Pierce v. State

methamphet- about her prior her statement used she had use, was that which amine (at nineteen she was

methamphetamine when thirty- apparently time of trial she was once,

six) relapsed when and that she her, in November husband had beaten

her

2002. In Mr. Lawrence's appellate argu- issue, argu- makes the same he

ment on this Math- issue of Jeff made on the

ment as he testimony. response, the State

son's on argument it made the same

counters with also, exception with the issue For the same discussion.

"opening the door" judge trial did not

reasons we held drug prior admitting Mathson's Jeff err the trial testimony, also hold

use Pauly's admitting Ms.

judge did not err testimony. Her cross-exami-

prior drug use evidence testimony was not extrinsic

nation 608(b) rather, apply; does not

and W.R.E. from which testimony revealed evidence

her reasonably infer that she jury could witness, in contradiction impartial testimony direct examination. We on

her partiali- of a witness's that evidence

reiterate always

ty relevant. We affirm Mr. Lawrence's judg- and sentence.

ment

2007 WY 182 PIERCE, Appellant

Roy Dean

(Defendant), Wyoming, STATE (Plaintiff).

Appellee

No. 05-145. Wyoming.

Supreme Court of

Nov.

Representing Appellant: Kenneth M. Ko- ski, Defender; State Public Donna D. Do- monkos, Appellate Counsel; Yoder, Marion Counsel; Senior Appellate Assistant Ryan Roden, R. Appellate Senior Assistant Argument by Counsel. Ms. Yoder. Crank, Representing Appellee: Patrick J. General; Attorney Rehurek, Paul Deputy S. Attorney General; Pauling, D. Michael Sen- General; ior Attorney Assistant Erie A. Johnson, Director, Haidsiak, Jonathan Stu- Director, Karns, dent and Orintha Student Intern, of the Prosecution Assistance Pro- gram. Argument by Ms. Karns. VOIGT, C.J., GOLDEN, Before *, KITE, BURKE, HILL JJ. VOIGT, Chief Justice. Casper police

[11] A Roy officer arrested (the Dean appellant) Pierce for two traffic proceeded violations and to search the vehi- appellant cle occupying had been prior to appellant the arrest. The later filed mo- tion the district suppress court drug-related evidence that the officer seized from the vehicle. The district court denied appeal, motion. On claims the officer's search violated both the Wyoming Constitution and the United States agree Constitution. We that the search vio- and, lated the Constitution accord- ingly, reverse and remand this matter to the proceedings district court for further consis- opinion. tent with this * argument. Chief Justice at time of oral occupants of his new resi-

