Case Title: JULIUS J. THOMAS COTTON, III v. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2005-09-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
JULIUS J. THOMAS COTTON, III v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2005 WY 115119 P.3d 931Case Number: No. 04-109Decided: 09/13/2005
APRIL TERM, 
A.D. 2005

                                                                                                            

 
 
JULIUS J. 
THOMAS COTTON, III    

Appellant 
(Defendant),

 
 
 v.        

 
 
THE STATE 
OF WYOMING

Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

 
 
 
 
Appeal from 
the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

The 
Honorable E. James Burke, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

            
Ken Koski, 
State Public Defender, PDP; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Diane E. 
Courselle, Director DAP; Daniel E. Reade, Student Intern; and Victoria Hansen, 
Student Intern.  Argument by Ms. 
Hansen. 

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

            
Patrick J. 
Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; and D. Michael 
Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General.  Argument by Mr. Pauling. 

 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE and VOIGT, JJ., and BROOKS, 
DJ.

 
 
KITE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Julius J. Thomas 
Cotton, III was pulled over by a sheriff's deputy for having a cracked 
windshield. In checking his license and registration, the deputy discovered Mr. 
Cotton was driving with a suspended license and arrested him. As the deputy was 
escorting him to the patrol car, Mr. Cotton asked the passenger in his vehicle 
to retrieve a shirt out of the backseat of his vehicle and take it home with 
him. Another deputy on the scene examined the shirt and discovered crack cocaine 
in the pocket. Mr. Cotton was charged with possession of a controlled substance 
in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(ii) (LexisNexis 2003). 

 
 
[¶2]      Prior to trial, 
Mr. Cotton moved to suppress the evidence seized from his shirt pocket and the 
vehicle. The district court denied the motion, and Mr. Cotton entered a 
conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his 
suppression motion. We affirm.

      

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶3]      Mr. Cotton 
presents the following issue:

 
 
Did the 
trial court commit reversible error by denying Mr. Cotton's motion to suppress 
determining on the grounds that the search of a shirt pocket, without probable 
cause to believe the suspect was armed or carrying contraband, was reasonable 
pursuant to the Wyoming Constitution?

 
 
The State 
rephrases the issue as follows:

 
 
Did the 
district court properly deny appellant's motion to 
suppress?

 
 
 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶4]      On June 22, 2003, 
Deputy David Stevens of the Laramie County Sheriff's Department stopped the 
vehicle Mr. Cotton was driving in a residential neighborhood of Cheyenne, Wyoming for having a cracked windshield. 
Deputy Stevens asked to see Mr. Cotton's driver's license and discovered it was 
suspended. Because Mr. Cotton was from out of state, Deputy Stevens placed him 
under arrest for driving with a suspended license. There was a passenger riding 
with Mr. Cotton and so, for safety reasons, Deputy Stevens called for back-up 
assistance. Deputy Poteet arrived at the scene a few minutes later. 

 
 
[¶5]      After placing Mr. 
Cotton under arrest, Deputy Stevens handcuffed him and performed a pat-down 
search. As the deputy was escorting him to the patrol car, Mr. Cotton asked his 
passenger to retrieve a shirt from the back of his vehicle and take it home with 
him. Deputy Poteet retrieved the shirt from the vehicle and before handing it to 
the passenger, checked it for weapons. Inside the shirt pocket, he discovered a 
baggie containing crack cocaine. The deputies then searched Mr. Cotton's vehicle 
and found a small scale inside the trunk.  
They also searched Mr. Cotton and found $123 in cash. 

 
 
[¶6]      Mr. Cotton was 
arrested for felony possession of crack cocaine weighing more than .5 grams in 
violation of § 35-7-1031(c)(ii). A jury trial was set for October 21, 2003. On 
September 2, 2003, Mr. Cotton filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized 
from his shirt, vehicle and person. The thrust of Mr. Cotton's argument was that 
the deputies did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search and, 
therefore, the search violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution. In a two sentence paragraph at the end of his motion, without 
citation to or argument of any Wyoming case law, Mr. Cotton also asserted the 
search violated article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming 
Constitution.

