Summary 2012 WY 10

Summary of Decision January 31, 2012


[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: Lovato v. State of Wyoming

Citation: 2012 WY 10

Docket Number: S-11-0104

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=465059

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, The Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Elisabeth M.W. Trefonas, Trefonas Law, PC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Sue Chatfield, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Chatfield.

Date of Decision: January 31, 2012

Facts: Police detectives were conducting surveillance on a house after receiving information that possible drug-related activity was occurring there. As the detectives approached the house, they saw a car parked directly in front of the house. An unidentified male was seated in the driver’s seat of the car and the engine was running. Shortly thereafter, a passenger entered the car and it left the residence.

While following the car, and hoping to identify the occupants, the detectives observed the driver engage in several traffic violations. They continued to follow until the car stopped abruptly in the middle of the road. The passenger of the car exited the vehicle and stared intently at, and proceeded to walk toward one of the detectives, who had gotten out of the passenger side of the unmarked police car. The detective identified himself as police. The passenger continued to walk toward the detective until he got to the end of the car, where he began to run away. After a short chase, the detective caught up with the passenger and was eventually assisted by the other detective. The passenger struggled with the detectives, but was eventually placed in handcuffs and arrested for interference with a peace officer. During this time, the driver of the car left the scene. The detective conducted a pat-down search and discovered a red metal canister, which contained methamphetamine, a digital scale, and cash in the passenger’s left-front pocket. The passenger was identified as the appellant.

The appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence, claiming he was seized by the detectives in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and article 1 section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. He argued that, at most, the interaction between himself and the detective was a consensual encounter that he was free to terminate at any time. Therefore, the detectives did not have probable cause to arrest him for interference with a peace officer because the appellant was under no legal obligation to submit to the detective’s request. The district court disagreed and concluded that the detectives could have lawfully stopped the car for the traffic violations and would have also had the authority to control the appellant’s movements during the traffic stop.

Issues: Whether the district court erred when it concluded that the appellant’s rights under the United States and Wyoming constitutions were not violated when he was seized, arrested, and ultimately searched by the police.

Holdings: The Court did not believe the appellant’s seizure was justified by being a passenger during a traffic stop. However, the Court found the district court did not err when it denied the appellant’s motion to suppress evidence, holding the detectives had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justifying briefly detaining the appellant for further investigation, and probable cause to arrest the appellant for interference with a peace officer after he failed to obey the detective’s commands to stop and then struggled with the detectives. The Court affirmed.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2008 WY 54

Summary of Decision issued May 14, 2008

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

Case Name: Holman v. State

Citation: 2008 WY 54

Docket Number: 06-140

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge.

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Thomas R.; Smith of Chapman Valdez at Beech Street Law Office, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General: Eric A. Johnson, Faculty Director, Prosecution Assistance Program; and Geoffrey Gunnerson, Student Director, Prosecution Assistance Program.

Facts/Discussion: Holman pled guilty to one count of third possession of a controlled substance reserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during the search of his car at the time of his arrest.
The Court has stated that warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable unless justified by probable cause and established exceptions. The Court reviewed the record to determine if an exception applied. The Officer’s reason for conducting the search was clear: search incident to arrest. The officer presented no evidence that the search of the vehicle was conducted to ensure officer safety or preserve evidence. He offered no testimony regarding specific facts or circumstances indicating that those concerns were present in the instant case. The Court’s review of the record revealed no objectively identifiable facts in support of those concerns. The Court stated the State failed to meet its burden. The Court has recognized that the mobility and the diminished expectation of privacy in the use and regulation of vehicles, permits warrantless searches in circumstances where searches would not be reasonable in other contexts. Their review of the record revealed no circumstances which would cause a reasonably prudent person to believe that the vehicle contained evidence of the crime for which Holman was arrested, or any other crime. The limited nature of the search did not justify the otherwise impermissible search. Although a driver of a vehicle has a diminished privacy interest in the contents of his vehicle, it does not mean he has no expectation of privacy. The Court agreed it would be irresponsible to park the vehicle in a public place if the officer had cause to believe it contained contraband or other dangerous items. In the instant case, the officers searched without any reason to believe it contained evidence of any crime.

Holding: Upon their review of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the search of Holman’s vehicle, the Court concluded that the search was not reasonable under any of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement and therefore violated Article I, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution.

Reversed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

J. Hill concurred: J. Hill wrote to distinguish the present case from Pierce and Sam. He stated that the goal of the Court’s review is to determine whether or not the search and seizure was “reasonable” under the facts and circumstances presented by any given case. His analysis led to the conclusion that the stop, search and seizure was one prompted more by suspicion than by concrete fact. As a matter of law, he concluded that they were not reasonable and therefore they were unconstitutional.

J. Burke dissented: J. Burke stated that his analysis revealed that similar to Pierce, the decision in the instant case was inconsistent with Wyoming precedent establishing that the arrest itself is sufficient justification to search the arrested person and the area within his immediate control.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/5r8fyg .

