Summary 2011 WY 17

Summary of Decision February 4, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is 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]

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

Case Name: Wyoming Department of Transportation v. Potvin

Citation: 2011 WY 17

Docket Number: S-10-0125

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=461726

Appeal from the District Court of Teton County, Honorable Nancy J. Guthrie, Judge

Representing Appellant (Reposndent): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Michael T. Kahler, Assistant Attorney General; and Jackson M. Engels, Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellee (Petitioner): Gerard R. Bosch and Mark J. Longfield, Law Offices of Jerry Bosch, Wilson, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: February 4, 2011

Facts: The Appellant challenges a district court order which reversed an order of an independent hearing examiner to the effect that Appellee was required to surrender his driver’s license because he refused to submit to a chemical test for the purpose of ascertaining if his blood alcohol/controlled substance content exceeds the statutory limit. The district court reversed the hearing examiner’s decision on the basis that WYDOT failed to present substantial evidence at the hearing to establish that the police officers had probable cause to believe that Appellee had been driving, or was in actual physical control, of a motor vehicle upon a public street or highway while under the influence of alcohol.

Issues: Whether there substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner’s finding that there was probable cause to arrest Appellee for driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Holdings: Given the entirety of the facts and circumstances called to the hearing examiner’s attention, there was substantial evidence to support his ultimate finding that the police had probable cause to contact Appellee and to question him about a hit and run accident and eventually to request that he voluntarily submit to a chemical breath or blood test, which he refused. Likewise, the record contains substantial evidence to support the hearing examiner’s findings that Appellee and his roommate were not credible witnesses. The hearing examiner’s conclusions were not arbitrary and capricious in light of the evidence presented.

The order of the district court must be reversed and determination made by the hearing examiner will be sustained. The matter is remanded to the district court with directions to the district court to further remand to the hearing examiner to accomplish this result.

J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2011 WY 1

Summary of Decision January 4, 2011

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is 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]

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

Case Name: Bowen v. Wyo. Dep’t of Transp.

Citation: 2011 WY 1

Docket Number: S-10-0063

URL: http://tinyurl.com/22p97rn

Appeal from the District Court of Goshen County, The Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): James A. Eddington of Jones & Eddington Law Offices, Torrington, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jackson M. Engels, Assistant Attorney General.

Date of Decision: January 4, 2011

Facts: Appellant’s drunken driving resulted in both a criminal prosecution for driving while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-233(b) (LexisNexis 2007), and an administrative license suspension proceeding, as mandated by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102 (LexisNexis 2007). In the criminal case, the appellant moved to suppress the breathalyzer evidence, alleging that the trooper performing the test was not properly trained on the device used to administer it. (The trooper used an updated version of the breathalyzer device.) The appellant’s motion was heard and denied by a decision letter dated April, 2009. The appellant entered a conditional guilty plea and Judgment and Sentence was entered in June of 2009. At the OAH contested case hearing, the appellant took the same position he had taken in the criminal case: the trooper was not properly trained on the breathalyzer device and thus the suspension was improper. Relying upon the circuit court’s previous finding in the criminal case that the trooper was properly certified to operate the device, the OAH upheld the suspension in their May, 2009 decision. The appellant sought review of both the OAH decision and the Judgment and Sentence in the criminal matter. After briefing by both parties, the district court entered its decision and order on appeal affirming the decisions in both the criminal and administrative proceedings.

Issues: Whether the appellant was collaterally estopped from relitigating the question of the admissibility of his breath test results in his administrative license suspension hearing after the circuit court had already decided that issue against him in a criminal proceeding.

Holdings: Only the administrative appeal was before the Court for review. The OAH’s determination was affirmed. The issue raised in the appeal was one of first impression for the Court. The Court was unable to find authority from any other jurisdiction addressing the particular factual scenario. Nevertheless, the Court found the application of collateral estoppel to these facts to be clear and straightforward: 1) the issue was identical in both proceedings: whether the trooper was properly trained to perform the breath test using the EC/IR II making the breath-test results admissible; 2) the circuit court’s determination that the trooper was properly trained and that the breath test was admissible was a final determination of that issue; 3) the appellant, the party against whom collateral estoppel was asserted, was a party to both proceedings; 4) finally, the prior criminal case afforded the appellant a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. Noting the limited nature of their decision in this matter, the Court concluded that the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded the appellant from relitigating the question of whether his breath test results were legally obtained.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2009 WY 43

Summary of Decision issued March 25, 2009

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

Case Name: Colyer v. State, Dep’t of Transportation

Citation: 2009 WY 43

Docket Number: S-08-0183

Appeal from the District Court of Fremont County, the Honorable Norman E. Young, Judge.

