Pier v. State
Decision Date | 12 July 2018 |
Docket Number | S-17-0205 |
Citation | 421 P.3d 565 |
Parties | Joshua Lee PIER, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: Office of the Wyoming State Public Defender: Diane Lozano, Wyoming State Public Defender; Tina N. Olson* , Chief Appellate Counsel; Christopher G. Humphrey, Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Humphrey.
Representing Appellee: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; Christyne Martens, Deputy Attorney General; Benjamin Fischer, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Fischer.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and HILL† , BURKE‡ , FOX and KAUTZ, JJ.
[¶1] Joshua Lee Pier pled guilty to felony possession of anabolic steroids found in a search of his vehicle, subject to the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the drugs found in his vehicle. We affirm.
[¶2] Mr. Pier presents four issues on appeal:
[¶3] On September 6, 2016, at around 2:45 p.m., Deputy Derrick Colling of the Albany County Sheriff’s Office was on patrol in Laramie, Wyoming. He was traveling south on 3rd Street when he observed an oncoming truck with a basketball-sized crack in the windshield, covering about a quarter of the passenger side, just to the right of center. Because Deputy Colling believed the crack obstructed the driver’s view and was thus a traffic violation, he made a U-turn with the intention of stopping the truck.
[¶4] Before Deputy Colling activated his overhead lights, the truck turned left at Clark Street and onto a bridge over the railroad tracks. Deputy Colling waited through a red light at the intersection and then turned onto the bridge and saw the truck turn left off Clark Street onto Cedar Street. As Deputy Colling caught up to the truck, it signaled briefly and pulled abruptly to the right curb. Deputy Colling then activated his overhead lights and initiated a traffic stop.
[¶5] Deputy Colling approached the truck and asked for the driver’s identification, and learned that he was Joshua Pier. Deputy Colling described his initial interactions and observations when he spoke to Mr. Pier.
[¶6] When Deputy Colling returned to his vehicle, he conducted a records check and found out Mr. Pier’s license was valid and that he had no outstanding warrants or anything else of note. As he was completing the records check, he recalled information he had learned months earlier about Mr. Pier.
[¶7] Deputy Colling began preparing a citation for the cracked windshield, and because he needed Mr. Pier’s contact information to complete it, he returned to Mr. Pier’s vehicle. On his return, Deputy Colling saw that the black pouch that had been behind Mr. Pier’s right leg was no longer there, which further raised his suspicions.
[¶8] Deputy Colling proceeded to ask Mr. Pier for his contact information so he could complete the citation. He "really stuttered over his words" when he gave Deputy Colling his address and then inverted the numbers when he repeated his address. He did the same thing with his telephone number, which caused Deputy Colling to believe that he was trying to conceal where he lived. Deputy Colling then asked Mr. Pier where he was coming from and where he was headed. His responses caught Deputy Colling’s attention because his destination was a mile or more away from where he pulled over. Deputy Colling then asked Mr. Pier why he had pulled over on Cedar Street. He stated that he stopped in front of the house to see a friend or someone who lived there, but when Deputy Colling asked who lived in the house, he could not provide a name and just stated, "I don't know." Deputy Colling then asked Mr. Pier if he had any weapons in the vehicle, to which he responded that he had some knives.
[¶9] After this second contact, Deputy Colling decided to detain Mr. Pier and request that a K-9 unit be dispatched to his location. He explained his decision:
[¶10] When Mr. Pier exited his vehicle, he left his door open and Deputy Colling was able to see that the black pouch had been tucked underneath the truck’s center console. Deputy Colling directed Mr. Pier toward the front of his patrol vehicle, conducted a pat-down of his person, and then called for a K-9 unit. Deputy Colling described what occurred during the time they waited for the K-9 unit.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Randall
... ... But this is precisely what trial courts are supposed to do when applying the facts to the law in these circumstances. Courts routinely rely on handler testimony to determine whether a drug dog acted instinctively or was trained, encouraged, or guided into a vehicle. Pier v. State , 421 P.3d 565, 586 (Wyo. 2018) (drug dog's handler is uniquely qualified to interpret that dog's behaviors during a sniff); United States v. Ludwig , 10 F.3d 1523, 1528 (10th Cir. 1993) (giving greater weight to handler testimony to resolve discrepancy between handler and non-handler ... ...
- Pier v. State
-
Ray v. State
...his right to make this new argument on appeal and we will not consider it on the merits. Pier v. State , 2018 WY 79, ¶¶ 19-20, 421 P.3d 565, 570-71 (Wyo. 2018).B. Reasonableness of the Officers’ Actions[¶16] Mr. Ray challenges the reasonableness of the officers’ actions under the Fourth Ame......