Title: DANIEL ROBERT LATTA V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

DANIEL ROBERT LATTA V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2009 WY 35202 P.3d 1069Case Number: S-08-0065Decided: 03/10/2009
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2008

 
 
DANIEL 
ROBERT LATTA,Appellant(Defendant),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Carbon County

The 
Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, 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; and Jeremy C. 
Schwendiman, Student Intern.  
Argument by Mr. Schwendiman.

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

 
 

HILL, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Before he pled 
guilty to felony possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, Daniel R. Latta 
filed a motion to 
suppress evidence seized from his vehicle after a traffic stop. 
The district court denied his motion, and Latta now claims on appeal that the 
district court erred in denying the motion because, although he conceded that 
the initial stop was legal, 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 Latta's 
detention until a drug dog arrived. We affirm.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      Latta presents 
just one issue for our consideration:

 
 

I.              
Did 
the trial court abuse its discretion and commit reversible error when it denied 
[Latta's] Motion to Suppress?

 
 
The 
State rephrases the issue this way:

 
 

1.    
The 
trial court did not err when it denied [Latta's] Motion to Suppress 
Evidence.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      While patrolling 
a section of I-80 on April 26, 2007, Wyoming Highway Patrol Trooper Jason Green, 
accompanied by Trooper Mike Felicetti, noticed a gray car which appeared to be 
speeding.  According to Trooper 
Green's radar, the gray car, driven by Daniel R. Latta, was traveling 79 miles 
per hour in a 75 mile per hour zone.  
Upon spotting the trooper, Latta immediately slowed to 65 miles per hour, 
and as the two vehicles passed one another, Latta shielded his face with his arm 
and hand.

 
 
[¶4]      Trooper Green 
initiated a stop of Latta, and both troopers approached the vehicle and 
informed Latta that he had been 
stopped for speeding.  Latta was 
visibly shaking, and began stuttering, agreeing that he had been speeding 
because he was on his way home.  
Trooper Green noticed that Latta's face was flushed and his hands were 
trembling.  The trooper told Latta 
that he would give him a warning, asked him to calm down, and requested his 
driver's license and proof of insurance.

 
 
[¶5]      Latta 
informed the trooper that the vehicle 
was not his, but a rental, whereupon the trooper asked for the rental 
agreement.  Latta gave his license, 
but no rental agreement  instead, he gave the trooper a card listing the 
vehicle's VIN and a reference number for law enforcement to call to verify that 
Latta was authorized to drive the car.

 
 
[¶6]      The trooper then 
asked Latta about his travel plans, and Latta, still stuttering, said that he 
had been in Salt Lake for "pleasure," not business.  Latta said he had been traveling for 
four days.  While talking to Latta, 
Trooper Green noticed shirts hanging on the backseat, a cooler, several 
overnight bags, and two pillows.  
After this initial encounter, which lasted "[a] minute to two, maybe ," 
Trooper Green returned to his patrol car.

 
 
[¶7]      While in his 
patrol car, Trooper Green called the number on the back of the card Latta gave 
him, and discovered Latta had in fact rented the vehicle a week before.  The card was apparently given to Latta 
as a frequent renter in lieu of a rental agreement. Trooper Green filled out a 
warning ticket for speeding and returned to Latta's vehicle, where he then 
noticed the smell of marijuana.  He 
explained the warning and then asked Latta if he rented cars often, to which 
Latta responded in the affirmative.  
The trooper asked Latta again from where he was coming, but instead of 
Salt Lake, Latta responded that he was coming from a friend's house in 
Reno.  Trooper Green then ended the 
conversation and told Latta he was free to leave, and began to walk 
away.

 
 
[¶8]      After walking 
back to his vehicle, the trooper returned and asked Latta if he could ask him a 
few more questions.  Latta agreed, 
and the trooper told him he was under no obligation to answer any questions if 
he did not want to  yet Latta again agreed to answer the trooper's 
questions.  Trooper Green then asked 
him if anyone had given him anything to take back from his trip, to which he 
answered no while swallowing hard twice.  
Throughout the interaction, the trooper asked Latta if there was any 
marijuana in the car.  Latta turned 
from the trooper, and said no.  
Then, Trooper Green asked if he could search, and Latta responded that he 
did not understand.  Trooper Green 
clarified his request to search, and explained to Latta that he was suspicious 
and wanted permission to search the car for illegal substances by letting his 
dog sniff the vehicle.  Latta 
responded, "Just search or do whatever you need to do."

