Trial Court and VT Supreme Court Wins
These are just a small subset of the cases that we have won over the years, including those argued before the Vermont Superior Court, Criminal Division and Vermont Supreme Court.
Click on "Case" for each to view the full (redacted) case file and decision.
Trial Court Wins
Case: Aggravated felony bail appeal
Outcome: Two unconstitutional conditions of release which prevented defendant’s release pretrial were stricken
Attorney Sawyer’s commentary: When I came into this case, the defendant had been held for approximately 20 months under a Condition #4 (a third party responsible custodian), and on a Condition #11 (approved residence). I argued that this was tantamount to holding him without bail and violated the Vermont Constitution because the State had not gone through the constitutional and statutory processes required to hold a person without bail. Judge Griffin agreed and found that the circumstances (i.e., the imposition of a third party custodian and a residence that the defendant could not meet) violated the VT Constitution. Because they violated the VT Constitution, both of those conditions were stricken.
Case: Unlawful curtilage search under Article 11 of the VT Constitution and the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Outcome: DUI dismissed; court ruled in favor of the operator in civil license suspension case (i.e., license not suspended civilly)
Attorney Sawyer's commentary: This was a hard-fought case in which my cross-examination of the VT State Trooper lasted nearly 2 hours. Excellent result for the client. After briefing, presentation of evidence, cross-examination of the trooper, and argument, Judge Novotny agreed.
Case: Temporary Shelter defense; civil license suspension
Outcome: Successful application of the statutory Temporary Shelter defense; court ruled in favor of the operator in civil license suspension case (i.e., license not suspended civilly)
Attorney Sawyer's commentary: The Law Enforcement Officer alleged that there were empty beer bottles in and outside of the car on the ground next to driver’s side and that the defendant had three different stories of how he and the car got where they were. The vehicle was parked very poorly and running. My client admitted that he was heavily impaired and testified that his father drove the car. He did not drive the car for several days after the incident and testified about the purpose for taking shelter in the car (cold weather in late November). Judge Griffin found the defendant’s testimony credible and ruled that the defense met its burden of establishing the Temporary Shelter defense. Note: the E-signature date on the opinion is incorrect.
Case: DUI criminal case and civil license suspension; this was a motion to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case
Outcome: DUI dismissed; civil license for the State
Attorney Sawyer's commentary: After testimony, Judge Waples agreed that the State was unable to make out a prima facie case under V.R.Cr.P. 12(d). Although the defendant was standing next to the vehicle and admitted to operating the vehicle at an earlier time, the State did not have sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant operated a motor vehicle AND was impaired at that time. The court dismissed his criminal case, but found in the State's favor on the civil license suspension.
Case: DUI with a significant accident and 0.08% or higher civil license suspension (over double the legal limit)
Outcome: Evidentiary breath test suppressed (excluded from evidence) in DUI case; court ruled in favor of the operator in civil license suspension case (i.e., license not suspended civilly)
Attorney Sawyer's commentary: The defendant was not informed of his right to an independent blood test after he submitted to an evidentiary breath test. This violation of implied consent is fatal to the State's ability to introduce the evidentiary breath test. This was another hard-fought implied consent win.
Case: DUI and 0.08% or higher civil license suspension (over double the legal limit)
Outcome: Evidentiary breath test suppressed (excluded from evidence) in DUI case; court ruled in favor of the operator in civil license suspension case (i.e., license not suspended civilly)
Attorney Sawyer's commentary: This is another hard-fought case in which I argued that the client's right to a second evidentiary breath test was infringed. Judge Maley agreed that the information from the VT State Trooper was not accurate and unlawfully influenced the defendant's decision not to take a second evidentiary breath test.
Case: DUI and 0.08% or higher civil license suspension
Outcome: Evidentiary breath test suppressed (excluded from evidence) in DUI case; court ruled in favor of the operator in civil license suspension case (i.e., license not suspended civilly)
Attorney Sawyer's commentary: Upon conclusion of the processing, the defendant was told that he was being released and, although he was informed of his right to an independent blood test, he was not advised of his right to have law enforcement transport him for an independent blood test. He was instead taken to a public detox facility. It was immaterial that the defendant did not request or want an independent blood test. There are a number of reasons that a person may not want to give blood if doing so would require a family member or friend to transport them for that test. On the other hand, if they know that law enforcement is obligated to take them to a medical facility, they may want to have that test to confirm or dispel the accuracy of the evidentiary breath test, as blood tests are more accurate than breath tests.
Note: I litigated this issue in another county again in 2016 (see below), and after winning this case, the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council changed page 4 of the standard VT DUI affidavit - infrared.
Case: DUI with an accident and 0.08% or higher civil license suspension
Outcome: Evidentiary breath test suppressed (excluded from evidence) in DUI case; court ruled in favor of the operator in civil license suspension case (i.e., license not suspended civilly)
Attorney Sawyer's commentary: Upon conclusion of the processing, the defendant was told that she was being released and would have to make arrangements for an independent blood test on her own, but could not find a ride and was instead taken to a public detox facility. Evidentiary breath test suppressed as the VT State Police trooper was required to inform the defendant that if she wanted an independent blood test, the trooper would transport her for that test.
