Summary 2009 WY 61

Summary of Decision issued May 1, 2009

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

Case Name: Yoeuth v. State; Loo v. State

Citation: 2009 WY 61

Docket Number: S-08-0136; S-08-0170

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

Representing Appellant Yoeuth: Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; Eric M. Alden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellant Loo: Dion J. Custis, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Graham M. Smith, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Loo and Yoeuth challenged the district court’s denial of their motions to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop and subsequent search of the vehicle’s trunk.

Mr. Loo, the initial stop: Loo and Yoeuth moved to suppress the evidence (thirty-seven pounds of marijuana) found when the trooper searched the trunk of the rental car that Loo was driving. Loo maintained that he suffered violations of his rights under both Article 1, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution and under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court must determine whether under all the circumstances, the trooper’s actions were reasonable and in compliance with state and federal constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. The test is whether the initial stop is justified and the focus is on a fact-based reasonableness inquiry. The district court determined that the trooper was justified in stopping Loo based on the specific fact that he has observed a traffic violation.
The initial detention: The trooper’s questions were limited to the topics of Loo’s right to operate the car and their travel plans. Based on the findings, the district court concluded the detention was reasonable both under Wyoming and United States law.
The second round of questioning: At the end of the initial detention, the trooper informed Loo that he was free to go and asked if Loo would answer a few more question and he agreed. The district court determined the consent to be voluntary and that the questioning did not violate his rights. The Court agreed.
The canine sniff: The Court reviewed the list of factors articulated by the trooper as giving rise to reasonable suspicion including a perfume odor that dissipated over time; the existence of two rental agreements; Loo’s unusually high nervousness; the drug detection dog sniffing Loo when he entered the patrol car; and the trooper’s knowledge that traffickers often rent more than one car. Based on the factors, the Court concluded that the trooper had reasonable and articulable suspicions of ongoing criminal activity.
The search of the trunk: Under the United States Constitution, when a trained drug dog alerts during an exterior sniff of a vehicle, there is probable cause to search that vehicle.
Ms. Yoeuth, standing as a passenger: Yoeuth argued the district court incorrectly ruled that she did not have standing to pursue a direct challenge to the validity of the trooper’s actions which wrongfully denied her the opportunity to assert the trooper violated her constitutional rights. The Court noted that a passenger who is rightfully present in a vehicle has a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore has standing to challenge governmental invasion of that expected privacy. A review of the transcript suggested that the district court was not making an oral ruling that she lacked standing but was seeking clarification of whether Yoeuth asserted standing base upon alleged violation of her own rights, or of the rights of Loo.
Loss of standing by denial of ownership: The district court ruled that Yoeuth lacked standing to challenge the validity of the search of the trunk because she renounced any interest in the trunk by stating that she did not put anything in the trunk. Yoeuth argued that her statement was not a sufficiently unequivocal denial of ownership to establish that she abandoned her expectations of privacy in the trunk or its contents. The Court discussed Garzon and Andrews noting that Yoeuth’s circumstances were closer to those in Garzon. The Court determined that her comment did not amount to an unequivocal denial of ownership and concluded that she did have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the search of the trunk.
Opportunity to assert her constitutional challenges: The district court found the trooper had reasonably articulable suspicions of illegal activity allowing him to detain Loo during the dog sniff. The same suspicions applied to Yoeuth. The dog’s alert at the trunk provided the trooper with probable cause. That conclusion applies equally to Loo and Yoeuth. Yoeuth had a full opportunity to present the district court with all the facts and arguments in support of her motion to suppress. But she provided no basis for the district court to reach a different result than it did for Loo.

Conclusion: The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motions to suppress in both cases.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/cxzkm7 .

[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.]