Case Title: BRUCE LEON VANKOOTEN V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-08-0205

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2009-04-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
BRUCE LEON VANKOOTEN V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2009 WY 59206 P.3d 388Case Number: S-08-0205Decided: 04/29/2009
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2009

 
 
BRUCE 
LEON VANKOOTEN,Appellant(Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Laramie County

The 
Honorable Michael K. Davis, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Dion 
J. Custis of Dion J. Custis, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming 

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney 
General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek; 
Senior Assistant Attorney General

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

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Appellant Bruce 
Leon VanKooten entered a conditional guilty plea to felony possession of a 
controlled substance, reserving the right to appeal the district court's denial 
of his motion to suppress the cocaine evidence discovered during a search of his 
vehicle.  VanKooten claims the 
evidence should have been suppressed because the trooper lacked reasonable 
suspicion to detain him for a canine sniff of the exterior of his vehicle after 
the lawful traffic stop had concluded.  
We disagree and affirm the district court's decision denying his motion 
to suppress.

 
 

ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      VanKooten offers 
the following issue:1

 
 
Did 
the trial court abuse its discretion and commit reversible error when it denied 
Appellant's motion for suppression?

 
 

FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      On April 21, 
2007, Trooper David Chatfield of the Wyoming Highway Patrol was on duty at the 
patrol office located at the I-25 port of entry south of Cheyenne when he 
received a telephone call from Lieutenant Ted Bair of the Torrington division 
office.  Lieutenant Bair told 
Trooper Chatfield that he had just seen a vehicle traveling south on Highway 85 
that matched the description of a vehicle belonging to a person known to be a 
drug dealer in the Torrington area.  
Lieutenant Bair explained that he had received information from the 
Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation that the driver of the Camaro had 
been traveling back and forth between Colorado and Torrington dealing 
drugs.  Lieutenant Bair wanted to 
alert Cheyenne patrol personnel to the fact the individual was headed south on 
Highway 85 and to be on the lookout for him.  There were no instructions to stop or 
arrest the driver; only a request to observe the vehicle for traffic violations 
and stop him if he committed a violation.  
After that, any further actions would depend on the circumstances 
presented.  

 
 
[¶4]      Trooper Chatfield 
left the division office with his certified drug dog and headed north on Highway 
85.  Around milepost 40 the trooper 
spotted the Camaro traveling southbound at a speed of 65 miles per hour.  Trooper Chatfield turned his patrol car 
around and attempted to catch up with the vehicle.  The Camaro sped up and began passing 
other vehicles at a high rate of speed.  
Trooper Chatfield estimated the car was going as fast as 130 miles per 
hour.  After pursuing the Camaro for 
approximately ten miles, the trooper managed to get close enough for a radar 
lock.  The radar indicated the car 
was going 125 miles per hour, well above the posted speed limit.  

 
 
[¶5]      Trooper Chatfield 
activated his lights, radioed for assistance, and continued his pursuit of the 
Camaro.  The Camaro continued on for 
approximately nine more miles.  Near 
milepost 21, the Camaro made a sudden left turn onto Cadillac Road, a county 
residential gravel road, and stopped after about one-half mile.  Trooper Chatfield pulled in behind the 
Camaro and contacted VanKooten, the driver and sole occupant of the 
vehicle.  He told VanKooten that he 
had stopped him for going 125 miles per hour and asked him to come back to the 
patrol car with his driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance.  

 
 
[¶6]      As he wrote out a 
citation for speeding, Trooper Chatfield asked VanKooten where he had been and 
where he was going.  VanKooten 
indicated he had been in the Torrington/Lingle area delivering a piece of 
equipment and was headed home to Berthoud, Colorado.  During the conversation, VanKooten asked 
Trooper Chatfield why he turned around on the highway after they passed each 
other.  Trooper Chatfield responded 
by asking VanKooten why he had sped up to 125 miles per hour.  VanKooten stated he did it "for the hell 
of it."  

