- -

State of Vernlont

v.

Josh Williams, Defendant

Yah-Kole Williams, Defendant

Ryan LaCross, Defendant

' .

Unit 2, Chittenden Circuit DISTRICT COURT OF VERMONT

Doclcet No. 4258-10-08 Cncr

Docket No. 4259-10-08 Cncr

Doclcet No. 4260-10-08 Cncr

OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS

These consolidated cases came before the court for hearing on the defendants' joint

motions to suppress and dismiss.

Defendant Yah-Kole Williams, represented by Attorney Michael Straub, is charged with

one count of possessing one ounce or more of cocaine, in violation of 18 423 l(a)(3). Defendant

Yah-Kole Williams filed his Motion to Suppress Evidence and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of a

Prima Facie Case on May 8,2009. He filed his Supplemental Memorandum of Law on -

November 5,2009.

Defendant Ryan LaCross, represented by Attorney Leroy Yoder, is charged with

violation of 18 V.S.A. 4234(a)(2), possession of 100 doses or more of a narcotic, oyxcontin

Defendant LaCross filed his Motion to Suppress and Dismiss on May 1,2009. He filed his

Supplemental Motion to Suppress and Dismiss on November 2, 2009.

Defendant Josh Williams, is represented by Attorney Frank Twarog, is charged with one

count of possessing 2.5 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 18 V.S.A. 5 423l(a)(2).

Defendant Josh Willianls filed his Motion to Suppress and Dismiss on May 14,2009.

On May 15, the State, represented by Deputy State's Attorney Justin Jiron, moved to

consolidate thethree cases. On June 22, 2009, the State filed its Response to Motions to

Suppress and Dismiss. Hearings in this matter took place on June 29, August 3 1 and October 21,

2009.

Each defendant requests dismissal arguing that there was insufficient probable cause to

support the issuance of the October 6,2008 search warrant to search the house located at 464 A

Lime Kiln Road, South Burlington, Vermont. Defendant Yah-KOle Williams also argues that the

seizure of his person was illegal and that the search warrant permitting the search of his vehicle

was based on false information and the car search warrant is the result of the illegally issued

search warrant for the residence. Defendant Ryan LaCross additionally argues that the search of

his bedroom was not supported by probable cause. Finally, all defendants joined in a request for

a Franh hearing pursuant to Franh v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

FACTS

The court reviews the information provided in the affidavit in support of the search

warrant when considering the Motions to Suppress and Dismiss and does not consider any of the

testimony elicited on cross examination during the evidentiary hearings. The court also

considers testimony elicited at the evidentiary hearings regarding defendant Yah-Kole Williams'

motion to suppress the seizure of his person and the car search warrant.

With respect to the defendants' request for a Frank's hearing, the court considers the

infor~nation provided in the affidavit in support of the search warrant as well as the testimony

presented at hearing.

Affirlnvit irt Support of Searcli N'nwnizl,for 464 A Lime Kiln Ronrl

In August 2008 Det. Trieb met with an individual who was the target of a dmg

investigatioi~ that he was conducting. This individual was facing charges for sale and conspiracy

to sell cocaine. I11 exchange for consideration on those charges this person agreed to coo&rate

with Det. Trieb and signed a confidential informant agreement. This individual is referred to as

CI. This CI's partner also wished to cooperate. and likewise signed a confidential informant

agreement. The partner is referred to as CI #2. CI has prior state and federal criminal

convictions. CI #2 has prior state criminal convictions.

CI and CI #2 identified an African-American female named La La as a person who sold

cocaine to them in the past. They also provided the following information: La La's out of state

telephone number; La La dates an African-American named Mitch; Mitch and La La live on

Lime Kiln Road in South Burlington with a guy named "Ant"; Ant worlts at TGIF in South

Burlington and drives a black Charger. "Ant" is short for Anthony Williams; Mitch and Ant are

cousins and Anthony Willian~s is at the top of a cocaine distribution ring; La La and Mitch

distribute cocaine on behalf ~f Anthony Williams; La La said she had to return to her house to

pick up cocaine to sell them. The true identity/natne of La La was not deter~ilined.

Det. Trieb confirmed with CI and CI #2 through a photograph that the man they referred

to as "Ant" is not Antholly Williams but a Josh Williams and that Josh Williams lives at the

Lime Kiln Road address. CI and CI #2 said that Simone Williams is Jos11 Williams' sister.

