*1 to demonstrate either Appellant failed charges were filed cause While earlier convicted. delay, or an prejudice intentional arraignment was held substantial against Appellant, no right was Ap- process that his due prior being to dismissed. conclude on them them 9,May on 1994— pellant’s trial commenced not violated. arraigned. Appellant was days after trial within brought to Appellant was
Since CONCLUSION arraigned, speedy his days after he did not err hold that the trial court We not violated. right trial request Appellant’s sit when it denied suggests guar Appellant man of the courtroom with another the bаck protect speedy trial would not be of a antee Appellant purposes and that for identification only at right to attach the time if the ed speedy not denied his have and not at the arraignment occurs when the trial. or when the the arrest is made time when Affirmed. indictment is filed. information or Wyoming has no statute of limitations offenses, prosecution for
for criminal any may at be commenced
such offenses How- during the life the offender.
time
ever, charges delay bringing defendant, due prejudice to a
results in may In or- arise.
process considerations charge, it is of a require dismissal der MORRIS, Lewis Alexander delay cause preindictment that a (Defendant), Appellant [appellant’s] prejudice “substantial delay was a fair trial and that the rights to v. gain tactical advan- device an intentional Wyoming, STATE State], Story tage [v. accused'.” over the (Plaintiff). Appellee ], [1020,] (Wyo.1986) quot- 1027 [ 721 P.2d Marion, ing United States from 94-187. No. 455, 465, 30 L.Ed.2d 92 S.Ct. Wyoming. Supreme Court of (1971). prejudice requires Substantial witness, showing loss of a exhibit 14, 1995. Dec. evidence, presence of which or other probably bring a would different result. (Wyo.
Phillips omitted).
1992) (some citations The burden showing required is on proof to make this Eng See United
the defendant. (10th Cir.1992). strom, F.2d prej that was
Appellant contends delay preindietment
udiced because contention,
and, support for that he lists anxiety, job, having loss of pretrial his relative, his son to live
to send
disruption of his life due to surveil Cоnspicuously and harassment. absent
lance Appellant claim that list is either a
from ability a fair receive prejudiced elapsed prior of the time because
trial delay or a claim that such a indictment
to his device used the State intentional
was an advantage over him. Be- tactical gain *2 denying
Whether trial erred Appellant’s all suppress physical motion directly indi- testimonial evidence rectly illegal from the search of derived Appellant’s wallet. *3 Wyoming rephrases issue State the
as: properly
Whether the trial court denied Appellant’s suppress motion to evidence searching his obtained as a result of wallet.
FACTS 15, 1993, August deputy On a sheriff re- sponded report sleeping to a that Morris was private in the backyard of a residence Dayton, Deputy Wyoming. The Mor- awoke Munker, ris, D. okay, requestеd Leonard State Public asked if he was and Defend- er; Lozano, Diane Assistant Morris could not find his driv- Public Defend- identification. er; Gallivan, Director, M. produced er’s license but a safe- Gerald Defender MSHA mine card, Dethlefsen, ty Aid Program; security and Frederick card a social neither by Argument photograph Intern. or home address. Student Mr. Dethlef- bore a sen, Appellant. for but, Morris was not arrested because he disoriented, Deputy unsteady Attorney General; Meyer, Syl- B.
Joseph suggested they return to sheriffs Hackl, General; Deputy Attorney via D. Lee office contact so that Morris could someonе Pauling, Attorney Assistant Michael Senior agreed to get come and him. Morris to General; Moran, and Mark T. At- Assistant office, suggestion. arrival Mor- Upon at the Moran, by torney Argument General. Mr. gave telephone ris Deputy number Appellee. contact; however, and name aof GOLDEN, C.J, by answering ma- THOMAS, the call was received Before MACY, LEHMAN, Deputy inquired chine. then whether TAYLOR and JJ. any phone
Morris
numbers of
might have
LEHMAN, Justice.
friends in
It was at this
his wallet.
time
his
Morris
he had lost
wallet.
discovered
plea agreement,
Appellant
Pursuant
seeing
his
Deputy
Morris with
recalled
(Morris) pled
L.
guilty
Alexander Morris
patrol
wallet in
and offеred
vehicle
charges
conspiracy
to deliver controlled
search
for it. Morris did
the vehicle
possession
substances and
to de-
intent
reply
Deputy’s
offer.
substance,
reserving
liver a
while
controlled
locating
wallet on the floorboard
After
appeal
on
to seek
review of the
vehicle,
Deputy proceeded
of his
patrol
ruling
sup-
court’s
on his
district
motion
search
Found therein was
press.
the wallet.
