Sanchez v. Hill

• Decision Date: 15 April 2022
• Docket Number: 22-CV-47-SWS
• Parties: ALFREDO GUILLERMO SANCHEZ, DAVID CHRISTOPHER “CHRIS” BALL, and SEAN MARX, Plaintiffs, v. BRIDGET HILL, Wyoming Attorney General inlier official capacity; MARK GORDON, Governor of Wyoming in his official capacity; MATT CARR, Sheriff of Teton County, Wyoming, in his individual and official capacities; SARA KING, Director of Teton County 24/7 Sobriety Program, in her individual and official capacities; BILL WEST, Acting Director of Teton County 24/7 Sobriety Program in his individual and official capacities; DOUG RAFFELSON, CODY HADERLIE, MATT HARPER, and HEIDEE McKENZIE, Teton County Deputy Sheriffs in their individual and official capacities; TETON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; and BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF TETON; Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Wyoming

ALFREDO GUILLERMO SANCHEZ, DAVID CHRISTOPHER “CHRIS” BALL, and SEAN MARX, Plaintiffs, v. BRIDGET HILL, Wyoming Attorney General inlier official capacity; MARK GORDON, Governor of Wyoming in his official capacity; MATT CARR, Sheriff of Teton County, Wyoming, in his individual and official capacities; SARA KING, Director of Teton County 24/7 Sobriety Program, in her individual and official capacities; BILL WEST, Acting Director of Teton County 24/7 Sobriety Program in his individual and official capacities; DOUG RAFFELSON, CODY HADERLIE, MATT HARPER, and HEIDEE McKENZIE, Teton County Deputy Sheriffs in their individual and official capacities; TETON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; and BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF TETON; Defendants.

No. 22-CV-47-SWS

United States District Court, District of Wyoming

April 15, 2022

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Scott W. Skavdahl United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and supporting memorandum (Docs. 2 3). Defendants filed oppositions thereto (Docs. 18, 20) Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint partially in response to Defendants' oppositions (Doc. 22), and Defendants supplemented with leave of the Court (Doc. 33). Plaintiffs also filed written replies without leave of the Court in violation of Local Civil Rule 7.1 (b)(2)(C) (Docs. 23, 24). The Court has considered the declarations of Lauren McLane and Sean Marx attached to those replies, but not the replies themselves. A hearing was held on the motion on April 8, 2021. Plaintiffs seek to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of Wyoming's 24/7 Sobriety Program during the pendency of this lawsuit. The Court denies the request for preliminary injunction because Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of showing a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

BACKGROUND

1. Wyoming's 24/7 Sobriety Program

Wyoming's “24/7 Sobriety Program Act” is found at Wyo. Stat. §§ 7-13-1701 through -1710. The Act's stated purpose “is to reduce the number of repeat crimes that are related to substance abuse by monitoring an offender's sobriety through intensive alcohol and drug testing and immediate and appropriate enforcement of violations.” Wyo. Stat. § 7-13-1703(a). It seeks to do so through the creation of the “24/7 Sobriety Program, ” which provides “for frequent and certain testing for drug or alcohol use” of certain criminal defendants. Id. § 7-13-1703(b). Through the county sheriff, each Wyoming county may elect to adopt and implement the program. Id. § 7-13-1704(a). If adopted, the “sheriff shall establish the testing locations and times for his county but shall have at least one (1) testing location and two (2) daily testing times approximately twelve (12) hours apart ...” Id. § 7-13-1704(b). For those counties that have adopted the program, the Act provides in relevant part, “Upon a charge or offense for conduct committed while intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substance, a [Wyoming trial] court may order participation in the program as a condition of pretrial release, bond, suspension of sentence, probation or other conditional release.” Id. § 7-13-1708(a). And specific to this case, “Participation in the program may be imposed as a condition of release under the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure, including rules 46.1 and 46.2.” Id. § 7-13-1708(b).

Under Wyo. Stat. § 7-13-1705, the Wyoming attorney general adopted administrative rules to implement the program, including providing “for the nature and manner of testing and the procedures and apparatuses to be used for testing.” The administrative rules require each program participant to execute a written “participation agreement, ” which contains: (1) the type, frequency, and time period of testing; (2) the testing site location; (3) the fees and payment procedures for testing; and (4) the participant's responsibilities and obligations under the program. (Doc. 19-2 p. I.^[1]) “If the participant refuses to execute the agreement in full, the participant shall be denied participation in the program.” (Id. p. 2.) Of relevance to this lawsuit, the Wyoming attorney general's administrative rules state in part,

A participant who has been ordered or directed to submit to alcohol testing shall do so through in-person twice-daily breath tests on a device designed to detect the presence of alcohol in the test subject's breath. A participant who has been ordered to submit to in-person twice-daily breath tests shall report to the participating entity's testing location at the times determined by the participating entity, and not less than ten (10) hours and not more than fourteen (14) hours between each test.

