Gompf v. State

Decision Date07 September 2005
Docket NumberNo. 04-55.,04-55.
Citation120 P.3d 980,2005 WY 112
PartiesJason Leland GOMPF, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

Representing Appellant: Ken Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; and Marion Yoder, Senior Assistant Public Defender. Argument by Ms. Yoder.

Representing Appellee: Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Dee Morgan, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Eric Johnson, Director, PAP; and Michael Stulken, Student Intern, PAP. Argument by Mr. Stulken.

Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.

KITE, Justice.

[¶ 1] A jury convicted Jason Gompf of possession of a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana, with intent to deliver, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(a)(ii) (LexisNexis 2003). Prior to trial, Mr. Gompf filed two motions to suppress the evidence and statements obtained by police during an encounter with him at his place of residence. The district court denied both motions, and Mr. Gompf appeals his conviction claiming the evidence should have been suppressed. Finding no error in the district court's denial of the suppression motions, we affirm Mr. Gompf's conviction.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] Mr. Gompf presents the following issues for review:

Issue I

Whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress evidence.

Issue II

Whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to suppress statements.

The State rephrases the issues as follows:

I. Whether the district court properly denied appellant's motion to suppress the evidence found in his room?

II. Whether the district court properly denied appellant's motion to suppress the statements he made to law enforcement officers?

FACTS

[¶ 3] On March 10, 2003, at approximately 12:16 a.m., Officer Daniel Stroup was dispatched to a Gillette motel to interview David Frazier about a stolen handgun. Mr. Frazier told Officer Stroup that he had stolen a Ruger semi-automatic 9 mm handgun from an individual in Sheridan, Wyoming, and it was in the possession of Herb Morgan who lived at 815 E. 5th Street in Gillette. After speaking with Mr. Frazier for approximately 45 minutes, Officer Stroup returned to the police department to "make inquires concerning the handgun."

[¶ 4] Officer Stroup was unable to confirm any report of a stolen handgun matching Mr. Frazier's description. Nevertheless, shortly after 2:00 a.m., Officer Stroup and three other officers1 drove to 815 E. 5th Street to speak with Mr. Morgan. The home was owned by Peggy VanLitsenborgh, and Mr. Morgan was a tenant in the home. Officer Stroup and Officer Overton knocked on the door after noticing several interior lights were on. Mr. Morgan answered the door and invited the officers inside. The officers explained they had received a report of a stolen handgun and wanted to talk to him about it. Ms. VanLitsenborgh approached and asked everyone to step outside. Officer Stroup and Officer Carter stepped outside with Mr. Morgan while Officer Overton remained in the entryway with Ms. VanLitsenborgh. Officer Stroup continued to question Mr. Morgan outside, and asked whether the stolen handgun was in the house. Mr. Morgan stated that he had received a handgun from Mr. Frazier, and it was in the basement in a safe.

[¶ 5] The officers and Mr. Morgan re-entered the house and Ms. VanLitsenborgh offered to show the officers where the gun was in the basement. She led the officers downstairs, where the officers smelled burnt marijuana and observed Mr. Gompf and Jamie Nelms sitting in chairs in the family room. Ms. VanLitsenborgh showed the officers a .22 caliber semi-automatic pistol. They informed her the gun did not match Mr. Frazier's description of the stolen handgun, but she denied having any other guns in the house.

[¶ 6] The officers then asked the group about the smell of burnt marijuana in the air. Ms. VanLitsenborgh responded that she had a personal stash in her bedroom, which she would surrender. Officer Overton indicated he would have to accompany Ms. VanLitsenborgh to her bedroom to retrieve the marijuana, but she responded that she "didn't feel comfortable [having them] in her house without a warrant." In anticipation of needing a warrant, the officers asked everyone to move upstairs, conducted a protective sweep of the basement "to make sure... no other individuals [were] hiding," and secured the occupants in the upstairs living room. Officers Stroup and Overton proceeded to the county attorney's office to apply for a search warrant, which was issued "shortly after 4 a.m." The warrant sought marijuana, packing materials, pipes, bongs, related paraphernalia and the stolen Ruger 9-mm handgun and two clips.

[¶ 7] The officers began the search of the VanLitsenborgh residence at approximately 4:50 a.m. While other officers were searching the basement of the house, Officer Stroup conversed with Mr. Gompf outside on the front porch. Officer Stroup asked about the handgun and then inquired whether there were any drugs in the house. Mr. Gompf informed him that one quarter ounce of marijuana could be found in his bedroom.

[¶ 8] During the search, the officers discovered marijuana, pay-owe sheets,2 a scale, a live marijuana plant, and paraphernalia in Mr. Gompf's bedroom. Corporal McGrath told Mr. Gompf about the items they found in his bedroom and asked him if he was a drug dealer. Mr. Gompf initially denied selling drugs, claiming they were only for his personal use. He subsequently admitted he sold drugs to his friends.