The issue we decide is
whether
tightly
piece
paper containing
district court erred in
folded
determining that
white
con-
by
powdery
substance. The
deputy
of Morris’ wallеt
search
sheriff
powdery
fronted
substance
Morris with
(Deputy)
a reasonable search and thus
and inquired
anything
had
whether Morris
fruits derived from
ad-
tihe
else on his
about.
person that he should know
evidence.
missible
produced
pocket
bag
Morris
from his
reverse.
We
marijuana
ar-
pipe.
and a
Morris
then
rested for possession of a controlled sub-
ISSUES
stance; and, during
booking process, 15
issue as:
powdery
bindles
phrases
the white
substance were
Morris
person.
(Wyo.1982);
found on
The substance
683-85
Cook v.
methamphetamine.
(Wyo.1981);
later identified
7-8
United
v. Walk-
(10th
er,
Cir.1991).
941 F.2d
motion to
The district
denied Morris’
Depu-
all
suppress
evidence
from the
derived
B. Discussion
ty’s
Timely
warrantless
of his wallet.
Appellant contends that his constitu
pursuit
appeal
of this
condi-
followed Morris’
Deputy’s
tional
were violated
guilty.
plea
tional
wallet; by
of his
initial search
the seizure
MOTION TO SUPPRESS
paper
piece
a folded
contained within
wallet; by
subsequent
search of
A.
of Review
Standard
paper;
folded
con
the seizure of the
Generally, evidentiary rulings of a
*4
paper. Ap
tents contained within the folded
appeal
court are not
on
district
disturbed
pellant
alleged illegal
claims that
and
is
unless a clear abuse of discretion
demon
requires
unreasonable
and seizure
the
State,
215,
Wilson v.
strated.
874 P.2d
218
evidence,
suppression of all
indi
direct and
State,
(Wyo.1994); Armstrong v.
826 P.2d
rect,
requires
derived therefrom and
the
State,
1106,
(Wyo.1992);
1111
777
Garcia v.
“
voiding
his initial
arrest.
603,
(Wyo.1989).
P.2d
607
‘An abuse of
has
discretion
been said to
an error of
mean
1, § 4 of Wyoming
Article
the
Constitution
by
law committed
the court under the cir
provides:
” Wilson,
cumstances.’
The State
court went on to hold the search unreason-
Deputy and Morris
between the
encounter
Similarly,
consensual, non-coercive,
and unlawful.
in State
able
was a
non-custodial
Morton,
Or.App.
822 P.2d
purposes
ensuring
Morris’
contact for the
(1991),
although
the court held that
welfare,
rights
Amendment
were
Fourth
purse
a lost or
for iden-
could search
mislaid
agree
implicated. We
encounter
had to
purposes only,
tification
the search
con
Deputy and Morris was a
between the
po-
once
found. The
end
identification was
encounter,
agree that the
and we also
sensual
pieces
found
of identification and
lice
seven
care
performing
whereup-
pursе,
still continued to search the
Wilson,
function,
taker
as discussed
drugs
found.
court
on
were
ruled
help
contact
offered to
Morris
someone
continuation of
search after identifi-
get
transported
him
when he
come and
cation had
found was unreasonable
been
However, Morris
sheriffs office.
to the
Id.,
at 150.
unlawful.
disagree
Fourth
Amendment
proba-
on to hold that
lacked
went
not implicated.
Searches and seizures
investigative
cause
conduct
ble
judi
made without a warrant or outside the
contraband,
cigarette
case for
per
under
process
cial
are
se unreasоnable
purse,
within
and stated
was contained
United
both
Fourth Amendment
*5
non-investigative
non-emergency,
in a
that
1, §
Art.
4 of the
Constitution and
situation,
to
for an officer
it is unreasonable
Constitution, subject only
Wyoming
to a few
Additionally,
any
Id.
open
closed container.
clearly
v.
exceptions.
