Title: SONDER W. SEYMOUR V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

SONDER W. SEYMOUR V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2008 WY 61185 P.3d 671Case Number: S-07-0255Decided: 06/05/2008Modified: 06/09/2008
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2008

 
 
SONDER 
W. SEYMOUR,Appellant(Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).

 
 

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

The 
Honorable Peter G. Arnold, 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; Graham M. Smith, 
Assistant Attorney General.

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

 
 

KITE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]  Sonder W. Seymour pled guilty to felony 
possession of marijuana with intent to deliver.  He reserved the right to appeal the 
denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle after a 
traffic stop.  Mr. Seymour claims 
the district court erred in denying the motion because he did not voluntarily 
consent to the trooper's second round of questions and the trooper did not have 
a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justifying Mr. Seymour's detention 
until a drug dog arrived.  We 
affirm.   

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]  The sole issue for our determination is 
whether the search of Mr. Seymour's vehicle violated his rights guaranteed by 
article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution or the Fourth Amendment to the United 
States Constitution.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]  On November 15, 2006, at approximately 
3:00 p.m., Wyoming Highway Patrol Trooper Jeremy Beck was patrolling westbound 
on I-80 east of Cheyenne in Laramie County, Wyoming.1 He observed a vehicle traveling 
east that appeared to be speeding.  
He visually estimated the vehicle's speed at around 80 miles per hour and 
confirmed that with his radar. He turned around and pursued the speeding 
vehicle.  

 
 
[¶4]  Trooper Beck pulled up behind the 
vehicle with his lights flashing as the vehicle was passing a pickup truck.  The driver looked in his rearview 
mirror, saw the patrol car behind him and turned abruptly into the driving lane 
in front of the pickup truck.  
Trooper Beck waited until the pickup truck could back off to allow him to 
move in between them.  The vehicle 
pulled over to the side of the highway and Trooper Beck followed. 

 
 
[¶5]  Trooper Beck approached the passenger 
side window and told the driver, who turned out to be Mr. Seymour, that he had 
stopped him for speeding.  Trooper 
Beck asked Mr. Seymour for his driver's license and insurance information.  Mr. Seymour responded that the car was a 
rental.  Trooper Beck asked to see 
the rental agreement.  As Mr. 
Seymour handed him the documents, Trooper Beck asked him if he would mind coming 
back to the patrol car.  He asked 
Mr. Seymour to sit in the front passenger seat.  

 
 
[¶6]  In the patrol car, Trooper Beck asked 
Mr. Seymour where he was headed. Mr. Seymour said he was going to Philadelphia and then on to Vermont.  
Trooper Beck informed Mr. Seymour that he was going to issue him a 
warning for speeding.  

 
 
[¶7]  Trooper Beck asked Mr. Seymour if he had 
rented the vehicle.  Mr. Seymour 
said that his mother's friend, Jill, whose last name should be on the agreement, 
rented it for him because he "was a little younger. . . ." and she was helping 
him out.  Trooper Beck realized the 
rental agreement was not among the documents Mr. Seymour had given him and asked 
him if he would mind getting it from the vehicle.  Mr. Seymour retrieved the document and 
Trooper Beck asked him again the last name of the person who had rented the 
vehicle.  Mr. Seymour again 
indicated her name should be on the agreement.  Trooper Beck asked Mr. Seymour how long 
he planned to be in Vermont.  
Mr. Seymour said "until the end of the holidays, I think.  [I'm going to] see my [inaudible] 
family.  I haven't been back there 
since I was about sixteen years old."  

 
 
[¶8] 
Trooper Beck asked when he rented the car.  
Mr. Seymour said he rented it on Monday.  Trooper Beck asked how long he would 
have the vehicle. Mr. Seymour said he could have it until the 21st, 
but he would be dropping it off before then in Philadelphia because he and a friend were driving to 
Vermont.  He said he would be in Philadelphia before the 
21st but had rented the car until then as a precaution in case the drive took 
longer.