This was implied consent litigated at the highest level, requiring testimony from the director of the detox facility. This was the second time that I litigated this issue - this case occurred in a different county than the previous case that had the exact same issue. After this case and the prior case that I won, the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council changed page 4 of the standard VT DUI affidavit - infrared.
Case: DUI and 0.08% or higher civil license suspension
Outcome: DUI dismissed; court ruled in favor of the operator in civil license suspension case (i.e., license not suspended civilly)
Attorney Sawyer's commentary: Burlington Fire Department followed the defendant to his home and alleged significant erratic operation, and called the Burlington Police Department to investigate. The BTV Police Department showed up at the defendant's home and asked for his ID, which he displayed inside the house through the window. Law enforcement claimed they could not make out the ID through the window and told the defendant to step outside of his home to show them the ID. We claimed that this was an unlawful exit order in violation of the VT and federal Constitutions, and Judge Crucitti agreed. This decision affirms the special importance of privacy in one's home.
Case: DUI and 0.08% or higher civil license suspension
Outcome: DUI dismissed; court ruled in favor of the operator in civil license suspension case (i.e., license not suspended civilly)
Attorney Sawyer’s commentary: In this case, the defendant was pulled over and asleep on the side of the road, but was not blocking traffic. He was reclined in the driver’s seat with the engine running, lights on, and the stereo playing. I argued that rapping on the window to wake him up constituted a seizure. The State countered that the stop was justified under the “Community Caretaking Doctrine.” Judge Arms agreed that this was an illegal stop pursuant to Article 11 of the VT Constitution and there was insufficient evidence that community caretaking was required.
Case: DUI third, felony criminal case and 0.08% or higher civil license suspension
Outcome: DUI dismissed; court ruled in favor of the operator in civil license suspension case (i.e., license not suspended civilly)
Attorney Sawyer’s commentary: Law enforcement claimed that the defendant was doing doughnuts in a UVM parking lot. After observing the doughnuts, the officer came up to the vehicle and found the defendant asleep inside the vehicle. The officer alleged they could smell “a very strong odor of intoxicants,” and there were full and empty beer cans inside of the vehicle. I argued that rapping on the window to wake him up constituted a seizure. I argued there was insufficient cause to seize the defendant under these circumstances, and that the “Community Caretaking Doctrine” did not apply because there was insufficient evidence that the defendant was in distress and needed emergency assistance. Judge Zimmerman agreed and dismissed both the criminal DUI case and ruled in favor of the operator in the civil license suspension case.
Case: DUI second offense and 0.08% or higher civil license suspension
Outcome: DUI dismissed; court ruled in favor of the operator in civil license suspension case (i.e., license not suspended civilly)
Attorney Sawyer’s commentary: The State argued that the defendant’s operation of his vehicle was sufficiently poor to justify a lawful stop, and that there was sufficient cause to order the defendant to exit his vehicle. Judge Reiss concluded that the “evidence of impaired driving was so minor…that there was insufficient verifiable and articulable indicia of impairment.” In addition, Judge Reiss found there was insufficient cause for the exit order.
VT Supreme Court Wins
Case: Pre-trial detention violation of VT Constitution appeal
Outcome: In this appeal by the State of a trial court decision in my client's favor, the Vermont Supreme Court agreed with my analysis of the indefinite pre-trial detention conditions and conclusion that my client's continued pre-trial detention violated the Vermont Constitution.
Attorney Sawyer's commentary: In this case, I argued that the indefinite pre-trial detention of a suspect for lack of a condition #4 responsible adult and/or lack of a condition #11 approved residence was equivalent to a Hold Without Bail (HWOB). Because it functioned as a HWOB, the State was required to follow the procedures to hold a suspect without bail outlined in the Vermont Constitution and in Title 13. Because the State did not comply with those procedures, Mr. Champagne’s continued pre-trial detention violated the Vermont Constitution. Judge Griffin agreed. The State appealed. All five Justices agreed with my, and subsequently, Judge Griffin’s analysis. This is a huge win for pre-trial detainees held due to an inability to find housing or an inability to find people or organizations willing to supervise them.
Case: Bail appeal
Outcome: In this bail appeal, Justice Robinson found that the trial court’s imposition of $75,000 cash or surety was excessive and remanded the case for a redetermination of bail.
Attorney Sawyer’s commentary: This case upholds the principle that “[p]retrial detention necessarily cuts against the presumption of innocence inherent in our criminal jurisprudence.”
Case: Denial of challenge to a search warrant appeal
Outcome: In this appeal of the trial court’s denial of our challenge to the search warrant, the Vermont Supreme Court held that the search warrant authorized by the trial court was not supported by sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant. Because the warrant was issued without probable cause, the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant was suppressed, and the defendant’s conviction was reversed.
Attorney Sawyer’s commentary: This case is a bulwark against unreasonable invasions of privacy, especially into the home. It requires law enforcement to make a good faith effort to corroborate information provided by even named informants.