Vasquez v. State

(Defendant), VASQUEZ, Appellant Mario Wyoming,

The STATE of (Plaintiff).

Appellee 97-140.

No. Wyoming. 16, 1999.

Nov. patrol placed him in the officer’s completed, After another

car. bed spent handgun saw shells in the truck, Vasquez’s passenger searched inside compartment and discovered cocaine Vasquez entered conditional the fuse box. felony plea of cocaine guilty possession to mo- after the district court denied various inculpatory to statement suppress tions during evidence discovered the search New vehicle. The district court relied on his Belton, York v. that the

69 L.Ed.2d 768 which held may compartment of a vehicle passenger contemporaneous incident searched as a Today, we must decide wheth- lawful arrest permissible was er this motor vehicle search provisions of under the and seizure search and Federal Constitutions. 'hold was motor vehicle search We and, therefore, to a lawful arrest incident the Fourth permitted under Amendment Constitution, as held in Belton. the Federal analysis of independent the search Under 4, of provision, and seizure Article Section constitution, hold that the offi- our state we lawfully compart- passenger cer searched the Vasquez’s ment of vehicle because that provision permits a vehi- search seizure weapons cle search for incident to an suspicion exists a vehi- when reasonable n occupant cle is armed. We hold that correctly Vasquez’s vari- district court denied suppress and affirm his con- ous motions viction.

ISSUES Vasquez re- presents these issues for our view:

I. court when Whether district erred appellant’s sup- it denied motions press all evidence seized because appellant’s was ille- search of the truck gal? LEHMAN, THOMAS, J., Before C. when

MACY, TAYLOR,* II. Whether the district court erred GOLDEN, and JJ. sup- appellant’s denied the motions GOLDEN, Justice. appellant’s press the inadmissible state- ments to law enforcement? Wyoming Highway An officer of the Patrol Vasquez III. court erred driving arrested Mario while Whether district appellant’s it denied the motions under the influence. The officer handcuffed when * argument; Justice at time of retired November Chief oral him; however, all seized read to suppress evidence because ‘he was stop illegal? appellant interrogated traffic was scene. rephrases issues as: During booking process, arresting denying I. district err in Did the court Vasquez questions officer asked about his suppress the co- appellant’s motion to name, security social number and birthdate during the search of his caine seized Vasquez in order fill out a book-in sheet. vehicle? deputy charge what against asked denying II. err in Did the district court arresting deputy him. The officer told the appellant’s suppress state- motion to charged driving with while ments he made to law enforcement? the influence and could later be charged possession of methamphet- FACTS Vasquez amine. then stated it was co- 16, 1996, a.m., On at about 7:45 the June caine, methamphetamine, not and he re- was Highway anony-

Wyoming received an Patrol sponsible presence for the its in truck. The every (report mous REDDI drunk driver arresting then Vasquez officer advised not to immediately) report complaining that a new- any give until he more information had been green pickup er model Chevrolet truck with rights. arresting his read officer and weaving plates was all the Colorado over deputy Vasquez the testified was obvi- reporting per- road and had almost hit the ously agitated. Upon being and intoxicated attempted pass. son’s car as it It was Vasquez informed that under was arrest for reported Hispan- that the truck carried three influence, driving deputy while under the the traveling ic males and was on northbound serving jail Vasquez custodian asked how Colorado-Wyoming Interstate from the deputy much he to drink. The had also highway patrol head- line. officer Vasquez any drugs asked whether had his on spotted in reported ed the direction and soon Mi- person. Vasquez was never read matching description. a truck the He fol- arresting randa rights by the officer. weaving only lowed it and noticed that it was day, agents Later that from Division lane; however, within its it to- own veered Investigation attempted to Criminal inter- attempting pass wards another vehicle it. Vasquez gave up view but also he because green That vehicle swerved to avoid the agitated. Vasquez ap- was intoxicated and, point, truck at that a the officer initiated peared day driving in court on while stop green Vasquez driv- truck. plead charge guilty. under the influence ing accompanied by that vehicle and was two completed he re- He contends documents strongly alcohol; passengers. He smelled him; questing appointed for that counsel conducting sobriety after field tests on Vas- however, the were dated the next documents quez, Vasquez placed the officer Although day, June defense coun- driving for while under the influence. Vas- disputed accuracy this date sel at quez placed in offi- was handcuffed and suppression hearing, that factual issue was patrol cer’s ear. resolved. not Other officers arrived the scene and cartridges morning, empty casings noticed for bul- The next June the DCI his Miranda Vasquez passenger compartment agents lets the bed and advised pickup during of the truck. The officers removed and conducted an interview passengers Vasquez inculpatory from truck made statements. searched weapons. requested Vasquez them and the truck for In a fuse testified he counsel interview; however, on steering beginning box located the left of the at the of the side driver, agents wheel front of the the officers the DCI stated that did plastic bag containing until request found a a white sub- make this late interview. opened Vasquez again appeared in stance. The officer who the fuse box June court On possession charge. Vasquez ashtray large testified he believed was on cocaine enough pistol. Vasquez suppress to contain a his statements and moved jail during processed having taken to seized the warrantless without evidence placed resting handcuffed him and a'hearing, officer truck. After search of his passenger’s of the offi- him in the front seat he a-condi- denied and entered motion was A while cer’s second officer arrived charge vehicle. guilty possession plea tional being performed and the field tests were appeal. Vasquez sen- served and filed arresting officer’s car later stood Camp Boot New- tence at the pas- two Vasquez’s arrived. a third officer of his sentence was castle. The remainder truck, sengers remained seated years supervised suspended in favor of two approached and third officers second probation. testified truck the rear. Both officers they empty gun cartridges or cas- saw two DISCUSSION ings truck. Each officer in the bed of the Vehicle Search passengers step asked the two out truck, away Review Standard them and led them handcuffed had them kneel on the from the truck and denying reviewing an order When ground from the truck. The some distance evidence, findings suppress motion to then searched the vehicle and discov- officers regarding sup trial the motion court ered the cocaine inside fuse box. clearly binding on unless press are this Court 599 P.2d erroneous. Neilson Belton, police stopped a car denied, 1079, 444 (Wyo.1979), 1330 cert. U.S. marijuana. smelled On a traffic violation and (1980). 1031, L.Ed.2d 100 62 763 S.Ct. vehicle, envelope the of the he saw an floor search or seizure an unreasonable Whether “Supergold,” terma he associated marked in occurred violation of marijuana. the The officer removed question a of law and is reviewed de presents passengers, three one of whom driver and 561, State, novo. v. 910 P.2d 563 Gronski Belton, placed from car them was the (Wyo.1996). the He each of occu- arrest. searched car, the pants the car then searched of Analysis Federal Constitutional jacket in a the where he found black leather that the warrantless contends pockets unzipped back He one of the seat. within Belton, his truck was not conducted search of 453 U.S. at and discovered cocaine. any exception specific of 455-56, boundaries 101 S.Ct. at 2861-62. The United requirement the warrant of the state and these facts States Court considered federal constitutions. State contends light in v. of the test formulated Chimel correctly 752, 2034, that district court concluded California, 89 23 395 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed,2d of that search the truck and removal (1969), allowing of the 685 a search justifiable as a of the fuse box cover were “area the immediate control of the within Lopez In Belton, 460, search"incident a lawful arrest. 453 U.S. at 101 S.Ct. arrestee.” (Wyo.1982), this Court v. 643 682 that at 2864. The Court concluded courts recognized applied the rule from New this had found no workable definition of test Belton, 454, 2860, York v. 453 101 S.Ct. U.S. that and stated (1981), stating 768 that when a 69 L.Ed.2d [wjhen person how a court a cannot know has custodial police officer made lawful recurring apply principle will a settled to a automobile, occupant of he of situation, person factual that cannot know may, contemporaneous incident that as scope protection, of his constitutional arrest, compartment passenger search policeman scope of nor can a know the his at Lopez, automobile. 643 P.2d that authority. not Vasquez contends this search does meet 459-60,101 at 2864. Id. at S.Ct. Belton, requirements and a state con- analysis permit stitutional does not this Court determined that particular Court to extend Belton these straightforward rule that would eliminate facts. hairline distinctions” “subtle nuances and 458, Belton, case, at 101 required, was 453 U.S. established that after was 2863, that upon Vasquez, the at held the search performing field ar- S.Ct. tests

