15 Vermont opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Vermont courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fredettegreen2 sentences2026It recognized that “a person who is asked by a law enforcement officer to take an evidentiary breath test has a statutory right to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to such a test,” and it held that “[t]he statutory mandate is fulfilled when reasonable efforts are made to allow an arrestee to consult privately with counsel.” Id. at 587 , 705 A.2d at 549 (quotation omitted) (citing 23 V.S.A. § 1202(c)); see also Pfeil v. Rutland Dist. 2026It recognized that “a person who is asked by a law enforcement officer to take an evidentiary breath test has a statutory right to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to such a test,” and it held that “[t]he statutory mandate is fulfilled when reasonable efforts are made to allow an arrestee to consult privately with counsel.” Id. at 587 , 705 A.2d at 549 (quotation omitted) (citing 23 V.S.A. § 1202(c)); see also Pfeil v. Rutland Dist. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lynaughgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Lynaugh, 158 Vt. 72, 75 , 604 A.2d 785, 786-87 (1992) (recognizing that “the decision whether to take a breath test should not be lightly decided” (quotation omitted)). ¶ 16. 2024See State v. Lynaugh, 158 Vt. 72, 75 , 604 A.2d 785, 786-87 (1992) (recognizing that “the decision whether to take a breath test should not be lightly decided” (quotation omitted)). ¶ 16. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Erika M. Schappgreen2 sentences2020But an evidentiary breath test, “as its name implies, ‘is one that is intended to be introduced as evidence.’ ” Schapp, 2019 VT 27, ¶ 12 (quoting 23 V.S.A. § 1200(3)). 2020Indeed, because a driver cannot be lawfully compelled to produce a breath sample, with or without a warrant, see State v. Schapp, 2019 VT 27, ¶ 13 , 210 Vt. 180 , 212 A.3d 1226 , it is difficult to imagine how requiring an officer to obtain one would meaningfully impact a defendant who refuses an officer’s reasonable request—with the exception of the likely extension of the time period during which he is detained for processing. ¶ 20. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Westgreen2 sentences2026Ct., 147 Vt. 305, 309 , 515 A.2d 1052, 1055 (1986) (holding that “statutory right to counsel that attaches prior to testing includes the right to communicate freely with an attorney in private”); State v. West, 151 Vt. 140, 144 , 557 A.2d 873, 876 (1988) (holding that “defendant’s right to consult with his [or her] attorney is of little value if that consultation is monitored by police, or if the unjustified presence of police has a chilling effect on the defendant’s consultation,” and “defendant’s right to a meaningful consultation with counsel contemplates a reasonable degree of privacy”). 2026Ct., 147 Vt. 305, 309 , 515 A.2d 1052, 1055 (1986) (holding that “statutory right to counsel that attaches prior to testing includes the right to communicate freely with an attorney in private”); State v. West, 151 Vt. 140, 144 , 557 A.2d 873, 876 (1988) (holding that “defendant’s right to consult with his [or her] attorney is of little value if that consultation is monitored by police, or if the unjustified presence of police has a chilling effect on the defendant’s consultation,” and “defendant’s right to a meaningful consultation with counsel contemplates a reasonable degree of privacy”). | 1 | 1 |
Pfeil v. Rutland District Courtgreen2 sentences2026Ct., 147 Vt. 305, 309 , 515 A.2d 1052, 1055 (1986) (holding that “statutory right to counsel that attaches prior to testing includes the right to communicate freely with an attorney in private”); State v. West, 151 Vt. 140, 144 , 557 A.2d 873, 876 (1988) (holding that “defendant’s right to consult with his [or her] attorney is of little value if that consultation is monitored by police, or if the unjustified presence of police has a chilling effect on the defendant’s consultation,” and “defendant’s right to a meaningful consultation with counsel contemplates a reasonable degree of privacy”). 