Pierce v. State

• Decision Date: 15 November 2007
• Docket Number: No. 05-145.,05-145.
• Citation: 171 P.3d 525,2007 WY 182
• Parties: Roy Dean PIERCE, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

171 P.3d 525

2007 WY 182

Roy Dean PIERCE, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. 05-145.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

November 15, 2007.

Representing Appellant: Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Marion Yoder, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel; and Ryan R. Roden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Yoder.

Representing Appellee: Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Eric A. Johnson, Director, Jonathan Haidsiak, Student Director, and Orintha Karns, Student Intern, of the Prosecution Assistance Program. Argument by Ms. Karns.

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

VOIGT, Chief Justice.

[¶ 1] A Casper police officer arrested Roy Dean Pierce (the appellant) for two traffic violations and proceeded to search the vehicle the appellant had been occupying prior to the arrest. The appellant later filed a motion in the district court to suppress the drug-related evidence that the officer seized from the vehicle. The district court denied the motion. On appeal, the appellant claims that the officer's search violated both the Wyoming Constitution and the United States Constitution. We agree that the search violated the Wyoming Constitution and, accordingly, reverse and remand this matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] 1. Whether the search at issue in the instant case violated Article 1, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution?

2. Whether the search at issue in the instant case violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

FACTS

[¶ 3] Casper police officer Wesley Gudahl was patrolling a local park at 5:19 a.m. on September 4, 2004, when he observed the appellant sitting in a parked four-door Subaru station wagon. The appellant was "laying back in the [driver's] seat" with one foot on the dashboard and when the officer illuminated the vehicle, the appellant "raised his head and then flopped it back." Concerned for the appellant's welfare and because the park was closed,¹ the officer knocked on the appellant's window. The appellant rolled down the window and the two engaged in what the officer characterized as a "friendly" conversation. The appellant, who was cooperative and did not appear to be in distress, indicated that he had just been "kicked out" of his residence and was moving to another location—the vehicle was indeed full of boxes, luggage and "this and that." He also stated that he had driven that morning to a convenience store for a newspaper and coffee, and was waiting in the park until daylight so as not to disturb the occupants of his new residence.

[¶ 4] Officer Gudahl asked the appellant for his driver's license and proof of motor vehicle liability insurance. The appellant produced a Montana driver's license and volunteered that the license was suspended. He added that he did not have proof of insurance because he was in the process of transferring the insurance from another vehicle to the Subaru. A dispatcher confirmed that the appellant's license was suspended, and Officer Gudahl decided to arrest the appellant for driving under suspension² and for failing to maintain liability insurance.

[¶ 5] While Officer Gudahl waited for a backup officer to arrive and assist him with the appellant's arrest, the officer checked the Subaru's temporary registration tag because the appellant had indicated that he owned the vehicle. The registration tag stated that the vehicle was registered to a Ms. Currie. The officer asked the appellant about this, and the appellant responded that a Mr. and Mrs. Ritchie owned the vehicle. When Officer Gudahl explained that neither of them was the individual named on the temporary registration tag, the appellant agreed that Ms. Currie owned the vehicle, stated that the Ritchies were her parents, and claimed that he had permission to use the vehicle.³

[¶ 6] Meanwhile, the backup officer arrived. Officer Gudahl asked the appellant to exit the Subaru, the appellant complied, and the officer handcuffed the appellant. Officer Gudahl conducted a "pat down" search of the appellant's person, which search produced no additional evidence or weapons. The backup officer placed the appellant in the back of Officer Gudahl's patrol car, where the appellant remained while Officer Gudahl searched the Subaru.

[¶ 7] Officer Gudahl proceeded to search the area of the Subaru in which the appellant had been sitting, including under and behind the driver's seat and between the driver's seat and the front passenger seat.⁴ The officer noticed an open black bag on the floorboard behind the driver's seat. Just inside the top of the bag was a partially-closed eyeglasses case containing several syringes⁵ — the syringes were "coming out from the glasses case" and were visible once the officer opened the rear driver's side door without manipulating the case.⁶ When the officer searched the nylon bag, he discovered evidence of drug use—three baggies containing suspected methamphetamine residue, syringes containing suspected liquid methamphetamine, a spoon, and several "roach clips" (paraphernalia used to smoke drugs "to make sure that you get it all without burning your fingers"). The officer then searched other containers in the vehicle and found items with suspected methamphetamine residue, a glass cylinder pipe containing suspected marijuana, phone numbers and names of individuals later determined to be involved in the drug trade, and a diary with a recipe and ingredients list for manufacturing methamphetamine.⁷

[¶ 8] The appellant was charged with three felonies: 1) possession of powder or crystalline methamphetamine, third or subsequent offense, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(i) (LexisNexis 2007); 2) possession of liquid methamphetamine, third or subsequent offense, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(i); and 3) possession of a quantity of liquid methamphetamine exceeding .3 grams, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(ii).⁸ He filed a motion to suppress the evidence Officer Gudahl seized from the Subaru because the officer's warrantless search of the vehicle violated both the Wyoming Constitution and the United States Constitution. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion. The appellant then entered a conditional guilty plea⁹ to one felony count of possession of methamphetamine, third or subsequent offense, and the State moved to dismiss the other two charges. The district court sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for twenty-four to thirty-six months, and this appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 9] Our standard of review is as follows:

"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)."

Grant v. State, 2004 WY 45, ¶ 10, 88 P.3d 1016, 1018 (Wyo.2004) (quoting McChesney v. State, 988 P.2d 1071, 1074 (Wyo.1999)).

DISCUSSION

[¶ 10] The appellant asserts that Officer Gudahl's warrantless, non-consensual search of the Subaru incident to the appellant's arrest¹⁰ violated both the Wyoming Constitution and the United States Constitution. We have said that neither the Wyoming Constitution, nor the federal constitution,

forbids all searches and seizures; rather, they prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. Guerra v. State, 897 P.2d 447, 452 (Wyo.1995). Warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable per se, with but a few exceptions. Gehnert v. State, 956 P.2d 359, 362 (Wyo.1998); Morris v. State, 908 P.2d 931, 935 (Wyo.1995). . . .

Lancaster v. State, 2002 WY 45, ¶ 61, 43 P.3d 80, 102-03 (Wyo.2002) (emphasis in original). We are concerned in the instant appeal with the applicability of the search-incident-to-arrest exception. "The question of whether an exception applies to support a search without a warrant is dependent upon all of the facts and circumstances viewed in their entirety" and if "a defendant properly objects to or moves for suppression of evidence seized, the State bears the burden of proving that one of the exceptions applies." Moulton v. State, 2006 WY 152, ¶ 16, 148 P.3d 38, 43 (Wyo. 2006) (citations omitted).

Wyoming Constitution¹¹

[¶ 11] Citing Vasquez v. State, 990 P.2d 476 (Wyo.1999), and O'Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83, 117 P.3d 401 (Wyo.2005), the appellant contends that Article 1, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution¹² offers greater protection than its federal counterpart and requires that any search of the Subaru incident to the appellant's arrest must not only have been incident to a lawful arrest, but also reasonable under all the circumstances. The appellant emphasizes the following circumstances in claiming that the search at issue in the instant case was unreasonable: 1) there was no evidence that the appellant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs; 2) there was no reasonable possibility that additional evidence of the crimes for which the appellant was arrested, or any other crime, remained in the vehicle; 3) the officer's "pat down" search of the appellant's person revealed no weapons or evidence of criminal activity; 4) the officer did not testify that he was concerned for his safety and there was no basis for the officer to believe that the appellant was armed or that there were...