State v. Hurley, 117 A.3d 433

Defendant Hurley was stopped in Bennington in June 2013 after a pine-tree-shaped air freshener hung from his rearview mirror was observed by a police officer.
State charged Hurley with driving over the legal limit and DUI under 23 V.S.A. §§ 1201(a)(1) and (2).
Hurley moved to suppress the fruits of the stop, arguing the stop was invalid under 23 V.S.A. § 1125 and that the air freshener did not necessarily obstruct vision.
The trial court held § 1125 prohibits any object behind the windshield regardless of obstruction, and Hurley was convicted at bench trial.
The Vermont Supreme Court reviews whether § 1125 per se bans hanging objects, or only those that materially obstruct vision, and whether officer’s reasonable mistake of law can justify the stop.
The court ultimately holds that § 1125 is violated only when an object behind the windshield materially obstructs vision, and that the officer’s reasonable mistaken interpretation allows the stop to stand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 1125 ban any object behind the windshield regardless of obstruction?	Hurley argues the statute prohibits any hanging object regardless of obstruction.	Hurley contends the statute targets only obstructive items; total ban is overbroad.	Statute prohibits only obstructive objects; not a per se ban.
May a stop be justified when based on a reasonable mistake of law?	Hurley argues the stop lacks reasonable suspicion if based on a literal misreading of § 1125.	State argues exception allowing reasonable mistake of law if objectively reasonable.	Officer’s mistaken interpretation was objectively reasonable; stop valid.
Does the rule of lenity apply to interpret § 1125 in this context?	Hurley urges lenity to favor defendant where ambiguity exists.	State asserts lenity does not override unambiguous penal language.	Lenity not invoked; statute ambiguous but interpreted to avoid overbreadth; ruled consistent with reasonableness.

Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (U.S. 2014) (mistake-of-law may justify a stop if the mistake is objectively reasonable)
State v. Davis, 182 A.2d 224 (Vt. 2007) (reasonable articulable suspicion supports investigatory stops)
State v. Tuma, 2013 VT 70 (Vt. 2013) (strict literal readings tempered by statute purpose and reason)
In re Carroll, 181 Vt. 383 (Vt. 2007) (consider legislative intent and statute context in interpretation)
Delta Psi Fraternity v. City of Burlington, 185 Vt. 129 (Vt. 2008) (avoid absurd results when interpreting statutes)
Soucy, No. 309-1-13 Cncr, slip op. (Vt. Super. Ct. Mar. 14, 2013) (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013) (trial court on point of obstruction-focused reading of § 1125)