2026Ct., 147 Vt. 305, 309 , 515 A.2d 1052, 1055 (1986) (holding that “statutory right to counsel that attaches prior to testing includes the right to communicate freely with an attorney in private”); State v. West, 151 Vt. 140, 144 , 557 A.2d 873, 876 (1988) (holding that “defendant’s right to consult with his [or her] attorney is of little value if that consultation is monitored by police, or if the unjustified presence of police has a chilling effect on the defendant’s consultation,” and “defendant’s right to a meaningful consultation with counsel contemplates a reasonable degree of privacy”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moralegreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., McGuigan , 2008 VT 111 , ¶ 17, 184 Vt. 441 , 965 A.2d 511 ("The trooper may not physically force [a person] to perform the field-sobriety exercises or to blow into the PBT device."); Coburn , 2006 VT 31 , ¶ 10, 179 Vt. 448 , 898 A.2d 128 ("[A] breath test is not compelled.") ; State v. Morale , 174 Vt. 213 , 217, 811 A.2d 185 , 188 (2002) ("Rather than enforce the implied consent statute by compelling a DUI suspect to produce a breath sample, however, the Legislature has chosen to penalize the refusal to produce a sample voluntarily."). * An evidentiary breath test is a consent sear 2018See, e.g., McGuigan , 2008 VT 111 , ¶ 17, 184 Vt. 441 , 965 A.2d 511 ("The trooper may not physically force [a person] to perform the field-sobriety exercises or to blow into the PBT device."); Coburn , 2006 VT 31 , ¶ 10, 179 Vt. 448 , 898 A.2d 128 ("[A] breath test is not compelled.") ; State v. Morale , 174 Vt. 213 , 217, 811 A.2d 185 , 188 (2002) ("Rather than enforce the implied consent statute by compelling a DUI suspect to produce a breath sample, however, the Legislature has chosen to penalize the refusal to produce a sample voluntarily."). * An evidentiary breath test is a consent sear | 1 | 1 |
State v. Zaccarogreen2 sentences2018See Zaccaro , 154 Vt. at 87 , 574 A.2d at 1259 . 2018See Zaccaro , 154 Vt. at 87 , 574 A.2d at 1259 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. McGuigangreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., McGuigan , 2008 VT 111 , ¶ 17, 184 Vt. 441 , 965 A.2d 511 ("The trooper may not physically force [a person] to perform the field-sobriety exercises or to blow into the PBT device."); Coburn , 2006 VT 31 , ¶ 10, 179 Vt. 448 , 898 A.2d 128 ("[A] breath test is not compelled.") ; State v. Morale , 174 Vt. 213 , 217, 811 A.2d 185 , 188 (2002) ("Rather than enforce the implied consent statute by compelling a DUI suspect to produce a breath sample, however, the Legislature has chosen to penalize the refusal to produce a sample voluntarily."). * An evidentiary breath test is a consent sear 2018See, e.g., McGuigan , 2008 VT 111 , ¶ 17, 184 Vt. 441 , 965 A.2d 511 ("The trooper may not physically force [a person] to perform the field-sobriety exercises or to blow into the PBT device."); Coburn , 2006 VT 31 , ¶ 10, 179 Vt. 448 , 898 A.2d 128 ("[A] breath test is not compelled.") ; State v. Morale , 174 Vt. 213 , 217, 811 A.2d 185 , 188 (2002) ("Rather than enforce the implied consent statute by compelling a DUI suspect to produce a breath sample, however, the Legislature has chosen to penalize the refusal to produce a sample voluntarily."). * An evidentiary breath test is a consent sear | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania v. Munizgreen1 sentence2016Id. at 121-22, 716 A.2d at 828-29 (citing Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582, 602 (1990), for proposition that performance of horizontal gaze nystagmus test constitutes “physical rather than testimonial evidence and thus does not violate privilege against self-incrimination” (quotations omitted)). 7 We concluded that in the absence of any statutory language prohibiting introduction of the refusal evidence, the fact that a statute specifically provided for admission of evidence of an individual’s refusal to submit to an evidentiary breath test did not by implication mean that a refusal to subm | 1 | 1 |