Representing Appellant Colyer: Vance Countryman, PC, Lander, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Michael T. Kahler, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Colyer’s driver’s license was suspended because he refused to submit to a chemical test of his blood alcohol content after a traffic stop. That suspension was affirmed after a contested case hearing and again after a petition for review was filed in the district court. The focal issue is whether the arrest was unlawful, which, if so, would negate the Appellant’s statutorily implied consent to chemical testing and would require reversal of the driver’s license suspension. The Court stated the dispositive issue was whether Colyer’s detention by a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) officer on the Wind River Indian Reservation rendered unlawful the otherwise lawful arrest of him by a Fremont County deputy sheriff.

Colyer relied almost exclusively on Marshall v. State ex rel. DOT and United States v. Atwell. The State relied primarily upon Pogue v. Allison and United States v. Santiago.
The hearing examiner concluded that the BIA officer’s detention was not unlawful stating that he had jurisdiction to stop the vehicle and once he determined that Colyer was not Native American had the authority to detain him until the Sheriff’s Deputy arrived to take custody. Jurisdiction for the detention of Colyer was conferred on the BIA officer by the deputy sheriffs while on route to the scene and because the BIA officer had reasonable cause to believe a crime was occurring and that it involved an immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death. The Court was not comfortable with the hearing officer’s legal analysis stating that the “peace officer” to which reference is made in § 7-2-101 on its face does not include BIA officers, the incident did not involve extraterritorial authority because neither officer left his respective territorial jurisdiction and the reasoning of Santiago did not apply.
The Court noted this was not a unique question. It reviewed cases from courts around the country noting the decision in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe where the United State Supreme Court detailed the history of the congressional presumption that Indian tribes did not have criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians on reservations and then stated that the tribes are to promptly deliver up any non-Indian offender rather than try and punish him themselves. In Duro v. Reina, the United States Supreme Court stated that tribal officers may exercise their power to detain the offender and transport him to the proper authorities. Viewing the facts of the instant case in the context above, the Court concluded that nothing occurred in the detention of Colyer to render his arrest unlawful.

Conclusion: Colyer was lawfully detained by the BIA officer pending his lawful arrest by the deputy sheriff. The State proved by a preponderance of the evidence the statutory elements required for the suspension of Colyers’ driver’s license due to his refusal to submit to a chemical test of his blood alcohol content.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/d78vk7 .

[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 148

Summary of Decision issued December 15, 2008

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

Case Name: State, DOT v. Robbins

Citation: 2008 WY 148

Docket Number: S-08-0077

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County, the Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge.

Representing Appellant State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Michael Thomas Kahler, Assistant Attorney General.

Representing Appellee Robbins: Mike Cornia, Evanston, Wyoming.

Facts/Discussion: Robbins initiated this declaratory judgment action to challenge the constitutionality of the statutes under which the Wyoming DOT disqualified him from operating commercial motor vehicles. Rather than deciding the constitutional question, the district court ruled that the DOT lacked authority to disqualify Robbins because he had not been convicted of any crime relating to driving while under the influence of alcohol. On this basis, the district court ruled that the DOT lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and in turn, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the declaratory judgment action.

The district court’s decision hinged upon the statutory provision that any person is disqualified from driving a commercial motor vehicle for a period of not less than one year if convicted of driving or in actual physical control of a commercial motor vehicle while the alcohol concentration of the person’s blood, breath or other bodily substance is o.o4%.

The DOT’s authority to disqualify Robbins from operating commercial motor vehicles is found in the statutes. The DOT had subject matter jurisdiction to decide the disqualification case. The statutes also provide the district court with subject matter jurisdiction over Robbins’ declaratory judgment action. Even though Robbins dismissed his petition for judicial review of the DOT’s decision, he may still challenge the constitutionality of the underlying statutes through a declaratory judgment action.

Holding: Even though Robbins dismissed his petition for judicial review of the DOT’s decision, he may still challenge the constitutionality of the underlying statutes through a declaratory judgment action. The Court reversed the district court’s decision that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The Court remanded the case to the district court to consider Robbins’ declaratory action challenging the constitutionality of the statutes under which the DOT disqualified him from driving commercial vehicles.

Reversed and remanded.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/5lvao4 .

