State v. Nichole L. Dubaniewicz, 208 A.3d 619

Background

Police stopped a car for speeding; initial stop involved J.S. (driver) and Nichole Dubaniewicz (passenger). Sergeant observed pallor, heavy coats, alleged track marks, rapid pulse and suspected “dope sick.”
Sergeant issued J.S. a written warning and released the car, but investigated further based on observations and reports of local drug activity; he identified a nearby Big Y in Greenfield and estimated the couple’s return time.
On the car’s return, Dubaniewicz was driving. Officer observed constricted pupils, that both had shed coats and appeared more comfortable; he ordered Dubaniewicz out of the vehicle and into his cruiser but did not conduct field-sobriety tests and later testified he was comfortable she was not impaired.
The sergeant radioed for a canine unit; after ~40 minutes the dog alerted to drugs, the car was seized, and a warrant was obtained. Search of the car revealed bricks of bagged heroin; forensic testing of a sample confirmed heroin.
Defendant moved to suppress evidence arguing the exit order, extended detention, canine scan, and warrant lacked constitutional support; trial court denied suppression and a jury convicted Dubaniewicz of possession of ≥1 gram of heroin.
On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court held the exit order was supported by reasonable suspicion of impairment but that the stop’s expansion into a drug investigation and the continued detention pending a canine unit lacked the additional reasonable suspicion required; evidence obtained after that point should have been suppressed, so conviction reversed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer reasonably ordered driver (Dubaniewicz) out of vehicle	Exit order justified by signs of possible impairment (constricted pupils, track marks, affect change) to ensure safety/investigate DUI	Exit order unsupported by objective facts; observations were lay impressions insufficient for seizure	Court: Exit order justified — officer had reasonable suspicion she was driving under influence
Whether officer could expand stop into a drug investigation	Officer relied on initial observations plus tips about local drug activity and individuals’ reputations to suspect drug possession and extend detention	Expansion lacked new, articulable facts developed during the stop showing drug activity; prior rumors insufficient	Court: Expansion into drug investigation not supported — no additional objective basis arose during stop
Whether 40-minute detention awaiting canine and canine scan were lawful	Canine alert and wait were investigative steps supported by reasonable suspicion of drugs	Prolonged detention for canine was excessive without reasonable suspicion specific to drug possession; canine scan and subsequent search unlawful	Court: Detention pending canine and drug-odor scan unsupported and evidence from those actions should have been suppressed
Whether evidence (heroin) admitted at trial should be suppressed and conviction upheld	State relied on lawful exit order and subsequent procedures leading to discovery of contraband and warrant	Evidence obtained after unlawful expansion/detention was fruit of unconstitutional seizure; conviction should be vacated	Court: Because post-exit investigative expansion and detention were unlawful, heroin evidence should have been suppressed; conviction reversed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cunningham, 183 Vt. 401, 954 A.2d 1290 (Vt. 2008) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Weisler, 190 Vt. 344, 35 A.3d 970 (Vt. 2011) (review of factual findings)
State v. Sprague, 175 Vt. 123, 824 A.2d 539 (Vt. 2003) (exit-order justified by reasonable suspicion of risk to officer safety or crime)
State v. Winters, 200 Vt. 296, 131 A.3d 186 (Vt. 2015) (officer may extend stop if additional reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity arises)
State v. Manning, 200 Vt. 423, 132 A.3d 716 (Vt. 2015) (totality-of-circumstances analysis for reasonable suspicion)