[¶ 9] The discovery of the drugs and paraphernalia caused the officers to apply for a second warrant to further search the residence, Mr. Gompf's car, and all persons in the house. The second warrant was issued at 8:45 a.m. When the officers returned to the scene with the second warrant, Detective Paige Wells and day shift personnel arrived. Detective Wells was briefed on the situation, surveyed the evidence found up to that point, and interviewed those present, including Mr. Gompf, individually in an upstairs bedroom. At the suppression hearing, Detective Wells testified that, before beginning her interview of Mr. Gompf, she informed him of his constitutional rights in accordance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), but she admitted that she recited the rights without the aid of a Miranda card. According to Detective Wells, Mr. Gompf indicated he understood his rights. However, Mr. Gompf denied receiving any Miranda warnings.

[¶ 10] Detective Wells testified that she then asked Mr. Gompf a series of questions and learned he had lived at the residence for about one year. Mr. Gompf admitted that the marijuana, including the plant, and the pay-owe sheets belonged to him. Nevertheless, he denied selling marijuana, claiming he used it himself and "gave" it to his friends. Mr. Gompf refused to provide Detective Wells with any of his friends' names. The interview lasted approximately 15 minutes, after which Detective Wells arrested Mr. Gompf and transported him to the Campbell County Detention Center.

[¶ 11] Mr. Gompf was charged with possession of a Schedule I controlled substance with intent to deliver, in violation of § 35-7-1031(a)(ii) and entered a plea of not guilty. Prior to trial, Mr. Gompf filed a motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the searches. Mr. Gompf's motion included three bases for suppression: 1) the officers did not have "reasonable cause" to come to his home in the middle of the night; 2) the warrants were invalid because they did not include the affidavits for the search warrants; and 3) the officers improperly executed the second warrant at 4:50 a.m. when it required execution during daytime hours. At the suppression hearing, Mr. Gompf withdrew the third basis for his motion and limited his argument to the first two issues. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court orally denied the motion to suppress the searches "based on the testimony ... and the examination of the warrants."

[¶ 12] Mr. Gompf filed a second motion, seeking suppression of the statements he made while he was "detained by or in the custody of Gillette Police Department officers on March 11, 2003, at 815 E. 5th St., Gillette, Wyoming," as well as all evidence obtained as the fruit of his statements. The district court held a hearing and, subsequently, denied that motion as well.

[¶ 13] A jury found Mr. Gompf guilty of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and the district court sentenced him to three to five years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary and fined him $10,000. The court suspended the sentence of incarceration and $5,000.00 of the fine and instead ordered him to spend one year in the Campbell County Detention Center followed by six years of probation. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 14] We review a district court's legal ruling on a motion to suppress evidence de novo, giving deference to the trial court's findings of fact, unless they are clearly erroneous. Hannon v. State, 2004 WY 8, ¶ 12, 84 P.3d 320, 328 (Wyo.2004); Gunn v. State, 2003 WY 24, ¶ 5, 64 P.3d 716, 719 (Wyo.2003). This Court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court's decision because that court is in the best position to "assess the witnesses' credibility and make the necessary inferences, deductions, and conclusions therefrom." Meek v. State, 2002 WY 1, ¶ 8, 37 P.3d 1279, 1282 (Wyo.2002) (citation omitted). The constitutionality of a particular search or seizure is a question of law which we review de novo. Id.

DISCUSSION
A. First Motion to Suppress

[¶ 15] Mr. Gompf contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the searches of his residence. Mr. Gompf presents a multi-faceted argument,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Rideout v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • October 28, 2005
    ...residence. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Gompf v. State, 2005 WY 112, ¶ 17, 120 P.3d 980, 985 (Wyo.2005). "It is axiomatic that the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of t......
  • Mills v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • December 13, 2022
    ...(citing California v. Beheler , 463 U.S. 1121, 1122-1123, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (per curiam )); see also Gompf v. State , 2005 WY 112, ¶ 33, 120 P.3d 980, 989 ("elapsed amount of time between questioning and the arrest" as factor in custody analysis) (citing Wunder v. State......
  • United States v. Vaughn
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • December 17, 2019
    ...became "overpowering" after defendant opened his apartment door "provided probable cause for issuance of the warrant"); Gompf v. State , 120 P.3d 980, 986 (Wyo. 2005) (holding the smell of marijuana while lawfully inside a home in a common area supported "probable cause to justify the issua......
  • Mills v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • December 13, 2022
    ...(citing California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1122-1123, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (per curiam)); see also Gompf v. State, 2005 WY 112, ¶ 33, 120 P.3d 980, 989 ("elapsed amount of time between questioning and the arrest" as factor in custody analysis) 21 (citing Wunder v. State......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT