Summary 2006 WY 154

Summary of Decision issued December 15, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions 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.

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

Case Name: LaPlant v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 154

Docket Number: 05-182

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable David B. Park, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Ryan R. Roden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Elizabeth B. Lance, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: December 15, 2006

Issues: Whether the district court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence of drug activity found in an object attached to Appellant’s key ring because there was no reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the initial seizure of Appellant.

Holdings: The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. An investigatory stop represents a seizure which implicates the Fourth Amendment and, therefore, requires the presence of specific, articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or may be committing a criminal offense. A dual inquiry exists for evaluating the reasonableness of an investigatory stop: (1) whether the officer’s actions were justified at the inception; and (2) whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first instance. An officer’s conduct is judged by an objective standard taking into account the totality of the circumstances.

In this case, no question exists that Appellant was seized when he was ordered back into the vehicle. Appellant insists the seizure was not justified by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The majority of Appellant’s argument is based on a faulty premise that his seizure was the product of a routine traffic stop. He therefore attempts to analogize his situation to that of a passenger of a vehicle involved in a routine traffic stop. Such an analysis is wholly inapplicable under the facts of this case.

The encounter between the police officer and Appellant was an investigatory stop, the purpose of which was to investigate reported stolen license plates. The only question is whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to seize and detain Appellant during the investigation. A review of the record shows he did. The record disclosed that the officer had observed a vehicle with stolen Idaho plates parked on Appellant’s property. Around two and one-half hours later, he noticed the same vehicle with the stolen Idaho plates parked at a storage unit. Appellant was in the car. When the officer approached the vehicle, Appellant exited the car and attempted to walk away. These facts and the rational inferences to be drawn from them support a reasonable suspicion that Appellant may have been involved in illegal activity. Therefore, Appellant’s detention was constitutionally permissible under the circumstances.

The investigatory stop of Appellant was supported by reasonable suspicion. Because the stop was proper, no grounds existed to mandate suppression of the incriminating drug evidence found in the subsequent search of the Appellant. The district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to suppress is affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/ygn9e5 .