 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Vassar v. State10/29/2004
e cause; 5) a search which results when an object is inadvertently in the plain view of police officers while they are where they have a right to be; 6) a search and/or seizure conducted pursuant to consent; and 7) a search which results from an entry into a dwelling in order to prevent loss of life or property."
Morris, 908 P.2d at 935 ( quoting Ortega v. State, 669 P.2d 935, 940-41 (Wyo.1983), overruled on other grounds sub nom. Jones [v. State], 902 P.2d at 692 [(Wyo.1995)]). When a proper objection or motion is made by a defendant, the state bears the burden of proving that one of these exceptions applies. Mickelson v. State, 906 P.2d 1020, 1022 (Wyo.1995); Dickeson [v. State], 843 P.2d at 610 [(Wyo.1992)].
Lancaster v. State, 2002 WY 45, 61, 43 P.3d 80, 102-03 (Wyo. 2002) (emphasis in original). The fourth and fifth of these listed exceptions are at issue in the instant appeal.
The appellant's analysis under the Wyoming Constitution is essentially that because Article 1, Section 4 includes an "affidavit" requirement, the probable cause necessary to justify a warrantless search under the Wyoming Constitution "may be more important" and/or "should be stronger." While we appreciate the appellant's effort in attempting to present an independent state constitutional analysis, we conclude that the analysis presented does not constitute the "precise, analytically sound approach [required] when advancing an argument to independently interpret the state constitution." Vasquez v. State, 990 P.2d 476, 484 (Wyo. 1999). A failure to present a sufficient argument supporting "'adequate and independent state grounds,'... prevents this court, as a matter of policy, from considering other than the federal constitutional principles at issue...." Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215, 219 (Wyo. 1994) ( quoting Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983)). See also Fender v. State, 2003 WY 96, 74 P.3d 1220, 1225 (Wyo. 2003) and Meek v. State, 2002 WY 1, 7 n.2, 37 P.3d 1279, 1282 n.2 (Wyo. 2002). Accordingly, we will analyze the issues in this case pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The district court concluded that Trooper Guenther's warrantless seizure of the wooden "stash box" was valid under the "plain view" doctrine. We have previously set forth the three requirements for a valid seizure of evidence in plain view: "(1) the officer must not have violated the Fourth Amendment in arriving at the place from which the evidence could be plainly viewed; (2) the incriminating character of the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (3) the officer must have a lawful right of access to the object itself." Taylor v. State, 7 P.3d 15, 21 (Wyo. 2000).
The appellant focuses his argument on the second requirement. He argues that the wooden "stash box" at issue in the instant case was "not so unique or... such a limited or single purpose item to justify the opening of the box or the [warrantless] seizure of the box." In other words, there was "nothing about this box that is so readily apparent that anyone would know that the box was criminal in nature" and "no foundation was provided to show that this was a stash box as opposed to some other type of container." To support this argument, the appellant primarily relies upon two cases: People v. Evans, 259 Ill.App.3d 650, 197 Ill.Dec. 650, 631 N.E.2d 872 (1994) and State v. Runge, 8 Neb.App. 715, 601 N.W.2d 554 (1999).
We agree with the district court that Trooper Guenther's warrantless seizure of the wooden box he observed in the appellant's vehicle was justified under the plain view doctrine. The use of the phrase "immediately apparent" was "v
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|