In August 2007 Det. Mercha~lt received information kern a co~~fidential informant

(hereinafter CI #3) that Josh Williams drives a black Magnum or Charger and he sold cocaine at

the Red Square bar. At that time, one year prior to Det. Trieb's investigation, Det. Merchand

confirmed that a black Dodge Charger was registered to Josh Williams.

In April 2008 South Burlington Police Department Officer Keith Miller spolce with a

source of i~lfornlation (SOI) who said that his/her domestic partner was trafficking cocaine on

behalf of a group of people living at Lime Kiln ~d and at Winchester Place in Fort Ethan Allen.

CI and CI #2 stated that Simone Williams lives at Winchester Place in Fort Ethan Allen. Ofcr.

Miller also spolce with a concerned citizen who lives at 464 A Lime Kiln Road who stated there

was a lot of short term visits to that address. Two motor vehicles parlced at the 464 A Lime Kiln

Road address were a blaclr Charger registered to Josh Williams and a black Honda Accord

registered to Simone Williams.

Six months prior to this investigation, Det. Trieb received information from a reliable

informant stating that he/she could purchase cocaine from Jamie Green. CI and CI #2 stated

that Green is a multi-ounce cocaine dealer who is supplied by La La. Jamie Green has prior

criminal convictions including possession of cocaine.

Within the three months prior to Det. Trieb's investigation involving CI and CI #2, he

received information from another confidential informant (hereinafter CI #4) that slhe had

purchased cocaine from Yah-Kole Williams and oxy's from Yah-Kole's brother, Rassul

Williams. CI #4 told Det. Trieb that Yah-Kole Williams drives a Honda and lives at Lime Kiln

Road in South Burlington. On 8/19/08 Det. Trieb observed a black Honda with Vermont

registration EFD 207, registered to Yah-Kole Williams at Lime ICiln Road in South Burlington.

Yah-Kole Williams has no prior criminal record.

Rassul Williams (Yah-Kole's brother) waslis a drug target of the Burlington Police

Department since 2001. On August 19,2008 CI #4 conducted a controlled purchase of 30 oxy's

fiom Rassul Williams. Rassul Willians was subsequently arrested for this sale. At the time of

his arrest he gave 380 Lime Kiln Rd., in South Burlington as his home address.

Mitch, La La's boyfriei~d, is unidentified. Mitch's phone number given to CI is a cell

phone with Josh Williams as the subscriber.

On September 2,2008 CI #2 conducted a controlled purchase of cocaii~e from La La.

CI #2 said La La was driving a darlc gray Pontiac rental car wit11 New York registration. Lt.

Charland confirmed that this motor vehicle was parlced at the 464 A Lime IGln Rd address, it

was a rental vehicle rented by an Agnes Dubose who was described as much older than La La.

Surveillailce officers reported that an African American female driving the dark gray Pontiac

bearing New York registration left the 464 A Lime Kiln Rd address. This vehicle met CI #2 at

the "meet location", CI #2 purchased cocaine from La La. CI #2 confirmed the female operator

and the person slhe bought the cocaine from was the person known as La La. The substance

purchased tested positive for crack cocaine. CI #2 was paid for hislher involvement in this

controlled purchase.

On September 3,2008 law enforcement worlted with CI and CI #2 for another

controlled purchase of cocaine. CI #2 contacted La La via cell phone and La La agreed to sell

CI #2 cocaine. La La told CI #2 that she had to go to the Lime Kiln Rd to get the cocaine before

she could meet with CI #2. An officer maintaining surveillance of the Lime Kiln Rd residence

confirmed that the same dark gray Pontiac with New York registration arrived at the residence,

stayed for approximately 20 minutes and an African American female left the Lime Kiln Rd

residence in the same dark gray Poiltiac with New York registration. This vehicle arrived at the

"meet location" and met with CI #2 for approximately one minute. CI #2 purchased two clear

plastic baggies colltaiiliilg a substance that tested positive for crack cocaine. CI #2 identified the

African Aillericail woman as La La.

011 October 3,2008 CI advised Det. Trieb that CI #2 had spolten wlth La La who was

prepared to sell CI a certain aillount of crack cocaine. Per CI, La La told CI #2 that she had just

returned from New York where she had rel>lenished her cocaine supply. CI also said La La was

possibly driving a black Dodge Charger with Coiu~ecticut plates. Det. Lewis proceeded to 464 A

Lime Kiln Road where he observed a black Dodge Avenger bearing Connecticut registration

parked in the driveway. This vehicle was determined to be a rental. CI #2 attempted to set up a

controlled buy with La La who advised that she only had power cocaine available and needed

time to "coolc" the cocaine into crack cocaine. La La later contacted CI #2 advising that she

would not be able to sell to CI #2 because Mitch did not trust CI #2.

