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

Heading: Mr. Pier's Criminal History

Text: [¶42] Deputy Colling testified that a few months prior to his stop of Mr. Pier, he learned in talking with other deputies that he had prior drug convictions for distributing methamphetamine, that he had served time in a Wyoming state prison, and was a very prolific gang member in the prison. 5 As to Mr. Pier's gang affiliation in prison, Deputy Colling provided no testimony as to the dates of Mr. Pier's incarceration, what gang he allegedly joined, whether the gang has been linked to criminal behavior, or whether Mr. Pier has any current affiliation with the gang. I would therefore attach no weight to Mr. Pier's alleged gang membership. [¶43] As to Mr. Pier's criminal history, I agree it is a relevant factor, but it is also important to heed the Tenth Circuit's admonition that a criminal history may not be used to circumvent an individual's right to be free from unreasonable warrantless searches. [I]n conjunction with other factors, criminal history contributes powerfully to the reasonable suspicion calculus . [ United States v. ] White , 584 F.3d [935] at 951 [ (10 th Cir. 2009) ] (quoting [ United States v. ] Santos , 403 F.3d [1120] at 1132 [ (10 th Cir. 2005) ] ) (emphasis in original). Although a person with a criminal record could not be pulled over or detained based on the record itself, such a record is one factor that may justify further detention and that may cast a suspicious light on other seemingly innocent behavior. See Santos , 403 F.3d at 1132 (To be sure, this Court has held that a prior criminal history is by itself insufficient to create reasonable suspicion. People with prior convictions retain Fourth Amendment rights; they are not roving targets for warrantless searches. But in conjunction with other factors, criminal history contributes powerfully to the reasonable suspicion calculus. (internal citations omitted) ). Here, Trooper Bowles's knowledge that Mr. Simpson had a previous criminal history involving drug transportation weighs heavily in favor of finding reasonable suspicion. United States v. Simpson , 609 F.3d 1140 , 1147 (10th Cir. 2010). [¶44] Notably, Simpson cited the relevance of an individual's criminal history in a reasonable suspicion analysis, and even there emphasized that standing alone, it is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. In considering its relevance in a probable cause determination, our Court has likewise recognized it as a factor but has stressed that standing alone, it is not sufficient.  Tucker, ¶ 26, 214 P.3d at 244 . As a practical matter, the role of an individual's criminal history in a probable cause analysis will inevitably be limited because it will be dwarfed by other more specific and reliable information. For example, in Tucker , the defendant's criminal history was a factor noted, but the officers also had an informant tip with specific corroborated details as to the vehicle involved, the vehicle's occupants, the vehicle's location, and the types of drugs that would be found in the vehicle. Id. , ¶¶ 5-7, 214 P.3d at 239 ; see also Borgwardt v. State , 946 P.2d 805 , 807 (Wyo. 1997) (finding probable cause to search vehicle based on corroborated report from informant, DCI investigation details, and criminal history). [¶45] In my view, an individual's criminal history is more compelling in determining reasonable suspicion to detain and less important in our typical search for probable cause. I would therefore give consideration to Mr. Pier's criminal history, but I would not let it carry the analysis or be a controlling factor.