Damato v. State
Decision Date | 29 January 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 01-88.,01-88. |
Parties | Nicholas DAMATO, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Daniel G. Blythe, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee: Hoke MacMillan, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Theodore E. Lauer, Director, and Michael J. Crosson, Student Intern, of the Prosecution Assistance Program. Argument by Mr. Crosson.
Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN1, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.
[¶ 1] Appellant Nicholas Damato's stop for a traffic violation led to the discovery of more than 300 pounds of marijuana in the trunk of his car. After charges were filed, the district court granted his motion to suppress this evidence; however, upon the State's motion for reconsideration, the trial court reversed its ruling. In its second ruling, the district court denied the motion to suppress the evidence upon finding that the marijuana would inevitably have been discovered by a canine drug sniff. Damato entered a conditional plea of guilty, preserving his right to appeal the evidentiary ruling, and now appeals this denial.
[¶ 2] We reverse and remand.
The State believes the issues are:
[¶ 4] The parties do not dispute the following findings of fact made by the district court:
[¶ 5] The district court determined that the trooper improperly ordered Damato from the car and the subsequent pat-down required that the motion to suppress be granted. The State filed for reconsideration, contending that the inevitable discovery doctrine applied because the marijuana in the trunk would have been discovered by the canine sniff that had been ordered. Following a hearing that established the reliability of the particular dog, the district court denied the motion to suppress.
[¶ 6] Damato entered a conditional plea of guilty and was sentenced to four and one-half to nine years and fined $10,000.00. This appeal followed.
[¶ 7] Our standard of review was stated in McChesney v. State, 988 P.2d 1071, 1074 (Wyo.1999):
Findings on factual issues made by the district court considering a motion to suppress are not disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215, 218 (Wyo.1994). Since the district court conducts the hearing on the motion to suppress and has the opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses, weigh the evidence, and make the necessary inferences, deductions, and conclusions, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the district court's determination. Id. The issue of law, whether an unreasonable search or seizure has occurred in violation of constitutional rights, is reviewed de novo. Id.; Brown v. State, 944 P.2d 1168, 1170-71 (Wyo.1997).
[¶ 8] A state constitutional analysis is required unless a party desires to have an issue decided solely under the Federal Constitution. Vasquez v. State, 990 P.2d 476, 485 (Wyo.1999). Damato limits his analysis to the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. That amendment protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV.
The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security. Reasonableness, of course, depends on a balance between the public interest and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wade v. State
...officer who asks them potentially incriminating questions are likely to exhibit some signs of nervousness.”). 43.See Damato v. State, 64 P.3d 700, 709 (Wyo.2003) (when motorist refused officer consent to search car, and officer then asked “whether there was some reason he did not want the o......
-
Pier v. State
...cannot play any part in a probable cause analysis. Dimino v. State , 2012 WY 131, ¶ 13, 286 P.3d 739, 743 (Wyo. 2012) (quoting Damato v. State , 2003 WY 13, ¶ 19, 64 P.3d 700, 708 (Wyo. 2003) ). Although the district court purported to place no emphasis on Mr. Pier’s assertion of his right ......
-
Lall v. State
...State v. Vandenberg , 134 N.M. 566, 81 P.3d 19 (2003) (same); State v. Ballard , 617 N.W.2d 837 (S.D. 2000) (same); Damato v. State , 64 P.3d 700 (Wyo. 2003) (same); and comparing Kinlin v. Kline , 749 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2014) ; Wilder v. Turner , 490 F.3d 810 (10th Cir. 2007) ; Miller v. H......
-
O'Boyle v. State
...[¶ 34] We previously have expressed disapproval of the use of traffic violations as a pretext to conduct narcotics investigations. Damato v. State, 2003 WY 13, ¶ 13, 64 P.3d 700, ¶ 13 (Wyo.2003). In Damato, we joined in another state court's expression of concern about sanctioning conduct "......