Title: Tiernan v. State

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

WILLIAM SCOTT TIERNAN v. THE STATE OF WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION2011 WY 143Case Number: No. S-11-0058Decided: 10/14/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2011
 
WILLIAM 
SCOTT TIERNAN,Appellant (Plaintiff),v.THE STATE OF WYOMING, 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,Appellee (Defendant).
 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Albany County
The 
Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge
 
Representing 
Appellant:
R. 
Michael Vang of Fleener & Vang, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.
 
Representing 
Appellee:
Gregory 
A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney 
General; Douglas J. Moench, Senior Assistant Attorney General; John S. Shumway, 
Assistant Attorney General.  

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

 [¶1]  A Wyoming State Trooper stopped William 
Scott Tiernan on suspicion of driving while impaired after he observed Mr. 
Tiernan’s vehicle cross the center line and the fog line a couple of times.  The trooper conducted field sobriety 
tests and arrested Mr. Tiernan for driving under the influence of alcohol.  Mr. Tiernan refused to submit to 
chemical testing and the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) advised 
him that it intended to suspend his driver’s license.  Mr. Tiernan requested a hearing during 
which he argued the trooper was not justified in stopping him.  The Office of Administrative Hearings 
(OAH) upheld the suspension.  Mr. 
Tiernan appealed to the district court, which affirmed the OAH order.  
 
[¶2]  Mr. Tiernan appealed the district 
court’s ruling affirming the OAH order.  
He contends the trooper failed to present sufficient facts to support the 
stop for a lane violation.  We 
affirm.    

 
 
ISSUE
 
[¶3]  We restate the issue Mr. Tiernan 
presents as follows:
 
            
Whether the DVD recording taken from the trooper’s patrol car supports 
the conclusion that he had probable cause to stop Mr. Tiernan for failing to 
maintain a single lane of traffic in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
31-5-209(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2011).
 
 
FACTS
 
[¶4]  Around 9:45 p.m. on May 1, 2010, Wyoming 
Highway Patrol Trooper David Wagener was patrolling Highway 130 in Albany 
County.  According to his report, he 
was behind a blue Chevy truck with Florida license plates.  His report states:
 
I 
observed the truck cross over the dashed center line one time to the south, 
drift to the right and then cross over the white fog line to the north.  The Chevy truck was traveling 
approximately 60 mph in a posted 65 mph zone.  At that point, I was suspicious that the 
driver of the blue Chevy truck was possibly intoxicated.
 
As 
I continued to observe the truck, an eastbound vehicle approached with its 
headlights on.  As the eastbound 
vehicle approached the Chevy truck, I observed the Chevy truck drift back across 
the north white fog line.  This 
observation increased my suspicion that the driver may be intoxicated, as I 
noted from my experience and training that impaired drivers will sometimes steer 
away from oncoming headlights.  
Based on my observations, I conducted a traffic stop on the blue Chevy 
truck at mile post 05.00 on WY 130 westbound in Albany County for lane use and 
suspicion of an impaired driver.
 
[¶5]  As Trooper Wagener activated his 
flashing lights and approached the truck, it pulled off the highway and 
stopped.  Upon contacting the 
driver, the trooper observed signs that he had been drinking.  Mr. Tiernan admitted that he had 
consumed alcohol, but said he thought he was okay to drive.  He refused to submit to a breath 
test.  The trooper asked him to 
perform field sobriety tests which, according to his report, Mr. Tiernan 
performed poorly.  He arrested Mr. 
Tiernan for driving under the influence of alcohol and transported him to the 
detention center where Mr. Tiernan again refused to submit to a breath 
test.
 
