“IN THE ABSENCE OF A DEMONSTRATED NEED, we are not at liberty to disregard the fundamental constitutional requirement of a search warrant.” What federal courts permit, the Vermont Supreme Court will not:
Police need a warrant to search a vehicle even after they arrest an occupant except under extraordinary circumstances, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled Friday in a 3-2 decision notable for its acerbic language and its break with federal precedent.
The ruling, which represented a rare departure from frequent unanimity, said the state constitution provides Vermonters with greater protections from unreasonable searches and seizures than does the federal Bill of Rights.
[…]
“The warrant requirement is robust, alive and well under the Vermont Constitution. It’s gasping on life support under federal law,” said Michael Mello, a professor at Vermont Law School in South Royalton.
According to Vermont’s highest court, “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 a reasonable need to protect the officers’ safety or preserve evidence of a crime. We hold that such warrantless searches offend the core values underlying the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures embodied in Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. Accordingly, the trial court judgment to the contrary is reversed.”
The full opinion in State of Vermont v. Brian E. Bauder is here in plain text. More backfill from the Burlington Free Press here.
Leave a comment