[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 91

Summary of Decision issued August 1, 2008

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

Case Name: In re Hittner

Citation: 2008 WY 91

Docket Number: S-07-0262

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Frank R. Chapman and Tamara K. Schroeder of Chapman Valdez, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Bruce A. Salzburg, Attorney General; and Robin Sessions Cooley; Deputy Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Hittner sought review of an order of the district court which affirmed orders of the Office of Administrative Hearings upholding the “implied consent” suspension of Hittner’s driver’s license and upholding Hittner’s commercial vehicle disqualification as imposed by the WYDOT.
Duty to Inform: Hittner’s claim that the arresting officer failed to inform him he had no right to consult with an attorney before taking the breath test was contradicted by his testimony at the administrative hearing where he stated he was told that he could not contact an attorney.
Refusal of Test: Hittner claimed he did not refuse the second breath test; he was physically unable to do what was required because of ill health. Hittner’s argument contradicts the arresting offer’s view of the circumstances. The Court would not second guess the factual finding of the hearing officer that the officer’s evidence was more credible.

Holding: The Court held there was substantial evidence in the record to sustain a conclusion that Hittner was given complete implied consent advisements and that he was not misled in any way about what his rights were. The district court’s order affirming the hearing officer’s orders with respect to Hittner’s driver’s licenses was affirmed.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/63keql .

[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 109

Summary of Decision issued July 12, 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: King v. State, ex rel., WY DOT

Citation: 2007 WY 109

Docket Number: 06-114, 06-252

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge (06-114) and the Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge (06-252)

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Ronald G. Pretty, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Dana Jill Lent, Assistant Attorney General.

Issues: Whether Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-7-305(n) violates equal protection guarantees under the Wyoming and federal constitutions. Whether the Hearing Examiner has the authority to suspend King’s commercial driver’s license.

Facts/Discussion: Case No. 06-114 is an appeal from the district court’s review of an administrative hearing decision revoking Mr. King’s commercial driver’s license. Case No. 06-252 is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his petition for declaratory judgment. Issues of constitutionality are questions of law and are reviewed de novo.
In Wilson, the Court determined the characteristic of driving dangerous vehicles was highly relevant to the public safety purposes achieved by a commercial driver’s suspension. Mr. King’s brief included no persuasive argument for revisiting the issue and overturning Wilson.

Holding: The Court held that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-7-305(n) did not violate Mr. King’s equal protection rights. The Court refused to consider Mr. King’s argument that the Hearing Examiner had no right to suspend his driver’s license under the statute because he did not raise the issue before the Hearing Examiner nor did he pursue it on direct review in the district court.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the decision.

Link: (available later) or check the Judiciary page.

Summary 2007 WY 90

Summary of Decision issued May 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: Peterson v. Wyoming DOT, Drivers’ License Division

Citation: 2007 WY 90

Docket Number: 06-209

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County, the Honorable Dennis L. Sanderson, Judge

Representing Appellant (Petitioner): Mike Cornia, Evanston, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Respondent): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether the hearing examiner acted arbitrarily and capriciously in considering the breath test results.

Facts/Discussion: After being arrested for driving under the influence, the Wyoming DOT notified Peterson that his driver’s license would be suspended. Peterson requested and received a contested case hearing before the OAH who upheld the suspension. The district court also upheld the suspension.
Standard of Review: The Court reviewed the case as if it came directly from the administrative agency. Where both parties present evidence, the Court reviews the entire record to determine if the agency findings are supported by substantial evidence.
Peterson contended that because he was not strictly observed for fifteen minutes prior to having his breath analyzed for alcohol content, the hearing examiner should have excluded the breathalyzer test conducted at the police station. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-105(a) sets forth the exclusive means and the mandatory procedure for determining an arrested suspect’s blood alcohol level. The Department of Health Rules and Regulations provides the subject must be observed for a minimum of fifteen minutes prior to testing to prevent residual mouth alcohol. The record showed that in compliance with the rule, the officer began observing Peterson at 1:25 am and continued to do so until at least 1:40 am. Because the first breath test occurred at 1:45 am, twenty minutes after the observation period began, Peterson contended he was not observed in accordance with the rules. The Court stated the record on appeal sufficiently established that Peterson was observed for the required amount of time. The machine was turned on, calibrated and relevant information entered between 1:39 and 1:45 am. The record did not indicate that the officer did not continue to observe Peterson while readying the machine. The Court noted that compliance does not require the officer to stare fixedly on the test subject.
The Court declined to adopt a strict compliance policy with the rules governing the administration of alcohol tests. Compliance is a question of fact to be decided under the circumstances of each case. The State’s prima facie showing of compliance with the regulation was sufficient.

Holding: The Court concluded that substantial evidence supported the hearing officer’s conclusion that the five minutes in question were allowable to prepare the machine and that the proposed suspension should be upheld.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

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