Slip opinions decided 2004 — Vermont Reports

<bold>1. Search and Seizure — Generally — Investigative Stops</bold> Police can stop and briefly detain a person to conduct and investigation if an officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.<page_number>Page 258</page_number> <bold>2. Search and Seizure — Generally — Investigative Stops</bold> Once the police have stopped an individual, the investigating officer needs to have some additional recourse to obtain information, especially the individual's identity; otherwise the investigative stop would serve no purpose. <bold>3. Criminal Law — Miranda Warning — Arrest and Custody</bold> Even though most motorists would not feel free to leave the scene of a traffic stop without the investigating officer's permission, persons temporarily detained pursuant to such stops are not in custody for the purpose of Miranda absent some showing that they were subjected to restraints comparable to those associated with a formal arrest. <bold>4. Criminal Law — Miranda Warning — Arrest and Custody</bold> One can be detained by the police, not be free to go, but still not be in custody for Miranda purposes. <bold>5. Criminal Law — Miranda Warning — Particular Cases</bold> Where defendant was questioned by two officers in the lobby of a hotel, and the encounter was witnessed by hotel employees, Miranda warnings were not needed, and his statements were properly admitted to prove operation of a vehicle. <bold>6. Evidence — Hearsay — Particular Cases</bold> In a suppression hearing, the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of an ananymous informant's complaint about a green Chevy truck with New Hampshire plates where the purpose of the evidence was first, to explain the reasons for the search for the vehicle, and second, to put in context the interaction with defendant at a hotel lobby, where an officer asked defendant whether he was the owner of the truck. V.R.E. 801(c). <bold>7. Criminal Law — Confrontation of Witnesses — Hearsay Evidence</bold> Because evidence regarding the statement of an anonymous informant was not introduced for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted, but to explain the police conduct, the credibility of the informant was not at issue, and, therefore, defendant's <cross_reference>Sixth</cross_reference> Amendment rights were not affected by the admission of the testimony. U.S. Const. amend. <cross_reference>VI</cross_reference>. <bold>8. Evidence — Relevance — Particular Cases</bold> Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the statement of an anonymous informant regarding the operation of defendant's vehicle because, while the statement's probative value was clear, its prejudicial effect was unclear, considering that defendant's defense at trial was that somebody else was operating the vehicle. V.R.E. 403. <bold>9. Trial — Criminal Cases — Generally — Mistrial</bold> Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for mistrial when — despite the court's initial ruling that excluded that part of a citizen's complaint — an officer testified that the complaint concerned erratic driving; the statement was inadvertent and not elicited in bad faith and, moreover, a report that the vehicle was being operated erratically could not be said to prejudice defendant, in light of his defense that he was not operating the vehicle.<page_number>Page 259</page_number>