ISSUES not to disturb the the instant 1. Whether case violated Article the search at issue dence. Officer Gudahl asked the motor proof license and Wyoming Constitution? for his driver's liability insurance. vehicle issue 2. Whether a Montana driver's license and vol produced the Fourth Amendment case violated instant suspended. that the license was unteered Constitution? the States to United proof of that he did not have He added was ru station back the appellant September dashboard and when patrolling in the [driver's] Casper police officer sitting wagon. a in a local FACTS The when he observed parked seat" with one park appellant the officer illuminat at 5:19 four-door Suba Wesley was a.m. on foot on Gudahl "laying the insurance because transferring the insurance from another vehi that for cle appellant and failing to maintain to the Subaru. A Officer the [15] While appellant's for Gudahl decided to driving he was in the license was Officer Gudahl waited liability dispatcher suspension insurance. suspended, process confirmed and the him backup to arrive and assist vehicle, head for a officer appellant "raised his the the ed appellant's the officer for with the flopped it back." Concerned and then temporary registration the park the checked Subaru's welfare and because appellant's the that tag appellant the had indicated closed,1 appel because officer knocked on the was the registration tag vehicle. The down he owned the appellant rolled lant's window. a registered that vehicle was to stated the engaged in what the the two the window and appellant The officer asked the "friendly" conver Ms. Currie. as a officer characterized this, responded that appellant cooperative about appellant, who was sation. The vehicle. and Mrs. Ritchie owned the a Mr. distress, indicat appear to be and did not explained that neither Gudahl just out" of his Officer been "kicked When ed that he named on the them was the individual moving to another loca and was residence appellant boxes, registration tag, the temporary full of vehicle was indeed tion-the the agreed that Ms. Currie owned also stated "this and that." He luggage and parents, her the Ritchies were morning a conven stated to that he had driven to use coffee, permission that he had and and claimed newspaper a and ience store for the vehicle3 daylight as waiting park until so nature, closed, timing policy, as well as the apparently pursuant a of this park to 1. The Ms. Currie relative to when the officer's search a.m. between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 ordinance, city suppres- the vehicle. The focus retrieved applicability hearing of the search- was the sion according officer, a arrests are, 2. Such (the exception officer testified incident-to-arrest Casper. police practice in "common'' was "incident his search of the Subaru court [appellant's] and the district arrest" the Gudah] dispatcher requested con- that a 3. Officer [was] wheth- the "real issue stated presented con- Currie, tact Ms. and at some received point legal illegal search incident er there was a and had she owned the Subaru firmation that arrest"). public a con- To the extent that appellant it. officers did the to use allowed might we note that the relevant, cern have been Currie Subaru, but allowed Ms. impound argue ultimately commu- prosecutor did not some it from the scene. She arrived to retrieve justify nity safety issue as a basis appellant arresting officer and the time after suppression closing argument during at the had left. rely on the hearing, court did not and the district denying suppres- community safety suppression issue Officer Gudahl testified briefly appeal, State re- "quick On policy sion motion. hearing to take a that it was his regard testimony in this dangerous to the officer's through" such ferred a vehicle for items look brief, appellate reciting the facts in its releasing while the vehicle to anoth- before as argu- briefly the issue at oral mentioned this as a also party. characterized er The officer were never these references ment. "community We decline to consid- issue." argument by any cogent or citation accompanied "community safety"" may have whether er herein stated, Simply legal authority. pertinent searching provided basis for a reasonable developed are not sufficient origin, facts of this case vague as to the vehicle. The record is Meanwhile, residue, backup ing suspected methamphetamine officer ar- asked the Gudahl syringes containing suspected liquid rived. Officer metham Subaru, appellant complied, exit the phetamine, spoon, clips" "roach several appellant. Officer the officer handcuffed (paraphernalia drugs used to smoke "to make "pat down" search of the Gudahl conducted you get burning your sure that it all without produced appellant's person, which search no fingers"). The officer then searched other inside the floorboard behind lant remained while Officer the Subaru. the driver's seat and seat and the front the area of the Subaru closed officer noticed additional evidence Officer been eyeglasses placed Officer Gudahl sitting, top including case open passenger weapons. containing in which between the bag car, proceeded to driver's black under and behind where the was a Gudahl searched bag the back of seat.4 The several seat. partially- driver's backup on the appel- Just syri hetamine.7 uals later determined to be involved in the three felonies: erystalline methamphetamine, ingredients § ijuana, phone numbers and names of individ glass cylinder pipe containing suspected mar drug quent containers 85-7-1081(c)(i) (LexisNexis 2007); 2) suspected methamphetamine trade, offense, The in the vehicle and found items list for and a in violation of 1) possession diary manufacturing with a Wyo. third or subse charged of recipe powder Stat. Ann. residue, methamp pos or liquid methamphetamine, session of third or nges5 syringes "coming -the were out from offense, subsequent Wyo. in violation of glasses Stat. case" and were visible once the 3) 85-7-1031(0)@); § Ann. opened possession of the rear driver's side door manipulating without the case.6 When the quantity liquid methamphetamine ex nylon bag, ceeding grams, Wyo. officer searched the he .3 discovered violation of Stat. 35-7-103l(0)(@i).8 § contain Ann. He filed a motion drug baggies evidence of use-three engage analysis this Court in an of when door to exit vehicle. it was not community safety justify opened would concerns an offi until the officer the rear driver's side actually cer's search of an car that syringes. arrestee's will be left door that he saw the The opened officer testified that he the rear door to scene, at the rather than Further impounded. get bag a better look at the so that he did not more, while the of an search inventory impound recognized by ed vehicle has been as reasonable need to "stretch around" the driver's seat and Court, Supreme by the United States this "contort [himself]." Court, nearly regard the law is not so clear non-impounded vehicles. See Colorado v. Ber "immediately" recognized 6. Officer Gudahl tine, 367, 738, 479 U.S. 107 S.Ct. 93 L.Ed.2d 739 syringes methamphetamine are associated with (1987); Opperman, South Dakota v. 428 U.S. according training, syringes use and to his also (1976); 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 Johnson dangerous weapons. can be State, ¶9-10, ¶79, v. 2006 WY 137P.3d 905- Call, (Wyo.2006); Defining 06 Jack E. the Com appellant acknowledged 7. backup to the offi- Function, munity Caretaking HeinOnline-21 Po everything cer that in the vehicle was his and (1998). licing Mgmt. Int'l J. Police Strat. & 269 that he wanted the contents released to the indi- that, just say inventory The most we is as the can vidual who retrieved the vehicle. concept excep search has been used to create an tion to the constitutional warrant requirement, (LexisNexis Wyo. 35-7-1031(c) § 8. Stat. Ann. thereby allowing impounded of an search 2007) provides, pertinent part, as follows: suspicion some reasonable articulable issue, community safety or the advancement of (c) any person knowingly It is unlawfal for or community the officer's caretaker function must intentionally possess a controlled substance exception be identified to create a similar to the directly unless the substance was obtained requirement, allowing warrant search from, or to a valid pursuant prescription non-impounded vehicle. practitioner acting order of a while professional practice, except course of his According officer, to the these areas were "eas- Any per- as otherwise authorized this act. ily" within arm's reach of the as he sat son who violates this subsection: in the Subaru. (i) possession And has in his a controlled substance in the amount set forth in this part bag paragraph 5. The officer guilty could see when the of a misdemeanor.... appellant opened Any person the Subaru's front driver's side convicted for third or subse- State, 45, ¶10, 88 v. 2004 WY Gudahl Grant the evidence Officer suppress McChesney (Wyo.2004) (quoting v. the officer's because from the Subaru seized State, (Wyo.1999)). 988 P.2d violated of the vehicle warrantless and Unit Constitution both DISCUSSION hearing, the After a ed States appel the motion. court denied district appellant asserts [T10] guilty plea9 a conditional lant then entered warrantless, non-consensual Officer Gudahl's metham felony possession to one count appellant's search of the Subaru offense, subsequent third or phetamine, both the arre st.10 violated two to dismiss the other the State moved Constitution and the United States Constitu court sentenced charges. The district Wyo that neither tion. We have said twenty-four to imprisonment Constitution, ming nor the federal constit , months, appeal followed. thirty-six and this ution seizures; rather,