481 1979, jacket (1970); though even 26 was lawful L.Ed.2d 419 United States v. vehicle Robinson, any occupants 218, 235, 467, of the accessible 414 S.Ct. U.S. 94 therefore, cai’, not, 476, (1973); who could retrieve 38 427 L.Ed.2d Cardwell Lew- jacket any destroy any weapons is, 583, 591-92, or 417 U.S. 94 S.Ct. might be there- (1974);

contraband which contained Op- 41 L.Ed.2d 325 South Dakota holding in. The in Belton is as follows: 3092, perman, 428 U.S. 96 49 S.Ct. policeman (1976); hold has made [W]e that when L.Ed.2d 1000 United States Chad- occupant toick, a lawful custodial arrest of the 97 53 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d automobile, may, contemporane- he as a (1977); Mimms, Pennsylvania arrest, pas- ous incident of that search the 106, 111-12, 333-34, U.S. S.Ct. senger compartment of automobile. (1977); Sanders, L.Ed.2d 331 Arkansas v. It follows from this conclusion L.Ed.2d police may also examine the contents of any passenger containers found within the plurality decision v. Cali- Robbins compartment, passenger if the com- for fornia, 453 U.S. arrestee, partment is within reach of the so day L.Ed.2d decided the same also within will containers it be Belton, the uncertainty illustrates created course, may, reach. Such a container the numerous rules automobile searches. closed, open searched it is whether since Although factually similar to because Belton justification for the search is not that occupants arrested, were Robbins consid- privacy no arrestee has interest applicability ered the of the automobile ex- container, but the lawful custodial ar- ception conjunction with the law concern- justifies any infringement priva- rest ing a closed container search and decided it cy may interest the arrestee have. during search unconstitutional the lawful 460-61,101 (citations S.Ct. at

