McChesney v. State10/20/1999
person, the vehicle, and the location substantially as described by the informant. When the informant describes behavior that involves violation of the state statutes, a prediction of future behavior is superfluous.
We have applied the principles of Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990), in Goettl v. State, 842 P.2d 549, 554-55 (Wyo. 1992), in which we said:
In prior cases, this court has recognized the validity of a ATerry stop@ and also has adopted the Atotality of the circumstances@ test. See Keehn v. Town of Torrington, 834 P.2d 112 (Wyo.1992). In Lopez v. State, 643 P.2d 682 (Wyo.1982), a police officer=s independent observations of an automobile and a suspect driving the car which matched descriptions by eyewitnesses were held to be adequate probable cause for an investigatory stop. In Cook v. State, 631 P.2d 5 (Wyo.1981), the circumstances that occurred following a robbery, together with reasonable inferences made by an experienced police officer, furnished adequate grounds for an investigatory stop. In Parkhurst v. State, 628 P.2d 1369 (Wyo.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 899, 102 S.Ct. 402, 70 L.Ed.2d 216 (1981), the police officers were given a description of a car used by two individuals to flee from the scene of the murder, and they also were told the direction the car was traveling. The court held the officers were justified in making an investigatory stop when a car fitting that description was spotted. In the course of developing our state precedent, we consistently have held that something less than probable cause will suffice for an investigatory or ATerry stop.@ Simmons v. State, 712 P.2d 887 (Wyo.1986); Olson v. State, 698 P.2d 107 (Wyo.1985); Lopez; Cook. AA policeman is not required to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur merely because he lacks the necessary information required for probable cause to arrest. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972). He may make an investigatory stop.@ Olson, 698 P.2d at 109-10.
Examining the Atotality of the circumstances@ as disclosed by the record in this case, in the light of the decision in White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, we conclude that sufficient probable cause was present to justify the investigatory stop of Goettl=s car. We hold that the informant=s tip, particularly the prediction of future events, the details of which were verified by the observation of the law enforcement officers, furnished more than adequate probable cause to stop the Goettl vehicle. The subsequent events, including the consensual searches, then justified the arrest of Goettl and the others in the vehicle.
More recently we have summarized our approach to investigatory stops in this way:
We have consistently held that something less than probable cause will suffice to justify an investigatory stop. Goettl v. State, 842 P.2d 549, 554 (Wyo.1992). We will not require a police officer to A>simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur merely because he lacks the necessary information required for probable cause to arrest.=@ 842 P.2d at 555 (quoting Olson v. State, 698 P.2d 107, 109-10 (Wyo.1985)). An investigatory stop Arequires only the presence of specific and articulable facts and rational inferences which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or may be committing a crime.@ Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215, 220 (Wyo.1994). The validity of such a stop depends on whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, an officer possessed sufficient information to create such a reasonable suspicion. Goettl, 842 P.2d at 554; see also Cook v. State, 631 P.2d 5, 8 (Wyo.1981). In applying the totality of the circum
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|