A divided Vermont Supreme Court on Friday reversed the conviction of a Williamstown man who faced drug charges after a trooper went to his home to check on the welfare of his brother and spotted marijuana plants through a basement window.
Brother was charged
The case began early on March 20, 2008, when someone identifying himself as Stephen Ford called 911 to say he had been involved in a car crash on Hartford-Quechee Road and was trapped in his vehicle. Police went to what they believed was the scene but found no trace of either a damaged vehicle or Ford.
A trooper later went to Ford's last known address, on Brook Street in Williamstown, found no one home, and a car buried under snow in the driveway. The trooper knocked and walked around the house, looking for signs indicating whether someone was home.
She spotted a light on in the basement, peered in through the window and spotted marijuana plants, the court said. She later got a warrant for a search, which confirmed the presence of marijuana plants and turned up oxycodone tablets.
As a result, Stephen Ford's brother Justin Ford was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of narcotics.
Justin Ford pleaded guilty but struck a deal with prosecutors under which he would be allowed to appeal based on an argument that the search was unconstitutional.
A 3-2 majority of the high court agreed with Ford, saying the Vermont Constitution protections against unreasonable search and seizure meant the trooper did not have sufficient cause to circle the house and peer in the window, and the fruits of the later search should have been barred from evidence at trial.
Orange County State's Attorney Will Porter argued in court that the search should have been permitted under an exemption that allows police to gather evidence when responding to an emergency.
But the Supreme Court majority found that if there was an emergency, it was not sufficient to warrant the trooper's actions.
'Reasonable grounds'
Associate Justice Marilyn Skoglund, writing for the court majority, wrote that for the emergency exemption to apply, "police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property."
She noted that the scene of the accident involving Stephen Ford was reported to be about 40 miles from the Williamstown home, and said there was no sign of any emergency there when the trooper arrived on the scene.
"The state has failed to uphold its burden of demonstrating that the trooper had a reasonable belief that her entry into the home was immediately necessary to protect life and limb," Skoglund wrote. "The possibility that the motorist was in defendant's home and needed aid was a remote possibility and that alone did not make the police entry into defendant's curtilage (the immediate area around the home) and the search of his home reasonable."
Chief Justice Paul Reiber wrote a dissent, joined by Associate Justice Brian Burgess.
"The majority holds today that when a police officer is informed of a serious car accident and sent to the accident victim's last known address, the officer should sometimes risk leaving the victim dying in his home rather than investigating the situation further," Reiber wrote.
"The majority requires accident victims to leave visible signs, such as blood tracks or a wrecked vehicle, before a police officer, absent any evidence of pretense, can lawfully follow a path around a house and take a cursory look in a window for signs of a person thought to be injured. I would not read the emergency aid exception so narrowly."
NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: The Bennington Banner
Author: DAVE GRAM
Copyright: 2010 Media News group
Brother was charged
The case began early on March 20, 2008, when someone identifying himself as Stephen Ford called 911 to say he had been involved in a car crash on Hartford-Quechee Road and was trapped in his vehicle. Police went to what they believed was the scene but found no trace of either a damaged vehicle or Ford.
A trooper later went to Ford's last known address, on Brook Street in Williamstown, found no one home, and a car buried under snow in the driveway. The trooper knocked and walked around the house, looking for signs indicating whether someone was home.
She spotted a light on in the basement, peered in through the window and spotted marijuana plants, the court said. She later got a warrant for a search, which confirmed the presence of marijuana plants and turned up oxycodone tablets.
As a result, Stephen Ford's brother Justin Ford was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of narcotics.
Justin Ford pleaded guilty but struck a deal with prosecutors under which he would be allowed to appeal based on an argument that the search was unconstitutional.
A 3-2 majority of the high court agreed with Ford, saying the Vermont Constitution protections against unreasonable search and seizure meant the trooper did not have sufficient cause to circle the house and peer in the window, and the fruits of the later search should have been barred from evidence at trial.
Orange County State's Attorney Will Porter argued in court that the search should have been permitted under an exemption that allows police to gather evidence when responding to an emergency.
But the Supreme Court majority found that if there was an emergency, it was not sufficient to warrant the trooper's actions.
'Reasonable grounds'
Associate Justice Marilyn Skoglund, writing for the court majority, wrote that for the emergency exemption to apply, "police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property."
She noted that the scene of the accident involving Stephen Ford was reported to be about 40 miles from the Williamstown home, and said there was no sign of any emergency there when the trooper arrived on the scene.
"The state has failed to uphold its burden of demonstrating that the trooper had a reasonable belief that her entry into the home was immediately necessary to protect life and limb," Skoglund wrote. "The possibility that the motorist was in defendant's home and needed aid was a remote possibility and that alone did not make the police entry into defendant's curtilage (the immediate area around the home) and the search of his home reasonable."
Chief Justice Paul Reiber wrote a dissent, joined by Associate Justice Brian Burgess.
"The majority holds today that when a police officer is informed of a serious car accident and sent to the accident victim's last known address, the officer should sometimes risk leaving the victim dying in his home rather than investigating the situation further," Reiber wrote.
"The majority requires accident victims to leave visible signs, such as blood tracks or a wrecked vehicle, before a police officer, absent any evidence of pretense, can lawfully follow a path around a house and take a cursory look in a window for signs of a person thought to be injured. I would not read the emergency aid exception so narrowly."
NewsHawk: Ganjarden: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: The Bennington Banner
Author: DAVE GRAM
Copyright: 2010 Media News group