 
 
[¶7]      The State filed a 
response to the motion in which it argued the search was constitutional under 
the "bright line rule" enunciated in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 
101 S. Ct. 2860, 69 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1981), that is, when a law enforcement officer 
has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, 
incident to the arrest, search the passenger compartment of the automobile. 
Pursuant to this rule, the State argued, once Mr. Cotton was arrested for 
driving under suspension, he was subject under the Fourth Amendment to search 
and the scope of the search extended to his person and the passenger compartment 
of his vehicle. The State further asserted the discovery of crack cocaine in the 
pocket of his shirt located in the passenger compartment provided probable cause 
to search the vehicle and Mr. Cotton.

 
 
[¶8]      The district 
court set a hearing on the suppression motion for September 29, 2003. On the day 
of the hearing, the State filed a notice of additional authority in which it 
referred the district court to  Guzman v. State, 2003 WY 118, 76 P.3d 825 (Wyo. 2003), in deciding whether the search violated the Wyoming 
Constitution. It is not clear from the record whether the State filed the notice 
of additional authority before or after the suppression hearing. In any event, 
in its notice, the State quoted Guzman for the proposition that 
exceptions are recognized under both the United States and Wyoming Constitutions 
to the rule that all warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, 
including:  a search of an arrested 
suspect and the area within his control; a search to prevent the imminent 
destruction of evidence; a search of an automobile upon probable cause; and, a 
search of objects in plain view. 

 
 
[¶9]      At the hearing 
the State called Deputy Stevens to testify. The defense presented no evidence. 
The State argued the Belton bright line rule as authority for denying the 
suppression motion. The defense agreed that Belton allows an officer to 
search a vehicle when an occupant of a vehicle is arrested, but argued the 
Belton rule did not apply in this case because at the point the deputies 
searched the shirt Mr. Cotton and the passenger were out of the vehicle and Mr. 
Cotton had already been arrested. At that point, the defense argued, Deputy 
Poteet had the authority to pick up the shirt and determine that it was not 
concealing weapons, but had no authority to search inside the pocket. That 
search was not incident to arrest and was not necessary for officer safety, the 
defense argued. Therefore, it exceeded the scope of the deputies' authority. 

 
 
[¶10]   Following the arguments of counsel, 
the district court asked specifically whether a bright line rule is recognized 
under the Wyoming Constitution.  The 
State responded that generally the Wyoming Supreme Court has followed Fourth 
Amendment law but has indicated a willingness to consider whether the Wyoming 
Constitution provides different protections than its federal counterpart where 
the argument is properly raised and presented. The State argued no proper state 
constitutional argument was presented here. The district court inquired whether 
there was anything further and defense counsel responded, "No, Your Honor."  

 
 
[¶11]   On October 17, 2003, the district 
court issued an order denying the motion to suppress.  Addressing the issue under the Fourth 
Amendment, the district court applied  Belton and concluded the search was 
proper because it was incident to a lawful arrest. The district court also 
addressed the Wyoming Constitution and, applying Vasquez v. State, 990 P.2d 476, 489 (Wyo. 1999), concluded the search was reasonable under all the 
circumstances. Addressing the latter issue, the district court 
stated:

 
 
The search 
was conducted pursuant to an arrest of an occupant. The Deputy testified that 
the search of the shirt was conducted for "safety" reasons. In this day where 
the array of "weapons" is seemingly infinite, the Court believes the search of 
the shirt for " safety reasons" was reasonable.

 
 
[¶12]   Mr. Cotton entered a plea of guilty 
to the crime charged conditioned upon reserving his right to appeal the order 
denying his suppression motion. After a hearing, he was sentenced to confinement 
in the Wyoming Department of Corrections for not less than two nor more than 
four years.  His sentence was 
suspended and he was placed on probation for a period of three years.                     

 
 
 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 
[¶13]   When reviewing orders granting or 
denying motions to suppress, we apply the following 
standards:

 
 
Rulings on 
the admissibility of evidence are within the sound discretion of the trial 
court.  We will not disturb such 
rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion.  An abuse of discretion occurs when it is 
shown the trial court reasonably could not have concluded as it did.  Factual findings made by a trial court 
considering a motion to suppress will not be disturbed unless the findings are 
clearly erroneous. Because the trial court has the opportunity to hear the 
evidence, assess witness credibility, and draw the necessary inferences, 
deductions, and conclusions, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to 
the trial court's determination.  
Whether an unreasonable search or seizure occurred in violation of 
constitutional rights presents a question of law and is reviewed de 
novo.  

 
 

O'Boyle v. 
State, 2005 WY 
83, ¶18, 117 P.3d 401 (Wyo. 2005) (citations omitted).

