Title: FRANK EUGENE KELLER, JR. V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

FRANK EUGENE KELLER, JR. V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2007 WY 170169 P.3d 867Case Number: S-07-0085Decided: 10/30/2007
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
FRANK 
EUGENE KELLER, JR.,Appellant(Defendant),v.THE STATE OFWYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofCampbellCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Kurt A. 
Infanger of The Nick Carter Law Firm, P.C., Gillette, Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

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

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

 
 
VOIGT, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      The appellant 
pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in 
violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(ii) (LexisNexis 2007), reserving his 
right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress 
evidence.1  We affirm because the investigative 
detention of the appellant did not violate either the Fourth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution or Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution.  Consequently, the district court did not 
err in denying the pretrial motion to suppress.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Did the 
investigative detention of the appellant prior to seizure of the evidence 
violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, or Article 1, § 
4 of the Wyoming Constitution?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      At about 8:00 
p.m. on March 18, 2006, Deputy Dave Lauck of the Campbell County Sheriff's 
Office was on routine patrol on Interstate 90.  He drove into an unlit "pullout" area 
known to local law enforcement officers as a place where underage drinking, drug 
usage, vandalism, and theft from vehicles frequently occurred.  As he drove into the pullout area, Deputy 
Lauck saw a Chrysler PT Cruiser parked, with its headlights off, but its motor 
running.  The headlights of his 
patrol vehicle briefly illuminated the interior of the PT Cruiser, and Deputy 
Lauck noticed a "flurry of movement" in the front seat area.   Deputy Lauck parked his patrol vehicle 
and walked up to the front passenger door of the PT Cruiser "to find out more 
about what was going on."

 
 
[¶4]      The appellant was 
seated in the front passenger seat of the PT Cruiser, with the seat reclined at 
about a 45-degree angle.  The 
reclined seat, combined with the tinted window, made it difficult for Deputy 
Lauck fully to see the appellant, which raised both officer safety and evidence 
destruction concerns in his mind.  
The appellant lowered the passenger window about halfway.  As he asked the appellant "what was 
going on," Deputy Lauck noticed that the appellant appeared nervous, and he also 
noticed an "unusual" odor coming from inside the car.  The odor, which Deputy Lauck 
alternatively described as "an old burnt smell," or a "chemical smell," made him 
suspect drug activity, despite the fact that he could not identify the odor as 
coming from any specific controlled substance with which he was familiar through 
his training and experience.2 

 
 
[¶5]      Deputy Lauck next 
obtained the driver's licenses of both the appellant and the driver, Cassie 
Gose.  He returned to his patrol 
vehicle, where he ran local warrant and driver's license checks and called for 
backup and a K-9 unit.3  Deputy Scott Appley arrived at the scene 
as backup within five to seven minutes after Deputy Lauck first approached the 
PT Cruiser.  No K-9 unit 
responded.

 
 
[¶6]      Deputy Lauck next 
walked from his vehicle to the driver's door of the PT Cruiser and asked the 
driver to step out.  His purpose was 
to determine the source of the unusual odor, and in particular to see "if they 
were in the process of using controlled substances."  He asked the driver if there were any 
drugs in the car and she indicated that there was "a pipe."  She voluntarily retrieved a pipe and a 
small amount of marijuana from behind the driver's seat and gave it to Deputy 
Lauck.  Deputy Lauck asked if he 
could search the car and the driver consented.  She was then 
arrested.

 
 
[¶7]      Before Deputy 
Lauck began to search the PT Cruiser, he had the appellant get out and stand 
near Deputy Appley.  He then 
searched the car, finding marijuana seeds and stems, and a white pill in the 
passenger seat, as well as another pipe in the glove compartment.  He also found a prescription bottle of 
hydrocodone tablets, in the driver's name, in a compartment in the passenger 
door.

 
 
[¶8]      The appellant and 
Deputy Appley stood near the patrol vehicles while Deputy Lauck searched the PT 
Cruiser.  The appellant was fidgety 
and was talking to himself, and began putting his hands in his pockets, which 
made Deputy Appley uncomfortable because he had not patted down the appellant 
for weapons.  Consequently, Deputy 
Appley had the appellant empty his pockets, placing the contents onto the back 
of Deputy Lauck's patrol vehicle.  
Deputy Appley then patted down the appellant, finding no 
weapons.

 
 
[¶9]      A few minutes 
later, the appellant asked Deputy Appley if the appellant could urinate.  Deputy Appley directed the appellant to 
the back of the patrol vehicles.  
The appellant returned, and soon asked if he could sit down because he 
was cold.  Deputy Appley told him to 
sit by the back tire of the patrol vehicle so the deputy could continue both to 
watch the appellant and to observe the car search, in his backup capacity.  The appellant sat on the ground for a few 
minutes, but then asked if he could sit in the patrol vehicle.  Deputy Appley assented and opened the 
door to allow the appellant to sit on the passenger seat.  As he did so, Deputy Appley observed a 
baggie lying on the ground where the appellant had been 
seated.

