Opinion

State v. Bauder

  • 181 Vt. 392
  • 2007 Vt. 16
  • 924 A.2d 38
  • 2007 VT 16
  • 2007 Vt. LEXIS 45
Court
Supreme Court of Vermont
Filed
Mar 16, 2007
Status
Published
Author
Reiber
On the bench
Allen, Dooley, Johnson, Reiber, Ret, Skoglund
Cited by
52 cases

recognizing that “[s]earches outside the normal judicial process are . . . presumptively unconstitutional, and permissible only pursuant to a few narrowly drawn and well-delineated exceptions” and “[s]uch rare exceptions are allowed only in those extraordinary circumstances which make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable” (quotation omitted)

How later courts described this case

  • recognizing that “[s]earches outside the normal judicial process are . . . presumptively unconstitutional, and permissible only pursuant to a few narrowly drawn and well-delineated exceptions” and “[s]uch rare exceptions are allowed only in those extraordinary circumstances which make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable” (quotation omitted)
  • recognizing that both Article 11 and Fourth Amendment protect against unreasonable government intrusions into legitimate expectations of privacy, but noting that "we have also long held that our traditional Vermont values of privacy and individual freedom-embodied in Article 11-may require greater protection than that afforded by the federal Constitution"
  • explaining that under Article 11, warrantless search of automobile is per se unreasonable absent showing of exigent circumstances in form of threat either to officer safety or to preservation of evidence
  • stating that driver's failure to produce * ownership documents is not basis to search vehicle, even if limited to glove compartment or sun visor

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Reiber, C.J.,

¶ 98. dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the search in this case was unconstitutional. I agree with the majority that the search was not justified by the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement, ante, ¶¶ 28-31, or by the search-incident-to arrest doctrine, ante, ¶¶ 15-26. However, I concur with my dissenting colleague’s position that the search was justified by the circumstances indicating that the vehicle might have been stolen, and would affirm on that narrow ground, as articulated ante, ¶¶ 52-54.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.