Summary 2006 WY 127

Summary of Decision issued October 11, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library for assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Hembree v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 127

Docket Number: 05-158

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Tina N. Kerin, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Kerin.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Rehurek.

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence.

Holding: Appellant was stopped for a speeding violation. In the course of the stop, the vehicle was determined to be a rental, with expired plates, which the occupants were not authorized to drive and, the driver had an expired license. When the Trooper explained Enterprise asked the car be impounded, the Trooper offered the occupants a ride to town, or they could walk, but if they rode with him, he would have to inspect their luggage before he allowed it into his car. Appellant voluntarily agreed to inspection and the Trooper found one ounce of cocaine and four and one-eighth ounces of methamphetamine. Appellant entered conditional guilty pleas to two counts of felony possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(a)(i) reserving the right to appeal the district court suppression ruling.
Standard of Review: The Court defers to the court’s findings on factual issues unless they are clearly erroneous. They view the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court’s decision because it is in the best position to assess the witnesses’ credibility, weigh the evidence and make the necessary inferences, deductions and conclusions. The constitutionality of a particular search or seizure is a question of law that the Court reviews de novo.
The Court commented on Appellant’s statement of the issue. They stated that to best assist the Court, each issue should consist of a concise statement of the point of law sought to be argued and reviewed. The Court found that Appellant faulted the district court’s suppression ruling on two grounds, the legality of the initial detention and the voluntariness of his consent to the search of his luggage.
The Detention: Appellant contends that the trooper should have simply issued the appropriate traffic tickets and released him instead of injecting himself into a civil contract dispute with the rental car company. The reasonableness of a traffic stop detention under the Fourth Amendment is determined by applying the two-part inquiry set forth in Terry v. Ohio. A detention must last no longer than necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop and the scope must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification. In Lindsay and Johnson, the Court determined that the investigation of a potential unauthorized use of a rental vehicle was a reasonably sufficient reason to detain a driver after a traffic stop. The trooper detained Appellant only for the period of time necessary to issue the traffic citations and to complete the investigation into Appellant’s authority to possess and operate the rental car.
Consent to Search: The State argued that Appellant lacked standing to challenge the search of his luggage because as an unauthorized operator of a rental vehicle, he generally would have no legitimate expectation of privacy in the car. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized that although an unauthorized driver has no privacy rights in the motor vehicle, he may possess a legitimate expectation of privacy in his personal luggage stored within the vehicle. The State did not raise the issue of standing in the district court so the State’s argument raises the question whether it should be allowed to raise the standing issue on appeal after it failed to do so in the district court. The Court deferred this question because they affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress. Appellant’s position about the consent to search his luggage is premised on three arguments: the consent was involuntary because it was preceded by an unlawful detention, his consent was not validly obtained because the Trooper exceeded the permissible scope by questioning about travel plans and the presence of drugs, and that his consent was coerced. The first argument failed because the Court held that the extended detention was lawful. The second argument was based on O’Boyle and Campbell. The Court noted the difference in scope of the questions and stated that in the instant case they were limited to Appellant’s travel activities and matters concerning the rental car which were proper under the circumstances. The district court found that the challenged questions occurred after the detention on the traffic stop had terminated. As a courtesy, the trooper offered to drive Appellant and sister to a hotel or bus station. Any interaction occurring in this context was consensual. Third, the voluntariness of Appellant’s consent to the search must be considered within the totality of the circumstances. The Court considered the way the officer phrased the request for permission to search, whether the officer told the individual he could refuse and the presence of other coercive factors. The Court’s review of the record disclosed ample evidence to support the district court’s finding that Appellant freely and voluntarily consented to the search.

The judgment and sentence were affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the order for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/fhmav .