Hide Transcript Show Transcript

WEBVTT WANTED LAWS TO CHANGE. I DIDN'T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN TO ANYBODY ELSE AGAIN -- ESPECIALLY TO PEOPLE OF COLOR GREGORY ZULLO SAYS HE WAS ASTOUNTED TO HEAR THE NEWS -- THE VERMONT STATE SUPREME COURT RULED IN HIS FAVOR FRIDAY -- NAT OF PAPERS SLAMMING A 51-PAGE OPINION-- IN A CASE THAT'S YEARS IN THE MAKING. THE FIVE JUSTICES ALL AGREED -- THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR DISCRIMINATORY SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. FILE DOG BARKING NAT -- FROM DASH CAM VIDEO THE CASE STEMS FROM THIS INCIDENT IN 2014 -- WHEN THEN - V-S-P TROOPER LEWIS HATCH PULLED ZULLO OVER. LEWIS SAID IT WAS BECAUSE THE REGISTRATION STICKER ON THE RED PONTIAC WAS COVERED BY SNOW. IN THIS INTERVIEW FROM 2014....THE TROOPER -- SAID THERE WAS A FAINT SMELL OF BURNT MARIJUANA COMING FROM THE CAR. HATCH -- FROM 2014 -- I CAN SMELL WEED AND HE DOESN'T WANT ME TO SEARCH IT -- SO IM GOING TO TAKE IT WHEN ZULLO REFUSED TO CONSENT TO A SEARCH -- THE OFFICER HAD THE CAR TOWED. ZULLO WALKED SOME 8 MILES HOME. THE CAR WAS LATER SEARCHED -- AND POLICE FOUND A METAL GRINDER AND SMALL PIPE. FILE OF LEWIS HATCH -- IT'S STUPID -- BUT WHATEVER -- THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS TO DO BUT ZULLO WAS NEVER CHARGED WITH A CRIME -- BECAUSE VERMONT HAD DECRIMINALIZED SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIJUANA. ZULLO AND THE A-C-L-U WONDERED IF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION COULD BE TO BLAME. DIAZ -- ACLU -- WE WERE TOLD BY THE COURT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT -- WE REPEATEDLY SAID OF COURSE IT IS JAY DIAZ IS AN ATTORNEY FOR THE ACLU. HE SAYS NOW -- WITH THIS NEW DECISION -- ZULLO AND THE ACLU COULD PURSUE DISCRIMINATION AS AN ARGUMENT IN COURT. OTHERS COULD DO THE SAME. DIAZ -- IF THESE ACTIONS CONTINUE -- IT WILL START TO GET EXPENSIVE FOR THE STATE THE VERMONT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IS REPRESENTING THE STATE IN THIS CASE. A MEMBER OF HIS STAFF WROTE TO NBC 5, TELLING US "WE ARE REVIEWING THE DECISION CLOSELY AND CONSIDERING HOW BEST TO PROCEED. SO TOO -- ARE ZULLO AND THE ACLU. ZULLO -- WE DO HAVE A PRETTY SOLID BASE OF WHERE WE ARE COMING FROM -- A REALLY SOLID BASE OF WHERE WE CAN GO NEXT. IM QUITE EXCITED THAT WE NOW HAVE THAT STEPPING STONE IN MONTPELIER -- TG -- NBC5 NEWS. THE SUPREME COURT ALSO RULED THAT JUST THE SMELL OF MARIJUANA DOES NOT JUSTIFY A SEARCH. NOW -- THIS CASE WILL GO BACK TO THE LOWER COURT -- TO BE HEARD AGAIN. FROM THE LIVE DESK -- TG -- NBC5 NEWS. A VERMONT MAN. WITH AN EXTENS

Advertisement Supreme Court: Police can be held liable for discriminatory searches & seizures ACLU of Vermont calls it landmark decision Share Shares Copy Link Copy

Gregory Zullo said he was surprised to hear the news that the Vermont Supreme Court ruled in his favor in a case alleging racial profiling on Friday."I wanted laws to change. I didn't want this to happen to anybody else again -- especially to people of color," he said in an interview.Zullo was pulled over by a then-Vermont State Police trooper, Lewis Hatch, in 2014. Hatch said it was because the car's registration sticker was covered by snow. He also said there was a faint smell of marijuana coming from the car. Zullo denied consent to have the car searched. "I can smell weed and he doesn't want me to search it," Hatch said that day. "So I'm going to take it (the car)."Hatch towed the car, and Zullo had to walk 8 miles home. A later search of the car yielded a grinder and small pipe, but Vermont had decriminalized marijuana a year earlier. Thus, Zullo was never charged with a crime."And his constitutional rights were violated," said Jay Diaz, a staff attorney with American Civil lof Vermont, who brought the case forward.They claimed that the trooper violated Zullo's constitutional right, according to Article 11 of the state constitution, on the basis of discrimination. Article 11 deals with searches and seizures. Lower courts denied the argument."We were told by the court, 'That's not what this case is about,'" Diaz said. "We repeatedly said, 'Of course it is.'"The state's highest court agreed with Zullo and the ACLU, writing in the 51-page opinion, "In sum, we conclude that a direct private right of action for damages based on alleged flagrant violations of Article 11 is available against the State ... which may take the form of discriminatory animus."Diaz said that, with the new decision, there is a new check against law enforcement making bad stops in Vermont."If these actions continue, it will start to get expensive for the state," he said.The Vermont Attorney General's Office is defending the state in the case. A representative wrote to NBC5 that the decision is a long and complicated one, and that they "are reviewing the decision closely and considering how best to proceed."Zullo is optimistic about what the future holds once the case lands back in a lower court."We do have a pretty solid base of where we are coming from, a really solid base of where we can go next," he said. "I'm quite excited that we now have that stepping stone."The court also ruled that just the smell of marijuana is not probable cause enough to justify a search.