Opinion ID: 2627584
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The search of the trunk

Text: [¶ 34] Under the United States Constitution, when a trained and reliable drug dog alerts during an exterior sniff of a vehicle, there is probable cause to search that vehicle. See, e.g., United States v. Klinginsmith, 25 F.3d 1507, 1510 (10th Cir. 1994). We have suggested that the same is true under the Wyoming Constitution. State v. Williams, 2004 WY 53, ¶ ¶ 20, 22, 90 P.3d 85, 90-92 (Wyo. 2004). In any event, Mr. Loo has not provided the sort of precise, analytically sound approach required for us to make an independent analysis under our state constitution. See VanKooten v. State, 2009 WY 59, ¶ 12, ____ P.3d ____, ____ (Wyo. 2009). Trooper Green's testimony established that Sandy was a trained, reliable, and certified drug dog. Sandy's alert near the trunk of Mr. Loo's rental car provided Trooper Green with probable cause to search the trunk. [¶ 35] In sum, Trooper Green's initial stop of Mr. Loo was justified, and the initial detention was reasonable in scope, duration, and intensity. Mr. Loo validly consented to his second round of questioning. Considering all of the circumstances, Trooper Green had grounds to detain Mr. Loo further while the dog sniffed the vehicle. Once the dog alerted near the trunk, Trooper Green had probable cause to search the trunk. We affirm the district court's denial of Mr. Loo's motion to suppress the evidence discovered during the search.