Court Opinion

ID: 9795852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:40:08.334028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:37.472214
License: Public Domain

VOIGT, Justice,
specially concurring, in which KITE, Justice, joins.
[¶ 26] I write separately because, although I agree with the majority that the *283district court’s order must be reversed, and I agree with the majority’s Jones v. State, 2002 WY 35, 41 P.3d 1247 (Wyo.2002), rationale, I am not convinced that the appellee’s conduct constituted interference with a peace officer. It is true that the appellee first told the officers that he was not on probation. Nevertheless, they proceeded to search him pursuant to the probation condition that allowed random searches for controlled substances. It is also true that, during the search, the appellee said, in effect, “I don’t consent to this search.” Those two statements did not constitute interference with a peace officer because they did not hinder for one second the officers’ pursuit of their duties. However, had the officers not arrested him, but continued the search instead, which they had every right to do, they would have found the drugs on his person and he then would have been arrested for that offense. Ingersoll v. State, 2004 WY 102, ¶ 24, 96 P.3d 1046, 1053 (Wyo.2004); Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 449-50, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 2512, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984), cert. denied 471 U.S. 1138, 105 S.Ct. 2681, 86 L.Ed.2d 699 (1985).