Opinion ID: 2386590
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Detention until Canine Unit Arrived

Text: [¶ 16] The State concedes that once the trooper asked for permission to search Mr. Frazier's car and he declined, the detention was no longer consensual and required reasonable suspicion. The law is well settled that a law enforcement officer may detain a motorist if the officer has an objectively reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity. Barch v. State, 2004 WY 79, ¶ 9, 92 P.3d 828, 832 (2004); Damato v. State, 2003 WY 13, ¶ 13, 64 P.3d 700, 706 (2003); see also United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d 1262, 1268 (10th Cir.2001). The existence of objectively reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is determined by evaluating the totality of the circumstances. Damato, ¶ 16, 64 P.3d at 707. The whole picture must be considered; [c]ommon sense and ordinary human experience are to be employed, and deference is to be accorded a law enforcement officer's ability to distinguish between innocent and suspicious actions. Id. (citing United States v. Wood, 106 F.3d 942, 946 (10th Cir.1997)). Leyva, ¶ 12, 220 P.3d at 794. In determining whether an officer had reasonable suspicion, we look to the totality of the circumstances and how those circumstances developed during the officer's encounter with the occupant of the vehicle. Sutton v. State, 2009 WY 148, ¶ 11, 220 P.3d 784, 788 (Wyo.2009). [¶ 17] At the hearing on Mr. Frazier's motion to suppress, the trooper testified about his experience and training: [Trooper]: ... In 2004 I attended the first three stages of Desert Snow training.... It is geared specifically towards highway drug interdiction. It covers all aspects of that.... It coversI guess it entails picking up and showing you the vehicle indicators that you might come across of somebody that's transporting these types of drugs, body behavior. It talks about what these people might display. It covers interview and interrogation. It also covers where to find these vehicles and search techniques. Also covers courtroom testifying. Kind of a broad training that covers several different aspects.... They will they had examples set up of, like, cover[-]ups like air fresheners that are in the vehicle; things to look for such as multiple maps, multiple cell phones, luggage, and talking, possibly the lack thereof, just the general description of the vehicle, what the vehicle looks like. It could be as specific as was the vehicle recently cleaned when every other vehicle is dirty; what that might eventually lead to and what that could possibly show. [Prosecutor]: And then you mentioned that you received training on what to look for in the persons in those vehicles? A. Correct. Q. What are some of those things? A. Well, obviously, these people can't come out and tell you they're hauling an illegal amount of narcotics in the vehicle, who would? Further, these people have to lie. These classes are geared around what to look for in body language, and stories, and what has been seen in the past, and what typically hold[s] true to some person that's conducting these type[s] of activities. Q. When you say, stories, what exactly do you mean? A. Obviously, stories, I mean, there again, they can't tell you that they're hauling these drugs. They have to make up a story. In these trainings they provide examples of reports and cases of things that have happened in the past, and typically, a lot of this stuff is redundant. It happens over and over again. Things to look for in how the person is telling you what he's doing. Q. And you mentioned interview and interrogation techniques that you're trained? A. Correct. Q. Specifically, what do you mean by that? A. Well, how to conduct the interview, and basically, for us at the highway patrol the interview is done in our vehicle on the side of the road. It's not like you take somebody to a station and do that. It is the interview and interrogation techniques that apply to us, [it] would be reading people's body language and trying to put together the totality of the story that they're telling you from what you see and how they're coming across and explaining this to you. Q. All right. And on body language, were you thinking of something in particular? A. Particularly, body language, the expressions on their face, their gesturing, their tone of voice. Is their voice cracking? Are they trying to control their voice? It's really pretty hard to lie, and especially, when you're in an uncomfortable position, possibly stopped on the side of the road, trying to put together a story and lie, it's not easy to do. Q. I meant to ask you, have you had experience out on the road stopping vehicles that eventually you discovered illegal drugs in them? A. I have. I don't have a concrete number, but since about approximately 2005 I have anywhere between 25 and 30 felony criminal drug interdiction stops. Q. And in those situations you employed your training and the knowledge that you learned in reading people, assessing their vehicle and their behaviors and applied that, and that turned out there was drugs? A. Correct. The trooper went on to testify regarding the specific facts of the traffic stop. He was the only witness who testified at the hearing. Relying on this testimony, the district court concluded that the totality of the circumstances created a reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior sufficient to justify Mr. Frazier's detention until the canine unit arrived. [¶ 18] The first factor cited by the district court in concluding the trooper had reasonable suspicion to detain Mr. Frazier was the presence of air freshener and cologne in the vehicle. The presence of odor suppressing agents, alone, does not give rise to reasonable suspicion, but