[¶6]  By letter dated May 11, 2010, WYDOT 
advised Mr. Tiernan that based upon his refusal to submit to a chemical test his 
driver’s license would be suspended for six months in accordance with Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 31-6-102 (LexisNexis 2009).1  Mr. Tiernan submitted a request for a 
hearing to contest the suspension.  
The OAH convened a hearing on July 14, 2010.  Mr. Tiernan and his attorney appeared by 
telephone and presented as evidence the DVD recording taken from the patrol car, 
arguing that it did not support the trooper’s report that his vehicle had 
crossed the center and fog lines and the stop was invalid.  WYDOT submitted its certified record 
containing Trooper Wagener’s certified statement and arrest report.  After the hearing, the OAH entered an 
order upholding the implied consent suspension.  Mr. Tiernan filed a petition for review 
of the OAH order in the district court.  

 
[¶7]  In addition to having his driver’s 
license suspended, Mr. Tiernan was charged in circuit court with driving while 
under the influence of alcohol.  Mr. 
Tiernan moved to dismiss the charge on the grounds that Trooper Wagener lacked 
an articulable suspicion for stopping him for a lane violation.  On September 2, 2010, the circuit court 
entered an order dismissing the case, stating that it had viewed the DVD and 
“was unable to see the alleged traffic violations claimed by the officer.”    
 
[¶8]  In January of 2011, the district court 
issued a decision letter on Mr. Tiernan’s petition for review finding that 
Trooper Wagener had reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop and 
upholding the OAH order suspending his license.  The decision letter was followed by an 
order from which Mr. Tiernan timely appealed to this Court.              

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW
 
[¶9]  We review an appeal from a district 
court’s review of an administrative agency’s decision as if it had come directly 
from the administrative agency.  Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 
84, ¶ 8, 188 P.3d 554, 557 (Wyo. 2008).  
Our review of an administrative agency’s action is governed by Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii) (LexisNexis 2011), which provides that the reviewing 
court shall:
 
(ii) 
Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to 
be:
            
(A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in 
accordance with law;
            
(B) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or 
immunity;
            
(C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or 
lacking statutory right;
            
(D) Without observance of procedure required by law; 
or
            
(E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record 
of an agency hearing provided by statute.  

 
[¶10]  In reviewing an agency’s factual 
findings:
 
[W]e 
examine the entire record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to 
support an agency’s findings.  If 
the agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, we cannot properly 
substitute our judgment for that of the agency and must uphold the findings on 
appeal.  Substantial evidence is 
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept in support of the 
agency’s conclusions.  It is more 
than a scintilla of evidence.  

 
Hwang 
v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 
2011 WY 20, ¶ 9, 247 P.3d 861, 864 (Wyo. 2011).  A traffic stop is a limited 
investigatory detention and implicates constitutional protections.  Batten v. Wyo. Dep’t of Transp. Drivers’ 
License Div., 2007 WY 173, ¶ 10, 170 P.3d 1236, 1240 (Wyo. 2007).  Whether a violation of constitutional 
rights occurred is a question of law, which we review de novo.  Id., ¶ 12, 170 P.3d  at 1241.  
 
 
DISCUSSION
 
[¶11]  Mr. Tiernan asserts the DVD recording 
does not support the OAH’s conclusion that Trooper Wagener was justified in 
stopping him for improper lane use.  
He contends the circuit court’s ruling to the contrary was correct.  The Fourth Amendment protects 
individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.  U.S. Const. Amend. IV.  A routine traffic stop constitutes a 
seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment “even though the purpose of 
the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief.”  Parks v. State, 2011 WY 19, ¶ 7, 247 P.3d 857, 858 (Wyo. 2011), quoting Damato 
v. State, 2003 WY 13, ¶ 9, 64 P.3d 700, 704 (Wyo. 2003).  Detention of a motorist is justified 
when the officer has probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred 
or has a reasonable articulable suspicion that the particular motorist is 
engaged in criminal activity.  Harvey v. State, 2011 WY 72, 250 P.3d 167 (Wyo. 2011); Frazier v. State, 
2010 WY 107, 236 P.3d 295 (Wyo. 2010). 
 
