" I guess that is why it's called the "Criminal" Justice System. Let's throw out evidence of people that are hibitual offenders. "

" Sure glad the supreme court leaves the bench and goes into the streets to learn about real life. Hope the drug dealers read this so they know how to get off.

Next thing you know some supreme court will be over riding a vote of the people to outlaw something. Oh wait, gay marriage in california. Nevermind "

" I'm drug free, and believe we all have a right to be safe, and sober. However the laws have to be there to protect everyone. In case noone has noticed. Muslim's vs Infidels (Non-believers are put to death?) doesn't sound much different than lets just lock everyone away for having problem. I do hope that you concerned citizens are comming up with plans to get the drugs gone and not the users. One of those users might be your own family member. "

" Finally, someone (WSC) discovered that a traffic violation is NOT probable cause to search a vehicle. I wonder how many people are wrongly in prison because an overzealous officer violated their constitutional rights? "

" If my family member chooses to partake in illegal activities, then they should face the consequences. It's pretty cut and dry- maybe the offenders should consider their families and straighten out and live a law abiding life. To insinuate that family members are responsible or have control over these offenders is ridiculus. These offenders are making the CHOICE to do illegal drugs. "

" I haven't had an opportunity to read the opinion issued by the Wyoming Supreme Court yet, but it is very encouraging to see a majority of the justices upholding our state's constitution. I happen to vehemently oppose drug possession and trafficking, however even the serious nature of these crimes should not override the overall importance of constitutional provisions.

I respect and admire the courage and dedication to the law these supreme court judges have demonstrated in these type of cases. It is very difficult to throw out evidence of a crime in order to uphold a higher legal principal, but that higher principal effects far more people, circumstances and lives than does a couple of people in possession of an illegal substance. It is very probable these individuals will be caught fair and square in the future anyway, or they will give up this particular crime. The truth is never far behind.

I appreciate our justices exercising good judgment by ensuring that the citizens of Wyoming can continue to live their lives knowing that we have a constitution that means something. Yes, it is disappointing when someone gets away with a crime, particularly a violent crime, which neither of these cases was by the way, but upholding the highest law of the state is much more important for all of the state's citizens.

These judges have underlined how important the foundation upon which all other laws come into being and are applied to the citizens really is. This is an excellent example of checks and balances that works for the overall good of the people. While some people may feel frustration or anger about the results of these two cases, most everyone should feel a much greater sense of freedom and liberty that still exists for all of us. "

" its not like this individual would have been in jail for very long anyway if the drugs were found legally. I know of people personally who were caught with drugs, went to jail, got off on probation, skipped probation ran for 4 months finally got caught, got a meth charge, a pot charge among others and only had to serve 7 months of their sentence. Drug dealers know they can get a half dozen offenses for the price of one, so why not make A LOT of quick money and if you get caught, you only get a slap on the wrist... "

" Well said, Sherri! The 4th amendment of the constitution protects every person against unlawful search and seizure! The end does not justify the means, and cops who lie to obtain a search should then be prosecuted as well! "

" I second everything Sherri wrote and would like to add that TWICE I have experienced abuse at the hands of over zealous police officers who then tried to justify their actions with an "ends justify the means" explanation. One of those incidents saw my friend, a terminal leukemia patient, jailed for days on a non-existent warrant. Those who are angry need point their anger at the officers who take an OATH to protect and uphold the Constitution of their state and country, only to decide that they themselves are above that Constitution. "

" You people have no idea. You're all sheep and without the police and other law enforcement agencies, your world would crumble before you. Even if the search was deemed "unjustified" (which is a load of crap based on the offender's past history) the search still turned up results. You people should be happy that these officers got those drugs off the streets. The state staute should be amended to say that if you drive on Wyoming roadways, you should not only be suseptible to a blood-alcohol test, but ALSO for your vehicle to be searched for illegal materials. I say you're all WEAK!! The police do what you feeble minded idiots are too scared to do, and then you have the nerve to condemn them when THEY PUT AWAY A CRIMINAL!!! God! I wish this paper would let me say EVERYTHING that's on my mind! Simple minded sheep... ALL OF YOU!! "

" Let's not forget the warrant exceptions i.e. search incident to lawful arrest. The US supreme court has recently decided to follow what the national constitution and would laugh at Wyomings frivolus judges. Wyoming added to search incident to lawful arrest and reasonable under all circumstances. So what if the cop was searching for the suspention letter that is issued buy the state this is further proof or evidence of the crime so now that that drugs are in plain view, another exception to the 4th amendment are the cops to disregard that also because the Wyoming supreme court would say that the plain view federal requirment is to lax and Wyoming citizens have more protection under the Wyoming constitution so we will only follow the plain view doctrine when the suspects name is clearly marked in 1/2 inch blocked letters and a neon sign points to the suspect as a suspect. Get real this case does nothing to give Wyoming law abiding citizens more protection it mearly ties the hands of the cops and prevents drug users from getting into the drug court system to get the help that they need and by so doing endangers the neighborhoods that these drug addicts chose to do their business in. "

" This is what makes sense not the majority opinion that doesn't even follow it's own precedent case law.

