-
680 A.2d 90 Supreme Court of Vermont March 22, 1996 No. 94-299
All of the bags were transported to the police station and searched without a warrant.
, and therefore the government is free to search them without reason or warrant.
the search warrant.
-
616 A.2d 774 Supreme Court of Vermont August 14, 1992 No. 90-035
Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 50-52 (1970) (taking car to police station and searching it without a warrant was reasonable because “the opportunity to search is fleeting since a car is readily movable” even though the car in this case was
Consequently, the fourth amendment does not apply in any respect to open fields, and they may be searched without a warrant or probable cause.
In Platt , we held that seizing defendant’s car and holding it pending a search warrant was reasonable.
-
765 A.2d 862 Supreme Court of Vermont December 1, 2000 No. 99-061
Justice Douglas was the lone dissenter in Terry , and he bitterly decried the demise of the requirement that a police officer have probable cause before effecting a search and seizure without a warrant, alleging that the decision was
Reliability and specificity were inherent prerequisites to a reasonable search or seizure, either with warrant or without warrant, by the time the Amendment was adopted.
"The amendment's opposition to unreasonable intrusion, by warrant and without warrant, sprang from a popular opposition to the surveillance and divulgement that intrusion made possible." Id. at 1546.
-
2009 VT 24, 974 A.2d 587 Supreme Court of Vermont February 27, 2009 No. 2007-415
The trooper told him he would still “see what [he could] deal with” and that he needed the back-up police to attend “because of the search of the car.” ¶ 5.
Taking all of the trooper’s statements and explanations into account, and despite the trooper’s insistence, it was obvious that without consent, the officer could not search without a warrant, and that without a warrant, the officer
could not search without consent.
-
604 A.2d 1270 Supreme Court of Vermont January 10, 1992 No. 90-098
On April 27, the police obtained a search warrant to monitor and tape-record conversations between defendant and his girlfriend through a concealed transmitter.
He also asserts that the evidence was illegally seized because the police did not have a search warrant.
Defendant's contention that the evidence was improperly seized because the police failed to obtain a search warrant is also without merit.
-
2007 VT 16, 924 A.2d 38 Supreme Court of Vermont March 16, 2007 No. 04-438
The question presented in this case is whether law-enforcement officers may routinely search a motor vehicle without a warrant, after its occupant has been arrested, handcuffed, and secured in the back seat of a police cruiser, absent
the police station, and apply for a search warrant.
App. 2005) (“Because of New Mexico’s strong preference for a warrant, we hold that even after a valid arrest, one of Chimel’s two rationales must be present before an officer may search a vehicle without a warrant.”), cert. granted
-
436 A.2d 746 Supreme Court of Vermont September 1, 1981 No. 5-80
She would then walk down the aisle and return to the record bin without any records. After forty-five minutes the two women left the store and went to the defendant’s car.
En route he radioed the barracks a description of the car and its plate number. This information was transmitted to the Montpelier Police Department, which dispatched one of its officers.
While the police are permitted, on reasonable suspicion, to make an investigatory stop for a few minutes during which they may ask a brief question or two, any further detention must be based on consent or. probable cause.
-
574 A.2d 789 Supreme Court of Vermont April 6, 1990 No. 89-130
The Massachusetts police located the car legally parked in a large parking lot in an open mall and seized the vehicle without searching it and without knowing whether Vermont had a warrant to seize it.
The car was transported to Brattleboro, where, on March 24, the Vermont police obtained a search warrant and then proceeded to search the car for the first time.
to issue the warrant to search the car.
-
2008 VT 43, 954 A.2d 1290 Supreme Court of Vermont April 11, 2008 No. 2006-024
Defendant also concedes that there was probable cause for both days’ initial traffic stops; he challenges his subsequent detention on both days, the May 5 exit order and patdown search, and the use of drug dogs to sniff his car without
Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 (1977), that police officers making routine traffic stops may order motorists to exit their vehicles without having any particularized suspicion of criminal activity or danger to the officer.
Defendant also finds constitutional fault with two other aspects of the May 5 stop: the order that he exit the car, and the subsequent search of his person.
-
750 A.2d 1002 Supreme Court of Vermont January 28, 2000 No. 97-086
He also argues that the evidence should have been suppressed because the search warrant was based on privileged statements and because the police executed the warrant improperly.
Defendant responded “to the effect that, if he did not agree to the search, the *392 officers would simply obtain a search warrant in any event.” Boutin answered that the police might or might not be able to get a warrant.
I understand that I have the right to refuse, [sic] this request and that the police may not be able to conduct this search without a search warrant unless my written consent is given, none the less, I voluntarily give my written consent
-
574 A.2d 1256 Supreme Court of Vermont March 9, 1990 No. 88-386
Probable cause and a search warrant are not required when consent to search is voluntarily given by one authorized to do so. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973); State v.
