432 P.3d 890
Wyo.2019Background
- DCI Special Agent Rippy investigated Pier based on informant Derek Archibeque, who said Pier obtained meth from a Colorado source and drove a green Chevy pickup; Rippy corroborated key details and obtained a GPS warrant to track the pickup.
- The GPS showed Pier drove to Colorado and returned to Wyoming in the early morning; Trooper Kirlin was alerted and subsequently stopped Pier for speeding (43 in a 40 zone) as Pier pulled into a trailer park.
- During the stop Pier lied about his name and travel history; he refused consent to search his pickup and was seated in the patrol car while Kirlin ran checks and patted him down.
- Kirlin deployed certified drug dog Frosty, who alerted at the driver’s side window; Kirlin then searched the pickup and found methamphetamine, heroin, scales, syringes and other drug paraphernalia.
- Pier moved to suppress the evidence arguing Fourth Amendment violations (illegal expansion of the stop, dog sniff, and warrantless search because the pickup was his home and was parked by a trailer); the district court denied suppression and Pier was convicted on three drug counts and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop/detention was constitutionally expanded to allow a canine sniff | Pier: Trooper unlawfully expanded the stop to conduct a dog sniff without reasonable suspicion | State: Trooper had reasonable suspicion based on GPS-informed DCI investigation, Pier’s lies, and Trooper’s prior contacts | Held: Expansion justified — collective knowledge + lies + prior contact gave reasonable, articulable suspicion |
| Whether the exterior dog sniff required probable cause | Pier: Dog sniff required probable cause | State: Dog sniff is not a Fourth Amendment search; only extension of detention needs reasonable suspicion | Held: Dog sniff itself is not a search; extension was permitted because Trooper had reasonable suspicion |
| Whether a dog alert provided probable cause to search the vehicle | Pier: Even with a dog alert, a warrant was required because the pickup served as his home | State: A certified dog alert provides probable cause under the automobile exception | Held: Dog alert gave probable cause; automobile exception applied despite evidence Pier lived in the vehicle |
| Whether automobile exception applied when vehicle was parked on private property near a trailer (curtilage/home protection) | Pier: Vehicle parked next to a trailer/within curtilage; Jardines/Collins protect such areas and require warrant | State: Pier lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in the nearby trailer/curtilage; vehicle was mobile and used for transport | Held: Pier failed to show standing in the trailer/curtilage; automobile exception applied and search was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennison v. State, 417 P.3d 146 (Wyo. 2018) (standard for reviewing suppression denials; Terry two-step analysis)
- United States v. Whitley, 680 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2012) (collective knowledge doctrine — imputing one officer’s facts to another)
- California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1985) (automobile exception applies even if vehicle is used as shelter; mobility and lesser privacy expectation)
- Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (U.S. 2018) (automobile exception does not authorize intrusion into home/curtilage)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2013) (drug dog sniff of home/curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Venegas v. State, 287 P.3d 746 (Wyo. 2012) (informant tips and reasonable suspicion principles)
- Yoeuth v. State, 206 P.3d 1278 (Wyo. 2009) (dog alert provides probable cause to search; limitations on extending a stop for a sniff)