Id. open packages wrapped two vehicle to omitted). footnotes Belton established opaque placed paper in in the vehicle’s justifies passenger search the of a luggage compartment. 428-29, closed at Id. compartment, including any or open closed 101 S.Ct. at 2847. it, in container without consideration of the interest, privacy validity and the year, next Robbins was overruled dependent upon is not search the nature of Ross, 798, 102 United States v. 456 U.S. S.Ct. bright-line the container. This rule dif- Id. 2157, (1982), 72 L.Ed.2d 572 when Court previous fered from decisions Su- exception per decided the automobile preme setting plethora complex, a Court during opening mitted closed a containers applicable potentially fact-driven rules to au- only exception warrantless search. The searches; probable tomobile cause searches requiring Ross a warrant would be those during of containers found an automobile when, search, police occasions before the search; searches to ar- automobile incident particular believed that a held container evi rest; safety; inventory; and consent particular requirement That dence. was dis searches, causing difficulty.for but law en- Acevedo, posed of in v. 500 U.S. California judiciary forcement and to under- often 565, 573-75, 1988-89, 1982, 111 S.Ct. 114 when apply stand which rule. Carroll v. (1991). L.Ed.2d 619 States, 153, 132, United 267 U.S. 45 S.Ct. 280, 285, Chimel, (1925); virtually1 543 These L.Ed. decisions resulted elim- 763, 2040; inating analysis U.S. at at v. S.Ct. Chambers “closed container” 42, 47, 1975, Maroney, exception automobile the “area U.S. S.Ct. searches and (1998), decision, Houghton holding po- 1. In v. this reversed Court’s ceil, granted, Wyoming Houghton, v. 524 U.S. lice officers do not violate the Fourth Amend- 119 S.Ct. 141 L.Ed.2d 791 this they passenger’s personal when a ment search that, Court determined Constitution, under the United States belongings they inside automobile that have exception did not automobile probable believe cause to contains contraband. permit passenger April personal the search of effects of a Wyoming Houghton, v. guest probable without cause. On 143 L.Ed.2d 408 the United States Court analyses deliberately shunned those to Court analysis from searches incident of control” recognize rule in so, the Belton simplified and chose doing In the Court has arrest. challenge response to a federal constitutional regarding automo- Amendment law Fourth Vasquez biles, application. ease effectively prohibiting only general because of its essentially indi- same constitutional eliminating has made that federal searches and, previ has challenge because this Court right protection the constitutional vidual’s Belton, reason judicially-issued ously all there is no not applied warrant almost it to the of this case re apply facts automobile searches.2 sponse chal majority it was a reasonable con- to this believed Constitution, lenge. for- the Federal Bel- Amendment to Under struction the Fourth vehicle, Soon, Vasquez’s bright-line permits courts a search of mulate rules. ton box, lowering a valid search including the fuse to consider whether chose although permis- incident to a lawful arrest federal constitutional standards vehicle, had removed from the hand under their own state constitutions. been sible Belton, cuffed, placed patrol car. Wyoming application Belton’s considered 462-63, 101 2865; accord, at U.S. police report A Lopez. officer received a (7th Willis, 313, 317 37 F.3d United States car, no li- a tannish-colored older Patterson, Cir.1994); United States Casper tag places on cense dealer’s (6th Cir.1993); F.2d 122-23 United end, burglary at a had scene of rear left the (10th Cotton, 1146, 1149 751 F.2d States began to Lopez, P.2d at 683. He bar. Cir.1985); Vasey, see but United States vehicle, stop could it. pursue the but (9th Cir.1987). 834 F.2d 787-88 assisted, and car was Another officer forty-five about minutes later. The stopped not, however, Lopez, this Court did description suspect matched the independent driver state constitutional conduct an suspicion burglary. on arrested analysis apply to determine if Belton should produced A rifle stolen search the car § 4 of Consti- under Article sight plain from the bar in on floor of tution, provision. the search and seizure challenged Lopez the rifle’s driver’s side. Id. Vasquez contends this state constitutional evidence, ap- into and this Court admission providing should be considered as Belton, bright-line approv- rule of plied and, greater protection of individual noting appears have ingly that “the court reject accordingly, this Court should Bel- workable established understandable and ton rule either because his arrest respect the automo- rule with to search effectively securing occupants the other incident to a lawful custodial arrest.” bile any threat officers which eliminated to the Id. at 685. suspected the search for the necessitated tray” handgun, “ash was not a or because the Lopez search could have been was authorized to container which ruled valid under either Chimel search search. weapon incident to for a within the plain- or arrestee’s control immediate Analysis State Constitutional recognized in view doctrine Alcala v. denied, 448, provi- of the and seizure (Wyo.1971), cert. The texts search 453 in the 31 L.Ed.2d 466 sions Constitution U.S.

