Opinion ID: 2633502
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Closed Container Searches

Text: [¶ 18] Mr. Johnson contends that even if his belongings were properly included in the search, article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution [1] prohibits the opening of closed containers during an inventory. In making his contention, Mr. Johnson acknowledges that this Court has long recognized the doctrine of inventory searches. He concedes that under the Fourth Amendment, a bright line rule permits inventory searches of closed containers, if conducted in good faith pursuant to standardized police policy, and the search is not a ruse for the general rummaging for criminal evidence. See Opperman, 428 U.S. at 369, 96 S.Ct. 3092; Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 107 S.Ct. 738, 93 L.Ed.2d 739 (1987); Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990). This bright line rule exists under the Fourth Amendment because a single familiar standard is essential to guide police officers, who have only limited time and expertise to reflect on and balance the social and individual interests involved in the specific circumstances they confront. Bertine, 479 U.S. at 375, 107 S.Ct. 738. [¶ 19] We recently provided a general overview for conducting a state constitutional analysis in O'Boyle, ¶ 23, 117 P.3d at 408. We reiterated that we use six  non-exclusive neutral criteria for consideration in analyzing a claim under our state constitution: 1) the textual language of the provisions; 2) differences in the texts; 3) constitutional history; 4) preexisting state law; 5) structural differences; and 6) matters of particular state or local concern. Id., ¶ 24, 117 P.3d at 408. See also Saldana v. State, 846 P.2d 604, 622 (Wyo.1993). [¶ 20] For his analysis under the foregoing factors, Mr. Johnson first points to our discussion in O'Boyle where we found that the first three criteria are of little assistance. O'Boyle, ¶ 24, 117 P.3d at 408-409. We stated that with the exception of the affidavit requirement for search warrants, the text of Wyoming's search and seizure provision is substantially the same as the Fourth Amendment. Id. No further discussion of those factors is necessary. Factor four requires an examination of preexisting state law. Wyoming precedent dating back as early as 1976 has permitted the opening of closed containers during inventory searches. See, e.g., Williams, 557 P.2d at 139; Roose, 759 P.2d at 483; Vargas-Rocha, 891 P.2d at 767; Perry, 927 P.2d at 1165-66. Mr. Johnson does not identify any preexisting state law proscribing the opening of closed containers during an inventory search. Mr. Johnson provides no analysis under the fifth factor. As a result, our review is limited to factor six matters of particular state or local concern. [¶ 21] Mr. Johnson refers to our discussion in O'Boyle where we found that drug interdiction efforts along Interstate 80 affect an untold number of both interstate and intrastate travelers. O'Boyle, ¶ 33, 117 P.3d at 411. Mr. Johnson relies on this discussion to support his contention that permitting police to conduct searches without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing will have a negative impact on tourism. To this effect he states: If too many people have the uncomfortable and embarrassing experience of having a law enforcement officer rummage through their private belongings, obviously fewer people will choose to drive through Wyoming and spend their money while on vacation. [¶ 22] Unlike the situation in O'Boyle, we have concluded that the scope of this traffic stop was reasonable. Mr. Johnson was initially pulled over for speeding. After reviewing Mr. Johnson's driver's license and the rental agreement, Trooper Dyer detained Mr. Johnson to investigate his possible unauthorized use of the rental car. Mr. Johnson's concerns relating to a negative impact on tourism are unjustified. [¶ 23] In addition to the foregoing factors, Mr. Johnson asks us to consider the precedent of Montana and Alaska that prohibits the examination of closed containers during inventories. See, e.g., State v. Sawyer, 174 Mont. 512, 571 P.2d 1131 (1977), overruled on other grounds by State v. Long, 216 Mont. 65, 700 P.2d 153 (1985); State v. Daniel, 589 P.2d 408 (Alaska 1979). He claims that it makes sense to follow that precedent because our constitution is made up of a patchwork of provisions borrowed from western states. Because these states have interpreted their constitutions as prohibiting the opening of closed containers, Mr. Johnson urges this Court to follow suit. We decline to do so. Our constitutional provisions were borrowed from many western states including Idaho, North Dakota and South Dakota. See, e.g., Richard Kenneth Prien, The Background of the Wyoming Constitution § 4, at 41 (1956); T.A. Larson, History of Wyoming 247 (1990). Those states permit the opening of closed containers during inventory searches authorized under standardized policies. See State v. Owen, ___ Idaho ___, ___ P.3d ___, 2006 WL 931690, 2006 Ida.App. LEXIS 40 (Idaho Ct. App.2006); State v. Bray, 122 Idaho 375, 834 P.2d 892 (Ct.App.1992); State v. Gregg, 615 N.W.2d 515 (N.D.2000); State v. Kunkel, 455 N.W.2d 208, 211 (N.D.1990) (citing State v. Muralt, 376 N.W.2d 25 (N.D.1985)); State v. Flittie, 425 N.W.2d 1, 4-6 (S.D.1988). This additional consideration is insufficient to warrant an expansion of the protections provided by the federal constitution. [¶ 24] Upon conducting a state constitutional analysis in this case, we find that the scope of the protection provided by the Wyoming Constitution is the same as and parallel to that provided by the federal constitution. O'Boyle, ¶ 23, 117 P.3d at 408. Consonant with the Fourth Amendment, the opening of closed containers during an inventory search is permissible if conducted in good faith, pursuant to a standardized police policy, and as long as the search is not a ruse for general rummaging for evidence of a crime. See Bertine, 479 U.S. at 374, 107 S.Ct. 738; Opperman, 428 U.S. at 369, 96 S.Ct. 3092. Our prior precedent has permitted inventory searches and the opening of closed containers during those searches. See, e.g., Williams, 557 P.2d at 139; Roose, 759 P.2d at 483; Vargas-Rocha, 891 P.2d at 767; Perry, 927 P.2d at 1165-66. Mr. Johnson has provided us no reason to depart from our prior holdings.