Court Opinion

ID: 9797427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:20:27.57161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:54:58.918191
License: Public Domain

HILL, Justice,
dissenting.
[187] I agree with the material part of Justice Burke's dissent. However, I write separately to emphasize my concern that the narrow slot we carved out in the Vasquez case appears to be widened by the majority decision in this case, for reasons that I find unconvincing. Vasquez himself did not reap the benefit of the Vasquez decision, so Pierce is the first to be accorded the enhanced protections it provides to Wyoming citizens. Given all of the facts and cireumstances detailed in both the majority opinion and the dissent, albeit with slightly different spins, I am convineed that the district court's decision to deny Pierce's motion to suppress was correct and consequently I would affirm both that decision, as well as the district court's judgment and sentence.