(1972). Nevertheless, substantially this are similar it is clear that Federal Constitution consistently applying Although many we have 2. would consider the automobile In test rules, bright-line emphasiz- bright-line search to be a series of decisions instead eschewed rules, apparently the Court does not as seen in ing fact-specific nature of tire reasonable- Robinette, Ohio v. inquiry. ness L.Ed.2d where said: the Court do Id. at 421. Robinette held that officers long We have that the of the held "touchstone lawfully need to advise a detained motorist Rea- Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” sonableness, right refuse to to an automobile to consent turn, objective is measured in search. totality examining terms of the circum- stances. require rule although Wyoming provision promulgated, majority does line usually states have followed it without to secure a warrant. ad- an affidavit dressing applicability respective their Amendment state constitutions. Commonwealth White, (1995) 543 Pa. A.2d SECURITY PROM UNWARRANT- cases). (collecting state courts that ABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE independently analyzed have whether their right to people of the be secure provisions greater provided protection, state houses, effects, persons, papers, their Louisiana, Massachusetts, Jersey, New New against unreasonable searches and sei- York, Nevada, Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, North zures, violated, shall not be and no War- Pennsylvania, Washington have not issue, probable cause, upon rants shall but Connecticut, adopted Idaho, Belton while Illi- supported by affirmation, par- Oath or nois, Iowa, Dakota, South and Wisconsin ticularly place describing rejecting gener- have.3 Those courts Belton searched, things or persons and the to be ally agree that the incident search to arrest seized. exception permitted required is when for the Const, amend. IV. U.S. officer, preservation protection of the Security against § 4. search and sei- evidence, or when it is relevant the crime zure. being for which defendant is arrested and is right light reasonable people be secure in of all facts. See White, persons, houses, 669 A.2d at 906-07. Those papers their and effects courts independently analyzing against unreasonable and sei- their state constitu- searches violated, permissible scope shall tions determine the zures not be and no warrant cause, an automobile search upon probable sup- shall issue incident arrest of but affidavit, usually driver ported by passengers its or have particularly describing either a long independent analysis place person or tradition of such be searched or thing history per- sufficient to be have constitutional seized. departing precedent mit federal Const, Wyo. § art. through principled reasoning. This Court has stated affidavit requirement strengthened provision Wyoming’s In the case search and sei provision, permanent because it creates a little record. zure there is Peterson, history Wyo. provide 194 P. available to clues as to the drafting This Court’s recent search framers’ intent when it. Further jurisprudence hampering analysis and seizure has not our fact distin- is the that this guished provisions. between the two Vas- both initiated then all but aban quez independent analysis that the contends textual difference and doned the state con history suggest provision during of the state it offers stitutional the 1920s and protection greater began determining than that offered 1930s and search and sei provision. bright- Since Belton zure issues under the Fourth Amendment Hernandez, Rejecting v. Belton: State 410 because that court decided that its has state 1381, (La.1982); provides greater protection So.2d 1385 Commonwealth v. constitution than the Toole, 159, 1264, provision. 389 Mass. 448 N.E.2d 1266-68 search and State federal seizure v. Giron, (1983); Pierce, 184, 1114, (Utah App.1997). State v. N.J. 642 943 136 A.2d P.2d 1121 947, (1994); Blasich, Accepting People 960 73 v. N.Y.2d Belton under their own state constitu 673, 40, 40, Waller, 283, 543 N.Y.S.2d N.E.2d State v. Conn. 541 44-45 tion: 223 612 A.2d 1189, (1989); Greenwald, 808, (1992); Charpentier, State v. 109 Nev. 858 1193 Statev. 131 Ida 36, (1993); Gilberts, 649, 1033, (1998); People 37 497 P.2d State v. N.W.2d ho 962 P.2d 1037 v. Brown, 93, (N.D.1993); Hoskins, 209, 107, 97 78 State v. 63 Ohio St.3d 101 Ill.2d UI.Dec. 461 349, 113, (1992), denied, 941, (1984), denied, 588 N.E.2d cert. 945 cert. 469 U.S. 114-15 N.E.2d 862, 182, 840, 142, (1984); U.S. 121 L.Ed.2d 105 S.Ct. 81 506 113 127 83 L.Ed.2d State 534, Kirsch, 418, Sanders, (Iowa (1992); 1981); Or.App. State v. 69 686 P.2d v. 312 N.W.2d 539 446, White, Rice, 128, (1984); (S.D.1982); 448-49 Commonwealth v. State v. 327 N.W.2d 131 45, 153, (1995); Fry, Pa. 669 A.2d 388 N.W.2d State State Wis.2d Stroud, denied, P.2d cert. U.S. Wash.2d 440-41 571 583, 107 S.Ct. (1986). (1986). applies "Belton-type analysis” Utah L.Ed.2d 586 as Su as the Federal Constitution well to United States same

with strict adherence counterpart many provisions which have no practice This preme Court decisions. in the Constitution. theo- essentially comply Federal required order to with existing, drafters protection rizes “declared” Supreme expansive Court’s to the Federal rights natural contrast rights during the 1960s provided to individual rights bill of confers 1970s, by Constitution’s Court’s and enforced already He contends interpre rights existence. comply its mandate that with states as well as the difference this evidence minimum Fourth Amendment tations-of the sug- preamble texts of two documents exclusionary or have the protections offered Ohio, Wyoming recognized has natural gests imposed. Mapp rule rights, signifying that the framers of the 654-55, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 dearly 1980s, Wyoming the notion held 1970s Constitution the late and strongly rights and intended to of individual began reducing protection Supreme Court Amendment, scope governmental of intrusion into producing limit Fourth rights. bright-line individual fragmented many decisions. much rules of Belton and Ross eliminated Wyoming preamble text of séemingly rulings caused inconsistent Constitution differs consti- analysis and fact-driven cleared confusion by referring tutional to what some com- text concerning search law for law automobile rights” identify as mentators “natural judiciary. local enforcement and the preamble which the Federal Constitution’s shifting precedent makes no mention: interpretations to from restrictive Belton’s We, people Wyoming, of the searches freed state authorization of broad civil, grateful political to God for our and analyzing to these issues courts return liberties, religious desiring to secure constitutions, leading-