[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 25

Summary of Decision issued March 6, 2008

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

Case Name: Sam v. State

Citation: 2008 WY 25

Docket Number: S-07-0057

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, the Honorable Dan Spangler, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel, Wyoming State Public Defender Program.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Elizabeth C. Gagen, Chief Deputy Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Sam entered a plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The plea was part of a negotiated plea bargain wherein he reserved his right to challenge the constitutionality of the search of his car which uncovered the evidence that incriminated him. The district court conducted a hearing in response to Sam’s motion to suppress the fruits of that search, which the State justified on the basis that it was conducted incident to his arrest for violation of a protection order and for driving while his license was suspended. The search at issue uncovered evidence of drug crimes. The district court concluded the search was proper under governing law.
The district court conducted a hearing and took evidence concerning the search and seizure issue. The Court noted their review was disadvantaged by the district court’s very limited findings. The Court stated that the resolution of the case turned on the application of their decision in Vasquez v. State. The Court recently applied Vasquez to Pierce v. State. In that instance the Court limited their consideration to only that exception which sanctioned a search of the car for evidence which might have related to the crime for which he was arrested.
In the instant case, the record was clear that the initial stop and the initial arrest were for violations of a protection order. The Court’s review of the record convinced them that the search was reasonable under all of the circumstances. The Court stated they did not think there was a requirement that a police officer be able to recite a specific list of what sorts of evidence might be relevant in such a circumstance but some items identified were cell phones or writings of any sort that indicated Sam’s intentions with respect to the individuals protected by the protection order. The officer was aware that Sam was the subject of a protection order and that he had violated it. The record suggested that it was a “pattern” of violating the protection order. In Vasquez, the Court said that a drunk driving stop justified the search of the car’s passenger compartment for intoxicants that could serve as evidence to support the crime. Here the Court stated it was equally apt there be a search for evidence that might serve to sustain Sam’s prosecution for violation of the protection order and/or that he might have been an imminent and serious danger to his victims, given his behavior over the preceding several days.

Holding: The district court’s order denying the motion to suppress was not erroneous. Therefore the Court affirmed Sam’s Judgment Upon Plea of Guilty and his sentence in all respects.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

C. J. Voigt dissenting; J. Golden joined: The dissent stated that they did not disagree with the proposition that factors such as officer safety and the presence of evidence may justify the search of an arrested person’s vehicle. There was no showing in this case at the suppression hearing that those or similar factors existed. The Wyoming Constitution forbids the search of a car incident to the arrest of its driver unless the search is reasonable under all of the circumstances. This search, being purely a search incident to arrest without justification under all the circumstances, was unlawful.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/3c6k2c .

[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 182

Summary of Decision issued November 15, 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: Pierce v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 182

Docket Number: 05-145

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Marion Yoder, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel; and Ryan R. Roden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Yoder.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Eric A. Johnson, Director Jonathan Haidsiak, Student Director and Orintha Karns, Student Intern, of the Prosecution Assistance Program. Argument by Ms. Karns.

Issues: Whether the search at issue in the instant case violated Article I, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. Whether the search at issue in the instant case violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Facts/Discussion: A Casper police officer arrested Appellant for two traffic violations and proceeded to search the vehicle Appellant had been occupying prior to the arrest. Appellant later filed a motion in the district court to suppress the drug-related evidence that the officer seized from the vehicle.
Standard of Review: Findings on factual issues made by the district court considering a motion to suppress are not disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. The Court noted they were concerned in the appeal with the applicability of the search-incident-to-arrest exception.
Wyoming Constitution: The Court stated they have eschewed bright-line rules in considering non-consensual vehicle searches conducted incident to arrest, and instead favor an approach that requires a search be reasonable under all of the circumstances as determined by the judiciary in light of the historical intent of the state’s search and seizure provision. It was the State’s burden to prove that the search-incident-to-arrest exception applied and the applicability of such an exception was dependent upon all of the facts and circumstances viewed in their entirety. The Court stated that the state constitution requires that the Court be able to find a reasonable basis, articulable from the totality of the circumstances in each case, to justify a search. The Court stated that the instant case was clearly distinguishable from other cases in which the Court has upheld non-consensual searches under Article I, Section 4.
United States Constitution: The Court stated that the search clearly fell within the purview of New York v. Belton which established that arrest justifies the search of a vehicle’s passenger compartment, including any open or closed container in it, without consideration of the privacy interest involved.
The Court noted that the majority opinion was founded in Article I, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution, particularly as interpreted and applied in O’Boyle and Vasquez, passim. The dissent relied almost entirely upon United States Supreme Court cases and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court stated that the dissent’s argument was a plea for the adoption of a rule that officer safety always trumps a reasonableness analysis made under the totality of the circumstances when an arrest is made. It was also a plea to abandon O’Boyle and Vasquez and adopt the Belton bright-line rule that the Court previously rejected. United States v. Robinson, cited twice in the dissenting opinion in support of the concept of searching a vehicle incident to the arrest of its driver, involved a search of the arrestee’s person not his vehicle.

Holding: Having found that the search violated Article I, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution, the Court reversed the denial of Appellant’s suppression motion and remanded the matter to the district court.

Reversed and remanded.

C.J. Voigt delivered the opinion.

J. Burke dissented: He would have affirmed the district court’s decision that this was a valid search incident to arrest and reasonable under all of the circumstances. He felt the majority reached the opposite result by misapplying the standard of review, marginalizing officer safety as a factor to be weighed in the analysis and overlooking the most meaningful difference between the state and federal standards.

J. Hill dissented: He agreed with the material part of J. Burke’s dissent but wrote separately to emphasize his concern that the narrow slot carved out in the Vasquez case appeared to be widened by the majority decision in the instant case.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/38hov6 .