forbids all searches and they prohibit unreasonable searches and REVIEW STANDARD OF State, v. seizures. Guerra of review is as Our standard (Wyo.1995). searches and Warrantless follows: se, per are unreasonable with but seizures exceptions. a few Gehnert by the "Findings factual issues made on State, 359, (Wyo.1998); P.2d 362 Morris v. considering sup- a motion to district court 931, (Wyo.1995). ... 908 P.2d 935 appeal unless press not disturbed on are ¶ v. Lancaster v. clearly erroneous. Wilson State, 45, 61, they are 2002 WY 43 P.3d original). in State, (Wyo.2002) (emphasis (Wyo.1994). Since 102-03 874 P.2d 218 hearing appeal concerned in the instant the on We are the district court conducts applicability of the search-incident-to-ar suppress oppor- and has the the the motion to eredibility exception. question "The of whether an tunity the of the wit- rest to assess evidence, a nesses, exception applies support search without weigh the and make the inferences, deductions, dependent upon all of the facts con- a warrant is necessary clusions, entirety" in light and cireumstances viewed their is viewed evidence to the district court's deter- objects to or most favorable properly and if "a defendant seized, law, suppression of evidence The issue of whether moves for mination. Id. proving that one of has oc- bears the burden of search or seizure State unreasonable State, rights, exceptions applies." Moulton v. of constitutional curred violation 152, ¶16, (Wyo. 43 2006 WY 148 Id.; State, v. is reviewed de novo. Brown (Wyo.1997)." 2006) (citations omitted). 1170-71 paragraph, than fifteen thousand dol- quent includ- fine of not more offense under this both; ($15,000.00), lars or ing laws for violations of similar convictions imprisoned jurisdictions, shall be in other (5) years, fined a term not more than five right to seek this 9. The reserved dollars not more than five thousand of the district court's denial Court's review of ($5,000.00), purposes of this or both. For pursuant suppression to W.R.Cr.P. motion paragraph, a controlled sub- the amounts of 11(a)(2), ap- provides that with "the which rule stance are as follows: the attor- proval and the consent of of the court state, may ney enter a condi- for the a defendant (B) liquid a controlled substance in For writing guilty reserving plea tional of form, (3/10) a three-tenths no more than judgment, re- right, appeal from the to seek on gram; any speci- determination of view of adverse (C) powder substance in For controlled a "defendant who motion," and that fied pretrial form, (3) crystalline three no more than appeal withdraw prevails be allowed to on shall grams; plea." (ii) methamphet- possession And has in his contact of the officer's initial 10. The lawfulness arrest, greater appellant's than appellant, an amount those amine ... with the of the section, (c)(i) person paragraph appellant's of this search of the set forth in of the officer's in this by imprison- are not at issue guilty felony punishable to that (7) years, appeal. not more than seven ment for "always" provides justifi- reasonable Constitution11 2005 WY appellant contends P.2d 476 (Wyo.1999), and 117 P.3d 401 Citing Constitution that Article Vasquez O'Boyle v. (Wyo.2005),the offers v. State, greater . initially the area search was therefore reasonable because it cation for an officer to search the area within an arrestee's searched the Subaru that Officer Gudahl immediate this case. The officer's control, including appel- had not exceeded the area within the counterpart federal protection than its lant's immediate control when the officer dis- any search of the Subaru inci requires that syringes plain covered the view. The only appellant's arrest must not dent to the significance" State adds that it was "of no arrest, but also incident to a lawful have been in a remained handcuffed all cireumstances. The reasonable under "safety during car the search because following appellant emphasizes the cireum- justify permitting interests officers to search claiming that the search at issue in stances 1) removing suspect." after was unreasonable: there instant case that the was under was no evidence [T183] We have said that our 2) drugs; the influence of alcohol or there provides protection in state constitution possibility was no reasonable that additional rights separate independent dividual appel evidence of the crimes for which the protection from the afforded the U.S. arrested, crime, any lant was other re Supreme The U.S. Court 3) vehicle; "pat mained the officer's has made clear that states at a mini appellant's person down" search re comply interpretations mum must with its no or evidence of criminal vealed Ohio, Mapp federal constitution. 4) activity; testify the officer did he 643,654-55, 1684,1691, 367 U.S. was concerned for his and there was (1961). However, L.Ed.2d 1081 it also has no basis for the officer to believe that may separately made clear states in appellant was armed or that there were terpret apply their own constitutions. 5) vehicle; weapons in the there were no constitutions, In interpreting Id. their own 6) vehicle; passengers appel the generally upon states have focused wheth lant was arrested outside the vehicle and particular pro er their state constitution to, prior remained handcuffed in a car greater protection vides than the federal during, appellant search. the con Laramie, Mogard City constitution. pro cludes that these cireumstances did not of ¶5 88, ¶5, 313, (Wyo. 2001 WY justification vide the officer a reasonable 2001). However, using federal law as a prevent search the for evidence or to Subaru guide, may states also conclude that the appellant reaching weapons the "from or con seope protection provided by their cealing destroying or evidence." ation to whether Officer Gudahl acted rea sonably opening State would the Subaru's rear door to limit our consider tion.... that constitution is the same as and provided by the federal parallel constitu seat, examine the area behind the driver's