under their own perpetuate them ourselves them began urging constitutional authorities soon posterity, do ordain and establish this our independent interpretations state courts. Constitution. The issue whether this Court should history exists which No state constitutional independent interpretation consider Wyoming would lead us to believe that ini Wyoming Constitution’s search and seizure strong tially rights individual as a included affirmatively was answered societal values or because it statement of litigant provide must -a instructions that greater protection in provide intended to precise, analytically approach sound when rights. The that can be dividual most defi advancing argument independently in- nitely from the differences in the ascertained terpret Dworkin v. state constitution. histories of the two documents constitutional L.F.P., Inc., (Wyo.1992); 839 P.2d may explained simple well fact that be (Wyo. 621-24 Saldana protection prevailing it was the view that 1993) (Golden, J., concurring). Vasquez ana- rights was individual considered lyzes recommended in several factors Salda- province the state and the federal argument na to that the state advance only upon government, acted the federal greater pro- provision provides accordingly. drafters acted counterpart. than its federal He tection Peterson, Wyo. 213, 194 P. at 350. This points first to textual differences between the prevailed though even view Civil War and constitu- federal constitutions clearly oper were intended to Amendments history greater protection justify his tional states, ultimately this ate on the view argument. legally changed because of the 1961 decision Mapp v. Ohio. Textual Differences The of the two foremost treatises authors Constitution, Wyoming history Wyoming drafted in on the Constitution’s be- they include lieve that have discerned an intent was written to a “declaration of provide greater protection of rights” many provisions which included tex- the framers to Although Wyoming substantially Dec- tually rights. either or citizens’ the the same identical, passed intent that Rights was “without ranco- it would demonstrate an laration of debate,” Wyoming provide the framers provision rous there is evidence the same principle protection provision. “endorsed the of liberal construc- as the federal See Si- York, Rights.” 40, 60-61, Robert B. of the Declaration tion bron Neio U.S. Newcomb, Wyoming- 1901-02, (1968); and Tim Keiter L.Ed.2d 917 Constitution, A Reference 11-12 Guide Cooper California, (1993). (1967); People 17 L.Ed.2d Belton, beginning century, In the when the 55 N.Y.2d N.Y.S.2d (1982) composed (recognizing Wyoming Supreme Court was of N.E.2d 745 that identical delegates provisions independent former con- mean do not that an vention, warranted). interpretation the court understood this section is not liberty protect stringently more than general, Wyoming Constitution protection provided the level of longer rights using does contain a list of Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitu- specific language more more detailed and early adopted equiva- tion. That court positively rights that declares contrast to rights lent to Miranda and the exclusion- prohibitory Federal Constitution’s use of ary fifty years than rule more before the language. Wyoming Constitution also (Maki judiciary federal followed suit language rights provided contains for (1911)). Wyo. 334] 112 P. [18 unique Federal Constitution. It is now, But in the aftermath of the Warren document, state, supreme law of our procedure rulings, Court’s criminal is reason that this sufficient to decide it Wyoming Supreme appears to follow should at issue whenever an individual precedent typically federal treats this constitutionally guaranteed right believes provision offering protection greater no has been Just as have violated. we done than does the Fourth Amendment. provisions with other state constitutional Id. 35. Liberal construction of state con- counterpart, which have no we think federal Rocky Region in the stitutions Mountain 1, § requires that Article 4 deserves and prevailing view. Id. at 12 The framers’ development principles upon which of sound deep rights rooted concern for individual to decide the search and seizure aris issues during demonstrated a debate at the consti- ing from state law enforcement action de tutional convention over whether it was spite counterpart activity its federal and the support worth cost to create and a su- generates United for the States “Lawyer preme George court. Smith of C. Development Court. of sound constitutional Rawlins asked: is the matter of a ‘what few principles on which to decide these issues compared thousand dollars with the may parallel lead to which the Unit decisions Larsen, liberty.’” History life and T.A. Court; may provide ed States appears It that there Court; greater protection may than that history was little direct available to the au- less, provide case the law federal thors, they properly resorted other result, prevail; would but whatever the competently sources to theorize about the analysis required state constitutional is un intent; however, purposes, framers’ for our a party to have an decided less desires issue these textual do differences not assist us one solely under the Federal Constitution. way or our another in determination. simple independently analyzes also contends that When state court 1, § language fact Article has different a state constitutional which has a counterpart, from the Fourth Amendment demonstrates it can the state address first; provide greater protection. intent issue or first decide whether claim Again, way knowing we have no whether fails under the Federal Constitution before true, issue; slight addressing is to think and tend the state or decide always paral- textual little. Nor issue will difference demonstrates resolution the state provisions we think had Our do been lel Fourth Amendment decisions.4 general analyz- ing rights provisions applying in state "There are several models Dworkin, analysis alleged error. consider the requiring independent an decision Saldana, 909; at 621-24 constitutional P.2d at 846 P.2d upon development sound obviously (Golden, J., concurring). principles not be workable The criteria listed would choice, choice, analytically and the second part third in are sound Saldana approach, is criticized as developing interstitial often our approach own constitution to think this would theory We do not concerning rights result-oriented. declared in al however, case; necessarily Constitution, to be the have litigants need Wyoming and approach suits our decision we analysis first best distinguishing not restrict their develop our constitutional must further own and constitutions. between the state federal by provision the state con- principles under theory appropri- constitutional sideration of Interpretations Prior ate to this state. Beginning in this Court decided Having decided that and seizure cases under state search people “be declaration that se Constitution’s provision great discussion of similar de- houses, persons, papers cure their by cisions the United State against unreasonable searches and effects Peterson, and other state courts. State independent interpreta requires an seizures” (1920). Wyo. P. 342 It was often regardless to or tion of its similarities differ ways adoption of this noted various Constitution, Federal we ences from the ceremony not an idle but the amendment was past decisions on must review this Court’s cornerstone of constitutions: analyze permis provisions in order to provision of This is the the Constitution searches, scope including a warrant- sible against unreasonable search and seizure less, search. automobile England protect adopted was decisions, examining Before those against wrongs which had arisen under however, Perry we must first address Warrants,” “General what was called State, withdrawn, in which opinion, later adopted the Fourth Amendment as Wyo majority that the of this Court ruled States, and ap- of the United Constitution ming provi Constitution’s search and seizure pears slightly all state constitutions sion, 1, 4,§ permit did not this Court Article varying language. State, Perry to follow Belton rule. withdrawn, Perry early P. at (Wyo.1991), Id. 344—45. Our (Wyo.1992). represent it to decisions understood “funda- P.2d 1284 Because withdrawn, props English American Pery Perry we hold that mental liber- precedential ty of the citizen and to be has no value. We would also individual most sacredly shortly and meant to restrain the point Perry out that after was with observed” enacting again, legislature allowing the issue was raised statutes drawn before seizures; operate this Court ruled that unreasonable search state is enforcement; only by precise, upon to forbid sues executives would decided judiciary analytically approach upon the to denounce as unlawful sound and advised liti they any Id. at gants that unless such an unreasonable search and seizure. advanced 198,194 said, however, argument independently interpret P. This Court at 345. constitution, this refuse Court would analogous primacy with an federal model views the tional terpart coun- constitutions. precisely independent construed 'state as an source should be same constitution '[ujnder way. Accordingly, tion, lockstep rights formula- on it as fundamental law.' and relies by recognizes changes law model af- or clarifications federal interstitial parallel States the United States Court lead forded the United Constitution mini- ” Randy guarantees changes Holland, if law.’ J. mal and seeks to ascertain those in state constitutional Purpose protections supplemented are or en- State Constitutions: Func- tion, (Fall 1996) provisions. Temp. hanced L.Rev. state constitutional also, Keiter, (footnotes omitted). sovereignty applicable B. dual See Robert model evaluates Interpreta- Essay Wyoming rights in state and federal constitutions in An on Constitutional both tion, lockstep and Water L.Rev. the context each case. The model is Land 541-550 premised proposition on the that a state constitu-