 
 
[¶9]  At that point, just before 3:16 p.m., 
Trooper Beck informed Mr. Seymour, "I wrote you a warning for speed, okay?  Here's your information back and you're 
free to go, okay?  Drive careful, 
all right?"  Mr. Seymour asked if he 
should wait for Trooper Beck to pull out before he pulled out onto the 
highway.  Trooper Beck responded, 
"You're free to go."       

 
 
[¶10]  As Mr. Seymour walked back toward his 
vehicle, Trooper Beck got out of the patrol car and said, "Sir?  Before you head out do you mind if I 
speak to you for just a little bit longer?  
Okay?  You don't have to it's 
just I have some questions just real quick, if you don't mind. You okay with 
that?"  Mr. Seymour said, 
"Yeah."  Trooper Beck asked him to 
step over to the side of the highway and the following exchange 
occurred:

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  You're headed back to, uh, 
Vermont, is 
that what you said?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  
Yeah.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Okay.  And you're coming from 
where?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  From Santa 
Rosa.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Santa Rosa, California?  Okay. Do you live in Santa Rosa, California?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  I live in Windsor, which is just north of Santa 
Rosa.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Oh, really.  Okay. And, uh, you're headed back to 
where?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Vermont.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Vermont?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  
Yeah.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Okay.  You said another state, too.  Where else was it that you're headed 
to?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Philadelphia.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Philadelphia.

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  A friend of mine that I 
know is coming back, he's going to meet me back there. 

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Okay. 

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  I don't know which . . . 
where . . . which part he is . . . but I'll call him when I get back 
there.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Okay.  All right.  Uh. What are you headed back for, you 
headed back for . . . 

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Just to see some of my 
family and stuff like that.  I could 
have flown back but I figured . . . .

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Yeah, what was the . . . why 
didn't you fly?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Just to have some 
fun.  I've never really driven 
across the states before so . . . .

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Oh, really.  How you liking that so far?  Pretty good?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Well, until now.  It's all right.  It's okay.  It got a little windy and crazy back 
there but . . . .

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Yeah.  

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  
[inaudible]

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Have you drove straight 
through so far?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Just on 
80.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Just on 
80?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Just like 20 to 80.  20 is about like . . . 
.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Where, where you 
staying?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  In Philadelphia?

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  No, I mean have you been 
staying in motels on the way out or . . . 

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Truckee.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Where?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Truckee [inaudible]

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  No, I haven't heard of 
that.  How far away from Santa . . . 
?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Santa Rosa?  It's like a good 5, 6 hour 
drive.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Okay.  Then you spent the 
night?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Spent the night and then I 
was in . . . just after Utah, or Salt Lake City, the town right just past Utah, can't think of the 
name of it.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Okay. And then you headed on 
back from there?  Are you planning 
on staying somewhere else, too?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Tonight I was hoping to 
make it, well judging by the time, probably somewhere [inaudible] off the side 
of the road somewhere tonight. 

 
 
Trooper 
Jim Hess:  Nebraska has a lot of 
nice little towns in it [inaudible].2  

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Yeah, that's what I was 
hoping [inaudible] . . . probably about 6, 7 o'clock.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Yeah.  What do you do for a 
living?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  I'm a 
bartender.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Oh, are you?  Out in California?  

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Out in California.  

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Okay.  How long did you take 
vacation?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  I took a little time 
off.  I've been saving up for a long 
time, so . . . 

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  How long did you 
take?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Probably until about the 
21st when I have to go back, but I got a pretty good boss who's going 
to let me, uh . . . .

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  That's when you're going 
back?  The 21st?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  
Yeah.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Of 
November?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  
[inaudible]

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Of November?  

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Yeah, around that.  

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  So you're going to fly back 
then?  

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Yes, 
sir.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  You'll fly?  Okay. So you drove out and then you're 
going to fly back?  

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Right.  This is a one way that I got to drop off 
so . . .

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Okay. 

