# State v. Bauder

> Supreme Court of Vermont · March 16, 2007 · 181 Vt. 392

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8313593

## Case

- **Full name:** State of Vermont v. Brian E. Bauder
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Vermont
- **Decided:** March 16, 2007
- **Citations:** 181 Vt. 392; 2007 Vt. 16; 924 A.2d 38; 2007 VT 16; 2007 Vt. LEXIS 45
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Reiber
- **Judges:** Allen, Dooley, Johnson, Reiber, Ret, Skoglund
- **Cited by:** 52 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8313593

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 wh…
- 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 1…
- 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
- recognizing in context of constitutional law the “fundamental tenet of judicial restraint” that courts will not address “novel” claims where adequate alternative grounds are available

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8313593. Public record. Not legal advice.