Opinion ID: 6534115
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Pier's Nervousness and Responses to Questions

Text: [¶40] Mr. Pier's nervousness, his inconsistent or unusual travel plans, and his inconsistent or inaccurate answers to Deputy Colling's questions are factors entitled to weight in the Court's probable cause analysis. In weighing them, however, I believe it is important to recognize that these are factors more common to a reasonable suspicion determination than to a probable cause analysis. See, e.g. , Dimino , ¶¶ 19-22, 286 P.3d at 744-45 ; Frazier v. State , 2010 WY 107 , ¶ 22, 236 P.3d 295 , 302 (Wyo. 2010) ; Flood v. State , 2007 WY 167 , ¶ 35, 169 P.3d 538 , 548 (Wyo. 2007) ; Damato , ¶¶ 19-24, 64 P.3d at 708-10 . That means where we usually see these factors having relevance is in the application of a standard less stringent than probable cause. Dimino , ¶ 18, 286 P.3d at 744 . Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause. Damato , ¶ 18, 64 P.3d at 707-08 (quoting United States v. Tuter , 240 F.3d 1292 , 1296 n.2 (10th Cir. 2001) ).  [¶41] Thus, while these factors are relevant, I would limit the weight they are given. Mr. Pier's nervousness and odd responses to Deputy Colling's questions are suspicious, but they are not as reliable as the type of information considered in a probable cause analysis. See, e.g. , Phippen , ¶ 15, 297 P.3d at 109 (odor of contraband); Tucker v. State , 2009 WY 107 , ¶ 26, 214 P.3d 236 , 244 (Wyo. 2009) (informant tip corroborated by DCI-recorded conversation). Indeed, this Court has found close calls even when considering nervousness and inconsistent answers in the less rigorous reasonable suspicion standard. Although we acknowledge the evidence here is not overwhelming, the factors, including: the strong odor of a potential masking agent; the nervousness of the travelers; the inconsistency in the travelers' accounts of their trip and their relationship to one another and the boy; and the short turnaround time suggested nefarious, rather than innocent, conduct. We conclude, therefore, the totality of the circumstances established a reasonable suspicion to support further detention of Mr. Flood. Flood , ¶ 35, 169 P.3d at 548 ; see also State v. Welch , 873 P.2d 601 , 610 (Wyo. 1994) (Cardine, J., dissenting) (disagreeing that reasonable suspicion could be found where patrolman observed a pickup with camper and net tailgate, a clove of garlic, a radar detector, a clean bed, the pickup was from San Diego, California, with a driver too nervous and a passenger too calm (asleep in the pickup bed)).