which area appellant's was within the imme historically Court [TJhis has inter- prior Citing diate control to the arrest. Chi preted Wyoming's pro- search and seizure forbidding Califormia, mel v. vision as unreasonable 395 U.S. searches (1969), generally question L.Ed.2d 685 and seizures and has said the of dangers any prem the inherent the whether search or seizure was reason- ise of the argument every State's is that able was of one law to be decided from all question adequacy right people The State does not the of to be secure in their houses, independent analysis the state persons, papers against constitutional the and effects un- court, presented to the district or to reasonable searches and seizures shall not be appeal. this Court on violated, upon and no warrant shall issue but cause, affidavit, probable supported by particu- larly describing place 12. Article Section 4 to be searched or the of Constitu- provides person thing tion as follows: or seized. permitting P.2d at rationale for searches incident [Vasquez, 990 circumstances. prevent to arrest is to the arrestee from general reasonableness Beyond this 484.] reaching weapons concealing destroy standard, requirement or and the warrant ing [Commonwealth v.] article evidence. See mentioned in the text of specifically White, 45,] [896,] Pa. [543 669 A.2d extensively con- § this has not Court Wyoming's provision [(1995) seope of sidered A un ]. search incident to arrest provision der our state for these reasons is protection guaranteed independent of the Rather, mobility of this reasonable. The inherent auto by the Fourth Amendment. Court, majority of other state mobiles combination with officer and like the courts, public safety when a driv decided search and concerns created generally has passenger exigent are the basis of federal er or is arrested seizure cases on weighing in favor of not re law.... cireumstances Fourth Amendment stricting seope, timing, intensity however, performed a Vasquez, we such search. analysis and separate state constitutional provided § 4 that article concluded Vasquez, evidentiary 990 P.2d at 489. Such Fourth greater protection than are not concerns articulable from pre- particular Amendment under the facts totality in- circumstances Specifically,we held the vehicle sented. case, particularly considering that: stant 1) under permissible: at issue was 1. The that officer, testified he did it was the Fourth Amendment because any signs observe was 2) arrest; under to a lawful drugs. under the influence of aleohol or 1, § to a article 4 because was incident possibility 2. There no was reasonable under all lawful arrest and was reasonable that evidence of the crimes for which the law the cirewmstances in that enforcement appellant was remained in the vehi- arrested that one suspicion had a reasonable indicating cle. There also was no evidence occupants It this re- was armed. any had committed other quirement the search be reasonable crime. all the as we said cireumstances Vasquez distinguished con- "pat 3. The officer's down" search of the law from Fourth Amendment stitutional appellant's person anything did not uncover law. evidentiary value. (em- 23-26, O'Boyle, T4 408-09 attempt ap- 4. The State does not its case, original). being That

phasis justify pellate brief to eviden- bright-line have eschewed rules consider- tiary reasons. conduct- ing non-consensual vehicle searches analysis of the cireumstances does 5. Our arrest, and instead favor an ed incident to an any not reveal reasonable basis for the offi- approach requires "that a search be reason- appellant was armed or cer to believe as deter- able under all of the circumstances that there were in the vehicle. The by judiciary, light in of the histori- mined driving appellant was arrested for under sus- search and seizure [state's] cal intent of our failing liability maintain insur- pension and to Vasquez, provision." 990 P.2d at 489. See "pat down" search of the ance. The officer's (we apply O'Boyle, % 117 P.8d at 410 also any weap- appellant's person did not uncover standard, maintaining one "a narrower ons. reasonable un- requirement that search be passengers 6. There were no the vehi- all and in the context der the cireumstances" scene, cle, at the and the two officers were of "a vehicle search incident to an arrest already left officers and the provision pro- Wyoming's search and seizure owner greater protection than the federal the scene the time the vehicle's vide[s] the vehicle. retrieved provision.") appellant was handcuffed say that 7. The We cannot to, immediately prior placed in a car at instant case was rea issue by no during, Handcuffs are general the search. sonable. The means foolproof (see- Mackrill v. State, We add that the instant case is 129, ¶¶19-21, clearly distinguishable 100 P.3d 368-69 from other cases in WY upheld we must view this fact which (Wyo0.2004)),but we have non-consensual the other facts this case. light of all of searches under Article of the example, For any not fur- appellant did exhibit 8. The following excerpt from Clark v. activity, particularly with suspicious tive or ¶¶ 14-15, (Wyo. WY 680-81 contents of vehicle. respect to the 2006), aptly analysis our summarizes of the ap- does not contend in its 9. The State present Vasquez: cireumstances such as the brief considerations pellate stopped officer a vehicle after receiv- [An day, setting, temporary regis- time ing report weaving highway it was on the issue, any tag ete. contributed to kind tration and almost hit another vehicle. The offi- in this case. officer concern cer confirmed the driver was intoxicated any specific did refer to driving him for arrested prior had that would have concerns he arisen influence of aleohol. Other officers called to the time he initiated the search. empty cartridges to the seene noticed admittedly 10. The officer had no other casings passenger shell in the bed and opposed information "as about compartment pickup They of the truck. By any citizen." the officer's own other passengers removed the and searched the account, appellant engaged he and the in a vehicle, finding cocaine in a fuse box next conversation, friendly was hon- steering wheel. license, suspended ap- est about his and the Vasquez argued Mr. the search was un- pellant seemingly offered a reasonable ex- constitutional under the Fourth Amend- (the planation park for at the ment to the United Constitution and States contents, they vehicle's to the extent were 1, § 4 Article Constitu- officer, objectively visible to the would seem tion. We held the search was reasonable support appellant's explanation). 1, § 4 under Article because it was inci- appellant cooperated 11. The with the of- dent to a lawful arrest and law enforce- ficer and did not resist arrest or become ment had reason to be concerned one of with the combative officer. occupants was armed. We also re- course, say, any This is not prior holding affirmed case law Article might § these considerations not be viewed 4 allows reasonable vehicle searches differently if it were to arise the context of for evidence related to different facts. prevent the crime the arrestee from Moulton, 116, 148 P.3d at 48. The State's proach appellate analysis instead focused almost ex- arrested and advocates for a clusively and cireumstances applied, ception the search-incident-to-arrest similar to the on the fact that It was the "dependent upon applicability viewed State's burden to approach all of the facts their of such an ex- bright-line ap- that we re- entirety." exception prove was weapons fied a search ment of the reaching weapons open or ing officer or a concluded: evidence related to the crime and for evidence. Specifically, or contraband which closed, vehicle public safety Vasquez, we held "the arrest locked or and all concealing passenger containers concern." We unlocked, presented compart- destroy justi- 488- it, jected Vasquez:. casings Our state constitution The shell and the of requires regard-the passengers presented more search two adult an offi- arrest, only must not be public safety a lawful cer and a concern permitted but also reasonable under the which cireumstances. a search incident to ar- words, In other we must although Vasquez's be able to find rest arrest had been basis, totality reasonable accomplished articulable from the and he was secure inside a case, justify appears circumstances each car. It from the record such a search. passengers were also arrested told, dangerous and, it would is arrested can be as to the although we are not for arresting arrest created the need officer as one concealed in the seem their the vehicle if left clothing person officers to secure There arrested. therefore, ample justification, on the roadside. is for a person of the arrestee's search Vasquez, 990 P.2d at 489.

