HomeNewsSportsMoreWeatherAnnouncementsClassifiedsMy Trib.ComMy CityJobsHomesCars
Advanced Search
 

Attorneys split on ruling's impact


Story Tools

Print this story

E-mail this story

Rate this story

Text Size

Share This Story:
del.icio.usdiggNewsVine




trib.popular


A Wyoming Supreme Court ruling that a search of a Casper man's car was unconstitutional will make the job of police more difficult, Natrona County's district attorney said Monday.

"Our officers will have far less ability to pursue criminal endeavors ... than the officers in almost every state in the country do," said District Attorney Michael Blonigen.

A prominent Casper defense attorney disagreed, arguing that the decision, based on a 2004 Natrona County case, lets officers know what searches are acceptable.

"There ought not to be any mystery about it," said attorney Michael Krampner.

The court ruled Thursday that a 2004 police search of a station wagon, which turned up evidence of drug use, violated the state constitution.

The 3-2 ruling reversed a lower court's decision that allowed evidence from the search to be used in the case against Roy Dean Pierce, a Casper man who was facing three drug charges at the time. Pierce ultimately entered a conditional guilty plea to drug possession and received a two to three year prison sentence.

A Casper police officer initially arrested Pierce for two traffic violations and found the drug evidence during a subsequent search of the station wagon Pierce had been sitting in, court records show.

In their appeal, Pierce's attorneys argued the officer did not have a reasonable justification for searching the station wagon. They noted there was no evidence Pierce was under the influence of drugs or alcohol and that a search of Pierce found no weapons or evidence of criminal activity.

In his dissent, Justice E. James Burke said the officer acted in accordance with established procedure, with regard for the safety of himself, the community, other officers and Pierce.

A hearing will be scheduled in Natrona County District Court to determine whether the case against Pierce can more forward without the excluded drug evidence.

The Supreme Court's ruling makes the job of police officers more difficult by impacting their ability to collect evidence when they arrest people, Blonigen said.

"That case is more restrictive that any other case in the country," he said.

Krampner saw things differently.

"The law enforcement officials are always whining that some decision that went against them would make their jobs more difficult," he said. "In fact, the opposite is the case."

Clear boundaries drawn by the court, Krampner said, help officers by telling them what they can and cannot do.

Casper police Sgt. Mark Trimble didn't think the court's ruling would have much impact either way. After arresting someone in a car, police are already required to limit their searches to the scope of the arrest, he said.

The ruling stems from Pierce's arrest on Sept. 4, 2004. Casper police officer Wesley Gudahl was patrolling a city park at 5:19 a.m. when he saw Pierce laying back in the driver's seat of a parked station wagon.

Gudahl asked for Pierce's driver's license and proof of car insurance. Pierce told the officer his license was suspended and he didn't have proof of insurance.

The officer arrested Pierce on suspicion of driving under suspension and failing to maintain liability insurance. Pierce was handcuffed and searched -- police did not find any weapons -- and placed into the back of a patrol car.

Gudahl then searched the area of the Subaru where Pierce had been sitting and noticed an open black bag on the floor behind the driver's seat. Opening the rear driver's side door, the officer saw several syringes in a partially-closed eyeglass case just inside the bag, court documents show.

Searching the bag, Gudahl found plastic bags containing suspected methamphetamine residue, syringes that appeared to contained liquid meth, a spoon and roach clips, according to the court's ruling.

Prosecutors charged Gudahl with three drug-related felonies. His attorneys filed a motion to suppress the evidence Gudahl seized from the Subaru, alleging the officer's warrantless search violated the state and U.S. constitutions. That motion was denied in district court and Pierce entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of meth possession.

He is currently on probation in Wyoming for a Montana case, according to a state Department of Corrections spokeswoman.

Reach Joshua Wolfson at (307) 266-0582 or at josh.wolfson@trib.com.


Previous   Next
City, Amoco board mull future assistance   ACS offers variety of services during holiday season

Article Rating

Current Rating: 0 of 0 votes!Rate File:

Reader Comments

There are 9 comment(s)

Comments to this story.

