State v. Timothy P. Perley, 129 A.3d 93

Defendant was involved in a noon car accident, fled the scene, and was later located about two hours later at a courthouse as a passenger in his father’s car.
Officer observed signs of intoxication at about 2:00 p.m. (strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot watery eyes) and arrested defendant.
Defendant refused an evidentiary breath test after being informed of the right to consult counsel; he asked whether his attorney Mike Ledden was at the barracks, was told no, declined an offer to contact a public defender, and refused the test.
Trial court dismissed the separate DUI (third-offense) charge for lack of prima facie evidence but denied dismissal of the refusal charge, finding reasonable grounds for the breath-test request.
Jury convicted defendant of refusing to submit to an evidentiary test under 23 V.S.A. § 1201(b); defendant appealed arguing lack of proof that the officer had “reasonable grounds” to request the test.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved the officer had "reasonable grounds" to request an evidentiary breath test	State: Officer had objective facts (accident at noon, fleeing scene, high-speed driving, later observed signs of intoxication) sufficient to support reasonable grounds	Defendant: Delay (~1 hr 55 min) between accident and encounter, no direct evidence of alcohol consumption at time of driving, so no reasonable grounds	Held: Affirmed — totality of circumstances supported reasonable grounds (probable-cause–level inquiry)
Whether officer’s failure to contact defendant’s specific attorney denied statutory right to counsel before test	State: Officer offered counsel and defendant declined; statutory consultation right was honored	Defendant: Argued officer interfered with his right to consult counsel (raised first on appeal)	Held: Not considered — claim forfeited for failure to raise at trial and no plain error shown

State v. Comstock, 145 Vt. 503 (recognizing "reasonable grounds" akin to probable cause in DUI context)
Shaw v. Vermont Dist. Court, 152 Vt. 1 (discussing similarity between "reasonable grounds" and probable cause)
State v. Dist. Court, 129 Vt. 212 (framing "reasonable grounds" determination as protective parallel to probable cause hearings)
Kaley v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1090 (probable cause requires only a fair probability; not proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
Gates v. Illinois, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause is a practical, commonsense standard and not a finely tuned proof requirement)
State v. Towne, 158 Vt. 607 (probable cause is not the same as "more likely than not")
Ayler v. Dir. of Revenue, 439 S.W.3d 250 (reasonable grounds in refusal cases is virtually synonymous with probable cause)
State v. Brean, 136 Vt. 147 (right to refuse tests is statutory)
State v. Ollison, 236 S.W.3d 66 (distinguished — required proof of actual intoxication over a long unknown time span)