Summary 2012 WY 131

Summary of Decision October 5, 2012

Chief Justice Kite delivered the opinion for the Court. Affirmed.

Case Name: CARL ANTHONY DIMINO v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Docket Number: S-12-0014

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

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

Representing Appellant: Diane Lozano, State Public Defender, PDP; Tina N. Olson, Chief Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Lucas J. Esch, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: October 5, 2012

Facts:  After conditionally pleading guilty to possession with intent to deliver marijuana, Carl Anthony Dimino challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle.  He maintained that he was unconstitutionally detained for a drug dog sniff after a traffic stop and that the subsequent search of his vehicle was illegal. 

Issues: Mr. Dimino states a single issue on appeal:

Did the trial court err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of his illegal detention and the subsequent search of his rental vehicle?

The State articulates two issues, which we rephrase:

Did the trooper have a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify detaining Mr. Dimino momentarily so the trooper’s drug dog could walk around the rental car for a free air sniff?

Did the trooper have probable cause to search Mr. Dimino’s rental car, with or without the drug dog alert?

Holdings:  The Court affirmed, concluding the trooper had reasonable suspicion to detain him and the search was legal.

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

[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. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

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.]

Summary 2009 WY 1

Summary of Decision issued January 13, 2009

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

Case Name: Wilson v. Wyoming

Citation: 2009 WY 1

Docket Number: S-08-0020

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge.

Representing Appellant Wilson: Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Public Defender; John D. King, Acting Faculty Director, Diane E. Courselle, Faculty Director, and Andy F. Sears, Student Intern, University of Wyoming Defender Aid Program.

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

Facts/Discussion: Wilson contended that the district court erred when it found that a police officer’s use of a patrol car computer to search for outstanding warrants did not constitute search and seizure. He also argued that the district court erred when it declined to find a search of Appellant’s person unconstitutional because the evidence did not support a finding that police used excessive force during the encounter.

Seizure: Initial Contact: Appellant claimed he was seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when the officer stopped him on the street and asked for his name. Under both the federal and Wyoming state constitutions, a person has been seized only if in view of all circumstances surrounding the incident a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. The Court has stated previously that a request for identification is not by itself a seizure. In Wilson v. State (1994), the Court found that a consensual encounter with police remained consensual when a police officer requested identification and ran a computerized warrant check using that information. The seizure occurred only after the citizen complied with the officer’s order not to leave while the check was being completed.
Search: Warrant Check: In Meek the Court stated that requesting an NCIC check was not sufficient to implicate constitutional rights. The situation in the instant case is similar. The search was complete within seconds while Appellant was in a consensual conversation with the officer. Appellant was in no way detained or restricted.
Suppression: Excessive Use of Force: The Court’s review of the record indicated that the district court had almost no evidence before it that would have allowed it to conclude that the force used by officers was excessive under the circumstances.

Conclusion: The district court did not err when it determined that Appellant’s initial contact with police was consensual and that running Appellant’s name through a warrant check computer did not constitute a search for constitutional purposes. The district court did not err in declining to find a search unconstitutional where the evidence presented did not support a conclusion that officers used excessive force in the conduct of that search.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/a8n4wr .

[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.]