articulated
Mickelson
(Me.1992), a
May,
Having found excep Id., none of these NCIC and local warrants check. at 224- apрlicable, tions argu address the State’s 25. We found that the officer admitted in his that the search of justi ment the wallet testimony was possess any that at no time did he Deputy’s by community fied caretaker articulable facts sufficient to create a reason- ie., function, to safety ensure Morris’ and suspicion able past present criminal to his conduct, due welfare disoriented condition and was im- therefore the seizure poisonous tree and the Fruit of the permissible of law and Wilson’s C. as matter exclusionary rule Amendment Fourth Fourteenth Id. were violated. by methamphetamine The discovered during illegal Deputy his search of Morris’ community analysis care The based, provided suspicion wallet empha with the function is fact taker probable cause to confront Morris and in- the circum sis on what is reasonable under quire anything discloses whether Morris had else ille- In this case the record stances. enough confrontation, gal person. alert and conscious on his This that Morris was under keep questions, pro- questions, authority, prompted answer color of Morris to ask fact, In Morris was him. pipe bag marijuana. his faculties about duce Subse- give Deputy functioning enough and, well quently, during Morris arrеsted name of the phone to call and the number booking, packets methamphet- additional calling. Deputy testified he was upon amine Based were discovered. answering machine evidence, that he reached warrant discovered search given by as Morris. same name Morris’ was executed. search residence sitting also that Morris Deputy testified sought have all of this evidence Morris smoking a room a chair the interview suppressed. Thus, cigarette Deputy him. left 759 P.2d at In Roose v. that Morris the record is devoid of evidence we stated that incapacitated or uncоnscious when the improper, if initial is held search Deputy left to Morris’ wallet. retrieve only obtained such the evidence Deputy that when he found testified accessible everything but which becomes patrol Morris’ on the floorboard wallet prosecution of the initial to the reason vehicle, if opened the wallet to see Morris’ inadmissible as “a fruit of search would be It was fifty dollar had fallen out. neither bill poisonous tree.” Deputy for the reasonable nor (Quoting Goddard pursuant search the wallet case, (Wyo.1971).) In this all the evidence money Morris’ caretaker function to ensure prosecu became accessible obtained was in the wallet. The further testi- illegal initial only tion result money verifying that Morris’ fied after and, consti evidence therefore wallet, in the to search the he decided Id.; poisonous tree. Brown tutes fruit *7 if Morris had mistak- rest of the wallet see (Wyo.1987). 738 P.2d enly passed over his driver’s license and “ wallet, illegal ‘bar[s] The search of Morris’ any if he information see could find other physical, tangible materials ob from trial would that aid Morris. Unlike Dombrowski during or a result of tained direct either emergency fails to show that an the record ” Wilson, at an unlawful invasion.’ any specific situation existed or to establish States, 371 (quoting Wong v. United Sun justify the facts to and articulable 407, 416, L.Ed.2d 83 S.Ct. pursuant to an officer’s caretaker (1963)). function. exclusionary rule We conclude that that, totality hold of the We under Brown, 738 applied must in this case. See be circumstances, it un- was unreasonable and Wilson, 1097; 225. at at Deputy for the to have searched amounted conduct of the in case obtaining without first a war- Morris’ wallet I, § to an 4 of attempt Art. to circumvent Accordingly, rant. Morris’ Fourth and Four- Constitution, Wyoming and we find ex- rights Amendment were violated. teenth clusionary particularly appropriate rule to be Having that the warrantless found here. ille- of Morris’ wallet was unreasonable and not gal, need address whether the search CONCLUSION piece paper folded contained within of the an unrea- illegal The search was unreasonable and of Morris’ wallet wallet was search, in violation and illegal sonable search. Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment and semiconscious and that Morris’ Accordingly, was rights. damaging the district court was evidence contained therein clearly denying in Morris’ motion erroneous at Ms trial. admissible evidence later suppress. We that it was reasonable to stаted consid might provide that the wallet informa er
Reversed and remanded. handling tion of value the wound man, e.g., concerning Justice, information THOMAS, dissenting. ed diabetic, type, being being a blood unable anything deputy I cannot discern that or certain medications anesthet tolerate did in this sheriff ease unreasonable ics, affiliation, that, fact, religious by legal authority. sound was not sanctioned wallet, had the officer failed secure the Consequently, I affirm would Morris’ convic- professional criticism of his conduct could tion, contrary and I from the must dissent lightly not be We dismissed. concluded ruling by majority of the Court. The such that under circumstances the consti upon focus this case must Morris’ con- tutional of defendant would not be confronting depu- dition and situation infringed. sheriff, ty simply upon fact that a wallet was examined. jurisdictions Other have determined the approach Supreme of the Illinois specific point at In People here issue. Court is far more sound: Gonzales, Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. (1960)], agree involving
We cannot with this line of charge [ reason- case narcotics, ing, great illegal possession as indicated number it held of search and seizure cases before the that where defendant was found un- either today wound, courts is no there iron-bound rule nearly conscious or so with a knife governs regardless all such cases a search made for identification of defen- prohibi- circumstances. The constitutional dant was reasonable and lawful and that against tion is unreasonable searches and package marijuana of a seizure from seizures and what is or unrea- pants pocket was not a violation of Ms dependent upon sonable is the facts of rights. constitutional stated quarrel each individual case. We have no finding man in after defendant’s any cited casеs the defen- any condition offi- alert conscientious dant but one of them no meets facts put inquiry cer would be on first this case. Here the officers were sum- step inquiry clearly in the would be to investigate moned to in- circumstances victim, identify the and that to do failure volving person. They distressed found subject Mm to It so would sever censure. in a stupor, apparently, him not intoxicated further reasonableness stated for there was no odor of alcohol. But he theory not a mere matter abstract totally incoherent, un- disoriented and practical question but a to be deter- questions ablе to answer as to Ms their light mined in each case in the of its *8 identity. they condition or For all knew own In v. circumstances. United States may he have been a diabetic in shock aor D.C., (1965)], Hickey, F.Supp. 247 it [ 621 cardiac patient. distressed The officers was held that an accused was so where entirely faced with an different of set alley in an drunk when found that it was requiring guide facts different lines. TMs impossible for police to be certain emergency anwas situation where the wel- given had them name even Ms correct fare the individual at stake. address, and ob- a search defendant recently
This court has disсussed a simi tain justified. his wallet was The court Smith, emergency People lar situation in v. only stated it that was but [(1969)]. Ill.2d 44 254 N.E.2d duty 492 arresting officer to search Though case, not determinative of the person an if arrested to deter- ap commented it was reasonable and identity mine his true and that evi- where propriate police for the greater remove wallet dence of a offense is uncovered clotMng a seriously from the wounded such a search incident to his arrest for
939
assessing
objectives
In
and
appropriate
intoxication such evidence is admissible
service,
police
communi-
greater
priorities
local
against
in his trial on the
for
him
initially recognize that most
ties should
offense.