487 forbidden, 1 Section 4 Article of our Constitution sonable searches are and whether or not a search is a necessarily light question reasonable is must construed law to all be decided from the circumstances usages in of the immemorial connection of a case whether the search with rightful with arrest of a defendant. In George, 239, Wyo. without a warrant. 32 at right such of seizure of certain cases pros- 231 P. at 688. This did Court consider right property is incidental to the of ar- ecutorial contentions a warrantless rest. ... The law is well settled that an proper search was because the citizen had right party to search the has the threatening not resisted it as the constitu person take from his arrested and safeguards firmly disposed tional reasonably possession property from his peaceful idea that a citizen’s submission to a believed connected the crime.... to be adopted search amounted to a consent. We State, 491, 373, Wiggin Wyo. 480, v. 28 206 P. standard, convincing clear and defined con (1922). Wiggin, probed Court 376 “really voluntary sent as and with a desire to parameters ultimately exception, of this search, merely invite done not avoid issue; concluding that it need not decide the resistance,” and then threw out the convic however, argument it outlined the as: State, 368, 374, 255 Wyo. tion. v. Tobin 36 P. however, suggests, The case us before (1927). 788, 789 difficulty by the courts in encountered con- Several this Court’s last decisions inde struing provisions the constitutional above pendently interpreting the search and sei hand, quoted, so to leave on the one provision zure arose from violations thereof, unimpaired vigor the force and prohibition against federal constitutional sale abrogate and on the hand not other transport of alcohol. The of that result immemorial exercised connection recognition interpretation was ex with lawful arrests. ceptions requirement to the warrant extend 494, at P. at 377. The Id. 206 limitations of ed to automobiles. We decided that a search exception regard search of of an automobile without a warrant cannot be person explained the arrested were in Roose said to circum be unreasonable under all State, 478, (Wyo.1988) (citing v. 759 P.2d 482 stances, specifically allowed automobile 762-63, California, at Chimel 89 probable when is searches there cause for 2040). at believing that a vehicle is contra carrying The next few decisions indicated that this illegal goods band or and searches incidental willing recognize excep Court remained 455, Wyo. v. Kelly, to lawful arrest. State 38 requirement, tions search warrant al 459-60, 571, (1928); 268 P: 572 State v. lowing plainly property the seizure of in view (1929); 508, Young, Wyo. P. State open away field from the home of 404, 408, Munger, Wyo. 4 P.2d lawfully defendant had been who arrested (1931). recognized Munger Wig- probable upon George, cause. State 32 gin authorized a search incident to a lawful (1924). Wyo. 231 P. This ruled the but defendant’s arrest was provi also not that the did consider without unlawful reversed conviction compromised by safeguards sion’s would be permissible about the of an scope comment ruling a violation of the was harm search incident to Mun- automobile arrest. happened Crump, error as less Wyo. ger, Kelly, at 4 P.2d at 1095. Wyo. Crump 246 P. time, recognized for the first automo claimed that it error to was reversible admit granted protection than biles were less search, gained illegal evidence from an but homes under the from warrantless searches that, this Court determined Constitution, where there had probable Federal but held that adequate objection been an the admis justify cause must automobile warrantless sion and the defendant had testified and Kelly, Wyo. at at 572. search. 268 P. illegal possession liquor, admitted his again the That distinction was discussed in Gilki (Wyo.1965), violation would be considered harmless. Id. son v. 404 P.2d 755 when rulings constitutionality game 246 P. at Those issued we confirmed the only allowing automo from standard review that unrea and fish statute warrantless place cause, expectation privacy in the probable noting legitimate upon bile searches decided that a car own searched. Parkhurst that: legiti standing had passenger er and a validity the to search and the of right privacy in expectations mate a vehicle dependent right on to are not the seizure permit challenge to the its trunk sufficient to on rea- They dependent are the arrest. search. Id. at 1374. seizing the officer has for sonable cause the belief the contents of automobile that past These decisions establish that the against offend law. 1, § 4 incident Article allows searches Gilkison, P.2d at 757-758. 404 can to allow automobile arrest and be said specifying the claim was whether Without possession of arrestees had searches because provision the had that state or it, enforcement and the arrest authorizes law violated, the court’s next cases clarified been for it evidence related to crime. search early decisions that the court followed its 491, Wyo. 28 206 P. at 376. The Wiggin, at permitting automobile warrantless searches however, provision requires, that searches be under all of the circum which are reasonable all of the reasonable under circumstances. States Su stances and followed the United 460, Wyo. P. Kelly, 38 at 268 at 572. cases, that, in these preme decisions Court Vasquez, In the his erratic case prac did not have to consider whether it is investigatory stop, driving permitted an procure Whiteley a warrant. tical search strong smell alcohol failure of field State, (Wyo.1966); 164, P.2d 168 Be 418 sobriety for tests authorized arrest driv 238, P.2d 241 City Casper, london v. upon ing while under the influence based denied, (Wyo.1969), U.S. cert. probable Munger, Wyo. at 408- cause. Whiteley 26 L.Ed.2d 89 09, 4 at The characteristics of a P.2d 1095. burglary. for Af stopped arrested driving arrest for while under influence arrest, ter the was searched and car permit suspected alcohol intoxication a burglary were several items related to the passenger compartment of the of the search appealed, claiming He the search recovered. intoxicant, narcotic, any vehicle for alcohol or warrant, required upheld a and we it as driving to the as evidence related crime permissible automobile search warrantless while under the influence. incident arrest discussion of its without scope. Whiteley, 418 at 166.5 P.2d whether, We have considered recog provision, permissible