[¶12]  In the present case, the OAH and the 
district court concluded Trooper Wagener had a reasonable suspicion to stop Mr. 
Tiernan for a lane violation.  
Before considering whether the evidence supported a finding that the stop 
was justified, we take this opportunity to clarify the distinction between 
probable cause and reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop.  We have said that reasonable suspicion 
is a lower standard than probable cause and requires a fact-centered inquiry 
based on the totality of the circumstances.   Dods v. State, 2010 WY 133, ¶ 8, 240 P.3d 1208, 1209-10 (Wyo. 2010).  To 
the extent that the distinction between the two standards has been blurred, see Dods, ¶ 20, 240 P.3d 1208, 1212-1213 
(Voigt, J., concurring), we clarify that a law enforcement official’s personal 
observation of a traffic law violation provides probable cause to initiate a traffic 
stop.  Thus, an officer had probable 
cause to initiate a traffic stop after personally observing a vehicle with a 
cracked windshield and obstructed license plate in violation of the law, Lovato v. State, 2010 WY 38, ¶ 13, 228 P.3d 55, 58 (Wyo. 2010); after personally observing a vehicle following another 
vehicle too closely, Garvin v. State, 
2007 WY 190, ¶ 13, 172 P.3d 725, 728-29 (Wyo. 2007); after personally observing 
speeding violations, Fertig v. State, 
2006 WY 148, ¶¶ 24-28, 146 P.3d 492, 499-501 (Wyo. 2006), Damato, ¶ 12, 64 P.3d  at 706,  and Fender v. State, 2003 WY 96, ¶ 13, 74 P.3d 1220, 1225 (Wyo. 2003); and after personally observing a vehicle driving in 
more than one lane of traffic, Dods, 
¶ 18, 240 P.3d  at 1212, Norman v. 
State, 747 P.2d 520, 523 (Wyo. 1987).  
Whether the officers in those cases had reasonable suspicion to detain the drivers after the initial 
stop was a separate question the resolution of which depended on the 
circumstances.  Likewise, the 
question of whether an officer has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity 
justifying a traffic stop in the absence of personally observing a traffic 
violation is a separate question which is determined based upon the totality of 
the circumstances.  In cases like 
the present one, however, the question is whether the evidence supported the 
conclusion that the trooper had probable cause to stop Mr. Tiernan’s vehicle for 
failing to maintain a single lane of traffic.  
 
[¶13]  Trooper Wagener stated in his report 
that he stopped Mr. Tiernan’s vehicle for an observed lane violation and on 
suspicion that the driver was intoxicated.2  He stated that he made the stop after 
observing the vehicle cross the center line once, drift back across the lane and 
cross the fog line, and cross the fog line again when a vehicle approached from 
the opposite direction.  Trooper 
Wagener stated in his report that in his experience, intoxicated drivers tend to 
steer away from oncoming headlights.   

[¶14]  Addressing Mr. Tiernan’s argument that 
the DVD recording contradicted the trooper’s report, the OAH noted that it was 
taken at night at highway speeds and was of poor quality.  The OAH also noted that for the first 
ten to fifteen seconds, Mr. Tiernan’s vehicle was too far away to tell from the 
recording whether it maintained its travel lane. The OAH found, however, that 
Trooper Wagener’s report “unequivocally described clear violations of state 
traffic laws,” giving him justification to initiate a traffic stop.  While acknowledging that the recording 
did not clearly depict whether Mr. Tiernan’s vehicle crossed over the center 
line or fog line, the OAH found that in the nearly two minutes recorded, Mr. 
Tiernan’s vehicle appeared to drift to the far left side of its lane of travel, 
drift again to the far left side of its lane and then back to the fog line and 
drift back towards the fog line and far to the right side of its lane when 
headlights approached from the opposite direction.  The OAH found in each instance that the 
vehicle “possibly” crossed over the center line or the fog line.  After watching the recording, the OAH 
concluded that rather than contradicting the trooper’s report it corroborated 
his report and he was justified in stopping the vehicle for violating § 
31-5-209(a)(i) and on suspicion of violating Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-233(b).      
 