State v. Maciegreen1 sentence2013As provided in § 1202(c), a person who is asked to take an evidentiary breath test has a right to consult with an attorney; however, the person must decide whether to submit to the test “within a reasonable time and no later than 30 minutes from the time of the initial attempt to contact the attorney” and must make that decision “at the expiration of the 30 minutes regardless of whether a consultation took place.” Thus, as we stated in State v. Macie, 146 Vt. 28, 31 (1985), “the statutory thirty minutes is the maximum ‘reasonable time,’ not a minimum, in which to refuse the breath test.” Here, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Orvisgreen2 sentences2011See Orvis, 143 Vt. at 391 , 465 A.2d at 1362 (explaining that inadmissibility of PBT results at trial reflects determination that more sensitive measurements are easily available and should be used). 2011See Orvis, 143 Vt. at 391 , 465 A.2d at 1362 (explaining that inadmissibility of PBT results at trial reflects determination that more sensitive measurements are easily available and should be used). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Georgegreen2 sentences2005Our holding in State v. George, 161 Vt. 615, 616 , 640 A.2d 26, 27 (1994) (mem.), makes clear that a DUI suspect has a statutory right to consult an attorney prior to deciding whether to submit to the evidentiary test, but that the statute does not entitle the suspect to a consultation with the attorney of the suspect’s choosing. 2005Our holding in State v. George, 161 Vt. 615, 616 , 640 A.2d 26, 27 (1994) (mem.), makes clear that a DUI suspect has a statutory right to consult an attorney prior to deciding whether to submit to the evidentiary test, but that the statute does not entitle the suspect to a consultation with the attorney of the suspect’s choosing. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sherwoodgreen2 sentences2005In State v. Sherwood, another DUI case involving a defendant’s request that the court suppress evidence of the refusal to take an evidentiary breath test, we recognized that a defendant seeking suppression must demonstrate some “causal nexus” between the allegedly improper police conduct and the evidence the defendant wants suppressed. 174 Vt. 27, 33 , 800 A.2d 463, 467 (2002). 2005In State v. Sherwood, another DUI case involving a defendant’s request that the court suppress evidence of the refusal to take an evidentiary breath test, we recognized that a defendant seeking suppression must demonstrate some “causal nexus” between the allegedly improper police conduct and the evidence the defendant wants suppressed. 174 Vt. 27, 33 , 800 A.2d 463, 467 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Duffgreen2 sentences2004State v. Duff, 136 Vt. 537, 539-40 , 394 A.2d 1145, 1146 (1978). 2004State v. Duff, 136 Vt. 537, 539-40 , 394 A.2d 1145, 1146 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blouingreen2 sentences2002State v. Blouin, 168 Vt. 119, 124 , 716 A.2d 826, 829 (1998). 2002State v. Blouin, 168 Vt. 119, 124 , 716 A.2d 826, 829 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fullergreen1 sentence1998See id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bassettgreen2 sentences1998See State v. Bassett, 128 Vt. 453 , 266 A.2d 438 (1970). 1998See State v. Bassett, 128 Vt. 453 , 266 A.2d 438 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Vermont. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Eileen Ettore
neutral
1 sentence2026Ettore, 2024 VT 52, ¶ 15 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Edelman
neutral
1 sentence2020State v. Edelman, 2018 VT 100 , ¶ 6, 208 Vt. 372 , 198 A.3d 556 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Kinney
green
2 sentences2019In particular, Vermont law provides, “Every person who operates, attempts to operate, or is in actual physical control of any vehicle on a highway in this State is deemed to have given consent to an evidentiary test of that person’s breath.” 23 V.S.A. § 1202(a)(1) 6 For reasons set forth by Justice Johnson in her dissent in State v. Kinney, 2011 VT 74, ¶ 21 , 190 Vt. 195 , 27 A.3d 348 , I have serious doubts about the relevance of the evidence that defendant refused the PBT, wholly apart from the constitutional considerations. 2019In particular, Vermont law provides, “Every person who operates, attempts to operate, or is in actual physical control of any vehicle on a highway in this State is deemed to have given consent to an evidentiary test of that person’s breath.” 23 V.S.A. § 1202(a)(1) 6 For reasons set forth by Justice Johnson in her dissent in State v. Kinney, 2011 VT 74, ¶ 21 , 190 Vt. 195 , 27 A.3d 348 , I have serious doubts about the relevance of the evidence that defendant refused the PBT, wholly apart from the constitutional considerations. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.
