Leavitt v. State, ex rel., Wyoming Department of Transportation, 406 P.3d 1266

Leavitt was stopped for traffic violations, arrested for DWUI, given implied-consent advisements, and voluntarily provided a breath sample showing 0.17% BAC.
WYDOT suspended Leavitt’s driver’s license for 90 days under the statute governing chemical tests after arrest; OAH affirmed the suspension finding Leavitt “agreed” to testing.
While his administrative appeal was pending, Leavitt filed a separate declaratory-judgment action asking the district court to rule that the "deemed consent" provision of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102(a)(i) is unconstitutional as applied to warrantless chemical testing.
The district court dismissed the declaratory action for lack of a justiciable controversy because the record showed Leavitt actually consented after advisements, so the "deemed consent" provision was not the basis for the test.
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding Leavitt satisfied only the first Brimmer factor (a tangible interest) but failed the second because a declaration about "deemed consent" would not remedy his license suspension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether article I, §4 prohibits officers from using §31-6-102(a)(i) to obtain warrantless breath tests	Leavitt: the statute’s "deemed consent" violates Wyoming Constitution and would exclude breath evidence	State: the controversy is not justiciable here because the breath sample was obtained via actual consent after advisements, not by "deemed" consent	Dismissed for lack of a justiciable controversy; court declines to reach the constitutional question
Whether declaratory relief can be granted when the challenged statutory provision would not affect the specific plaintiff’s harm	Leavitt: declaration would overturn suspension by excluding breath evidence	State: declaration would not affect this case because evidence was from voluntary consent	Held: plaintiff fails second Brimmer element — judgment would not remedy the suspension

Brimmer v. Thomson, 521 P.2d 574 (Wyo. 1974) (sets elements for justiciability in declaratory actions)
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (breath testing requires cooperation; distinguishes warrant rules for breath vs. blood)
William F. West Ranch, LLC v. Tyrrell, 206 P.3d 722 (Wyo. 2009) (framework for reviewing jurisdictional dismissal and Brimmer application)
Sandoval v. State ex rel. WYDOT, 291 P.3d 290 (Wyo. 2012) (review of declaratory judgment jurisdiction and justiciability principles)