280 A.3d 24
Vt.2021Background
- Around 9:45 p.m. a U.S. Border Patrol agent on roving patrol stopped a vehicle on VT Route 105 about one mile from the Canadian border after observing allegedly suspicious driving; the agent smelled marijuana and checked registration.
- Defendants Phillip Walker-Brazie and Brandi-Lena Butterfield refused consent to search; additional Border Patrol agents searched the car and seized marijuana and hallucinogenic mushrooms.
- Border Patrol turned the seized evidence over to Vermont law enforcement; state prosecutors charged defendants under Vermont drug statutes.
- Defendants moved to suppress on the ground the warrantless search violated Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution; the trial court denied suppression and certified an interlocutory question about whether federal Border Patrol must follow Vermont law (Article 11) for roving-patrol searches.
- The Vermont Supreme Court assumed for appeal that federal-law requirements were met and held that Article 11 applies to federal Border Patrol roving-patrol searches conducted in the State’s interior; evidence obtained in violation of Article 11 is inadmissible in Vermont criminal prosecutions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 11 of the VT Constitution applies to evidence seized by federal Border Patrol on roving patrol in Vermont interior | State’s Attorney: Coburn and Rennis control; federal border interest can preempt Article 11 when agents act to safeguard the border | Defendants: Coburn/Rennis are limited to searches at the border or its functional equivalent; Article 11 protects Vermonters regardless of who conducts the search | Held: Article 11 applies in the interior; Coburn and Rennis do not govern searches by roving patrols off the border or its functional equivalent |
| Whether evidence seized by federal agents in violation of Article 11 may be used in state criminal proceedings (reverse silver-platter) | State’s Attorney: Evidence lawfully seized under federal law should be admissible in state court; exclusion would not deter state misconduct and would frustrate public safety | Defendants: Vermont’s exclusionary rule protects individual privacy and dignity; evidence violating Article 11 must be excluded regardless of whether federal officers seized it | Held: Evidence obtained in violation of Article 11 by Border Patrol on roving patrol is inadmissible in Vermont state prosecutions; exclusionary rule applies to protect privacy and judicial integrity |
| Whether proximity to border or ‘‘shadow of the border’’ should control applicability of Article 11 | State’s Attorney: Close proximity (one mile) and known smuggling area mean federal interest outweighs state privacy | Defendants: Proximity alone does not convert a roving patrol into a border or functional-equivalent search; roving patrols are distinct | Held: Reasonableness is determined by context and nature of intrusion, not mere distance; roving patrols are not the functional equivalent of the border for Article 11 purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Coburn, 683 A.2d 1343 (Vt. 1996) (held Vermont Constitution does not apply to lawful federal border searches or their functional equivalents)
- State v. Rennis, 90 A.3d 906 (Vt. 2014) (applied Coburn to a fixed checkpoint; treated checkpoint as functional equivalent of border)
- Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) (roving patrol searches away from border require probable cause; roving patrols differ from border or its functional equivalent)
- United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (roving Border Patrol stops require reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) (permitted routine, brief stops at permanent checkpoints as functional equivalents of the border)
- Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) (federal courts cannot admit evidence obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment regardless of source)
- State v. Dreibelbis, 511 A.2d 307 (Vt. 1986) (admitted evidence seized in lawful routine customs inspection for use in state prosecution)
- State v. Bauder, 924 A.2d 38 (Vt. 2007) (Article 11 requires probable cause plus exigent circumstances for warrantless automobile search)
- State v. Badger, 450 A.2d 336 (Vt. 1982) (describing purposes of Vermont exclusionary rule and institutional duty to enforce the state constitution)