State v. Weisler, State v. King
Supreme Court of Vermont
1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, J.
¶ 1. Defendants in these consolidated appeals contend the trial court erred in denying a motion to suppress evidence seized from a vehicle in which they were passengers. The trial court found that the vehicle’s owner voluntarily consented to the search. Defendants contend: (1) the finding of voluntariness must be reviewed de novo on appeal; (2) the consent to search was not voluntary; and (3) the consent was tainted by the owner’s unlawful de facto arrest. We agree that the finding of voluntariness is subject to de novo review, but conclude that the consent was neither involuntary nor…
2Cases cited73 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- United States v. MendenhallSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Ornelas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- State v. SullivanSupreme Court of Vermont · 2013
- State v. Jason L. GagneSupreme Court of Vermont · 2016
- State v. BrooksSupreme Court of Vermont · 2013
- State v. Timothy P. PerleySupreme Court of Vermont · 2015
- State v. BettsSupreme Court of Vermont · 2013
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.