## Facts

- A police officer spoke with James Peterson, smelled marijuana, and Peterson admitted smoking earlier that day.
- Peterson voluntarily consented to police searches of his car and home.
- During the home search, officers found a garbage bag containing a significant amount of marijuana.
- After discovering the bag, officers handcuffed Peterson, told him he would be taken to the station for processing, and continued questioning without providing Miranda warnings.
- In response to the unwarned questioning, Peterson led officers to a plot behind his home containing 27 marijuana plants.
- Peterson was charged with felony possession of marijuana.
- He moved to suppress (a) his post-handcuffing statements and (b) the marijuana plants found as a result of those statements.

## Issues

1. Whether Peterson was in custody for Miranda purposes when, after being handcuffed and told he was being taken for processing, police continued questioning him.
2. Whether physical evidence discovered from unwarned but voluntary custodial statements must be suppressed under the Fifth Amendment.
3. Whether the Vermont Constitution’s self-incrimination provision (Chapter I, Article 10) requires suppression of physical fruits of a Miranda violation even if federal law does not.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court accepted that Peterson was subjected to custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings after he was handcuffed and told he would be taken for processing.
- Peterson’s unwarned statements were properly suppressed.
- The marijuana plants discovered as a result of Peterson’s unwarned but voluntary statements were admissible.
- The court held that neither the Fifth Amendment (as interpreted by United States v. Patane) nor Vermont’s Article 10 required exclusion of the physical evidence on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings; unwarned statements obtained during custodial interrogation are inadmissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.
- Under federal law, the failure to give Miranda warnings does not require suppression of physical evidence derived from unwarned but voluntary statements.
- Vermont’s self-incrimination clause (Chapter I, Article 10) does not provide broader protection than federal law in requiring suppression of physical fruits solely because Miranda warnings were not given.
- If a statement is actually involuntary or coerced, broader suppression principles may apply to both the statement and derivative evidence.

## Conclusion

Vermont suppressed Peterson’s unwarned custodial statements but, because the statements were voluntary, allowed the State to use the marijuana plants located through those statements; the court declined to extend the Vermont Constitution to require broader exclusion and affirmed the felony possession conviction.


State v. Peterson, 923 A.2d 585 (Vt. 2007)