 
 
[¶10]   Deputy Appley picked up the baggie 
and asked the appellant what it was.  
The appellant denied that it belonged to him, and accused the deputy of 
"planting" it.  At the same moment, 
Deputy Appley saw another baggie fall out of the appellant's pants leg onto the 
floor board of the patrol vehicle.  
Both baggies contained a white powder that Deputy Appley suspected to be, 
and that later was proven to be, methamphetamine.  The appellant was then arrested and 
transported to jail.  Upon the 
appellant being searched for admission into the jail, another baggie of 
methamphetamine was found in the crotch area of his pants, and a small 
cellophane packet of marijuana was found hidden under his 
testicles.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶11]   We outlined our standard for 
reviewing the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence in Campbell v. State, 2004 WY 106, ¶ 9, 97 P.3d 781, 784 (Wyo. 2004):

 
 
When 
this Court reviews a district court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence, 
we do not disturb the district court's findings on factual issues unless they 
are clearly erroneous.  Meek v. State, 2002 WY 1, ¶ 8, 37 P.3d 1279, ¶ 8 (Wyo. 2002); McChesney v. 
State, 988 P.2d 1071, 1074 (Wyo. 1999).  The evidence is viewed in the light most 
favorable to the district court's determination because 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.  
Id.  "When the district court has not made 
specific findings of fact, we will uphold its general ruling if the ruling is 
supportable by any reasonable view of the evidence."  Meek, ¶ 8 (quoting Frederick v. State, 981 P.2d 494, 497 
(Wyo. 
1999).  However, the issue of 
lawwhether an unreasonable search or seizure has occurred in violation of 
constitutional rightsis reviewed de 
novo.  Damato v. State, 2003 WY 13, ¶ 7, 64 P.3d 700, ¶ 7 (Wyo. 2003).  See also Meadows v. State, 2003 WY 37, ¶ 
14, 65 P.3d 33, ¶ 14 (Wyo. 2003); Wilson 
v. State, 874 P.2d 215, 218 (Wyo. 1994).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶12]   The question before the Court is 
actually quite limited.  The 
appellant does not question the legality of Deputy Lauck having approached the 
PT Cruiser, or his having contacted the appellant to determine "what was going 
on."  Primarily, the appellant 
contends that, once he told Deputy Lauck that the couple had been engaged in 
sexual activity, Deputy Lauck had no reasonable suspicion of any unlawful 
activity that justified further detention.

 
 
[¶13]   We disagree.  To begin with, the request to see 
identification does not convert a consensual encounter into a seizure that 
invokes Fourth Amendment protection.  
Rice v. State, 2004 WY 130, ¶ 
25, 100 P.3d 371, 379 (Wyo. 2004); Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215, 222 (Wyo. 1994).  Consequently, the appellant and Gose 
were not "seized" until Deputy Lauck actually took their driver's licenses and 
walked back to his patrol vehicle to run records checks.  The precise question before the Court is 
whether, at that moment, Deputy Lauck had a reasonable suspicion of criminal 
activity to allow him to detain the couple for the purpose of investigating that 
suspicion.  We believe he 
did.

 
 
[¶14]   The test is whether the State can 
show "the presence of specific and articulable facts and rational inferences 
which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or may be 
committing a crime[.]"  Custer v. State, 2006 WY 72, ¶ 13, 135 P.3d 620, 624-25 (Wyo. 2006).  The 
facts supporting Deputy Lauck's reasonable suspicion were:  (1) the particular area where the PT 
Cruiser was parked was known by local law enforcement officers to have a history 
of criminal activity, including underage drinking, drug use, vandalism, and 
theft from cars; (2) when he entered the pullout area, he observed a "flurry of 
movement" in the front seat area of the PT Cruiser; (3) when the appellant 
partially lowered the passenger window, Deputy Lauck immediately noticed an "old 
burnt smell" or "chemical smell" that he associated with drug use, but could not 
quite identify; (4) the appellant's car seat was reclined back, making it 
difficult for Deputy Lauck to see the appellant or the appellant's hands; and 
(5) the appellant was visibly nervous.  
While any one of these factors, standing alone, probably would not have 
created reasonable suspicion, we hold that, taken together, they 
did.

 
 
[¶15]   It must also be remembered that the 
detention that is at issue here was very brief.  From the time Deputy Lauck took the 
driver's licenses, to the point he returned to the PT Cruiser to talk to Gose 
was but a very few minutes.  Gose 
almost immediately admitted the presence of drugs and drug paraphernalia in the 
car, and retrieved them for the deputy.  
Reasonable suspicion then became probable cause to search the PT Cruiser, 
and both Gose and the appellant were justifiably detained during that 
process.  In truth, Deputy Lauck's 
contact with Gose and the appellant prior to Gose's admission was both brief and 
minimal, and we cannot say that it violated either Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming 
Constitution or the Fourth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶16]   The totality of the circumstances 
facing Deputy Lauck as he encountered Gose and the appellant in the pullout area 
gave him reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.  His brief detention of the couple to 
investigate that suspicion was not unreasonable, and did not violate the 
reasonable search and seizure provision of either the State or the Federal 
constitution.

 
 
[¶17]   Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1W.R.Cr.P. 
11(a)(2) allows entry of a conditional guilty plea, with reservation of the 
right to appeal the denial of a pretrial motion.

 
 

2When 
asked, the appellant stated that the odor resulted from sexual activity, and 
when Deputy Lauck later approached the driver's door, he noticed that the female 
driver was partially unclothed.

 
 

3The 
record does not indicate the result of the warrants and driver's license checks, 
but we assume they were negative inasmuch as Deputy Lauck took no action in 
response thereto.