 
 
 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶14]   As a preliminary matter, we note 
that we have consistently adhered to the rule that we will address claims that a 
search violated article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution only where a party 
raises the claim under the state constitution and provides proper argument and 
briefing using a precise and analytically sound approach.  O'Boyle, ¶22. Where a party has 
failed to meet these criteria in presenting a state constitutional claim, we 
have declined to consider the issue. Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315, 320 
(Wyo. 1999); 
Putnam v. State, 995 P.2d 632, 640 (Wyo. 2000); Bailey v. State, 
12 P.3d 173, 177 (Wyo. 2000). 

 
 
[¶15]   Although Mr. Cotton mentioned the 
Wyoming Constitution near the end of his written suppression motion, he provided 
absolutely no argument or briefing of the issue before the district court. Even 
during the suppression hearing when the district court specifically inquired 
about the Wyoming Constitution, the defense offered no argument or analysis 
under the state constitution, relying instead exclusively on federal Fourth 
Amendment cases. It was only after the district court gratuitously ruled on the 
state law claim without having any obligation to do so and the ruling was 
appealed to this Court that Mr. Cotton provided any state constitutional 
analysis. Now, on appeal, his sole claim is that the district court erred in 
concluding the search of the shirt pocket was reasonable under the Wyoming 
Constitution. Ordinarily under circumstances such as these, we would decline to 
address the state constitutional issue. We address it in this particular case 
only because the district court specifically ruled on the claim despite having 
no obligation to do so. 

 
 
[¶16]   In his brief before this Court, Mr. 
Cotton claims the search of the shirt pocket violated the Wyoming Constitution 
because it was not reasonable under the circumstances. In support of his claim, 
he cites Vasquez, in which we held under the Wyoming Constitution that 
the search of a vehicle without a warrant must be reasonable under all the 
circumstances and is permissible only when there is probable cause to believe 
the vehicle contains illegal goods or the search is incident to a lawful arrest. 
Given that he was arrested merely for driving with a suspended license, Mr. 
Cotton contends the deputies did not have probable cause to believe his vehicle 
contained illegal goods. He further contends under all of the circumstances the 
search of the shirt pocket was not a reasonable search incident to a lawful 
arrest. 

 
 
[¶17]   The State responds by arguing first 
that this Court should not consider the issue Mr. Cotton raises on appeal 
because he did not properly present it in the district court. As stated above in 
this opinion, the State is correct that ordinarily we would not consider the 
issue; however, we do so here because the district court chose to rule on the 
issue despite the defense's failure to present any argument or authority. Citing 
Vasquez, the State asserts next that the district court properly denied 
the suppression motion because the search was reasonable under all of the 
circumstances in that it was incident to arrest and conducted for officer safety 
reasons. Specifically, the State contends it was reasonable when Mr. Cotton 
asked his passenger to retrieve the shirt out of the vehicle for Deputy Poteet 
to retrieve the shirt in order to ensure the passenger, who was then outside the 
vehicle, did not gain access to a weapon if he was allowed to re-enter it. Once 
he had possession of the shirt, the State argues, it was reasonable for the 
deputy to take the next step and determine whether it concealed a weapon. Upon 
discovering a hard object in the pocket, it was reasonable for the deputy to 
determine what it was.

 
 
[¶18]   As both parties correctly assert, 
we concluded in Vasquez, 990 P.2d  at 488, that article 1, § 4 
requires searches and seizures to be reasonable under all of the 
circumstances.  We said, "only 
unreasonable searches are forbidden, and whether or not a search is reasonable 
is a question of law to be decided from all the circumstances of a case." 
Id., at 487. In the context of 
the facts presented in Vasquez, we concluded that warrantless automobile 
searches are proper under article 1, § 4, when incident to lawful arrest and 
when there is probable cause for believing that a vehicle is carrying contraband 
or illegal goods. 

 
 
In reaching 
this result in Vasquez , we rejected the bright line rule established in 
New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 69 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1981) 
that arrest justifies the search of a passenger compartment, including any open 
or closed container in it, without consideration of the privacy interest 
involved. We concluded the rationale for the Belton rule, i.e. the need 
for a bright line rule to effectively apply to the vast, national citizenry with 
which the U.S. Supreme Court must concern itself, did not apply in Wyoming. We found a 
narrower standard, one maintaining the requirement that a search be reasonable 
under all of the circumstances, more consistent with the historical intent of 
our search and seizure provision. Vasquez, 990 P.2d  at 489. In the 
specific context presented in  Vasquez, i.e. a vehicle search 
incident to an arrest, we said Wyoming's search and seizure provision 
provided greater protection than the federal provision. 