It until that this Court the state was not under for scope nized federal rationale that inherent search incident arrest auto containers, mobility specific well as diminish mobiles includes and the of automobiles as question expectation privacy involved use before is whether the search of ed us regulation dispa box for related to the crime of automobiles allowed the fuse evidence compared all circum rate of automobiles was reasonable under of the treatment State, P.2d that Belton property. to other Neilson stances. State contends (Wyo.1979). adopted In rule Parkhurst should be as the under 1330-31 denied, provision. (Wyo.1981), P.2d 1369 cert. Belton was formulated answer any specific question privacy 216 to 102 S.Ct. 70 L.Ed.2d whether without, (1981), discussion, right occupant held existed a vehicle after Court for justified standing require limiting permissible arrest which had require scope ment which be met as well as a of a warrantless automobile search and must outweighed ment had a need national uni- claimant must have for addressing Whiteley,418 at 167. 5. Besides the search incident to ar- cause for arrest. rest, Warden, Wyo. Penitentiary, Whiteley arresting Whiteley discussed whether the probable officer to malte A 28 L.Ed.2d 306 had cause the arrest. U.S. justice peace United that the of the issued a warrant for White- States Court held probable ley's police provide and a state bulletin issued. did not cause arrest bulletin county arrest occurred another arrest and ruled the and seizure acting upon goods bulletin. Court were unreasonable This stolen provided probable determined that the bulletin Fourth Amendment. formity in a rules clear set of that would aid Is application this result a narrower than clearly police. protec- Belton offers minimal Belton? think so.. We This result eschews a bright-line against rule tion an unreasonable search and sei- and maintains a standard requires vast, a search be effectively apply zure in order to reasonable under all of the circumstances as determined citizenry national with which the United judiciary, light of the historical intent must be States concerned. Peterson, our search provision. and seizure willingness Our earliest decisions reveal our Wyo. P. at It will not be recognize exceptions to the warrant re- common that a search of an automobile inci- homes, automobiles, quirement for and other provision, dent to arrest will violate that property, implicitly recognize a Belton- our decision should not raise new concerns type privacy search without in- discussion of for law enforcement. rationale, or other terests but Belton’s na- citizenry apply tional in rationale does not Legality Stop of the Traffic Wyoming. issue, Vasquez In his next contends United States Court and stop that the traffic made law enforce jurisdictions recognize

other that the ratio- ment violated his state and federal constitu permitting nale for searches incident to ar- rights against tional unwarranted search and prevent rest reaching is the arrestee from Vasquez’s argument seizure. relies on weapons concealing or destroying or evi- Fourth Amendment decisions and not does White, dence. See 669 A.2d at A argument advance an under the state consti search incident to arrest under our state will, specific stops, tution to traffic and we provision for these reasons is reasonable. therefore, decide this issue under the Fourth mobility The inherent automobiles com- stop Amendment. He contends that the public safety bination with officer and con- anonymous tip made on the basis of an cerns created passenger when driver or a is White, violation of Alabama v. exigent arrested are weighing circumstances 110 L.Ed.2d 301 restricting scope, timing, favor of not intensity Vasquez’s or of such a search. In State, in McChesney We held 988 P.2d case, approached as the officers the vehicle that, (Wyo.1999), usually, 1076-78 it, passengers two seated shell cas- itself, anonymous tip, by REDDI is not suffi- ings possibili- in the back alerted them to the ciently investigatory reliable to warrant an ty handgun, of a small and an officer testified ease, stop. tip In this the REDDI described possibility presence it was the of the of this color, make direction of travel of weapon which led to the search of the vehicle vehicle, Vasquez’s occupants, described casings and the fuse box. The shell and the driving. described its erratic McChes- presence passengers presented of two adult ney held that “where ... the informant safety public safety an officer and a concern prediction makes no of future behavior indi- permitted a search incident to arrest information,’ cating ‘inside investigating although Vasquez’s arrest had been accom- required tip officer is to corroborate the plished patrol and he was secure inside a car. fashion, usually by observing some ei- .other appears It passen- from the record that the driving ther a traffic or violation indicative of and, gers although were also arrested we are impairment.” (citing Pinkney Id. at 1077 told, it would seem their arrest created State, (Fla. App. 666 So.2d 4 Dist. the need for the officers to secure the vehicle 1996)). if left on In particular the roadside. case, justified case, we believe the arrest In this the officer did observe passenger compartment objective search of the firsthand an manifestation of crimi it, vehicle open State, and all containers in activity. or nal Olson 698 P.2d closed, unlocked, locked or (Wyo.1985). evidence relat- “The intrusiveness of a weapons ed to the crime and for or contra- upheld search or seizure if it was will presented public band which totality officer or a reasonable of the circum safety State, concern. stances.” Brown v. 944 P.2d court, Here, against entitled re- him in he is (Wyo.1997). officer had by pickup attorney, appointed. retained or report driving of erratic to an either