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  I'll be flying 
back.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Okay.  There's nothing illegal in the vehicle 
is there?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  Oh, no, 
sir.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  No 
marijuana?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  No, 
sir.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  No 
methamphetamines?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:   No, sir, none of 
that.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  No 
cocaine?

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  No, 
sir.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  No explosives, or anything 
like that?  Correct? 

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  None of 
that.

 
 
Trooper 
Beck:  Okay.

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour:  No [inaudible], no 
nothing. Just don't want to be too stupid about that, you know, even 
alcohol.

    

[¶11]  At this point, Trooper Beck asked Mr. 
Seymour if he had any problem giving him consent to search the vehicle for 
illegal "stuff."  Mr. Seymour said 
he would rather not.  He said he had 
some alcohol in the vehicle.  
Trooper Beck informed him that alcohol was not illegal and asked again if 
he would consent to a search.  Mr. 
Seymour reiterated that he would rather not.  Trooper Beck informed Mr. Seymour that 
he was going to detain him while he arranged for a canine to be brought to 
perform a free air sniff of the vehicle.

 
 
[¶12]  Approximately eight minutes later, 
Trooper Chatfield arrived with a dog.  
The dog alerted to the outside of the vehicle.  The troopers searched the vehicle and 
found 65 pounds of marijuana in vacuum sealed bags.

 
 
[¶13]  The State filed charges against Mr. 
Seymour for felony possession of marijuana.  Prior to trial, Mr. Seymour filed a 
motion to suppress the evidence seized from the vehicle, claiming the search 
violated the Wyoming Constitution because it was not reasonable under all the 
circumstances and the United States Constitution because Trooper Beck did not 
have reasonable suspicion to detain Mr. Seymour.  

 
 
[¶14]  At a hearing on the motion, the State 
called Trooper Beck to testify.  He 
testified that his suspicions were initially aroused when, upon seeing the 
patrol car behind him, Mr. Seymour turned so abruptly in front of the pickup 
truck he was passing.  He testified 
that his suspicions were further aroused when he spoke to Mr. Seymour from 
outside the passenger window, and he "appeared very nervous. He was shaking. 
When he gave me the rental agreement, he was shaking.  You could see the rental agreement 
shaking as he was handing it to me and his driver's license."  Trooper Beck also testified that a cell 
phone in the vehicle was ringing and he thought it unusual that Mr. Seymour did 
not answer it or acknowledge it in any way. 

 
 
[¶15]  Trooper Beck testified that he grew 
increasingly suspicious of Mr. Seymour because:

 
 
After 
being told he was getting a warning, Mr. Seymour's nervousness did not 
subside.  "He continued to 
shake.  His knee was going back and 
forth.  He was [w]ringing his hands 
. . . when he was talking to me.  
Just seemed uncontrollably like he couldn't quit being nervous.  It was like he was trying to hide 
something more than I initially stopped him for."   

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour's age was not a reason to have someone older rent the car; he was 26 
years old and past the 25-year-old age limit for renting a car. 

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour said he rented the car longer than he needed it in case he had trouble 
getting from California, but "no matter how 
much trouble you have, you shouldn't have that long a drive just back to 
Vermont."  

 
 
He did 
not understand why Mr. Seymour would drop the car off in Philadelphia if he got 
there early when he had paid for several more days; the agreement stated he 
could be charged a higher rate if he returned the car before November 21.  

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour referred him to the rental agreement for answers, as though he was not 
sure who rented the vehicle, what the person's name was or the rental dates. 

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour said he had to be back at work in California on November 21, which was before the holidays 
when he said he was going to be visiting family in Vermont.  

 
 
Mr. 
Seymour said he only drove five to six hours the first day, which seemed 
"strange" since he had a cross-country drive ahead of him. 

 
 
After 
saying he would rather not consent to a vehicle search, Mr. Seymour said he had 
alcohol in his vehicle; Mr. Seymour was 26 years old and having alcohol in his 
vehicle was not illegal.

