In 2005 a State Trooper on routine patrol was 'kind of blinded' by a car coming the other way that flicked on the high beams before passing the trooper. There was no other traffic. The trooper turned around, and stopped the car. He determined that the other driver was under the influence of alcohol and had 3 prior DUI convictions. He then charged the defendant with felony DUI.

In Court, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence arising from the traffic stop saying the arrest was illegal, because the officer had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that warranted stopping him. No law prohibits premature 'flicking' on high beams. The District Court suppressed the evidence.

The State appealed. It conceded that a traffic stop usually must be based on stated suspicious circumstances inferring that a crime was occurring. However, it argued the stop cold be justified under the 'community caretaking' exception to that rule. For example, an officer can investigate without suspicion of a crime, if the officer is faced with a perceived emergency, like a driver slumped over the wheel of a parked car, or seeing an apparent signal for help, like flashing the head lights in the direction of the cruiser.

But a unanimous Supreme Court rejected this argument and freed the defendant. It ruled that although the erratic use of high beams might suggest the possible future risk to safety of persons or property it did not necessarily do so. Ambiguous circumstances don't justify stopping the car.

Is the Court discouraging good alert police work that protects the public from potential serious harm, or even death, from a drunk driver? No. In this case, as in the case commented on last week, the Court determined that the freedom from arbitrary police investigations is fundamental to a free society. It is better to allow the occasional guilty person to go free, than to permit arbitrary police conduct.

Good decision? What if police grabbed you off the street on the basis of unsubstantiated suspicion of being a criminal, forced you to take incriminating tests, and took you to Guantanamo Bay Naval Station to be held for five years without Court review? Of course there are differences, but the rule of law is fundamental to a free society. State v. St. Martin 2007 Vt. 20