State v. Weisler, State v. King
190 Vt. 344
| Vt. | 2011Background
- On I-91, trooper stopped a vehicle for a rear plate issue; occupants were Stone (driver/owner), Weisler, and King.
- Officer observed what appeared to be marijuana flakes on Weisler; Stone was questioned, frisked, and Stone’s license was checked.
- Weisler exited to retrieve ID; officer saw a box of wrap and a baggie of white powder that looked like cocaine, and then ordered all to exit with guns drawn; Stone watched from the cruiser.
- After detaining occupants, the officer returned to Stone in the cruiser and sought consent to search the car, warning Stone he could refuse and that a warrant could be sought if refused; Stone consented and signed a form.
- All three men were charged with cocaine possession; suppression motion argued Stone’s exit order was unlawful and his consent coerced, trial court denied.
- Appellate court held Stone’s consent was voluntary and the search valid; the question on appeal is the appropriate standard of review for voluntariness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for voluntariness of consent | Stone argues voluntariness is a factual question reviewed for clear error. | The State argues voluntariness is a legal/constitutional fact reviewed de novo. | Independent/de novo review governs voluntariness |
| Whether Stone's consent to search was voluntary | Stone contends coercive conduct rendered consent involuntary. | Stone maintains the consent was freely given under total circumstances. | Consent was voluntary; not coerced |
| Whether any de facto arrest tainted consent | Defendants argue detainment/arrest, plus gunpoint display, tainted consent. | Stone’s taint would render consent invalid; taint attenuation considered. | No causal nexus; taint attenuated; consent valid |
| Propriety of probable cause to arrest/maintain custody relevant to consent | The initial detainment lacked probable cause, rendering later consent tainted. | Probable cause existed or attenuated link preserved validity of consent. | Probable cause/totality supported arrest/continuing detention; consent upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1985) (ultimate voluntariness is a legal question requiring independent review)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (de novo review for probable cause/reasonable suspicion; unity of precedent)
- Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1995) (in-custody determinations reviewed de novo; factors are mixed questions)
- Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1996) (voluntariness of consent deemed a question of fact; no bright-line rules)
- United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715 (5th Cir. 2004) (de novo or heightened review for mixed questions; not binding in VT but relevant framework)
- United States v. Contreras, 506 F.3d 1031 (10th Cir. 2007) (central question: would a reasonable person feel free to refuse consent)
- United States v. Golinveaux, 611 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 2010) (enumerates factors relevant to voluntariness analysis)