 
 
Based 
upon the totality of these circumstances, Trooper Beck testified that he 
concluded he had reasonable suspicion to detain Mr. Seymour while a dog was 
brought to sniff the vehicle.  

 
 
[¶16]  The district court entered an order 
denying the suppression motion, concluding from all of the circumstances Trooper 
Beck had reasonable suspicion to detain Mr. Seymour after issuing the warning 
ticket.  Among the factors the 
district court relied on were:  Mr. 
Seymour's "extreme nervousness"; the third party rental agreement; the one way 
rental agreement; Mr. Seymour did not know the name of the person who rented the 
vehicle; the inconsistency between Mr. Seymour's travel plans and the rental 
agreement; and Mr. Seymour's explanation of why the other person rented the 
vehicle.  Mr. Seymour pled guilty to 
the charge of felony possession of marijuana conditioned upon his right to 
appeal the order denying his suppression motion.  The district court entered judgment 
against Mr. Seymour, sentenced him to three to five years in prison, and 
suspended the sentence in favor of four years supervised probation.  

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶17]  The question of whether an unreasonable 
search or seizure occurred in violation of constitutional rights presents a 
question of law which we review de 
novo.  Negrette v. State, 2007 WY 88, ¶ 11, 158 P.3d 679, 682 (Wyo. 2007).  However, 
we review a district court's factual findings on a suppression motion under the 
clearly erroneous standard.  Hall v. State, 2007 WY 138, ¶ 5, 166 P.3d 875, 877 (Wyo. 2007).  We view 
the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court's determination 
because it conducts the motion hearing and has the opportunity to assess the 
credibility of the witnesses, weigh the evidence and make the necessary 
inferences, deductions and conclusions.  

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶18]  Mr. Seymour claims the search of his 
vehicle violated the state and federal constitutions because his consent to 
further questioning was not voluntary and Trooper Beck did not have a reasonable 
suspicion of illegal activity to warrant detaining him without his voluntary 
consent.  Mr. Seymour does not claim 
and there is no evidence that the traffic stop was unjustified or that the 
initial detention inside the patrol car exceeded the scope of the stop.  Therefore, we begin our discussion with 
consideration of whether Mr. Seymour's consent to further questioning was 
voluntary. 

 
 
[¶19]  The right of citizens to be free from 
unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed by article 1, § 4 of the 
Wyoming Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution.  This Court has 
recognized that

 
 
a waiver 
of constitutional rights under our constitution must appear by clear and 
positive testimony, and, if a search or seizure is based upon the proposition 
that consent was given, there should be no question from the evidence that 
consent was "really voluntary and with a desire to invite search [or further 
questioning], and not done merely to avoid resistance."  Acquiescence and nonresistance have not 
been deemed sufficient under Wyoming law to establish consent.  

 
 

O'Boyle 
v .State, 2005 
WY 83, ¶ 38, 117 P.3d 401, 412 (Wyo. 2005).  Under both the United States 
and Wyoming Constitutions, we examine the totality of the circumstances to 
determine whether consent was voluntary.  
We consider factors such as the demeanor of the law enforcement officer, 
whether the individual was told he could refuse the request, the presence of 
other law enforcement officers, the length of the detention and nature of the 
questioning before consent was given and other coercive factors.  O'Boyle, ¶¶ 40-42, 61, 117 P.3d  at 413, 418.  

 
 
[¶20]  Considering the totality of the 
circumstances in Mr. Seymour's case, we conclude that his consent to further 
questioning was voluntary.  The 
videotape recording of the stop reflects that Trooper Beck addressed Mr. Seymour 
courteously and respectfully.  He 
was not threatening, antagonistic or coercive.  He asked Mr. Seymour if he would mind if 
he spoke with him a bit longer, told him he did not have to agree and asked him 
twice if he was okay with answering more questions.  Mr. Seymour responded, "Yeah."  At that point in the stop, no other law 
enforcement officers were present, Mr. Seymour had been detained for less than 
15 minutes, and the questioning in the patrol car had been brief and focused on 
the rental agreement and Mr. Seymour's travel plans.  Additionally, prior to being asked if he 
would mind if Trooper Beck spoke with him a bit longer and being told that he 
did not have to agree, Mr. Seymour had been told twice that he was free to 
go.

