State v. Martin

¶ 1. The appeal before us originates from a motor-vehicle stop in response to defendant’s premature activation of his high-beam headlights. The State contends that the state trooper’s action in stopping defendant falls within the community caretaldng exception to the warrant requirement, and that the trial court therefore erroneously granted defendant’s motion to suppress the evidentiary fruits of the stop. We disagree and affirm.

¶ 2. The relevant facts are brief. While patrolling eastbound on Route 302 in Ryegate, Vermont on the evening of March 5, 2005, a state trooper observed defendant’s…