State v. Dunham
2013 VT 15
Vt.2013Background
- In Dunham, a Vermont State Trooper in a Fairlee convenience store lot observed Dunham’s southbound truck; he visually estimated 45 mph in a posted 30-mph zone as the truck passed within ~100 feet, radar unavailable.
- The trooper followed and stopped Dunham; Dunham was cited for DUI and civil suspension; motion to suppress the stop was denied on appeal.
- In Tatham, a Bradford police officer observed Tatham at Main Street traveling about 40 mph in a 25-mph zone; radar was not available due to angle; officer stopped her intending a warning but processed for DUI.
- Tatham moved to suppress all stop evidence; the trial court denied the motion, which the court reviews on appeal.
- The appellate standard of review defers to the trial court’s factual findings unless unsupported; legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.
- The court addresses whether a trained officer’s visual speed estimate can constitute reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop, based on in-court training and observed speed differentials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a trained officer’s visual speed estimate support reasonable suspicion? | State argues credible visual estimates, with training, can justify stops. | Dunham argues visual estimates are mere hunch without objective grounding. | Yes; visual speed estimates can support reasonable suspicion given training and speed differential. |
| Does a large speed differential (significant excess over limit) bolster reliability for a stop? | State contends large differential is strong indicia of reliability. | Dunham contends more than observations are needed; absence of corroboration undermines reliability. | Yes; substantial speed excess provides strong indicia of reliability supporting the stop. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lussier, 171 Vt. 19 (2000) (reasonable suspicion standard for traffic stops; totality of circumstances)
- State v. Simoneau, 176 Vt. 15 (2003) (requires more than a mere hunch; articulable facts and inferences)
- State v. Sutphin, 159 Vt. 9 (1992) (articulable facts and reasonable inferences required for stop)
- State v. Kettlewell, 149 Vt. 331 (1987) (totality of circumstances governs reasonable suspicion analysis)