Opinion ID: 2627584
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The second round of questioning

Text: [¶ 25] At the end of his initial detention, Trooper Green returned the driver's license and rental agreement to Mr. Loo, and said he was free to go. While Mr. Loo was walking back to his car, Trooper Green asked if he would answer a few more questions. It is undisputed that Mr. Loo gave his consent, but that does not end the inquiry. [I]f 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.' O'Boyle, ¶ 38, 117 P.3d at 412, quoting Tobin v. State, 36 Wyo. 368, 374, 255 P. 788, 789 (1927). Factors to be considered include whether the individual was told he could refuse the request for further contact, and whether the officer was courteous and respectful, or threatening, antagonistic, and coercive. Seymour v. State, 2008 WY 61, ¶ 19, 185 P.3d 671, 677 (Wyo. 2008). [¶ 26] The district court found that Trooper Green informed Mr. Loo that he was free to go. It also found that Trooper Green acted in a professional and non-antagonistic manner . . . and there is no indication that Trooper Green was threatening. It further found that Mr. Loo's consent was not the product of repeated badgering. Trooper Green only asked once whether he could ask . . . some further questions and [Mr.] Loo responded affirmatively. Based on these findings, the district court concluded that a reasonable person in [Mr.] Loo's position would have felt free to leave, and that Mr. Loo's consent to further questioning was obtained voluntarily. The findings are consistent with evidence in the record, and the district court's conclusions based on those findings are sound. We find no error in the district court's decision that Mr. Loo's consent to the second round of questioning was voluntary, and that the questioning did not violate his rights under the Wyoming Constitution. [¶ 27] Again, the result is the same under federal standards. Under both constitutions, we examine the totality of the circumstances to determine if consent was voluntary. Latta v. State, 2009 WY 35, ¶ 12, 202 P.3d 1069, 1072 (Wyo. 2009). Factors to be considered include: 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. Applying these factors, the district court determined that Mr. Loo had validly consented to answer further questions, and Mr. Loo has provided no basis on appeal for overruling that determination.