Summary 2010 WY 46

Summary of Decision issued April 20, 2010

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

Case Name: Nava v. State

Citation: 2010 WY 46

Docket Number: S-09-0144

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge.

Representing Appellant Nava: Scott Powers of Law Office of Scott Powers, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Anna C. Swain, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Nava appealed from his conviction for felony possession of a controlled substance. He claimed that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence found in his car during a traffic stop.

Nava contended that after he was issued a warning citation and told he was free to leave, the trooper’s further questioning resulted in custodial interrogation and he should have been “Mirandized” before being subjected to questions. General on-the-scene questioning as to facts and statements volunteered freely without compelling influences are not custodial interrogation. Four factors are relevant to the determination: whether a suspect is questioned in familiar or neutral surroundings; the number of officer present; the degree of physical restraint; and the duration and character of the interrogation. Nava did not analyze the trooper’s further questioning using the factors. He argued that the Appellant never felt free to leave any time after the issuance of the citation. The Court stated the subjective feelings of neither the trooper nor Nava were relevant to the question of whether a particular interrogation was custodial. The Court’s review of the record revealed the trooper was not required to give Miranda warnings before further questioning.
Next, the Court considered whether Nava’s consent to the search of his vehicle was valid. Consent is considered within the “totality of the circumstances” with no single factor determinative. Nava relied upon O’Boyle v. State. The State relied upon the Court’s decisions in Marquez-Guittierrez v. State and Marinaro v. State. The Court stated the factual circumstances in the State’s cases were similar to the instant case and the reasoning compelling. The Court found Nava voluntarily consented to the search.

Conclusion: Nava was not in police custody and therefore not entitled to Miranda warnings before further questioning after he received a warning citation and was told he was free to leave. Also, no violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures occurred because Nava voluntarily consented to the further questioning and subsequent search of his vehicle.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/y6zpqlu.

[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 using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]