 
 
[¶7]      Trooper Chatfield 
issued VanKooten a ticket for the traffic violation, returned his driver's 
license and other documents, and told him he was free to leave.  As VanKooten was walking back to his 
car, Trooper Chatfield inquired if he could ask him a few more questions.  VanKooten agreed.  Trooper Chatfield asked VanKooten if he 
had anything illegal in his car, such as drugs, guns or money.  VanKooten replied he did not.  The trooper requested permission to 
search the Camaro, but VanKooten denied the trooper's request.  

 
 
[¶8]      Thereafter, 
Trooper Chatfield told VanKooten he was going to have his drug dog perform an 
exterior sniff of the Camaro.  
Trooper Chatfield retrieved the dog from the patrol car and directed him 
to the vehicle.  The dog sat down by 
the passenger door, alerting to the presence of controlled substances inside the 
car.  Trooper Chatfield then placed 
the dog inside the Camaro, and the dog alerted to the presence of drugs inside a 
coat lying on the back seat.  
Trooper Chatfield searched the coat and found a pipe, as well as scales 
containing white powder residue.  
Upon searching the passenger compartment and the trunk, Trooper Chatfield 
discovered some small "dealer bags" and a plastic shopping bag containing cash, 
prescription pills, marijuana, and over an ounce of cocaine.   

 
 
[¶9]      VanKooten was 
arrested and charged with one count of felony possession of cocaine in violation 
of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(ii) (LexisNexis 2007).  He filed a motion to suppress the drug 
evidence, claiming it was the product of an unlawful seizure.  After a hearing, the district court 
denied VanKooten's motion, concluding reasonable suspicion existed to further 
detain him pending the drug sniff.  
Thereafter, pursuant to a plea agreement, VanKooten pled guilty to the 
felony possession charge, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion 
to suppress.  The district court 
sentenced VanKooten to three to five years imprisonment, but suspended execution 
of that sentence in favor of three years supervised probation.  This appeal 
followed.

 
 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶10]   Our standard for reviewing a 
challenge to a suppression ruling is well established:

 
 
When 
reviewing a district court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence, we defer 
to the court's findings on factual issues unless they are clearly 
erroneous.  Campbell v. State, 2004 WY 106, ¶ 9, 97 P.3d 781, 784 (Wyo. 2004).  We view 
the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court's decision 
because it is in the best position to assess the witnesses' credibility, weigh 
the evidence and make the necessary inferences, deductions and conclusions.  Id.  The constitutionality of a particular 
search or seizure, however, is a question of law that we review de novo.  Id.

 
 

Kunselman 
v. State, 
2008 WY 85, ¶ 9, 188 P.3d 567, 569 (Wyo. 2008) (quoting Hembree v. State, 2006 WY 127, ¶ 7, 143 P.3d 905, 907 (Wyo. 2006) and citing Marinaro v. State, 2007 WY 123, ¶ 7, 163 P.3d 833, 835 (Wyo. 2007); Grant v. 
State, 2004 WY 45, ¶ 10, 88 P.3d 1016, 1018 (Wyo. 2004)).  If "the district court does not make 
specific factual findings, we will uphold its general ruling if the ruling is 
supported by any reasonable view of the evidence."  Cohen v. State, 2008 WY 78, ¶ 22, 191 P.3d 956, 961 (Wyo. 2008) (citing Innis 
v. State, 2003 WY 66, ¶ 13, 69 P.3d 413, 418 (Wyo. 
2003)).

 
 

DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶11]   VanKooten faults the district court 
for denying his motion to suppress the drug evidence seized during the search of 
his car.  In particular, he claims 
the district court erred in concluding that Trooper Chatfield had reasonable 
suspicion of criminal activity to detain him for a canine sniff of the exterior 
of his vehicle after the lawful traffic stop had concluded.  Thus, he claims the drug evidence 
obtained during the search was the fruit of a constitutionally infirm detention 
and should be suppressed.

 
 
[¶12]   Before discussing the merits of 
VanKooten's complaint, we must address two preliminary matters.  First, VanKooten invokes Article 1, 
Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution as grounds for suppressing the drug 
evidence.  However, the state 
constitutional argument presented by VanKooten does not constitute a 
"precise,  analytically sound 
approach" required for this Court to undertake an independent state 
constitutional analysis.  See Vassar v. State, 2004 WY 
­­­­125, ¶ 14, 99 P.3d 987, 993 (Wyo. 2004); Morgan v. State, 2004 WY 95, ¶ 20, 95 P.3d 802, 808 (Wyo. 2004).  In 
substance, VanKooten attempts to argue that the detention was nonconsensual 
under Article 1, Section 4.  This 
case, however, is not about consent.  
At issue is whether Trooper Chatfield had reasonable suspicion to detain 
him for the dog sniff.  VanKooten's 
state constitutional argument is not only perfunctory, it is irrelevant and not 
worthy of our further attention.