 
 
[¶9]      Trooper Green's 
dog alerted immediately, and after removing Latta from his vehicle, Trooper 
Green found marijuana in Latta's trunk.  
Latta was arrested, and during transport, Latta expressed that there was 
nothing illegal in the car "except what was in the trunk."  Trooper Green immediately read Latta his 
Miranda rights.  Latta's trunk 
contained approximately thirty pounds of marijuana.  On April 27, 2007, Latta was charged by 
felony information with possession of 
a controlled substance, marijuana, with the intent to deliver, in violation of 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. 35-7-1031(a)(ii), and possession of a felony amount of a 
controlled substance, marijuana, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
35-7-1031(c)(iii).  On May 21, 2007, 
Latta pled not guilty to both charges.  
On July 19, 2007, Latta filed a Motion to Suppress, and a hearing was 
held the following month.  During 
the hearing, Latta conceded that the initial stop was valid, but argued the 
reasonableness of his further detention that led to the discovery of the 
marijuana.  The district court 
denied Latta's motion.  On October 
22, 2007, Latta changed his plea to guilty and was sentenced on January 11, 
2008.  This appeal 
followed.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶10]   In reviewing a trial court's ruling 
on a motion to 
suppress evidence, we do not interfere with the trial court's 
findings of fact unless the findings are clearly 
erroneous. We view the evidence in the light most 
favorable to the trial court's determination because the trial court has an 
opportunity at the evidentiary hearing to assess the credibility of the 
witnesses, weigh the evidence, and make the necessary inferences, deductions, 
and conclusions.  The 
constitutionality of a particular search is a question of law that we review de novo.  Shaw v. State, 2009 WY 18, ¶ 19, 
___ P.3d ___ (Wyo. 2009).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶11]   
Latta claims that the State obtained the thirty pounds of marijuana 
pursuant to an illegal search in violation of both the state and federal 
constitutions because his consent to answer Trooper Green's second set of 
questions was not voluntary and that, because the trooper had not gained the 
information necessary to form a 
reasonably articulable suspicion that a crime was being committed, he illegally 
detained Latta while the search of the car was being conducted.  Because Latta does not claim that the 
traffic stop was unjustified, or that the initial detention exceeded the scope 
of the stop, we begin our discussion with consideration of whether or not 
Latta's consent to further questioning was voluntary.

 
 
[¶12]   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.  In O'Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83, ¶ 38, 
117 P.3d 401, 412 (Wyo. 2005) this Court 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.

 
 
Under 
both constitutions, we examine the totality of the circumstances to determine if 
consent was voluntary. Among the factors we consider are: 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.  Id. ¶¶ 40-42, 61, 117 P.3d  at 413, 
418.

 
 
[¶13]   In light of the totality of the 
factual circumstances present in this case, we are confident that Latta's 
consent was voluntary.  We conclude 
that the initial traffic stop was brief, the trooper's conduct was professional, 
courteous, and non-coercive throughout the length of the entire encounter, and 
that the consents given by Latta were unhesitant and immediate.  The record clearly shows that the 
initial contact between Latta and law enforcement, during which Trooper Green 
issued a warning ticket, lasted approximately six minutes.  At all times, Trooper Green remained 
professional, courteous, and non-coercive.  
He allowed Latta to remain in his own vehicle during the entire 
conversation, and even asked Latta if he would mind if he spoke with him a bit 
longer, told him he did not have to agree, and asked him if he was okay with 
answering more questions, and Latta agreed.

 
 
[¶14]   Even when considering the fact that 
the patrol car's lights remained flashing and that there were two uniformed 
officers present, under the totality of the circumstances we can conclude that 
Latta's consent to a second round of questions was voluntary  "neither [of] 
these factors, alone [can] be seen as proving that the person stopped did not 
feel that he was free to go  A reasonable person in the appellant's position at 
the time would have felt that he could have said no' and proceeded on his 
way."  Marinaro v. State, 
2007 WY 123, ¶ 11, 163 P.3d 833, 836 (Wyo. 2007).

 
 
[¶15]   Having concluded that Latta's 
consent was voluntary, we need not consider whether Trooper Green 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, ¶ 12, 163 P.3d 836.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶16]   The district court did not abuse 
its discretion or otherwise err as a matter of law in denying Latta's Motion to 
Suppress.  The Judgment and Sentence 
of the district court is affirmed.