sheriff's ^[117] glary and when the drews 6-7, 11, In Andrews v. that he was under deputy arrested Andrews 40 P.3d deputy informed State, 710-11 arrest, 2002 WY (Wyo.2002),a Andrews for bur An possession evidence. area "within his immediate control"- area from within which he construing weapon phrase or destructible to mean the might gain Id., 130, from his (emphasis "immediately removed his wallet at 40 P.3d 714-15 placed it on the kitchen pocket back omitted). original; citations After summar- deputy him." directly in counter front izing holding Vasquez, our we then ana- the wal "handcuffed Andrews and retrieved lyzed the reasonableness of the search of let. Andrews told the to leave his dollars and seized P.3d at opened Andrews claimed that the wallet fifty-cent pieces. The officer wallet at it and discovered as evidence." deputy that he wanted house, Id., 111, 40 some silver deputy's but Andrews' wallet under Article when Andrews was informed he was under front of laid it on the kitchen counter removed the wallet from his drews he was under In this him. case, Deputy Consequently, arrest, Jenkins told and Andrews at pocket directly in Section 4: the time An- of the wallet violated both federal search arrest, person. on the wallet was still 4 of the and Article constitution reported that cash and [The victim] Id., 129, 40 from her home. coins were stolen Such analysis federal constitutional 714. Our could, course, concealed in a items as follows: easily destroyed. lost or It wallet and ruling, law enforcement Under the Chimel was, therefore, appropriate reasonable and area are allowed to search the officials officer to seize the wallet and which is within the immediate the arrested State, 480. This follows: When weapons that for the person arrested in order to remove officer to search for entirely reasonable use might well be rest itself frustrated. dence on the arrestee's escape. tion. tee on or prevent governed by a like rule. might reach 759 P.2d evidentiary an arrest And the area into which order to resist court arresting officer to search Otherwise, person. Vasquez, 990 P.2d at its concealment or destruc- quoted endangered, and the ar- items made, it order to latter and seize Chimel Roose arrest or effect his for the person in order must, officer's might (Wyo.1988) as addition, is reasonable grab weap- gunA control of arresting an arres- any seek to course, it is on a evi- any WY Id., kitchen counter is irrelevant of the search and seizure. The trial court from his wallet. area. We servations on this obviously motion TY himself let THE clude Defendant. dent to the arrest. 115, ¶¶4-5, 32-33, clearly was on the it for fact Andrews COURT: the officer from still within Andrews' from the wallet does not agree that, suppress facts in Cotton v. His correctly denied Andrews' after placed the wallet on the matter: at 715.13 attempt and/or the evidence In this case the wal- the trial court's ob- being placed searching it inci- The wallet was person evidence. to distance immediate validity seized (Wyo. pre- 2005), essentially as follows: in of one who were or in a drawer front table we are "affirmatively ap- Wyoming in Andrews and Constitution that we 13. The State claims in the instant therefore bound to do the same plied" Section 4 of the Chimel under Article passenger get asked the shirt Deputy David Stevens June On County Depart- Laramie Sheriff's Deputy take it home with him. Stevens was the vehicle Mr. Cotton stopped point: testified at that "we wanted to make ment neighborhood of driving in a residential nothing sure was the shirt as far as a having for a cracked Cheyenne, jeopardize weapon that would officer safe- Deputy Stevens asked to see shirt, windshield. ty." Deputy Poteet retrieved the driver's license discover- Mr. Cotton's patted something it down and felt in the We then considered der Article was was inside the trunk. backup it home was fore it for trieved the shirt Deputy er formed a shirt placed him under arrest Cotton's Cotton Cotton's vehicle and discovered reasons, caine. The riding assistance. suspended license. There was scene few Deputy Cotton ed it was After person making handing escorting from out from the back of his vehicle and take weapons. a minuteslater. with Mr. and found asked his Stevens Stevens assistance placing license was Deputy Stevens pat-down with him. in the vehicle. He stated: suspended. Because Mr. Cotton a an arrest and there was anoth- Deputy Poteet deputies it baggie containing him testified that he called for Inside the shirt Mr. Cotton Cotton and handcuffed from the vehicle and be- $123 passenger these cireumstances un- They 4: state, Deputy search. after suspended found a Deputy then searched Mr. passenger, also searched for called for cash. discovering patrol arrived at the As driving him so, to retrieve a small because he Poteet pocket, passenger for crack co- car, checked back-up Stevens deputy with a safety scale per- Mr. Mr. Mr. re- he a sonableness of 138 P.3d at 682-83: Cotton, 21-22, : reasonable. Mr. Cotton had been arrest- weighing handing fied in proximately three inches in diameter and back to the vehicle. He was further pocket fore tance. When Mr. rather ^[120] pocket. We discovered there arresting deputy deputy concerns the rocks measured presented senger peared inches ed. The clude the search of the shirt containing Under removing handing than checking was of some substance to retrieve the to be the shirt to the He removed a clear all of the diameter and 4.5 in retrieving a five justified similarly allowing it to the grams), safety crack 119P.8d at 985-86. from the to call for was cireumstances, Cotton six rocks of what of an adult shirt on the basis of cocaine. concern he also was approximately considered the rea- passenger. weighed shirt, passenger. something the shirt himself passenger for Clark, asked the (measuring ap- pocket back-up causing pocket Altogether, plastic bag 4.5 passenger TV assisting justified Once he we grams. before 19-21, assis- three justi- con- pas- was be- ap- go shows, stop after a valid being safety; reasoning record failure, call another officer when we make an for an equipment Officer Cornwell Mr. driving discovered Clark was with a simple fact he arrest for did have him person passen- license, another suspended prior outstanding ger I in that seat. was outnumbered ticket for the same offense respect somebody I so had to call else and had a warrant out arrest while I had that arrest with Mr. Cotton. failing appear Colorado for on a domes- charge. tic Deputy violence Officer Cornwell ree- Stevens further testified he (the Cotton, him, ognized passenger) Mr. Kobbe from pat- [ ] arrested Mr. handcuffed placing prior ted him down for in Powell related to metham- him in the car when Mr. Cotton addition, phetamine. the officer ob- 1) 3) area; case. Andrews involved: drews' immediate a reasonable possibili- that, circumstances, person ty of an item that was on at the under the Andrews' Andrews could arrest; wallet; 2) 4) gain possession time of his an item that Andrews then still person evidentiary pres- removed from his in the officer's basis for the officer to search the wallet. ence, but still remained An- within clearly