(Doc. 19-2 p. 2.) The Act sets forth the procedure and consequences for a participant who fails to test as instructed or tests positive:

(a) Upon the failure of a person to submit to a test under the program or upon a positive test for alcohol or controlled substance in violation of the program, a peace officer or a probation and parole agent shall complete a written statement establishing the person, in the judgment of the officer or agent, violated a condition of release by failing to submit to or pass a test. A peace officer shall immediately arrest the person without warrant after completing or receiving the written statement.

(b) A person taken into custody under this section shall appear before a court within a reasonable time and shall not be released unless the person has made a personal appearance before a court.

Wyo. Stat. § 7-13-1709.

2. Plaintiffs

Teton County, Wyoming, is one of a handful of counties electing to implement the 24/7 Sobriety Program. The three named Plaintiffs in this case were each charged at different times with misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in Teton County. Plaintiffs Sanchez and Marx were each charged with a third-offense DUI while Plaintiff Ball was charged with a first-offense DUI. (Ball Decl. ¶ 1; Sanchez Decl. ¶ 1; Marx Decl. ¶ 1.)

As one of several conditions for their pretrial release from detention, the Teton County trial court required each Plaintiff to participate in the 24/7 Sobriety Program and submit to twice-daily alcohol breath tests. (Doc. 3-1 p. 7 (Ball); Doc. 3-2 p. 9 (Sanchez); Doc. 23-2 p. 11 (Marx).) Each Plaintiff executed a “24/7 Sobriety Program Participant Agreement and Release of Information, ” which set forth the requirements of their participation. (Doc. 3-1 p. 11 (Ball); Doc. 20-5 p. 1 (Sanchez); Doc. 23-2 p. 13 (Marx).) These agreements, which are required of all participants under the Wyoming attorney general's administrative rules, but which are also county-specific, set forth the following primary program requirements for these Teton County Plaintiffs:

(1) Submit to two alcohol breath tests per day at the Teton County Jail, with the first test occurring between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. and the second between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m.

(2) Pay $30.00 as a program enrollment fee and pay $2.00 for each breath test ($4.00 per day) before taking the test.

(3) Being more than 30 minutes late for a test (i.e., after 7:30 a.m. or 10:30 p.m.) is considered a failure to test.

(4) A “positive test, failure to report, or 3^rd tardy will result in [the participant's] immediate arrest.”

(Doc. 3-1 p. 11; Doc. 20-5 p. 1; Doc. 23-2 p. 13.) Plaintiffs Ball and Sanchez each participated in the program for several months and were eventually released by the trial court judge after completing a substance abuse assessment.^[2] (Ball Decl. ¶ 19; Sanchez Decl. ¶ 19.) Plaintiff Marx was required to participate in the program as a condition of his pretrial release in January 2022 and continues to be an active participant to date. (Marx Decl. ¶¶ 1, 3, 7.)

No named Plaintiff has tested positive for alcohol while in the program, but each has been arrested for failure to test at least once. Plaintiff Ball was arrested twice:

• On Sunday, February 28, 2021, Plaintiff Ball overslept for the morning test, called the Teton County Sheriff s Office (TCSO) to see if he could still test, and was told he would be immediately arrested upon his arrival. He chose to skip the test and was arrested when he arrived for the evening test that same night for his earlier failure to test. He was released from jail the following afternoon. (Ball Decl. ¶¶ 14-15.)

• On Saturday, March 6, 2021, Plaintiff Ball again overslept and missed his morning breath test. He chose to skip the next several tests and was arrested when he arrived for the morning test on Monday, March 8, 2021. He was released from jail that same afternoon. (Ball Decl. ¶¶ 16-17.)

Plaintiff Sanchez was similarly arrested twice for program violations under the following circumstances:

• On Saturday, May 15, 2021, Plaintiff Sanchez overslept and realized he would be an hour late for the evening test. He called the TCSO to see if he could still test but was told he would be immediately arrested upon his arrival for being more than 30 minutes late. He chose to skip that evening test and then showed up around 11:30 a.m. the following morning (Sunday), where he was arrested for his failures to test. He was released from jail the following afternoon. (Sanchez Decl. ¶¶ 14-15.)

• On Tuesday, August 30, 2021, Plaintiff Sanchez was arrested for failing to test for the several days prior, but it turned out to be a court error. The trial court had released Plaintiff Sanchez from participating in the program in order to attend a funeral, but the trial court did not sign the furlough order and provide it to the TCSO until after Plaintiff Sanchez had been arrested. He was released about four hours after his arrest. (Sanchez Decl. ¶ 16; Carr Decl. ¶ 50; Doc. 194p. 1.)

Finally Plaintiff Marx was arrested...