Summary 2008 WY 63

Summary of Decision issued June 9, 2008

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

Case Name: Speten v. State

Citation: 2008 WY 63

Docket Number: S-07-0253

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): John Craig Abraham of Plains Law Offices, LLP, Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Teresa R. Nelson, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Ms. Speten appealed the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress as evidence methamphetamine discovered during a warrantless search of her purse.
Officers went to a commercial location to arrest Mr. Sandy. Speten was with Sandy at the time of his arrest. Speten was arrested as a result of the officers’ search of her purse. The officers stated they searched her purse to be sure she did not have any weapons and they found methamphetamine. The search was carried out without the Deputy having obtained a warrant. The Court reviewed the law governing warrantless searches as found in Hughes v. State, Pena v. State and Fenton v. State. They noted the list found in the case law is not exhaustive. Other constitutionally reasonable searches can include an inventory search of an impounded vehicle, a search of an arrestee’s companion, and the search of an arrestee’s shirt even if he is not wearing it. These holdings under state constitutional analysis were based upon officer safety concerns. The Court then reviewed the community caretaker function of law enforcement officers. In Lancaster v. State, the Court described how a community caretaker case may become an eventual arrest. The right to search or frisk for weapons arises out of the need for officer safety during an arrest, whether by warrant or not, is supported by probable cause or it arises out of the need for officer safety during an investigative detention. An officer safety concern does not necessarily exist at only one precise moment in time during an investigative detention and the Court believed the rationale of Terry would allow a limited search for weapons at any time during that detention that the officer safety concern becomes apparent.
The Court used the totality of the circumstances approach to judging reasonableness that is required for analysis under the State constitution. The Court found no facts that would support a conclusion that the greater protections of Article 1, Section 4 required reversal in the case.

Holding: Having concluded that the Deputy’s search of Speten’s purse was constitutional as a reasonable search for weapons during an investigative detention, the Court did not further consider any of the other theories and justifications discussed by the parties.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/5f5p8q .

[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.]

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 .

Summary 2007 WY 155

Summary of Decision issued September 26, 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: Marquez-Guitierrez v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 155

Docket Number: 06-117

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

Representing Appellant (Defendant): D. Terry Rogers, State Public Defender; and Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Domonkos.

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

Issue: Whether the district court erred in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence when he was illegally detained and there was no reasonable suspicion to detain him until he consented to a search of his vehicle.

Facts/Discussion: After approximately 180 pounds of marijuana was discovered in the van in which he was a passenger, Appellant was arrested. A jury found him guilty on three counts of drug-related charges.
Standard of Review: The Court will not disturb a ruling on a motion to suppress absent a clear abuse of discretion.
Appellant claims that the Trooper impermissibly expanded the scope of the traffic stop, that the consent to search was tainted by the illegal detention and that these errors violated both the federal and state constitutions.
State Constitutional Analysis: Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution requires searches and seizures to be reasonable under all of the circumstances. The Court must analyze the reasonableness of the detention under all of the circumstances, and whether or not the trooper had reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusive measures used. The district court held that the detention was reasonable in the instant case because the observations made by the trooper supported his reasonable suspicion and allowed the continued detention. The Court agreed and noted their statement in Marinaro v. State that during the course of a legal detention of an individual, law enforcement officers may pose questions to that person that are unrelated to the underlying purpose of the seizure and that are not independently justified by reasonable suspicion. From the Court’s review of the record, the Court concluded that the district court’s conclusion was supported by the evidence presented. Although any of the circumstances alone may not have justified the detention, all of them together support the conclusion the Trooper had reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was afoot. Appellant substantially relied on O’Boyle which the Court noted was distinguishable in the case “both by the extensiveness of the questioning and the absence of a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”
Appellant argued that his consent to the search of his vehicle was involuntary because it was preceded by an unlawful detention. The argument failed because the Court had already held that the detention prior to consent was lawful. The consent to search was given by the driver, not Appellant. It was apparent from the facts in the record and the testimony from the driver at the suppression hearing, that no constitutional violation had occurred.
Federal Constitutional Analysis: In determining whether a traffic stop detention was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the Court applied the two-part Terry stop inquiry: whether the initial stop was justified and whether the officer’s actions during the detention were reasonably related to the circumstances. The initial stop was not challenged so the Court focused on whether the trooper’s actions were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances. The Court was guided by the principles delineated in O’Boyle. They concluded the scope of the detention initially was appropriately tailored to the reason for the stop.

Holding: It was apparent from the facts in the record and the testimony from the driver at the suppression hearing, that no state constitutional violation had occurred. Based on the record the Court concluded the detention did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the opinion.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2s6t7p .