535 unlocked, part on the or for or contraband suspicious behavior served individuals, including presented safety Mr. Kobbe dis- concern. which both Having carefully reviewed de the evi- momentarily inside view appearing from novo also detected the odor of light the vehicle. He in dence before us of our precedent, to a lawful we hold the search incident and saw coming from the vehicle alcohol box behind the driver's taped Nintendo arrest all the cir- and reasonable under might what be and did not know seat safety because of officer con- cumstances suspicious cireumstances cerns. inside. Given the had and the called for When the search been presence back-up lawfully of an adult assistance. arrested. commenced, Mr. Clark passenger, he By time tality of the cireumstances in these cases are present The concerns articulable from the to- in the instant case. began with the Officer Cornwell assist United Constitution States been he was not under arrest though Mr. Kobbe was out of the hind the driver's seat. Officer board seat area search, next Martinez searched the board ed. He also menced, the driver Clark's arrest. When two-door Officer Cornwelltestified vehicle to the vehicle. partially console and he knew Mr. Kobbe Ford Probe and he and Officer passenger after Nintendo knew the Nintendo box had covered area, passenger he first observed it. and seat directly box was located be- by driver's side floor- the search com- and was someone incident the vehiclewas was intoxicat- behind the side floor- Martinez standing to Mr. inside Al- without consideration of the New York v. the Fourth Amendment involved." that the the search tablished ... Constitution.14 of a cluding any open or closed container ate. This [vehicle's] 69 L.Ed.2d 768 4 of the One final comment seems clearly opinion O'Boyle, Belton, that arrest passenger compartment, at However,we falls within the issue is founded ¶30, (1981), to the United States justifies U.S. Constitution, this case violated privacy which case "es conclude also purview Article appropri interest argues S.Ct. par in it, I, ticularly interpreted applied as and picked up placed it it on the center and dissent, O'Boyle passim. Vasquez, and found it console where Officer Cornwell contrary, entirely upon relies almost during passenger his search of the side Supreme cases and the United States Court presence of an intoxicat- the vehicle. The to the United States Fourth Amendment ed, passenger presented adult an officer plea It is little more than a safety permitted a search concern which adoption of a rule that officer although Mr. to arrest Clark always trumps analysis un a reasonableness in- already been arrested and was secure totality of the circumstances when an der the car. The of a box side made, Nintendo, barely disguised and is the contents of the size plea O'Boyle Vasquez and which had been we abandon which were unknown and adopt bright-line the Belton rule partially up covered someone inside rejected finally, stop, presented fur- therein. And United States vehicle after the initial Robinson, justifying ther officer concerns U.S. (1973), L.Ed.2d 427 cited twice the dissent

warrantless search incident to arrest. concept Vasquez, ing opinion support Paraphrasing what we said justified searching to the arrest of Mr. a search of the a vehicle incident Clark's arrest driver, its involved a search of the arrestee's passenger compartment of the vehicle closed, it, open person, all locked not his vehicle. containers issue, violated, but States and no shall 14. The Fourth Amendment to the United Warrants cause, provides supported by upon probable as follows: Oath or Constitution affirmation, describing particularly right people in their to be secure searched, houses, effects, things persons against place persons, papers, . to be - to be seized. seizures, shall not unreasonable searches 536