 
 
[¶21]  Mr. Seymour cites O'Boyle and Campbell v. State, 2004 WY 106, 97 P.3d 781 (Wyo. 2004) as support for his contention that, under the Wyoming 
Constitution and the United States Constitution respectively, his consent was 
not voluntary.  Neither case 
supports his contention.  Both cases 
involved traffic stops during which the trooper exceeded the scope of the stop 
during the initial questioning.  
Because we held the initial detention unconstitutional, the State had the 
burden of proving that the motorists' subsequent consent was sufficiently 
voluntary to overcome the illegal detention.  In both cases, the factors we considered 
in determining that the initial detention was unconstitutional were also 
considered in determining that the consent was involuntary.  In O'Boyle, ¶ 41, 117 P.3d  at 413, for 
example, we said:

 
 
by the 
time Trooper Peech asked Mr. O'Boyle if he could ask him a few more questions, 
he had already questioned Mr. O'Boyle for seven minutes about his trip, his 
activities leading up to the trip, his son and daughter, his occupation and 
other tangential topics.  He also 
had called for a canine unit, which arrived during the initial questioning and 
parked behind Trooper Peech's patrol car.  
Despite these circumstances, and his later admission that he did not have 
reasonable suspicion to detain Mr. O'Boyle further, Trooper Peech detained Mr. 
O'Boyle on the edge of the interstate highway for another five minutes . . . 
.           

 
 
Based in 
part upon the initial illegal detention, we concluded the consent that followed 
was not voluntary.  

 
 
[¶22]  In Campbell, ¶ 14, 
97 P.3d  at 785 (emphasis added, citations omitted) we 
said:

 
 
            
"The government bears the burden of proving the voluntariness of consent, 
and that burden is heavier when consent 
is given after an illegal stop."  
In determining whether a detained motorist freely and voluntarily 
consented to a further detention or search after an illegal detention, we must 
consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the consent, with a focus 
upon three factors . . .:  "the 
temporal proximity of the illegal detention and the consent, any intervening 
circumstances, and, particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the officer's 
unlawful conduct."   In other words, the State had the burden of 
establishing that Campbell's consent was "sufficiently an act of 
free will to purge the primary taint of the illegal [detention], [or] it must be 
suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree."  

            

Applying 
these standards, we held in Campbell that the 
consent was not voluntary.  We 
reached that conclusion based on the evidence that the motorist was not informed 
that he was free to leave or that he could refuse the trooper's request and 
because the evidence did not show that the motorist's consent was sufficiently 
an act of free will to purge the primary 
taint of the illegal detention.  
 

 
 
[¶23]  Unlike O'Boyle and Campbell, there is no contention or 
finding in Mr. Seymour's case that the initial detention inside the patrol car 
was unconstitutional.  Therefore, an 
initial illegal detention is not among the factors we consider in determining 
whether his consent was voluntary.  
Unlike O'Boyle and Campbell, Mr. Seymour was advised that 
he was free to leave and that he was not required to consent to further 
questioning.  Given these 
distinctions, O'Boyle and Campbell provide little support for Mr. 
Seymour's claim that he did not voluntarily consent to further 
questioning.

 
 
[¶24]  Having concluded that Mr. Seymour's 
consent was voluntary, we need not consider whether Trooper Beck had reasonable 
suspicion of illegal activity to warrant further questioning. Voluntary consent 
obviates the necessity of determining whether the trooper had sufficient 
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to pursue further questioning.  Marinaro v. State, 2007 WY 123, ¶ 10, 
163 P.3d 833, 836 (Wyo. 2007).  We 
turn to consideration of whether, after the second round of questioning, Trooper 
Beck had reasonable suspicion of illegal activity to detain Mr. Seymour for a 
canine sniff.    

