181 A.3d 505
Vt.2017Background
- Trooper stopped Philip Tetreault twice for speeding on I-91; during the second stop the trooper became suspicious of drug activity and requested a K-9 unit.
- At both stops Tetreault made repeated furtive movements toward the passenger side, appeared unusually nervous, and had an air freshener, GPS, and a prepaid-type cellphone in the vehicle.
- Tetreault initially said he was traveling to Waterbury, CT for an engagement ring but admitted he had been to the Holyoke Mall (a known drug-source area) and had not purchased a ring.
- After being asked to exit the car (he was told he could refuse), Tetreault sat in the patrol cruiser for several minutes, was questioned about drug use, and then signed a written consent to a full vehicle search.
- A pill bottle and pipe were found; the K-9 alerted on the console and a purse, and police discovered packaged heroin (14.4 grams). Tetreault was convicted of heroin trafficking and conspiracy; he appealed, arguing suppression was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Tetreault) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer could order driver out of car | Exit order was lawful because driver voluntarily left after being told he could refuse | Trooper lacked reasonable suspicion or safety basis; exit was coercive under Sprague | Trooper’s request and the driver’s exit were voluntary; under VT Constitution exit is allowed only with safety or reasonable suspicion but here facts supported voluntariness and suspicion |
| Whether traffic stop could be expanded into drug investigation | Expansion justified by totality of circumstances (itinerary inconsistencies, furtive movements, nervousness, apparent marijuana, TracFone/air freshener, CI info, travel to drug-source city) | Expansion impermissible; information insufficient to create reasonable suspicion | Totality of circumstances gave reasonable, articulable suspicion to extend the stop for drug investigation |
| Whether questioning in cruiser tainted subsequent consent | Questioning and brief physical checks were reasonable and did not measurably prolong stop; trooper had suspicion to inquire about drugs | Interrogation was overly intrusive and converted the encounter, so consent was involuntary/tainted | Time (~5–8 minutes) and nature of questioning not unreasonably intrusive; consent was not tainted |
| Whether defendant withdrew consent before K-9 sniff or limited scope | Consent to search was voluntary and not revoked; subsequent assent to K-9 search renewed consent | Defendant expressed reluctance and claimed a warrant was needed, which revoked consent | Statements were equivocal and not an unequivocal withdrawal; defendant later affirmed consent to the dog sniff, so search lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (officer may order driver out of vehicle during traffic stop)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (traffic stop is a seizure that must be supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause)
- State v. Sprague, 175 Vt. 123 (Vt. 2003) (under Vt. Const., exit orders require officer safety concern or reasonable suspicion; voluntariness analysis)
- State v. Cunningham, 183 Vt. 401 (Vt. 2008) (investigative stop must be supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- State v. Manning, 200 Vt. 423 (Vt. 2015) (totality-of-circumstances approach to reasonable suspicion; avoid divide-and-conquer)
- State v. Weisler, 190 Vt. 344 (Vt. 2011) (officer’s advice that suspect may refuse supports voluntariness of consent)
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (officer’s unrelated inquiries do not convert stop if they do not measurably extend its duration)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (consent to search can include scope for containers and does not require magic words to limit scope)