Terry Smith v. The State of Wyoming
311 P.3d 132
Wyo.2013Background
- On November 6, 2012, the Wyoming Supreme Court issued a notice to answer certified questions in two related DWUI cases.
- The questions asked whether remotely communicated warrants under § 31-6-102(d) satisfy the state constitutional affidavit requirement and whether they must follow W.R.Cr.P. 41.
- The Court reformulated the questions to focus on whether the statute’s procedures comply with the Wyoming Constitution and Rule 41.
- In the cited cases, blood-alcohol content was obtained via remotely issued warrants after oath via telephonic communication with a judge; the communications were recorded.
- The Court presumed probable cause and focused on whether the statute’s remote procedures are constitutionally and procedurally equivalent to written affidavits and to Rule 41 requirements.
- The Court held affirmatively that § 31-6-102(d) procedures comply with the state constitution’s affidavit requirement and must comply with W.R.Cr.P. 41(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do § 31-6-102(d) procedures satisfy the Wyoming Constitution’s affidavit requirement? | State argues statutory remote procedures are constitutionally equivalent. | Appellants contend telephonic process may fail affidavit safeguards. | Yes; statute satisfies the affidavit requirement. |
| Must remotely communicated warrants under § 31-6-102(d) comply with W.R.Cr.P. 41(c)? | State contends remote warrants can meet Rule 41 safeguards. | Appellants argue Rule 41 may not apply or is not met by telephonic process. | Yes; remote warrants must comply with Rule 41(c). |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (U.S. 1966) (overruled per se exigency premise; blood test warranted by reasonableness under all circumstances)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (S. Ct. 2013) (exigency not per se; warrant requirement depends on circumstances)
- Saldana v. State, 846 P.2d 604 (Wyo. 1993) (state constitution protections require equivalent standards to U.S. Constitution)
- Cordova v. State, 33 P.3d 142 (Wyo. 2001) (affidavit protections and writing concept under Wyoming law)
- O’Boyle v. State, 117 P.3d 401 (Wyo. 2005) (affidavit-based protections in Wyoming constitutional context)
- Hall v. State, 911 P.2d 1364 (Wyo. 1996) ( Wyoming’s heightened interpretation of affidavit requirements)