Based upon the above information, a search warrant was applied for and issued on

October 6,2008 authorizing the search of the residence at 464 A Lime Kiln Road in South

Burlington, Vermont. The search warrant was executed on October 10,2008.

AffirInvit in Support of Search wnrrarzt for 2007 Toyota Scion

Det. Trieb's affidavit in support of a search warra~lt for a 2007 Toyota Scion is

summarized as follows:

As the searcl~ tear11 was preparing to search the residence, two individuals were observed

standing by a vehicle parked in the driveway of the residence. A male, later identified as Yah-

Kole Williams, was standing at the driver's side, and a female, later identified as Sanquanette

Davis was wallting toward the residence. Both individuals were detained while officers entered

the residence.

After colnpletion of the house search Det. Trieb interviewed three individuals who were

present at the time of the house search: Shalonda Holman (allda La La), Antoiue Justice

(alkla Mitch) and Sanquanette Davis. Also present, but not interviewed by Det. Trieb, were

Ryau LaCross and Josh Williams. Sanquanette Davis told Det. Trieb that she was Yah-ICole

Williams' girlfriend for six years and she lived at 464 A Lime Kiln Road. She and Yah-Kole had

just returl~ed home that morniling fsom New York City where Yah-ICole had to "talte care of sum

business" [sic] in the city. Ms. Davis explained the "busi~less" was Yah-Kole picking up cocaine

and the cocaine could be found inside the vehicle. She did not h o w how much cocaine and she

was sleeping during most of the trip. This vehicle was a black Toyota Scion with Vermoiit

registration.

During the search of the residence some cocaine and a digital scale were found in Yah-

Kole's bedroom. An officer with a canine dog arrived and the dog "alerted" on the Toyota

Scion. Yah-Kole Williams advised the vehicle was his and it was a rental and he would not

consent to a search. A search warsant was issued for a search of the Toyota Scion on October.

10,2008.

Affirlavit in Support of Search warrant for Horzrln Civic

Yah-Kole Williams' black Honda Civic, Vermont registration EFD 207, was also present

in the driveway. The canine dog also "alerted" on this vehicle. Yah-Kole Williams advised he

would not consent to a search. A search warrant was issued for a search of the Honda on

October 10,2008. No illegal drugs were found in the Honda Civic.

ANALYSIS

When the issuance of a search warrant is challenged, the court must "exanline the

illformation available to the coult at the time the warrant issued, without reference to whether the

search tuned up the evidence the inforn~ant described." See State 11. Goldberg, 2005 VT 41,y 8,

178 Vt. 96, citing State v. Cooper, 163 Vt. 44, 51 (1994) ("key inquiry" in determining whether

court had probable cause to issue warrant is "whether the illforrnatioll provided in the affidavit"

justifies the search). Probable cause exists when the affidavit sets forth information that "a

judicial officer would reasonably conclude that a crime had been committed and that evidence of

the crime will be found in the place to be searcl~ed." Goldberg, 2005 VT 41,7 8 (quoting State 11.

Morris, 165 Vt. 11 1, 129 (1996)). A reviewing court defers to the court hearing the warrant

application, and does not "subject a supporting affidavit to 'hypeitechnical scrutiny."' Goldberg,

2005 VT 41, Q 8, quoting State v Deiners, 167 Vt. 349, 353 (1997).

1. Franks Hearing

In addition to requesting suppression, Defendant Josh Williams also requested a Franks

hearing. At the suppression hearing, the two co-defendants joined in the request for a Franks

hearing. Franks v. Dela~~are, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). It was unclear to the court at the time of

hearings in this matter, and it is still unclear, the basis for this request because none of the

defendants ever made any factual threshold showing to support this request.' Nevertheless,

because there was testimony which pui-poitedly was introduced in support of the request for a

Frank's hearing, the court considers that testimony which is outside the four corners of the

search warrant.

A Franks challenge is raised when there is an allegation that untruthful statements were

made, either with the affiant's lmowledge or with a reclcless disregard for the truth in t l ~ e

application for the search warrant. The State correctly points out the need for a preliminary

showing by the person requesting the Franks hearing.

[Wle hold that, where the defendant inaltes a substantial preliminary sl~owing that a false stateinent lu~owiiigly and intentionally, or with recltless disregard for the truth, was iilcluded by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request.