green
2 sentences2018In reaching that decision, we relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n , 489 U.S. 602 , 616-17, 109 S.Ct. 1402 , 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989), that an evidentiary breath test, "which generally requires the production of alveolar or 'deep lung' breath for chemical analysis," is a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. 2018In reaching that decision, we relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n , 489 U.S. 602 , 616-17, 109 S.Ct. 1402 , 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989), that an evidentiary breath test, "which generally requires the production of alveolar or 'deep lung' breath for chemical analysis," is a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Muzzy
green
2 sentences2018Second, and more importantly, a driver asked to take an evidentiary breath test "is not required to submit to a test." State v. Muzzy , 124 Vt. 222 , 224, 202 A.2d 267 , 269 (1964). 2018Second, and more importantly, a driver asked to take an evidentiary breath test "is not required to submit to a test." State v. Muzzy , 124 Vt. 222 , 224, 202 A.2d 267 , 269 (1964). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Coburn
green
2 sentences2018See, e.g., McGuigan , 2008 VT 111 , ¶ 17, 184 Vt. 441 , 965 A.2d 511 ("The trooper may not physically force [a person] to perform the field-sobriety exercises or to blow into the PBT device."); Coburn , 2006 VT 31 , ¶ 10, 179 Vt. 448 , 898 A.2d 128 ("[A] breath test is not compelled.") ; State v. Morale , 174 Vt. 213 , 217, 811 A.2d 185 , 188 (2002) ("Rather than enforce the implied consent statute by compelling a DUI suspect to produce a breath sample, however, the Legislature has chosen to penalize the refusal to produce a sample voluntarily."). * An evidentiary breath test is a consent sear 2018See, e.g., McGuigan , 2008 VT 111 , ¶ 17, 184 Vt. 441 , 965 A.2d 511 ("The trooper may not physically force [a person] to perform the field-sobriety exercises or to blow into the PBT device."); Coburn , 2006 VT 31 , ¶ 10, 179 Vt. 448 , 898 A.2d 128 ("[A] breath test is not compelled.") ; State v. Morale , 174 Vt. 213 , 217, 811 A.2d 185 , 188 (2002) ("Rather than enforce the implied consent statute by compelling a DUI suspect to produce a breath sample, however, the Legislature has chosen to penalize the refusal to produce a sample voluntarily."). * An evidentiary breath test is a consent sear | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Spooner
green
2 sentences2015State v. Spooner, 2012 VT 90, ¶ 11 , 192 Vt. 465 (stating that “[w]hether a test is reliable or accurate is a factual finding” reviewed for clear error because trier of fact is in best position to weigh sufficiency of evidence and assess credibility of witnesses). 2015State v. Spooner, 2012 VT 90, ¶ 11 , 192 Vt. 465 (stating that “[w]hether a test is reliable or accurate is a factual finding” reviewed for clear error because trier of fact is in best position to weigh sufficiency of evidence and assess credibility of witnesses). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Carmody
green
2 sentences2005Defendant raised three issues in his motion to suppress: (1) that under State v. Carmody, 140 Vt. 631 , 442 A.2d 1292 (1982), the police officer was required to permit defendant to make roadside calls on his cell phone; (2) that defendant’s exercise of his right to counsel before taking the evidentiary breath test at the station was unilaterally terminated by the on-call public defender and therefore was not a meaningful consultation; and (3) that the UVM police department is not permitted to act as law enforcement officers with authority to arrest defendant in these circumstances. 2005Defendant raised three issues in his motion to suppress: (1) that under State v. Carmody, 140 Vt. 631 , 442 A.2d 1292 (1982), the police officer was required to permit defendant to make roadside calls on his cell phone; (2) that defendant’s exercise of his right to counsel before taking the evidentiary breath test at the station was unilaterally terminated by the on-call public defender and therefore was not a meaningful consultation; and (3) that the UVM police department is not permitted to act as law enforcement officers with authority to arrest defendant in these circumstances. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1998The Court is called upon to decide whether a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights as described in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), were violated when he was in custody, had indicated his desire to not answer questions, and was asked, prior to the administration of an evidentiary breath test, if he had burped. 1998The Court is called upon to decide whether a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights as described in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), were violated when he was in custody, had indicated his desire to not answer questions, and was asked, prior to the administration of an evidentiary breath test, if he had burped. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.