 
 
[¶13]   Second, VanKooten's argument, in 
part, consists of an attack on the reliability of an anonymous tip, which he 
claims supported the information provided by Lieutenant Bair to Trooper 
Chatfield concerning his drug activities.  
The problem with VanKooten's argument on this point is that it lacks any 
evidentiary foundation.  That is, 
there is absolutely no evidence in the record concerning the alleged anonymous 
tip, let alone the information it provided and its alleged impact on the events 
leading to VanKooten's ultimate arrest.2  Consequently, we will not consider this 
aspect of VanKooten's argument.

 
 
[¶14]   We now turn our attention to 
whether VanKooten's brief detention for the canine sniff violated the Fourth 
Amendment.  The law is well settled 
that a law enforcement officer may detain a motorist if the officer has an 
"objectively reasonable and articulable suspicion" that the person has committed 
or may be committing a crime.  Barch v. State, 2004 WY 79, ¶ 9, 92 P.3d 828, 832 (Wyo. 2004); Damato v. 
State, 2003 WY 13, ¶ 13, 64 P.3d 700, 706 (Wyo. 2003); see also United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir. 2001).  The existence of objectively reasonable 
suspicion of criminal activity is determined by evaluating the totality of the 
circumstances.  Damato, ¶ 16, 64 P.3d  at 707.  The "whole picture" must be considered, 
"[c]ommon sense and ordinary human experience are to be employed, and deference 
is to be accorded a law enforcement officer's ability to distinguish between 
innocent and suspicious actions."  
Id. (citing United States v. Wood, 106 F.3d 942, 946 
(10th Cir. 1997)).

 
 
[¶15]   Considering the whole picture, 
along with rationale inferences, we agree with the district court that Trooper 
Chatfield possessed reasonable suspicion to detain VanKooten.  The factors supporting the trooper's 
reasonable suspicion are:  (1) 
Trooper Chatfield had information that the driver of a white Camaro with orange 
stripes and Colorado license plates was transporting drugs between Colorado and 
Torrington and dealing drugs in the Torrington area; (2) the Camaro was spotted 
five miles south of Torrington on Highway 85, headed south; (3) when Trooper 
Chatfield first saw the Camaro, it was traveling at a speed of 65 miles per 
hour; (4) the moment VanKooten saw Trooper Chatfield pass him from the opposite 
direction and turn around, he drastically increased his speed to 125 miles per 
hour and attempted to elude the trooper for nearly twenty miles; (5) in one last 
effort to elude Trooper Chatfield, VanKooten abruptly turned off Highway 85 onto 
Cadillac Road and traveled an additional one-half mile; and (6) Cadillac Road is 
a county residential roadway that does not lead to VanKooten's stated travel 
destination of Berthoud, Colorado. We believe the aggregate of these factors 
provided Trooper Chatfield with an objectively reasonable basis for suspecting 
that VanKooten was involved in criminal activity, thus warranting VanKooten's 
further detention pending the canine sniff of his vehicle. 

 
 

CONCLUSION

            

[¶16]   We find that reasonable suspicion 
existed justifying VanKooten's detention.  
We therefore hold that the district court properly denied VanKooten's 
motion to suppress.  
Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Such a general statement of the issue is not particularly helpful to this 
Court because it fails to identify any specific claim of error regarding the 
district court's suppression ruling.  
Yet again, we remind litigants that each appellate issue should include a 
concise statement of the point of law sought to be argued and reviewed.  Hembree v. State, 2006 WY 127, ¶¶ 8-10, 
143 P.3d 905, 907-08 (Wyo. 2006).

 
 

2The only information regarding the alleged anonymous tip is found in 
VanKooten's suppression motion in the district court and his appellate 
brief.