Summary 2007 WY 170

Summary of Decision issued October 30, 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: Keller, Jr. v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 170

Docket Number: S-07-0085

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kurt A. Infanger of the Nick Carter Law Firm, PC, Gillette, Wyoming.

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

Issue: Whether the investigative detention of the Appellant prior to seizure of the evidence violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(ii) reserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence.
Standard of Review: When the Court reviews a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress evidence, they do not disturb the findings on factual issues unless they are clearly erroneous. The issue of law – whether an unreasonable search or seizure has occurred in violation of constitutional rights – is reviewed de novo.
Appellant contended that once he told the Deputy that the couple had been engaged in sexual activity, the Deputy had no reasonable suspicion of any unlawful activity that justified further detention. The Court disagreed stating that the test was whether the State could show the presence of specific and articulable facts and rational inferences which gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or may be committing a crime. The facts as shown in the record were sufficient to create reasonable suspicion. The facts included: the particular area where the car was parked; the “flurry of movement” seen in the front seat; the “old burnt smell” upon the opening of the window; the car seat in a reclined position making it hard to see Appellant or his hands; and Appellant appeared visibly nervous. Also, the Court noted the detention was very brief – a matter of minutes.

Holding: The totality of the circumstances facing the Deputy as he encountered Appellant and his companion in the pullout area gave him reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. His brief detention of the couple to investigate that suspicion was not unreasonable and did not violate the reasonable search and seizure provision of either the State or the Federal constitution.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/3yarlb .