can be a factor contributing to the totality of the circumstances. Flood v. State, 2007 WY 167, ¶ 24, 169 P.3d 538, 546 (Wyo.2007) (scent of cologne contributed to reasonable suspicion); Leyva, ¶ 13, 220 P.3d at 794 (strong odor of air freshener in car). The trooper testified that items such as cologne or air fresheners are often used to mask the odor of illegal drugs by those transporting them. He testified that the presence of odor suppressing agents was a factor that aroused his suspicion. We note that the trooper testified he had only observed the items. He did not testify that he smelled the cologne or the air freshener. We have recognized that the presence of odor suppressing items can be a factor contributing to reasonable suspicion, even if the items are not in use at the time of the stop. See Sutton, ¶ 22, 220 P.3d at 790 (oven-cooking bags). As the district court observed: When the Trooper observed immediately on his approach to the car the presence of [air freshener] and cologne in it, he would certainly at least be more attuned to other indicia than he otherwise would be. There was no apparent reason for the odor-masking agents. [¶ 19] Mr. Frazier's extreme and prolonged nervousness was a second factor the district court relied upon in finding the trooper had reasonable suspicion. Nervousness is generally considered of limited significance because it is not uncommon for most citizens, whether innocent or guilty, to exhibit signs of nervousness when confronted by a law enforcement officer. Damato, ¶ 20, 64 P.3d at 708. Extreme and continued nervousness, however, is entitled to somewhat more weight. Id., ¶ 21, 64 P.3d at 708. [¶ 20] The trooper testified that right off the bat ... Mr. Frazier appeared to be considerably more nervous than the average person that [he] would come across or stop. Mr. Frazier was notified that he would receive only a warning, but he continued to shake nervously. The trooper observed that Mr. Frazier gestured wildly and moved his hands around while he was speaking. During a lull in the conversation, Mr. Frazier continued to fidget in his seat. At one point, Mr. Frazier folded his hands between his legs, however the muscles in his arms continued to twitch. The district court observed: The cases indeed, as pointed out by [Mr.] Frazier in his brief, hold that the observation of nervousness is to be expected in a citizen-police encounter. [The trooper's] observation was that even accounting for this, the level of shaking and agitation was unusual and it did not abate as normally it does when the subject is told that there will be only a warning. There was no apparent reason for the condition observed. Mr. Frazier's extreme nervousness was a factor the district court could consider in determining whether the trooper had reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. [¶ 21] The district court also found that Mr. Frazier's inconsistent travel plans contributed to the trooper's reasonable suspicion. [U]nusual or inconsistent travel plans are a proper consideration in a reasonable suspicion analysis. Sutton, ¶ 19, 220 P.3d at 790. The trooper stated he was suspicious because Mr. Frazier's travel plans seemed implausible. Mr. Frazier stated that he left Reno last night meaning he would have driven 12-15 hours through the night, according to the trooper's calculation, to reach Laramie County by 8:00 a.m. Mr. Frazier did not exhibit the kind of fatigue that the trooper would have expected from someone who drove through the night. Mr. Frazier's story also changed several times. When Mr. Frazier was answering questions in the patrol car, he told the trooper he learned about his grandfather's illness the night before, however, upon further questioning, he said he had learned about it three days earlier. Mr. Frazier had a map open to California, yet never mentioned that state in his travel plans. The trooper testified that the Reno area is a source for controlled substances and typically drugs travel from west to east. He stated that he put things together with the nervousness and the totality of the circumstances and suspected that Mr. Frazier was transporting illegal drugs. [¶ 22] These factorsthe inconsistent travel plans, odor suppressing agents, the map open to California, and the persistent and extreme nervousnesswhen viewed individually could be seen as innocent. As the district court stated: Application of the facts developed in the record to the law in this case as in most is fact intensive and nuanced. It is so to the point that the lay person would see it as hair-splitting. Each of the elements that make up the totality of the circumstances viewed alone seem[s] tenuous. The district court considered the trooper's training and experience in determining whether the totality of the circumstances amounted to reasonable suspicion: The training and experience of the officer in a case like this includes his general knowledge of conditions. It has been judicially noticed by the Wyoming Supreme Court that the place of this traffic stop is ... along a nationally recognized drug trafficking corridor. O'Boyle v. State, 117 P.3d 401, 411. In this context, observations by an officer that might not otherwise reasonably be expected to arouse suspicion do so. The odor-masking agents are a good example. The Trooper's suspicion was reasonable in the totality of circumstances. This conclusion is consistent with previous decisions in which we have said that each of the factors considered might be innocent, but under the totality of the circumstances test, individually innocuous factors can combine to arouse a reasonable suspicion for the experienced officer. Leyva, ¶ 13, 220 P.3d at 794-95; Feeney v. State, 2009 WY 67, ¶ 22, 208 P.3d 50, 57 (Wyo.2009). We find no error in the district court's conclusion.