and prior history permitted; factors within discretion.
Did the cocaine sentence violate 13 V.S.A. § 7031(a) by imposing a fixed term?	Court’s term structure should allow parole consideration; minor gap acceptable.	Court’s minimum equals maximum too closely; violates indeterminate sentencing.	Fixed-term-like sentence invalid; remanded for resentencing on cocaine charge.

United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (U.S. 2004) (Miranda warnings do not always require suppression of physical fruits)
State v. Peterson, 181 Vt. 436 (Vt. 2007) (Art. 10 suppression broader remedy than Fourth Amendment)
In re C.C., 186 Vt. 474 (Vt. 2009) (Plain-view/recognizable contraband exceptions to search)
State v. Badger, 450 A.2d 345 (Vt. 1982) (Probable cause and exigent circumstances for seizure)
State v. Cunningham, 183 Vt. 401 (Vt. 2008) (Article 11 vs. Fourth Amendment balance in searches)
State v. Zaccaro, 574 A.2d 1256 (Vt. 1990) (Article 11 protections for private searches)
State v. Kimmick, 181 Vt. 635 (Vt. 2007) (Difference between min and max terms need not be exact)
State v. Lambert, 175 Vt. 275 (Vt. 2003) (Indeterminate sentencing framework and non-identical terms)