297 P.3d 104
Wyo.2013Background
- A hotel staff report of marijuana smell leads Buffalo Police to investigators of Connor Phippen and Dana Rose.
- Sgt. Fraley and Lt. Tkach with Buddy the drug dog identify Phippen and Rose as alleged smokers; Buddy alerts canine indication of odor from the Minnesota-registered pickup.
- Phippen consents to dog walking around the vehicle; the parties discuss search consent contingent on dog hit; Phippen is arrested during the process.
- Inventory of the vehicle yields items later warrant-searched; a grocery bag and a duffle bag contain marijuana; police obtain a search warrant.
- Phippen moves to suppress the search; district court denies; later, during a conditional plea, issues on suppression are preserved for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless vehicle search violated the Wyoming Constitution. | Phippen argues lack of probable cause and unreasonableness. | State contends totality of circumstances supports probable cause under automobile exception. | Search lawful under totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Tucker v. State, 214 P.3d 236 (Wy. 2009) (probable cause and automobile exception framework in Wyoming)
- McKenney v. State, 165 P.3d 96 (Wy. 2007) (odor of contraband can supply probable cause; dog sniff not a search)
- Rohda v. State, 142 P.3d 1155 (Wy. 2006) (define totality of circumstances in probabilistic assessment)
- Gates v. United States, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause is flexible, not a fixed formula; totality of circumstances)
- Pringle v. Maryland, 540 U.S. 366 (U.S. 2003) (probable cause not reducible to precise quantification)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1949) (probable cause as a practical, common-sense standard)