Affirmed. 1 Defendant briefly contends that Trooper Manning’s entry into his enclosed porch was illegal without a warrant. We disagree.
, their houses, papers, and possessions, free from search or seizure; and therefore warrants, without oath or affirmation first made, affording sufficient foundation for them, and whereby by any officer or messenger may be commanded
-
2008 VT 116, 965 A.2d 544 Supreme Court of Vermont August 22, 2008 No. 2006-408
On Monday morning, the first business day following the impoundment, police applied for a warrant to search defendant’s car. The court granted the warrant application, and Officer Emilio executed the warrant the same afternoon.
Police may permissibly search a suspect when the search is incident to an arrest supported by probable cause. See State v.
Police seized defendant’s car after they arrested him early on Saturday morning. Police held defendant’s vehicle until Monday morning when the State applied for and received a warrant to search the car.
-
2003 VT 20, 824 A.2d 539 Supreme Court of Vermont February 21, 2003 No. 02-028
After a search of the car, defendant drove home followed by the officer and another trooper. A search of the home revealed several marijuana plants. ¶ 6.
Thus, the Court ruled that "once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable
Gifford, 90 Vt. 352, 354 , 98 A. 904, 904 (1916) (because Legislature had not explicitly authorized arrest without a warrant for crime of selling goods on Sunday, arrest was unlawful). ¶ 42.
-
2019 VT 1, 205 A.3d 466 Supreme Court of Vermont January 4, 2019 No. 2017-284
Trooper Hatch then read plaintiff a consent card, advising him that if he did not agree to have his car searched, the car would be towed to the state police barracks while the trooper applied for a search warrant.
After arriving at the Rutland police barracks, Trooper Hatch applied for a search warrant, which was issued at approximately seven o'clock in the evening.
2) an unlawful exit order without reasonable suspicion of danger or the commission of a crime; (3) an unlawful seizure of his car without probable cause; and (4) an unlawful search of his car without probable cause.
-
548 A.2d 422 Supreme Court of Vermont June 10, 1988 No. 86-041
Without an opportunity to speak to a driver, probable cause to arrest may never arise until after an accident has occurred.
[6] Brown involved a stop and questioning of a pedestrian by police officers without a warrant or reasonable suspicion that the pedestrian was involved in criminal conduct.
Long, 463 U.S. 1032 , 103 S.Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (search of car incident to highway stop); Florida v.
-
532 A.2d 958 Supreme Court of Vermont June 26, 1987 No. 83-478
An officer’s authority to arrest without a warrant is measured against the guidelines set forth in V.R.Cr.P. 3(a).
Persons who claim to have been subjected to an illegal Terry-type frisk are not without a remedy under the Vermont Constitution. They may file a motion to suppress any evidence discovered as a result of such a search.
Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 111 n.6 (1977) (holding “that once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without *330 violating the Fourth
-
373 A.2d 836 Supreme Court of Vermont March 14, 1977 No. 135-76
and the car’s contents may never be found again if a warrant must be obtained.’ ” Id.
Furthermore, the basis of probable cause had been in police hands for several weeks (they had in fact obtained a search warrant, albeit defective), thus there was no question of whether of not it was practicable to obtain a warrant
This would be true a fortiori here, where the police could not have obtained a warrant earlier.
-
708 A.2d 1343 Supreme Court of Vermont February 20, 1998 No. 97-264
Indeed, the federal courts of appeal have consistently held that police may search a dwelling even when the occupant is not present and even without exigent circumstances. See United States v.
Chubbuck, 32 F.3d 1458, 1461 (10th Cir. 1994) (police search of defendant’s apartment pursuant to valid warrant was reasonable even though apartment was unoccupied); United States v.
Under defendant’s position, police would be unable to execute a valid search warrant because the occupant died, is on vacation for an extended period of time, or is avoiding the residence to thwart the search.
-
721 A.2d 445 Supreme Court of Vermont October 7, 1998 No. 96-106
On the same day, police applied for and received a warrant to search *372 the condominium and the car. Late that night, defendant left Vermont and returned to Long Island.
On September 19, police sought and received a second warrant to search the condominium.
There, police arrived at a home with a search warrant and obtained permission to enter and search.
-
2012 VT 102, 71 A.3d 1158 Supreme Court of Vermont December 14, 2012 No. 2010-479Cited by 22 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Burgess
, may be seized without any resulting privacy invasion.
Certainly most people prefer that police not enter their homes or computers to search, but if a warrant issues then the proprietor is without right to resist. See Gasho v.
To be sure, as noted by the majority, police may, in special circumstances not posed here, propose or accede to assistance of specialists to execute a search warrant. See United States v. Schwimmer, 692 F.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.