Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Alcide

Supreme Court of Vermont

January 8, 2016

State of Vermont
Ivan Alcide

          On Appeal from Superior Court, Washington Unit, Criminal Division. Thomas A. Zonay, J.


          William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and David Tartter, Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

          Matthew F. Valerio, Defender General, and Rebecca Turner, Appellate Defender, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellee.

         Present: Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Skoglund, Robinson and Eaton, JJ.


Page 208

          Dooley, J.

          [¶1] Defendant Ivan Alcide was charged with possession of heroin and cocaine and sought to suppress all evidence of drugs seized from his vehicle after a police dog indicated the presence of drugs. The trial court found that the contraband was obtained through the illegal expansion of the scope of a motor vehicle violation stop into a criminal drug investigation, suppressed the evidence, and dismissed the charges. The State of Vermont appeals the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress and dismiss. On appeal, the State contends that a minimal delay following the completion of a traffic stop for a dog sniff is reasonable under federal and state law and, in the alternative, that the trial court committed plain error in excluding evidence based upon an illegal detention when the evidence was unrelated to the detention itself. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the grounds the State untimely filed its notice of appeal. We reject defendant's argument and conclude we do have jurisdiction over this appeal. However, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez v. United States, __ U.S. __, __, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 1612 (2015), which established that the Fourth Amendment does not permit a dog sniff conducted

Page 209

after the completion of a traffic stop that is " prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission" of issuing a ticket for the violation, we affirm the trial court's decision to dismiss the case against defendant (quotation omitted).

          [¶2] The trial court's findings of fact are uncontested. Defendant's automobile was stopped on August 11, 2012 at around 5:00 P.M. in Montpelier. The corporal who stopped defendant was in his cruiser with a drug-sniffing dog when he heard radio transmissions between the dispatcher and another police officer. That officer requested information about the registration of defendant's vehicle; the dispatcher informed the officer that the registration was valid but defendant's license was under suspension. The corporal had received information from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) that defendant was a drug dealer in central Vermont, though " no specific information about [defendant's] alleged activities was given, nor was there information given to establish that any of the underlying information ... was reliable." Nevertheless, based on the information from BATF and the fact that he had a drug dog and was " always looking to make drug arrests," the corporal requested information as to defendant's whereabouts and went to locate him.

          [¶3] Subsequently, the corporal saw defendant's vehicle traveling towards him on Vine Street, a public highway, and recognized defendant as the driver. Before the corporal could stop defendant's vehicle, defendant pulled into the driveway of a residence that the corporal knew belonged to the family of a deceased police officer. He called out to defendant, who told him he was looking for the house of a woman, whose name the officer recognized as a person who used drugs and was associated with known drug users, even though he " had never arrested her for any drug offenses, nor was he aware of drugs having ever been found on her."

          [¶4] The corporal directed defendant to sit in his vehicle. After obtaining defendant's license and registration information, he contacted dispatch and confirmed that defendant's license was in fact suspended. He also called an agent at BATF, who informed him that defendant was " on the front line of dealing drugs" in central Vermont.

          [¶5] When the corporal returned to defendant's vehicle, he informed defendant he would be mailing a ticket for operating a motor vehicle while under suspension. He then asked if there were any drugs in the car. Defendant denied having drugs and, when asked, denied permission for a search of the vehicle. The corporal had not observed any drugs on defendant's person or within the vehicle, nor had he seen anything to indicate defendant was under the influence of illegal drugs during the stop itself. The corporal returned to his cruiser and released the drug dog and walked him around defendant's vehicle. Defendant was not in the vehicle when the dog circled the vehicle. The dog alerted to the presence of drugs upon reaching the driver's side door. The corporal informed defendant ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.