454 P.3d 162
Wyo.2019Background
- A fire was reported near a camper; Deputy Case responded and observed the camper ~20 feet from the fire.
- Through a window with an open curtain (the "first window"), Deputy Case saw items he described as a white powdery substance in a bag, a mirror, a folding knife, and a green leafy substance; he suspected drug activity.
- Another deputy opened the plastic covering on a large front window (the "second window") to take photographs; DCI said it was not a meth lab but recommended further investigation.
- Deputy Case prepared an affidavit, obtained a search warrant, and a later search of the camper recovered 13.85 ounces of marijuana and 0.79 grams of methamphetamine.
- Workman moved to suppress, arguing an unconstitutional warrantless/search and alleging the affidavit contained deliberate misstatements (Franks theory); at the suppression hearing counsel focused on the second-window look and misapprehended the timeline.
- The district court denied suppression; Workman entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Workman (Appellant) | State / Deputy Case | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Workman preserved a Franks challenge (alleging deliberate misstatements in the warrant affidavit) and whether any misstatements were necessary to probable cause | Counsel argued the affidavit relied on observations from an unconstitutional look through the second window and suggested affidavit errors; asserted suppression was required | Argued Workman never plainly raised a Franks claim below and did not make the required preliminary showing that any falsehoods were knowing/reckless and material | Court: Franks claim not preserved. Workman never clearly alleged deliberate misrepresentations at the suppression hearing nor sought a Franks hearing, so the conditional plea did not preserve that argument |
| Whether deputies unconstitutionally obtained evidence by looking through the second window, tainting the warrant | Argued the second-window look was an unlawful search that contributed to the affidavit and tainted the warrant, requiring suppression of all evidence | Argued even if the second-window look was unlawful, the affidavit contained untainted observations from the first window sufficient for probable cause | Court: Even assuming the second-window look was unconstitutional, the unchallenged observations through the first window independently established probable cause; the warrant is valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (requires a substantial preliminary showing of knowing or reckless falsehoods and materiality to warrant a Franks hearing)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (an affidavit tainted by unlawfully obtained information invalidates a warrant only if the tainted information was critical to probable cause)
- United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945 (10th Cir. 2005) (if affidavit retains sufficient untainted evidence, the warrant remains valid)
- Mathewson v. State, 438 P.3d 189 (Wyo. 2019) (discusses waiver of Franks claims for failure to make the required preliminary showing)
- Williams v. State, 655 P.2d 273 (Wyo. 1982) (recognizes and applies the Franks framework in Wyoming)