' The court takes responsibility for not requiring counsel to adhere to the applicable case law in support of t h e i ~ Frank arguments.

franks, 438 U.S. at 155-156.

To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reclcless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. They should point out specifically the portion ofthe warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false; and they should be accompanied by a statement of supporting reasons. Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained.

Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 (emphasis added).

None of the defendants made any preliminary showing before the ' s~p~ress ion hearings

that Det. Trieb niacie untruthful statements either directly or with reckless disregard for the truth

when he applied for a search warrant for the house at 464A Lime Kiln Road. Rather, after the

presentation of evidence the defense challenge on this ground was largely a "mere desire to

cross-examine. " Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. Subjects raised at hearing with the police witnesses

addressed issues such as the sufficiency of information provided to Det. Trieb from confidential

sources, the layout of the house, who lived at the property, what door officers entered, which

residents were in what bedroom, what detectives performed what functions during the search,

and what items were seized and where were they seized.

On the last day of hearings defendant Yah-Kole Williams presented testimony contrary to

some information provided by Det. Trieb in his application for the search warrant of the Toyota

Scion. Sanqnanette Davis testified at the hearing to the following: approximately 30 minutes

elapsed from the time she was in the driveway until she was interviewed by Det. Trieb; Det.

Trieb questioned her for approximately three minutes; she never told Det. Trieb that Yah-Kole

Williams had just come back fro111 New York after purchasing drugs, or that there was cocaiile in

the car; she did not lcnow that there was cocaine in the car; they were returning from a funeral in

New Yorlc arriving at the Lime Kiln Road residence at approximately 6:00 a.m.; she had a six

year relationship with Yah-Kole Williams and they brolce up in August 2008; she lived at the

Lime Kiln Road residence from March 2008 until the date of the search where she shared a

bedroom with Yah-Kole Williams; Ryan LaCross also lived at the Lime Kiln Road residence and

he kept his door closed when he wasn't home; Josh Williams resided in the basement. She also

testified that she lmew Shalonda Holman (allda La La) for a few months; shk had no lcnowledge

of Shalonda selling drugs from the Lime Kiln Road residence; she didn't speak with Shalonda;

she never saw any drugs at the Lime Kiln Road residence.

The information provided by Shalonda was necessary for a probable cause finding in

support of the search warrant of the Toyota Scion. The court is presented with conflicting

evidence. One source is the sworn testimony of co-defendant Yah-ICole Williams' ex-girlfriend,

Sanquanette, who had a six year relationship with him, who shared a bedroom with him at the

time of the search in question, and who had just returned with him from New York City at 6:00

a.m. ostensibly from a funeral. The other source is the sworn affidavit of Det. Trieb who was

involved with the investigation of alleged drug activity at the Lime Kiln Road residence from

August 2008 until the execution of the search warrant in October 2008. His involvement also

included two controlled buys between CI #2 and La La who resided at Lime Kiln Road where

Shalonda also resided. Det. Trieb had other information that strollgly suggested there was drug

activity at the Lime Kiln Road address. The court does not find Sanquanette's testimony

credible in looking at the totality of all facts and circwnstances present. Specifically, the court

does not credit Sanquanette's testimony that she never spolce with La La, never lmew of any drug

activity, and just returned from a funeral in New Yorlc at 6:00 a.m. The court discounts her in-

court recantation of information she provided to Dei. Trieb when not in defendant Yah-ICole

Williams' presence.

The court denies the defe~~dant's challenge to the issuance of the search warrants under

Franks 11. Dela~~are, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). The court concludes that Det. Trieb was not

untruthful in his affidavits in support of the search warrant for the house and the Toyota Scion,

nor did he reclclessly disregard the truth in his affidavit. Therefore, the court may look at the

affidavit supporting the search warrant in its entirety, to determine whether the warrants are

supported by probable cause.

2. Warrant to search 464 A Lime IGln Road

Each of the Defendants asserts that dismissal is mandated on the ground that there was

insufficient probable cause to support the issuance of the October 6,2008 search warrant to

search the house located at 464 A Lime Kiln Road.

The ~e rmon t standard for finding probable cause is governed by Rule 41: "The finding

of probable cause shall be based upon substantial evidence, which may be hearsay in whole or in

part, provided there is a substantial basis for believing the source of the hearsay to be credible

and for believing that there is a factual basis for the information hmished." V.R.Cr.P. 41.

