Summary 2007 WY 138

Summary of Decision issued August 28, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, 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: Hall v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 138

Docket Number: 06-230

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): D. Terry Rogers, Interim State Public; and Tina N. Kerin, Post-Conviction Counsel. Argument by Ms. Kerin.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Melissa M. Swearingen, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Armitage.

Issue: Whether the district court abused its discretion when it refused to suppress drugs confiscated from Appellant during a pat-down search preceding her incarceration in the county jail, where Appellant was arrested pursuant to a legitimate traffic stop but where the officer’s first observation of Appellant was precipitated by knowledge gained from a wiretap later discovered to be illegal.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant entered a conditional guilty plea (contingent on the outcome of this appeal) to a single felony count of possession of methamphetamine under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031. She contests the district court’s denial of her pretrial motion to suppress certain evidence.
Standard of Review: In general, evidentiary rulings of a district court are not disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated.
Both parties agree the original wiretap in this case was illegal. There was no debate as to the propriety of the search conducted on Appellant at the detention. The sole question relates to the applicability of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine and the exclusionary rule to these facts. The question in such a case is whether granting establishment of the primary illegality, the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint. In Appellant’s case, the trial court excluded all evidence directly related to the wiretap. The only evidence at issue was the drug evidence found on Appellant’s person during her booking for driving under suspension. The officer had probable cause to perform the traffic stop because he observed the violation. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter law enforcement from obtaining evidence through illegal means. Application of the rule would serve no purpose here. Officers believed they were working pursuant to a valid, statutorily authorized wiretap. The Court stated they failed to see how law enforcement can be deterred from inadvertent illegal behavior.

Holding: The district court did no abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence collected during her arrest for driving under suspension even though she was initially placed under surveillance because of information gained through use of a wiretap that law enforcement officers later discovered to be illegal.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2f7uny .