Michael Scott Tibbetts v. State, 2017 WY 9

Trooper Briggs stopped Michael Tibbetts for speeding, issued a citation, returned Tibbetts’ license and insurance, and told him to "drive safe and have a safe day."
As Briggs walked away, he re-approached and asked if Tibbetts would answer additional questions; Tibbetts agreed and produced a bag of Lortab pills.
Briggs asked to search the truck; after initially consenting, Tibbetts later refused and Briggs said he would detain him until a drug dog arrived.
Tibbetts then disclosed and showed methamphetamine hidden in the vehicle; he was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute.
Tibbetts moved to suppress the statements and drugs, arguing the traffic detention had not ended and the follow-up questioning (while the patrol lights remained flashing) unlawfully prolonged the stop.
The district court denied suppression, finding the initial traffic detention had ended and the subsequent interaction was a consensual encounter; Tibbetts pleaded no contest conditionally and appealed the suppression ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was unlawfully extended when Briggs reinitiated contact while patrol lights were still on	Tibbetts: The detention never ended because Briggs didn’t wait until Tibbetts actually left and the patrol car’s emergency lights remained activated, so further detention required reasonable suspicion	State/Briggs: The traffic investigation was complete, Briggs indicated Tibbetts was free to leave, and the re-contact was consensual despite lights still flashing	Court: The investigative detention ended when citation and documents were returned and Briggs told Tibbetts to drive safe; subsequent questioning was consensual and suppression was properly denied

Dimino v. State, 286 P.3d 739 (Wyo. 2012) (distinguishes consensual encounters from investigatory detentions)
Frazier v. State, 236 P.3d 295 (Wyo. 2010) (totality of circumstances test for voluntariness of consent)
O'Boyle v. State, 117 P.3d 401 (Wyo. 2005) (detention may be expanded only by consent or reasonable suspicion)
McChesney v. State, 988 P.2d 1071 (Wyo. 1999) (overhead lights and blocking vehicle are strong indicators of seizure)
Marinaro v. State, 163 P.3d 833 (Wyo. 2007) (flashing lights and uniform alone do not necessarily negate voluntariness when officer tells motorist he is free to go)
Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (U.S. 2015) (traffic stop cannot be prolonged to conduct a canine sniff absent reasonable suspicion)
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1996) (officer need not advise a lawfully seized person that they are free to go before obtaining consent)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (definition of consensual encounter)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (consensual encounters do not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny)
State v. Roark, 103 P.3d 481 (Idaho Ct. App. 2004) (lights remaining on do not override express statements that a motorist is free to leave)