Vermont law provides that "an affidavit may establish an informant's credibility in either

of two ways: (1) by demonstrating his or her inherent credibility as a source; or (2) by

denlonstrating the reliability of the infornlation he or she has provided on the occasion in

question." See State 11. Goldberg, 2005 VT 41,T 11, 178 Vt. 96. "An informant's illherent

credibility is typically established by evidence that he or she "has provided correct information in

the past," while particular information is generally deemed inherently reliable if the informant

acted against penal interest, or if police corroborated the information 'to the point where it would

be reasonable for them to rely on it as accurate."' Id.

Much of the ii~forination in the affidavit supporting the warrant to search the residence

rests on information received froin confidential infornla~lts. The information provided by CI and

CI # 2 that La La was selling cocaine, that she lived in the residence at Lime Kiln Road, and that

she used the property to sfore cocaine is information that was corroborated by the police

investigation, including the two controlled buys. On September 2,2008, CI #2 made a

controlled purchase from La La, who was observed leaving the subject premises. A second

controlled buy from La La was set up for the next day. She told CI #2 that she had to go to Lime

Kiln Road to get the cocaine for the purchase. La La was again observed leaving the subject

premises. The court finds a substantial basis for believing that the CIS were credible and for

believing that there is a factual basis for the information fuinished by them because the police

investigation corroborated the facts provided by the informants. , As established by the informants and surveillance, the police determined that La-La lived

at 464 A Lime Kiln Road, and used that property to store and distribute cocaine. The facts in the

affidavit establish probable cause.to believe that evidence of possession or distribution of illegal

drugs, specifically cocaine, would be found at the residence at 464 A Lime Kiln Road. The

search warrant issued by Judge Ben Joseph on October 6,2008 is supported by probable cause.

3. Seizure of Yah-Kole Williams' person

Defendant Yah-Kole Willianls asserts that the seizure of his person was illegal. The

October 6,2008 affidavit states that Yah-Kole Williams was identified by CI and CI # 2 as an

associate in the alleged cocaine distribution ring with which La La is involved. CI # 4 stated that

Yah-Kole Williams'sold that individual cocaine within the three illonths before the warrant

application. Law enforcement observed a black Elonda registered to Yah-Kole Williams at the

subject propkttY, providing evidence co~ulecting Yah-Kole Williams and the subject property

prior to the execution of the warrant.

As the house was being searched, the police seized the two people found in the driveway,

who had just gotten out of the car in the driveway. Defendant Yah-Kole Williams was one of the

two people.

The test for determining whether a person has been seized is "whether a reasonable

person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter."

State v. Pitts, 2009 VT 51,18, citing Bostick, 501 U.S. at 436 and United States v. Mendenhull,

446 U.S. 544,554 (1980) (a seizure has occurred "only if, in view of all of the circumstances

surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to

leave"). Numerous police officers were present and Yah-Kole Williams was prevented from

leaving the driveway. Restraining Yah-Kole Williams in his driveway was a seizure under the

Fourth amendment.

"A warrantless investigatory seizure is justified if the officer had "specific and articulable

facts, taken together with rational inferences from those facts," that would "warrant a reasonable

belief that a suspect is engaging in criminal activity." State i t Jestice, 2004 VT 65,V 9, 177 Vt.

513 (citing State v. Curon, 155 Vt. 492,499 (1990). Based on the infolmation in the affidavit to

search the house, the police had a reasonable belief that Yah-Kale Williams was engaged in drug

activity, which justified a brief investigative stop.

Defendant complains of the lei~gth of detention. He was detained while the police

entered the residence, while they interviewed Davis and while they waited for a dog to sniff the

vehicles. The court has no evidence concerning the actual length of time that the defendant was

seized. There is evidence concerning the circun~stances of the seizure. As the evidence unfolded

during the search of the residence, drugs were found in Defendant's bedrooin providing the

police with additional grounds for detaining the defendant for further investigation and eventual

arrest independent of the application for a search warrant for the motor vehicles. During

execution of the search warrant one of the inhabitants of the Lime Kiln Road property was

Shalonda Holn~an allda La La who had been the source of the cocaine during the two controlled

buys. Based on information the police already had from their investigation, the drugs found in

defendant's bedroom, Shalonda Holman presence in the house, and statements provided by

Sanquanette Davis, the police had specific and articulable facts to believe that the defendant was

engaged in criminal activity to justify the warrantless seizure.

4. Warrant to search black 2007 Toyota Scion

Defendant Yah-Kole Williams argues that the search warrant permitting the search of his

vehicle was based on false information and the vehicle search warrant was the result of the

illegally issued warrant for the residence. We have ruled that the warrant for the residence was

not illegally issued. We have also addressed the issue of false information in the warrant, and

have ruled that the Detective was not untruthful in his affidavit concerning the Toyota Scion.