 
 
[¶25]  By the time Trooper Beck informed Mr. 
Seymour he was going to detain him while a canine was brought to the scene, he 
knew that Mr. Seymour was driving a rental car that he had not rented and could 
not tell him the last name of the person who had rented it.  He also knew that Mr. Seymour said he 
was going to Vermont to visit family for the holidays but 
also said he had to be back at work on November 21, which was before the 
holidays.  Trooper Beck also knew 
that the rental agreement allowed seven days to drive from Santa Rosa, California to 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania but that Mr. Seymour intended to 
turn the car in early even though it would cost him more. Additionally, Trooper 
Beck had observed behaviors by Mr. Seymour suggesting that he was very nervous, 
including pulling directly in front of another vehicle when he first saw the 
patrol car and shaking, wiggling and wringing his hands even after he knew he 
was only getting a warning.  
Considering the totality of the circumstances, as we are required to do, 
we hold that Trooper Beck had reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity to 
detain Mr. Seymour until the canine arrived.

 
 
[¶26]  One of Mr. Seymour's arguments to the 
contrary is that nervousness is of limited significance in assessing whether 
reasonable suspicion existed for detention and, in his case, absent the 
nervousness, the totality of the circumstances did not give rise to a reasonable 
suspicion to detain him for a canine sniff.  Mr. Seymour is correct that nervousness 
is of limited significance in determining whether reasonable suspicion 
exists.  Damato v. State, 2003 WY 13, ¶ 20, 64 P.3d 700, 708 (Wyo. 2003).  However, 
it is not disregarded entirely.  
Abnormal or continuous nervousness may be considered along with other 
factors in determining whether a law enforcement officer had reasonable 
suspicion to detain a motorist.  Marquez-Guitierrez v. State, 2007 WY 
155, ¶ 28, 167 P.3d 1232, 1238 (Wyo. 2007); Negrette, ¶ 20, 158 P.3d  at 684.  Trooper Beck's testimony that Mr. 
Seymour was "uncontrollably" nervous and that his nervousness did not subside 
were appropriate factors to consider in determining whether Trooper Beck had 
reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity justifying Mr. Seymour's 
detention.  We hold that by the time 
Trooper Beck indicated he was calling for the canine, he had reasonable 
suspicion that Mr. Seymour was involved in unlawful activity to support the 
detention.    

CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶27It 
is undisputed that Mr. Seymour's initial detention was justified by his speeding 
violation and did not exceed the scope of the stop.  After Trooper Beck 
returned Mr. Seymour's documentation and told him that he was free to go, Mr. 
Seymour voluntarily consented to further questioning.  Mr. Seymour's 
voluntary consent vitiates the requirement of showing reasonable suspicion for 
the second detention.  Finally, based upon the totality of the 
circumstances at the time he called for the canine unit, Trooper Beck had 
reasonable suspicion to detain Mr. Seymour for the purpose of a canine 
sniff.  The detention did not violate Mr. Seymour's rights under article 1, 
§ 4 of the Wyoming Constitution or the Fourth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution.

 
 
[¶28]  Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1These facts 
are taken from Trooper Beck's testimony at the suppression hearing.  The facts set forth in paragraphs 5 
through 12 are taken from the video tape recording of the traffic stop, which 
the State introduced as an exhibit at the suppression hearing and defense 
counsel designated as part of the appellate record.  Trooper Beck and Mr. Seymour are seen on 
the video only briefly when they are next to the rental vehicle or in front of 
the patrol car.  They cannot be seen 
during the questioning inside the patrol car or off to the side of the 
roadway.  However, most of the 
questions and answers are audible on the tape 
recording.

 
 

2Trooper Beck 
testified at the suppression hearing that Trooper Hess arrived about halfway 
through the questioning that occurred outside the patrol car on the side of the 
highway.