Kennison v. State, 417 P.3d 146

Trooper Kirlin stopped a black Toyota pickup on I-80 after observing lane departures; driver Dorinda Wilder received a warning.
While Kirlin ran Wilder's information, he learned the truck was registered to passenger Evan Kennison; Kennison appeared nervous and was smoking.
After returning Wilder's documents and telling her the stop was complete, Kirlin asked if she would answer more questions; she consented and allowed him to speak again with Kennison.
Kirlin told Kennison the stop was complete and that he was not being detained; Kennison agreed to answer questions and handed over a marijuana grinder after Kirlin smelled marijuana.
Kirlin placed Kennison in the patrol car, deployed a drug-sniffing dog that alerted, and then searched the truck, finding several pounds of marijuana.
Kennison moved to suppress the marijuana, arguing the post‑stop questioning constituted an unlawful detention; the district court denied suppression and Kennison preserved the issue via a conditional guilty plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Trooper Kirlin unlawfully detained Kennison beyond the traffic stop, violating the Fourth Amendment	Kennison: He was not free to leave when re‑approached because Wilder remained in the patrol car, so his consent to further questioning was involuntary	State: The further questioning was consensual—Trooper told occupants the stop was complete and that they were free not to answer; driver consented to additional questioning and to re‑contacting Kennison	Court: Contact was consensual; Kennison was told the stop was complete and he was not detained, so suppression properly denied

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (passengers are seized during a traffic stop)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (standard for reasonable suspicion and scope of seizures)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (officer's subjective intent does not invalidate a stop supported by reasonable suspicion)
Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (traffic stops are seizures governed by the Fourth Amendment)
Guerrero-Espinoza v. United States, 462 F.3d 1302 (10th Cir.) (passenger may not know stop is complete; passenger not free to leave)
Hembree v. State, 143 P.3d 905 (Wyo.) (detention scope must be tailored to stop's purpose)
Jennings v. State, 375 P.3d 788 (Wyo.) (standard of review and reasonable suspicion discussion)
Owens v. State, 269 P.3d 1093 (Wyo.) (appellate review defers to factual findings on suppression)
Damato v. State, 64 P.3d 700 (Wyo.) (permitted tasks during routine traffic stop)
O'Boyle v. State, 117 P.3d 401 (Wyo.) (consent must be voluntary)
Nava v. State, 228 P.3d 1311 (Wyo.) (voluntariness of consent standard)
Grant v. State, 88 P.3d 1016 (Wyo.) (totality of circumstances governs consent analysis)
Cleverly v. State, 385 P.3d 512 (Kan.) (driver's consent to continued contact does not automatically waive passenger's rights)