State v. Smith

 
 
                                ENTRY ORDER
 
                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 89-198
 
                             APRIL TERM, 1990
 
 
 
State of Vermont                  }          APPEALED FROM:
                                  }
                                  }
     v.                           }          District Court of Vermont,
                                  }          Unit No. 2, Addison Circuit
                                  }
Douglas S. Smith                  }
                                  }          DOCKET NO. 323-5-88Acr
 
 
             In the above entitled cause the Clerk will enter:
 
 
     Upon receiving an anonymous telephone tip that the occupants of a green
Chevrolet with Vermont registration 9R564 heading south on Route 7 were all
drunk, several officers proceeded in separate cruisers to try to locate the
Chevrolet.  One officer came upon it and recognized the driver as someone
he believed to be under a license suspension.  He radioed this information
to the others and another officer stopped defendant after she determined he
was driving the car the police were looking for.  Defendant was in fact
under suspension and showed signs of being under the influence.  Defendant
was then processed for DUI and convicted of the offense following an unsuc-
cessful motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that the police did
not have "reasonable suspicion" that he was violating the law.
 
     We recently held in State v. Ryea, 1 Vt. L. W. 1, 2 (Jan. 5, 1990) (No.
85-497), that an officer's belief that someone he knew was under suspension,
due to seeing his name on a list of drivers with suspended licenses,
justified an investigative stop.  Defendant attempts to distinguish Ryea
because the officer here believed defendant was under suspension from
information gathered six months before the stop.  At that time, the officer
learned defendant had "an extensive motor vehicle record, and that he was
under suspension in the State of Vermont for various and several reasons."
 
     We need not decide whether the basis of the officer's belief was too
stale to provide reasonable suspicion or that the telephone tip lacked
sufficient reliability to justify a stop.  See State v. Kettlewell, 149 Vt.
331, 544 A.2d 591 (1988).  These issues need not be viewed in isolation one
from the other.  We conclude that ample factual basis existed given "'the
totality of the circumstances ÄÄ the whole picture,'" that is, the tip and
the officer's belief of defendant's license status, to reasonably suspect
that he was breaking the law.  State v. Paquette, ___ Vt. ___, ___, 563 A.2d 632, 635 (1989) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 (1981)).
Consequently, the investigative stop was proper.
      Affirmed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                   BY THE COURT:
 
 
 
                                   Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice
 
 
                                   Louis P. Peck, Associate Justice
 
 
[ ]  Publish                       Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice
 
[ ]  Do Not Publish
                          John A. Dooley, Associate Justice
 
 
                                   James L. Morse, Associate Justice