Sgt USMC 0311 wrote on Nov 22, 2007 4:09 PM:

" Justice Voigt and defense council Krampner is to Public/ Officer safety and the war on drugs as Nancy Pelosi is to Troop Safety and the war on Terror! I see the Wyoming Supreme Court turning into the California Court of Appeals and Giving Wyoming the same poor reputation as the 9th circuit. What a Shame! We went from Cowboys to Liberals in a 22 page document. I was glad to read the two dissenting Judges point of view that describes how the rest of Law enforcement across the nation enforces the laws as reasonable and prudent officers conduct business every day. I thought that citing from Oboyle and basing this case mainly from that opinion was in bad form seeing how the rest of the 10th Circuit has rejected it as a precedence and the case was refiled in the federal court and a conviction was obtained. It sounds to me like we have some college educated idiots at the helm. "

JD wrote on Nov 23, 2007 8:05 PM:

" Where do we get these liberal Justices from? What plastic bubble were they raised in? Here's a guy, where any resonable person would suspect that he drove there and would drive off again if the officer just wrote a ticket andleft. The officer did his job thouroughly, just as he should and found drugs. Isn't that what officers should be looking for especially in one of the worse "Meth" cities in Wyoming? "

Idiot? wrote on Nov 24, 2007 4:30 PM:

" While individual liberties, privacy and freedom from governmental intrusion may have meant something special to the drafters of the Wyoming Constitution and ordinary Wyoming folks in the past, I agree with Sgt. USMC that if I forget to put the registration sticker on my license plate, or some other petty traffic offense like that, the police should be able to handcuff me, stuff me in the patrol car and then search the interior of my vehicle just because they feel like it. Damn liberal idiots infringing on my cowboy life of freedom from people telling me what to do!? "

joe wrote on Nov 25, 2007 9:37 AM:

" Its amazing how conservatives used to be for limited authority in gov't and now they all want a police state, the cops will take all the power they can, nothing wrong with alittle restraint placed on them "

TR wrote on Nov 26, 2007 3:50 PM:

" Let's hope that members of the Taliban and UBL don't drive through WYO with a truck full of dirty bomb components on their way to blow up Mt Rushmore. Driving is a privilege and operating your vehicle in public should constitute consent to search. If you have nothing to hide as a law abiding citizen, then you have nothing to fear do you? Orahhh! Infantry Sergeant! "

George M. wrote on Nov 26, 2007 6:46 PM:

" I think the Wyoming Supreme Court was off base on this one because the same search could have been done as an inventory search when the vehicle was towed to the impound yard after the driver was arrested. ---- It has been the law for many years that a "search incident to an arrest" is only the immediate area around an individual where he or she could grab a weapon or dispose of contraband. After that you need some sort of probable cause to search further or to inventory the contents of a vehicle when it is siezed. ---- If the person isn't arrested it has always been the rule that a search can't be done without permission or a warrant and no judge will issue a warrat without some sort of probable cause or reasonable suspicion that there is something illegal in the vehicle.---- Contrary to what Sgt. USMC and TR assert this old combat infantryman doesn't think that prior military service gives anyone any special expertise or authority to comment on the subtle details of 4th Amendment law and reasonable/unreasonable searches and seizures. ----It largely goes to what the courts have interpreted as what a reasonable person would expect to be private. Any particular case is driven by the details of the unique facts of that case. "

profit wrote on Nov 27, 2007 7:48 AM:

" We are not living under Marshall Law. Our constitution protects us from illegal search and seizure. If there was no evidence of drug use the police had no right to search the car. Law enforcement that is allowed to operate outside the boundaries of Law endangers all the citizens. "

George M. wrote on Nov 27, 2007 6:00 PM:

" Dear Profit, "Martial" as in military, not "Marshall." Although, given that John Marshall was the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court which laid the legal groundwork for much of current constitutional law maybe we are living under "Marshall law." ;-) GM "

profit wrote on Nov 27, 2007 6:59 PM:

" Geez, I feel like such a bonehead! Thanks, George, for the correction. I've made the same mistake in the past and will most likely do it again. "

Submit a Comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
(optional)
   
Please note: We provide our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.