CONCLUSION majority portrays the vehicle. The Mr. the instant case violated for further and remand this matter denial of the opinion. Having proceedings appellant's Constitution, found to the district court consistent with this that Article suppression we reverse the Section 4 motion properly I gest otherwise. favorable to the district court's record, particularly Pierce as a model cer find most [1 27] safety, -It or rather determining disturbing. is the majority's weighing citizen, viewed in the its failure to There is evidence reasonableness, when the facts of ruling, sug- light weigh of offi- most it indicating the record that Mr. Pierce's arrest VOIGT, C.J., opinion of the delivers the safety example, For raised concerns. the BURKE, J., dissenting files a Court. backup officer called for and waited for it to HILL, J., dissenting opinion; and files a arresting Upon Mr. arrive before Pierce. opinion. making placed the the officer Mr. BURKE, Justice, dissenting. Pierce handcuffs and removed him to the dissent, respectfully I and would police initiating vehicle before the search. In affirm the district court's decision this addition, leaving the officer testified that an a to arrest and was valid search incident public park in a unattended vehicle raised under all of circumstances. reasonable the community safety. concerns about view, my majority oppo- the reaches the majority appears ignore [128] The to this by misapplying site result the standard of evidence, and instead relies on the fact that review, marginalizing safety as a fac- the officer who arrested Mr. Pierce did not weighed analysis, tor to be and over- However, express safety. concern for his looking meaningful the most be- difference safety objective "the test of officer rather tween the state and federal standards. subjective, than and therefore the officer review, part of its of [126] As standard personally need not be in to a fear" justify majority recites that "evidence is viewed Dennison, search. United States v. 410 F.3d (10th Cir.2005). "(Iln light most favorable to the district judging 1213 proceeds court's determination." It to then search, legality of a apply courts must view the evidence in Mr. Pierce's favor. As objective standard and will not be bound just example, majority one cites fac- this subjective arresting beliefs offi finding tor in the search invalid: Jenkins, cer." United States v. 496 F.2d (2d Cir.1974) (internal 72 account, punctuation omit