[¶15]  Mr. Tiernan contends the evidence was 
insufficient to support the stop for a lane violation because, as the OAH found, 
it showed only that he “possibly” crossed over the center line and fog line. He 
asserts the term “possibly” is speculative and not enough to establish that he 
violated the law so as to warrant a traffic stop.  He maintains the circuit court got it 
right when it concluded the DVD did not show the alleged violation.  He also contends the OAH’s ruling is 
contrary to Dods, ¶ 8, 240 P.3d  at 
1209, which requires consideration of mitigating factors in determining whether 
a driver has violated § 31-5-209(a)(i).  
The mitigating factors in his case, he argues, are that he came close to 
the lines only when he was on a curve and when oncoming traffic 
approached.
 
[¶16]  In Dods, a trooper stopped a vehicle after 
observing it cross the fog line.  
The defendant contended that crossing a fog line once, ostensibly in 
violation of Wyo. Stat.  Ann. § 
31-5-209(a)(i), did not justify the stop.  
Id., ¶ 6, 240 P.3d  at 
1209.  He argued the words “as 
nearly as possible” in the statute showed that it did not demand 
perfection.  Id.  We concluded that a single instance of 
crossing the fog line could be a violation of the “single lane of travel” 
statute.  Id., ¶ 16, 240 P.3d  at 1211.  We emphasized that all of the 
surrounding circumstances must be examined in determining whether a stop was 
justified.  Id., ¶ 16, 240 P.3d  at 121.  We concluded the circumstances in that 
case, which showed the vehicle crossed eight inches over the fog line and stayed 
across for approximately 550 feet, justified the traffic stop.  Id., ¶ 17, 240 P.3d  at 
1212.
 
[¶17]  We find nothing in the OAH’s ruling that 
is inconsistent with Dods.  In accordance with Dods, the OAH examined all of the 
surrounding circumstances in determining whether Trooper Wagener was justified 
in stopping Mr. Tiernan’s vehicle, including the trooper’s report, the DVD and 
Mr. Tiernan’s argument that the DVD refuted the report.  Upon consideration of all of the 
circumstances, the OAH concluded the trooper was warranted in stopping the 
vehicle.    

 
[¶18]  Having examined the entire record, we 
conclude substantial evidence supported the agency’s decision.  The trooper stated in his report that he 
observed the vehicle cross over the center line, drift back to the right and 
cross over the fog line and drift again over the fog line at the approach of 
another vehicle.  In addition to 
these statements, the OAH reviewed the DVD and found that although it did not 
depict clearly whether Mr. Tiernan’s vehicle crossed over the lines because of 
its poor quality and limited duration, it did show the vehicle drifting from one 
side of the lane to the other more than once and, therefore, corroborated the 
trooper’s statements.  Taken 
together, the report and the DVD constitute relevant evidence from which a 
reasonable mind might conclude that Trooper Wagener had probable cause to stop 
Mr. Tiernan’s vehicle for a traffic violation.  
 
[¶19]  Affirmed.               

FOOTNOTES
 
1Section 31-6-102 was amended effective July 1, 2011 to provide for 
issuance of a remotely communicated search warrant when a person refuses a peace 
officer’s request to submit to a chemical test.  The search warrant may be issued upon 
the officer’s sworn statement transmitted by voice, image, text or a combination 
thereof, when the judicial officer is satisfied probable cause exists to issue 
the warrant.  Any license suspension 
is based upon the results of the chemical test and a signed statement from the 
officer.  

 
2Trooper 
Wagener suspected Mr. Tiernan violated the following 
statutes:
 
§ 
31-5-209.  Driving on roadways laned 
for traffic.  

 
            
(a) Whenever any roadway has been divided into two (2) or more clearly 
marked lanes for traffic the following rules in addition to all others 
consistent herewith shall apply:
            
     (i)  A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as 
practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane 
until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with 
safety[.]
 
§ 
31-5-233.  Driving or having control 
of vehicle while under influence of intoxicating liquor[.]
. 
. . .
            
(b)  No person shall drive or 
have actual physical control of any vehicle within this state if the 
person:
  . . . .
            
     (ii)  To a degree which renders him incapable 
of safely driving:
            
(A)   Is under the 
influence of alcohol[.]