ceived a State, occupants (Wyo. had containing truck three Kolb v. 930 P.2d 1996). reporting determining hit and almost whether Miranda veered toward attempted pass. violated, The officer party it defen- as we focus on whether the matching description spotted interroga- subjected a truck dant was “custodial weaving slightly within its observed to the offi- tion” he made statements before passing own it veered towards lane. When cers. Martinez v. 943 P.2d car, suspicion of the officer had reasonable (Wyo.1997). Interrogation is defined ability legiti- impaired driving and initiated a part police “words on the offi- or actions stop. investigatory mate We find no federal they have known were rea- cers that should caused violation the traffic sonably incriminating likely to elicit an re- stop. Simmers, “A sponse.” 943 P.2d at 1197. product not the of interro- statement that is Suppress Denial of Motion Statements gation authori- compulsion attributable to Finally, Vasquez improper contends state ties or other action is volun- that the some “booking” tary during on June 16 admissible.” Id. ments he made and involuntary in procedures obtained were and custody Vasquez in at the time Arizona, Miranda 384 U.S. violation of incriminating regard he made his statement 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d and cocaine; however, ing the there is no evi agents that his statements to on asserts DCI interrogation compulsion dence that June 17 obtained violation of his were make caused him to it. He asked officers right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment charges against him officer what to the United States Constitution. were; charge driving when told ruling A trial court’s on a motion influence, might but while under the that he suppress to a statement involuntariness is possession charged be later for of metham de novo. Simmers reviewed phetamine, voluntarily he stated that (Wyo.1997). P.2d find Factual The ad substance was cocaine. officer then ings considering court a trial made anything say vised him The trial not to else. suppress motion will not disturbed to correctly court ruled this statement was ad findings clearly erroneous. unless the are voluntary missible as a statement. Evans, (Wyo. State v. 1997). oppor court Because the trial has the Next, Vasquez ap claims that his tunity hear the evidence assess the to county pearance regard court on June 16 witnesses, credibility to make the ing driving while under the influence inferences, deductions, necessary conclu charge right invoked his Sixth Amendment therefrom, sions the evidence in the is viewed counsel, pos it extended and that light to the trial most favorable court’s deter charge. Consequently, session he contends mination. Id. constitutionally that were the officers barred

Vasquez interviewing him on he contends that the “book June 17 because ing” requires his procedure to an did not initiate the interview or waive defendants questions right present. swer which violate as Miranda. We have counsel We will Vasquez properly requested need that issue sume not address now that because appointment particular sup which he moved to of counsel. State contends statement Supreme press response has was not to an officer’s the United States Court question, voluntary right was an held Amendment but unsolicited Sixth by Vasquez specific, remark counsel and cannot be made after an is offense responded query regarding prospective prosecutions to his future extended to charges relating against warnings him. re to other offenses. McNeil v. Wis Miranda consin, quire police during to inform accused 501 U.S. S.Ct. McNeil, interrogation may remain L.Ed.2d 158 custodial he silent, anything may charge on said be used the defendant was arrested robbery represented by a Wyoming and was can armed Constitution such instances judicial public during hearing. a bail lead to further erosion of sover- defender jail, eignty approach. visited waived his Mi- in favor of a federalist defendant was questioned rights, and then was about randa including admit-

other a murder. He crimes

ted to those crimes and was convicted suppress

them. Pretrial motions to his denied,

statements were and the decision was

upheld appeal. on held had

that McNeil invoked his Sixth Amend- counsel, right right ment but that is of- Selby, Teresa R. and Frank P. SELBY specific, fense cannot be invoked once wife, Appellants husband McNeil, prosecutions. for all future (Plaintiffs), at 2207. invoked Sixth Amend CONQUISTADOR APARTMENTS, right ment counsel for the of driv offense LTD., Wyoming partnership, ing under the influence. invoca while That (Defendant). Appellee tion for the cocaine was ineffective offense of possession, properly statements were No. 98-321. Moreover, that an admitted. McNeil tells us Wyoming. Court of right invocation of Sixth Amendment imply right counsel does Miranda Nov. at counsel. Id. at 2208. The apparently trial did court not believe Vas

quez’s testimony requested that he counsel interview; within beginning that is discretion,

the trial court’s and his state properly admitted.

ments were

The conviction is affirmed. Justice,

THOMAS, concurring specially. agree Yasquez’s

I conviction should be joinder my do

affirmed. I not wish to have manifesting, any degree, that result

any my position articulated recession

my McChesney dissent in

1071, (Wyo.1999). my I remain steadfast anonymous report

view that the in this in- provided requisite

stance have ar- would suspicion justify investigatory

ticulable

stop. pursu-

I a caveat to the also add choice of basis,

ing, independent hoc state on an ad analysis in instances in proscribed by

the criminal conduct is both that, Reality law. be- and federal is adopting Congress

cause of action of sentencing guidelines, many

strict violations

of the controlled substances statutes are tak-

en to court lieu of state court.

adoption protections broader

Case Details

Case Name: Vasquez v. State

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Nov 16, 1999

Citation: 990 P.2d 476

Docket Number: 97-140

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.