currently given respon-
police agencies are
Smith,
161, 265 N.E.2d
People v.
47 Ill.2d
default,
sibility, by design or
to:
added).
(1970)
189, 140-41
(emphasis
n
n
n
n
n
n
case,
seeking
officers were
identi-
In that
person
discov-
and
fication on the defendant’s
(e)
danger
individuals who
aid
are
pocket.
marijuana in his back
ered
harm;
physical
suppress
the evidence.
court refused
n
n
n
n
n
n
consistently.
have ruled
courts
Other
(f)
who cannot care for
assist
those
States,
There
crime
view is that evidence of
the better
appropriate
nity caretaking function
thereby is
in court.
admissible
discovered
In
law enforcement officers.
role for
Bar Association
Wayne
AmeRican
Standards
LaFаve,
R.
Search
Seizure
Justice,
the function is described:
(2d
1987) (footnote
Criminal
5.4(c),
omit-
§
at 525
ed.
Complexity
police
task
ted).
can be
If the
a defendant
n
n
n
n
n
n
circumstances, a wallet
under these
searched
casually
possession and
left
person’s
in the
(b)
optimum police
To
effec-
achieve
surely enjoys
greater
no
police
vehicle
tiveness,
recognized
should be
especially true
protection. This must be
having
multiple
complex and
tasks to
as
acquiesced
apparently
when the defendant
identifying
ap-
perform in addition to
officer.
examination
committing
prehending persons
serious
authorities, following what
foregoing
other
criminal offenses.
Such
emergency
as
referred
is sometimes
protection of certain
tasks include
doctrine,
persuasive to me than
are far more
assemble, partic-
speak
such
Oregon
Court
two
from the
cases
conjunction
directly or in
ipation either
majority. State
upon
Appeals relied
agencies in
public and social
with other
Paasch,
Or.App.
delinquent
criminal and
prevention
Morton,
(1992),
Or.App.
behavior,
State
of order and con-
maintenance
(1991),
prop-
both involved lost
traffic,
He in and from that majority forward. The ac- knowledges was startled and confused he recovered the caretaker func- consciousness; disoriented; tion, was confused and go analy- but does not forward with that T- thought rely even stated he he had lost the upon sis as the courts which I have years shirt wearing previ some two done. ously. pertinent More these facts is the recognized very at We function issue the 313, Newman, Or.App. case of 49 619 State 478, in here Roosе v. 483 (1980), Ap
P.2d
in
930
which the Court of
(Wyo.1988),
said:
when we
peals
Oregon
pretrial
order
reversed
suppressing evidence obtained from a search
inspection
While it is clear the
of an arres-
purse.
of the defendant’s
The defendant was
may
proper
tee’s wallet
an inei-
be
under
in an apparently
discovered
con
rationale,
intoxicated
dent-to-arrest
the examination
dition,
the court
but
concluded there was no
may
properly
also
be
conducted under
held, however,
emergency.
medical
It
that
inventory
provide
search rationale or to
evaluating
in
options,
one of
tak
that of
police
ascertaining
assistance to
in
the
or
home,
ing Newman
the officer
her
needed
verifying
identity.
the arrestee’s
Illinois
address,
home
or
name and
the
number
640,
2605,
Lafayette [462
S.Ct.
Supreme
to call.
someone
Court of
(1983)], supra;
the fact Morris sheriff asked might
whether there found in his wallet friends,
any phone majority numbers of ignores the
simply looking reason for the prospect in the so
wallet vehicle was *10 Instead, investigated.
might majority