SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2006-110


                                                             MARCH TERM, 2006



State of Vermont                                                    }             APPEALED FROM:



     v.                                                                      }             District Court of Vermont,     

}             Unit No. 1, Windsor Circuit


Dale Porter                                                             }

}             DOCKET NO. 282-2-06 Wrcr



                   In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:


Defendant Dale Porter appeals from the district court=s denial of his motion to amend conditions of release.  13 V.S.A. ' 7556(b).  Defendant challenges the conditions requiring him to report to the Windsor Police Department daily to submit to alcohol testing.  We affirm.


Defendant is charged with driving under the influence as a third offense.  At the

arraignment, in addition to certain conditions of release agreed upon by counsel, the district court added two conditions that require defendant to report to the Windsor Police Department daily

between 8:00 and 10:00 a.m. and submit to alcohol testing.  Defendant moved to amend the

conditions of release one week after the arraignment, and the court denied the motion. 


This court must affirm the district court order Aif it is supported by the proceedings

below.@  13 V.S.A. ' 7556(b); State v. Ashley, 161 Vt. 65, 68 (1993) (trial court has Abroad

discretion in setting conditions of release@).


Upon consideration of the record and the arguments of counsel for the parties, this Court

concludes that the proceedings sufficiently support the conditions imposed by the district court. 

The district court=s concern for public safety prompted it to impose the conditions, and the record supports the court=s assessment that requiring defendant to report daily for alcohol testing is the

Aleast restrictive . . . condition which will reasonably assure protection of the public.@  13 V.S.A.

' 7554(a)(2). 


The district court imposed the conditions to assure that the public is protected from

defendant=s drinking and driving, and so wanted to measure compliance with the condition

prohibiting consumption of alcohol.  Defendant has a significant history of driving under the

influence: although the current charge is DUI as a third offense, a felony, defendant actually has

four prior DUI convictions.  The court also noted that defendant=s blood alcohol limit was

allegedly 0.206, a very high test significantly beyond the legal limit of 0.08.  The affidavit alleges that defendant was driving in an erratic manner at a high speed, that his speech was Aheavily

slurred,@ and that he acknowledged having had too much to drink.  Defendant argues that his

driver=s license is now under presumptive suspension anyway, but the district court considered

that defendant also has a prior conviction of driving with a suspended license.  The Court is also

not persuaded that the reporting conditions and license suspension create a Acatch-22@ because defendant lives alone seven miles from the police department, and is not allowed to drive but

must report daily for testing.  There is cab service in the area.  The district court concluded that

the license suspension and the prohibition on alcohol alone would not reasonably assure the

safety of the public; this Court defers to its broad discretion. 


Finally, the Court notes that both at the arraignment and again at the motion hearing, the

district court said it would revisit the matter after defendant exhibited a period of compliance

with the conditions with no violations.  While the district court did not disclose when it would

reconsider the matter, that is within the reasonable exercise of its discretion.


There is sufficient support in the record for the court-imposed conditions that require

defendant to report daily to the police department and submit to alcohol testing. 











Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice