308 P.3d 847
Wyo.2013Background
- Trooper stopped Hunnicutt‑Carter for speeding; dispatcher confirmed an outstanding warrant and the driver was arrested about 11 minutes after the stop.
- Trooper Templeton intended to impound the car per Wyoming Highway Patrol (WHP) policy and conducted a pre‑impound inventory of the vehicle.
- Inventory revealed multiple baggies of suspected methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia; field and lab tests confirmed methamphetamine.
- Appellant’s father arrived to take the vehicle after the inventory but before any tow; the trooper released the car to him.
- Appellant moved to suppress, arguing the warrantless inventory/search was unreasonable and unnecessary because someone was available to take the vehicle; district court denied suppression, and appellant entered a conditional plea reserving appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hunnicutt‑Carter) | Defendant's Argument (State/Trooper) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the warrantless vehicle inventory/search reasonable? | Inventory was unnecessary and therefore unreasonable because someone (father) could have taken the car. | Inventory was authorized by WHP policy and statute; conducted in good faith as part of administrative caretaking. | Inventory was reasonable; suppression denied. |
| Did trooper act in bad faith (inventory as pretext for investigation)? | Trooper should have inquired about less intrusive alternatives and thus inventory was pretextual. | Trooper followed standardized WHP procedure; no evidence of pretextual rummaging. | No bad faith; district court’s factual finding upheld. |
| Was impoundment/possession authorized absent actual towing? | Statute allows leaving vehicles on roadway; impoundment not justified here. | Wyo. statute authorizes removal when arrestee must be brought before a judge; WHP policy places vehicle in police custody after arrest. | Trooper was authorized to take possession and inventory in anticipation of impoundment. |
| Did procedural requirements (written/recorded inventory) fail? | Trooper failed to produce a written inventory form as required. | WHP permits electronic/audio inventories; trooper recorded and documented contents in report. | Testimony supported compliance with WHP procedure; no suppression. |
Key Cases Cited
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (inventory exception to warrant requirement when pursuant to standardized procedure)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (inventories cannot be a pretext for general investigatory searches)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1987) (reasonableness of inventory does not require exploring less intrusive alternatives)
- Johnson v. State, 137 P.3d 903 (Wyo. 2006) (probable cause not required for inventories but bad faith pretext barred)
- Roose v. State, 759 P.2d 478 (Wyo. 1988) (inventory must be pursuant to standardized police procedure)
- Vargas‑Rocha v. State, 891 P.2d 763 (Wyo. 1995) (same; validates inventory exception when following established procedure)