Summary 2007 WY 190

Summary of Decision issued December 6, 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: Garvin v. State; Lockwood v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 190

Docket Number: S-07-0102

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, the Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge

Representing Appellants (Defendants): R. Michael Vang of Brown & Hiser LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

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

Issue: Whether the Defendants’ rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under Article 1 § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution would require suppression of evidence and dismissal of charges.

Facts/Discussion: Appellants entered conditional pleas of guilty to the charge of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. They reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of their respective motion to suppress the marijuana evidence discovered in Garvin’s rental vehicle following a traffic stop.
Standard of Review: When the Court reviews a district court’s suppression ruling they defer to the court’s findings on factual issues unless they are clearly erroneous.
In this consolidated appeal, Garvin and Lockwood contend the district court erred in denying their motions to suppress the marijuana evidence seized during a search of the rental vehicle Garvin was driving. Lockwood presented no argument on appeal that he was illegally detained or searched. The rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment are personal rights and only the person whose rights have been infringed may claim the benefits of the exclusionary rule. Since his rights were never violated, he had no standing to invoke the protections of that rule.
The reasonableness of a traffic stop is analyzed under the two-part test articulated in Terry v. Ohio which includes whether the initial stop was justified and whether the officer’s actions during the detention were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place. The existence of objectively reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is determined by evaluating the totality of the circumstances. The circumstances included the existence of a one-way rental agreement, the strong odor of air-fresheners and dryer sheets, the open display of religious symbols, the defendant exhibiting extreme nervousness through the entire process, and the rental agreement which stated the car was to have been returned six days prior to the day in question.

Holding: After looking at the whole picture, the Court agreed with the district court’s legal conclusion there was reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to detain Garvin until the arrival of the canine unit. The aggregate of all the information available created reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, thus warranting Garvin’s further detention.

Affirmed.

J. Golden delivered the opinion.

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