Opinion ID: 2548669
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Error in Denying Motion to Suppress

Text: [¶29] In analyzing this issue we employ this standard of review: Generally, we do not disturb a trial court's evidentiary rulings unless the court has clearly abused its discretion. Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215, 218 (Wyo. 1994). Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously. Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 (Wyo. 1998). We give deference to the trial court's findings of fact on a motion to suppress unless they are clearly erroneous, recognizing that court has had the opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses, weigh the evidence and make the necessary inferences, deductions and conclusions. Jones v. State, 902 P.2d 686, 690 (Wyo. 1995) (citing Wilson, 874 P.2d at 218). Whether an unreasonable search or seizure occurred in violation of constitutional rights presents a question of law that we review de novo. Wilson, at 218. Eckenrod v. State, 2003 WY 51, ¶11, 67 P.3d 635, ¶11 (Wyo. 2003). [¶30] Strickland maintains that we must apply a decision of the United States Supreme Court to the resolution of this issue. In Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287, 104 S.Ct. 641, 78 L.Ed.2d 477 (1984), a plurality of the Court held that, absent consent or exigent circumstances, administrative searches into the cause and origin of a fire are subject to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 291-92, 104 S.Ct. at 646; see also Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 504-05, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 1947, 56 L.Ed. 2d 486 (1978). Clifford is not applicable here because the record is very clear that not only did Strickland suspect that the fire was arson himself, he encouraged and facilitated the investigation of the fire, and consented to all the searches which produced incriminating evidence. Applying the standard of review set out above, the district court's decision to deny the motion to suppress was not clearly erroneous, nor did the district court abuse its discretion.