Therefore the only remaining issue is whether there was probable cause to support the search

warrant for the vehicle.

When law enforcement approached the 464 A Lime Kiln Road property at approximately

6:00 a.m., they saw a black Toyota Scion in the driveway of the prei~iises, with two people

nearby: Defendant Yah-Kole Williatns and Sanquanette Davis. Davis told the police that she

and Yah-Kole had just returned from New York City, that Yah-Kole had piclced up cocaine in

New Yorlc City, and that cocaine could be found inside that vehicle. Davis' comments about the

presence of cocaine in the Scion, in co~nbination with the evidence supporting the search of the

house, provided a reasonable and a~liculable suspicion that drugs were to be found in that

vehicle, providing justification for the dog sniff.

A certified drug dog named Dulce was brought by Corporal Moore to perform an external

sweep of the Scion. Dulce alerted on the trunk and driver's side of the car for the presence of

narcotics. The police seized the Scion and applied for a search warrant, which was granted by

Judge Matthew Katz on October 10, 2008. The dog sniff corroborated Davis' statements. The

facts alleged in Det. Treib's sworn October 10,2008 affidavit were sufficient to support a

finding of probable cause. The issuance of a search warrant to search the Toyota Scion was

proper. There are no grounds for suppressing the results of the search of the Scion.

5. Search of Ryan LaCross' bedroom

Defendant Ryan LaCross argues that the search of his bedroom was not supported by

probable cause. There is no mention of Ryan LaCross in either affidavit in support of a search

wasrant and no evidence that his name arose during the investigations prior to the warrant

application. Ryan LaCross became involved in the situation when police entered his bedroom

and awakened him during the execution of the search warrant of the house at 464 A Lime Kiln

Road. At that time he told the police that the bedroom was exclusively his. Prior to the search of

his bedroom, there was no probable cause to believe that Ryan LaCross possessed drugs or was

involved in the criminal matters discussed in the affidavits supporting the search warrauts.

Verrnont has not adopted the "community living exception" that permits law enforcement

"to execute a warrant that merely describes the place to be searched by its outward appearance,

without regard to the separate privacy interests officers may encounter therein." See State v.

Quigley, 2005 VT 128, f 15, 179 Vt. 567.

In Qtiiglejt, the affidavit supporting the search warrant mentioned two individuals, but did

not indicate that Quigley resided there, nor link Quigley or his bedroom to any criminal activity.

Id. at 7 5. Similarly here, the affidavit supporting the search wassant of the house did not mention

LaCross as a resident, nor did it in any way link LaCross or his bedroom to any criminal activity.

"[Wlhen one tenant consistently denies all other tenants access to a part of the premises,

probable cause based on a general description of the premises will not extend to the separately

secured area." Quigley, I005 VT 128, l 14, citing 2 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure 5 4.5(b), at

586-87 (4th ed.2004). Here, there is evidence that LaCross told the police that he and he alone

occupied the room. During the execution of the search warrant of the house Det. Trieb was

advised by Sanquanette Davis that LaCross kept his bedroom door closed when he wasn't home.

Quigley also rejected the proposition that "a person's knowledge of criminal activity is

necessarily probable cause to suspect that person of criminal activity." 2005 VT 128,B 21.

There must be a nexus between the drug activity and a particular individual to support probable

cause. Here, the affidavit supporting the search warrant does not provide probable cause to

believe that Defendant Lac'ross was involved in drug activity or that evidence of the same was to

be found in his private bedroom. Nordid evidence found outside his bedroom provide probable

cause to connect LaCross to the evidence alleged in the affidavit. When the police entered his

bedroom he was asleep in bed and alone. It was clear he occupied a private space separate from

the general search warrant to search "the house."

Therefore the search of Defendant LaCross' bedroom violated his rights under the Fourth

Amendment and Article 11 because there was no search warrant specifically for his bedroom.

Evidence obtained during the search of LaCross' bedroom must be suppressed. Without the

evidence from the unlawful search of LaCross' bedroom, the State cannot prove the possession

charge against LaCross. Thus the charge against LaCross nust be dismissed.

ORDER

Defendant Josh Williams' motion to suppress and dismiss is denied.

Defendant Yah-Kole Williams' motions ta suppress and dismiss are denied.

Defendant Ryan LaCross' notion to suppress and dismiss is granted

Dated at Burlington this 10th day of February, 2010.

istrict Court Judge