By own the officer's he and the ted). See also Brown v. appellant engaged friendly in a conversa- (Thomas, J., tion, (Wyo.1987) dissenting). 1099 was honest about his license, Whether or not the officer who arrested Mr. suspended seem- subjectively safety, Pierce feared for his ingly explanation offered reasonable objective fact presence park. remains he took routine at the safety precautions arresting when Mr. presents pic- The record a rather different Pierce. municipal park ture. Mr. Pierce was in a city violation of a majority ordinance. When the offi- adopt [129] The also seems to suggestion Mr. Pierce "raised his Mr. Pierce's contact, that officer cer initiated back," flopped head and then it only reaction concerns arise when the nature of the the officer suspect caused concern for Mr. crime it makes reasonable weapons. Pierce's welfare. Mr. Pierce admitted that it fails to suspended, his license attempted provide any guidance but help law enforce by saying mislead the officer that he "did not ment pres- officials determine which arrests proof have of insurance as it was in the ent agree risks and which do not. I Court, Supreme with the United States process getting transferred from his old driving inclined, car to the car he was now." He also which has said is not "on the basis provided specula- officer with inaccurate and mis- of what seems to us to be a rather leading concerning ownership judgment," authority information tive to base the search incident to arrest on the nature Under majority opinion, howev Robinson, er, apparently authority lost the officer U.S. crime. United States Mr. vehicle 467, 476, Pierce's because he re 218, 234, L.Ed.2d S.Ct. moved Mr. Pierce from the (1973).15 matter, hand practical when As him, placed him in the cuffed car. police officer should not making an which crimes be person and which a risk of Washington S.Ct. "Every For that search incident to an arrest does not dence. The on whether required 812, 817, 70 L.Ed.2d arrested arrest must be Arrests are reason, do not. danger there is v. fact of a lawful to imply the Chrisman, make fine distinctions about possesses weapons or evi the to the any indication that "constitutionality inherently dangerous. presumed presence arresting 455 U.S. 778, arrest, standing 785 weapons 1, 7, officer." present depend (1982). 102 the law enforcement search. This fails the officer lost rules set the search while The ance to allow law cer conduct." comply determine when cuffs? 179 majority (Wyo.2000). thereby It with the forth does not "make sense to :"threaten[s] does not indicate at what Bailey v. before he is by the expects Must majority's search this authority enforcement provide arrested Court and needs from the State, is the officer, unconstitutional, placed ruling, sufficient to governing person stability 12 conduct the officials to P.3d prescribe trying conduct is still hand point guid offi 173, alone, Michigan authorizes a search." v. entirely a constitutional test is at odds 31, 35, 2627, DeFillippo, 448 U.S. police procedures." with safe and sensible (1979); 2631, 343, 348 Chimel v. 61 L.Ed.2d 602, Fleming, 677 United States v. F.2d 607 762-63, 752, (7th California, Turner, 89 Cir.1982); 395 U.S. S.Ct. v. United States 926 (1969). 2040, 685, (OthCir.1991). 2034, 883, 23 L.Ed.2d 694 F.2d 887-88 is allowed to search an arrested the area Clark [T 81] v. within State, It is well established his or her immediate control. 2006 WY 88, ¶16, person an officer 138 P.3d ing police misconduct. As we purpose exclusionary The fundamental of the exelusionary rule recently purpose underly- is prevention observed: rule is to obtaining deter law enforcement from evi- State, (Wyo.2006); v. 2003 681 Guzman through illegal dence means. 118, 118, (Wyo.2003). 76 P.3d 828 WY public prosecut- has vital interest State, Vasquez (Wyo.1999) 990 P.2d 476 v. ing having of crime and those accused says that such a search is allowed when there or on the acquitted them convicted basis suspect is of evidence reason exposes which the truth. all the evidence say that a weapons, but does not search rule [AJpplication of the has been restrict- only is allowed when there is evidence that objec- where its remedial ed to those areas present. Although are 'it would efficaciously thought are most served. tives every offi seem obviousthat arrest involves penalties upon visited the Govern- concerns, it will be the rare case cer ment, upon public and in turn because "empty gun find indeed when the officer will law, its officers have violated the must cartridges casings in the of the truck." bed purposes which bear some relation dispute that Id. at 480. There is no the law is to serve. validly arrested Mr. Pierce. Under State, ¶11, Hall v. 2007 WY prior precedent, the officer was then our (internal (Wyo.2007) allowed to search Mr. Pierce and the area citations omitted). quotation Considering immediate control at the time of within his marks Surely, the officer must be al who arrested Mr. the arrest. actions of the officer Pierce, majori in a man what conduct the lowed to conduct the search safe it is unclear discourage. The officer acted ty seeks to ner. 148, ¶17, rtig "Although v. 2006 WY we the Fourth Fe are not bound (Wyo.2006) (quoting Amendment decisions of the United States Su Almada P.3d case, preme may certainly we fol Court in this (Wyo.1999)). State, 994 reasoning persuasive." low its when we find its lead immediate control at the time of his procedure, with Pierce's with established accordance himself, opened regard due arrest. He the back door officers, community, and Mr. only complete other vehicle safety precautions Pierce. To the extent immediately behind the driver's seat. area procedure, police routine under- were There, syringes plain view. he saw the police procedure point; routine scores analyzed pre- court district evidence every dangerous. treats arrest as concluded that the search was sented and reasonable, stating: may A incident to arrest lawfully only when a valid eustodi performed Additionally, agree I think I with [defense made, may al arrest and an arrest be made case, Vasquez that under the counsel] only probable cause. "The search inci type need to look stan- reasonableness is reasonable because the dent to arrest you very I think that dard. articulated by privacy protected interest that constitu well. by guarantee legitimately tional abated testimony that I It seemed to me from the Robinson, 414 at 287- fact of U.S. arrest." officer, very heard from this who was 88, Further, 477. 94 S.Ct. at under my straightforward opinion, was that it standard, Wyoming constitutional as under extremely him reasonable for to take standard, the federal a search incident to pre- I look at the interior of the vehicle. contempora must be conducted "as a arrest opened sume that he the front door. And of that York v. neous incident arrest." New Belton, 454, 460, 2860, viewing compartment 453 U.S. 101 S.Ct. I think also vehicle, 768, (1981). Moreover, opening area of the the back 69 L.Ed.2d completely door was reasonable. He de- important occupant it is to note that the relatively expectation vehicle has a low seribed it as a four-door so there Wyo privacy. Vasquez, 990 P.2d at 488. compartment. would be four doors into the ming long recognized law has that automo any opening And I would think protected warrantless biles are less from to undertake the search incident to doors Kelly, than homes. searches State I would be reasonable. And think it (1928). Wyo. Together, 268 P. especially application have would this these factors establish that an officer's au given case the area that he looked was thority perform a vehicle search incident right clearly behind the front seat. And unduly impinge to arrest does not on individ wingspan that would be within the area or rights. ual the area of reach from the area the defen- To be reasonable under all of the dant was sitting when he made contact with law enforcement. cireumstances, a search incident to arrest scope. Vasquez, reasonable in must be See agree I court. the district step 990 P.2d at 489. It is at this in our majority [186] The concedes that analysis Wyoming standard varies search was valid under the federal standard significantly bright-line most from the Belton Belton, established 458 U.S. Belton, may rule. Under rejected bright-line We Belton passenger compartment the entire of a vehi- in Vasquez, rule but with the cle, containers, closed, including open or reassurance will not be common "[it justification. without further Under Vas- that a search of an automobile incident ques, the officers were allowed to search the arrest will violate" the Constitu- passenger compartment, including entire tion, "and our decision should not raise new box, inside of closed fuse based on reason- concerns for law enforcement." Id. at 489. suspicion able or evidence were reassurance, spite of this the decision present. If the officer in Mr. Pierce's case search, by majority significantly reached alters had conducted such an intrusive it landscape for law enforcement. There is § could well have violated Article 4 of the However, nothing uncommon about the officer's actions the officer only nothing Mr. Pierce's case searched the driv- this case. There is the record vicinity, suggest procedures er's seat and its that area within Mr. to' used were Simply put, anything other than routine. rare cases that would is not one of those

this federal and

justify different results analyses.

state constitutional

HILL, Justice, dissenting. I agree with the material part I write

Justice Burke's dissent.

separately emphasize my concern that the Vasquez slot carved out

narrow majority appears widened

case case, I in this for reasons that find

decision

unconvincing. Vasquez reap himself did not decision, Vasquez so Pierce

the benefit of accorded the enhanced

is the first to be

protections provides Wyoming citizens. all of the facts and cireumstances de-

Given majority opinion

tailed in both the

dissent, slightly spins, I albeit with different court's deci-

am convineed district deny suppress

sion to Pierce's motion consequently I affirm both

correct and would decision, court's as well as the district

judgment and sentence.

2007 WY 184

WEST AMERICA HOUSING CORPORA

TION, Wyoming Corporation, Jeanne Joelson, Joelson/Shoopman,

L. Sheena (De Craver, Appellants

Bobbie Charles

fendants), PEARSON,

Donald Donald E. a/k/a (Plaintiff).

Pearson, Appellee

No. S-07-0068. Wyoming.

Supreme Court of

Nov. Mary Elizabeth

Representing Appellants: Galvan, Laramie, Wyoming.

Case Details

Case Name: Pierce v. State

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Nov 15, 2007

Citation: 171 P.3d 525

Docket Number: 05-145

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.