 
 

O'Boyle, ¶30. 

 
 
[¶19]   Applying this standard, we 
concluded in Vasquez that the search of a pickup truck, including a fuse 
box located on the left side of the steering wheel in front of the driver, after 
the driver's arrest for driving while under the influence was proper under the 
Wyoming Constitution because officers who arrived after the arrest noticed empty 
bullet casings in the bed and passenger compartment. We 
said:

 
 
In 
Vasquez's case, as the officers approached the vehicle with two passengers 
seated in it, shell casings in the back alerted them to the possibility of a 
small handgun, and an officer testified it was the possibility of the presence 
of this weapon which led to the search of the vehicle and the fuse box.  The shell casings and the presence of 
two adult passengers presented an officer safety and a public safety concern 
which permitted a search incident to arrest although Vasquez's arrest had been 
accomplished and he was secure inside a patrol car.  It appears from the record that the 
passengers were also arrested and, although we are not told, it would seem their 
arrest created the need for the officers to secure the vehicle if left on the 
roadside.  In this particular case, 
we believe that the arrest justified a search of the passenger compartment of 
the vehicle and all containers in it, open or closed, locked or unlocked, for 
evidence related to the crime and for weapons or contraband which presented an 
officer or a public safety concern.

 
 

Vasquez, 
990 P.2d  at 
489.

 
 
[¶20]   More recently, in Andrews v. 
State, 2002 WY 28, ¶31, 40 P.3d 708, 715 (Wyo. 2002), we reiterated that the 
Wyoming Constitution allows searches incident to arrest and can be said to allow 
automobile searches for evidence related to the crime because the arrestee had 
possession of it. We also reiterated, however, that searches must be reasonable 
under all of the circumstances. Consistent with Vasquez, we said searches 
incident to arrest performed for the permissible reasons of locating weapons or 
evidence related to the crime are reasonable under Wyoming's search and seizure 
provision. Id. On the basis of these principles, 
we affirmed a denial of a suppression motion in Andrews where, after 
being told he was under arrest, the defendant removed the wallet from his pocket 
and laid it on the kitchen counter directly in front of him.  The deputy picked it up and searched it. 
We concluded it was reasonable and appropriate for the officer to seize the 
wallet and search it for weapons and/or evidence.   

 
 
[¶21]   In Mr. Cotton's case, Deputy 
Stevens testified that he called for backup assistance after discovering Mr. 
Cotton's license was suspended because he was making an arrest and there was 
another person in the vehicle. He stated: 

 
 
The 
reasoning being officer safety; we call another officer when we make an arrest 
for the simple fact he did have another person with him in the passenger seat. I 
was outnumbered in that respect so I had to call somebody else while I had that 
arrest with Mr. Cotton. 

 
 
Deputy 
Stevens further testified that he arrested Mr. Cotton, handcuffed him, patted 
him down for safety and was placing him in the patrol car when Mr. Cotton asked 
the passenger to get the shirt and take it home with him. Deputy Stevens 
testified at that point:  "we wanted 
to make sure nothing was in the shirt as far as a weapon that would jeopardize 
officer safety."  Deputy Poteet 
retrieved the shirt, patted it down and felt something in the pocket. He removed 
a clear plastic bag containing five or six rocks of what appeared to be crack 
cocaine.  Altogether, the rocks 
measured approximately three inches in diameter and weighed 4.5 grams.   

 
 
[¶22]   Under all of the circumstances, we 
conclude the search of the shirt pocket was reasonable. Mr. Cotton had been 
arrested.  The presence of an adult 
passenger presented a safety concern causing the arresting deputy to call for 
back-up assistance. When Mr. Cotton asked the passenger to retrieve the shirt, 
the assisting deputy was justified on the basis of safety concerns in retrieving 
the shirt himself rather than allowing the passenger to go back to the vehicle. 
He was further justified in checking the shirt for weapons before handing it to 
the passenger. Once he discovered there was something in the pocket of some 
substance (measuring approximately three inches in diameter and weighing 4.5 
grams), he also was justified in removing it from the pocket before handing the 
shirt to the passenger.

 
 

[¶23]   We hold the search was reasonable 
under all of the circumstances and did not violate article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming 
Constitution.