BURKE, Justice, dissenting.
[¶36] I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion holds that a warrantless search
of a vehicle incident to the arrest of its driver is not permissible under Article 1,
Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution if “safety concerns or other exigent
circumstances surrounding the arrest and search are not discernable in the record.”
This holding, like the recent case of Pierce v. State, 2007 WY 182, 171 P.3d 525
(Wyo. 2007), is inconsistent with Wyoming precedent establishing that the arrest
itself is sufficient justification to search the arrested person and the area within his
immediate control. As I analyze Mr. Holman‟s case, the limited search of his
vehicle was reasonable under all of the circumstances. I would affirm the district
court‟s decision that the search was proper under the Wyoming Constitution.
[¶37] In discussing the constitutionality of searches and seizures, we have often
recited the following:
Neither the federal nor the state constitution forbids all
searches and seizures; rather, they prohibit
unreasonable searches and seizures. Warrantless
searches and seizures are unreasonable per se, with but
a few exceptions. Those exceptions include:
1) search of an arrested suspect and the area
within his control; 2) a search conducted while
in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect; 3) a search
and/or seizure to prevent the imminent
destruction of evidence; 4) a search and/or
seizure of an automobile upon probable 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.
Vassar v. State, 2004 WY 125, ¶ 13, 99 P.3d 987, 993 (Wyo. 2004) (quoting
Morris v. State, 908 P.2d 931, [936] (Wyo. 1995)) (emphasis, internal citations,
and punctuation different from original). See also Clark v. State, 2006 WY 88,
¶ 16, 138 P.3d 677, 681 (Wyo. 2006). The majority opinion discusses two of these
established exceptions: 1) search incident to arrest; and 4) automobile search.
17
[¶38] Under Wyoming law, analysis of either type of search rests on the
foundation of Vasquez v. State, 990 P.2d 476 (Wyo. 1999). “Vasquez involved the
search and seizure of the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a lawful
arrest; therefore, the analysis considered both our vehicle search and search
incident to arrest jurisprudence.” Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 309 (Wyo.
1999). Vasquez established the broad rule that, under Article 1, Section 4 of the
Wyoming Constitution, such searches must be reasonable under all of the
circumstances. 990 P.2d at 488.
[¶39] The specific question answered in Vasquez was, however, quite narrow:
We have not considered whether, under the state
provision, the permissible scope of a search incident to
arrest for automobiles includes containers, and the
specific question before us is whether the search of the
fuse box for evidence related to the crime was
reasonable under all of the circumstances.
Id. (emphasis added). The answer to this narrow question was:
In this particular case, we believe that the arrest
justified a search of the passenger compartment of the
vehicle and all containers in it, open or closed, locked
or unlocked, for evidence related to the crime and for
weapons or contraband which presented an officer or a
public safety concern.
Id. at 489 (emphasis added). Vasquez firmly established that exigent
circumstances, such as the suspicion that evidence or weapons might be present,
are sufficient to justify a broad and thorough search, extending even to closed and
locked containers inside the vehicle. Vasquez did not say that exigent
circumstances must be present to justify the more limited search of an arrested
suspect and the area within his control.
[¶40] Cases following Vasquez maintained the distinction between broad,
intrusive searches and limited searches of the area within an arrested person‟s
control. For example, in Clark, the officer stopped Mr. Clark because of a missing
headlight, then learned that he was driving with a suspended license, had a prior
outstanding ticket for the same offense, and had a Colorado warrant for his arrest
for failure to appear on a domestic violence charge. ¶ 19, 138 P.3d at 682. The
officer arrested Mr. Clark, and upon searching his vehicle, found marijuana in a
box that was closed, secured with duct tape, and placed behind the driver‟s seat.
18
Id., ¶¶ 3, 20-21, 138 P.3d at 679, 682. On appeal, Mr. Clark argued that the search
of his vehicle was unconstitutional “because once he had been arrested and placed
in the patrol car it was not reasonable to search the vehicle.” Id., ¶ 12, 138 P.3d at
680. He asserted that his case “involved no officer safety issue,” and that
“evidence related to the crime for which he was arrested – driving under
suspension – was unlikely to be found in the vehicle.” Id., ¶ 13, 138 P.3d at 680.
[¶41] We concluded that the circumstances surrounding “Mr. Clark‟s arrest
justified a search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle and all containers
in it, open or closed, locked or unlocked, for weapons or contraband which
presented an officer safety concern.” Id., ¶ 21, 138 P.3d at 682 (emphasis added).
Faithfully following Vasquez, Clark held that officer safety concerns justified a
search thorough enough to encompass the contents of a closed and taped box
found behind the driver‟s seat. Also following Vasquez, Clark did not say that a
more limited “search of an arrested suspect and the area within his control” had to
be justified by reasonable suspicion of the presence of evidence or weapons.
[¶42] As noted, Vasquez dealt with both an automobile search and a search
incident to arrest. These are separate and distinct exceptions to the prohibition
against warrantless searches, and the two should not be confused. An automobile
search may be conducted, even if the driver is not arrested, when it is supported by
probable cause. Vassar, ¶ 21, 99 P.3d at 996. Absent an arrest, law enforcement
officers may “search an automobile without having a warrant,” but only “when
they have probable cause to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime or
contraband.” Borgwardt v. State, 946 P.2d 805, 807 (Wyo. 1997).
[¶43] The automobile search necessarily involves an automobile. The search
incident to arrest does not. Many of Wyoming‟s search incident to arrest cases
coincidentally deal with automobiles, but not all of them do. See Andrews v. State,
2002 WY 28, 40 P.3d 708 (Wyo. 2002) (search incident to arrest conducted in the
home where the person was arrested). Thus, in analyzing a search incident to
arrest, the focus is not on the search of the vehicle. Rather, as stated in a case
cited by the majority, the focus is on the search “of an arrested suspect and the
area within his control.” Moulton v. State, 2006 WY 152, ¶ 16, 148 P.3d 38, 43
(Wyo. 2006). The most distinctive aspect of a search incident to arrest is that it
may be conducted only when there is a valid arrest. An arrest “requires
justification by probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is
committing a crime.” Putnam v. State, 995 P.2d 632, 639 (Wyo. 2000) (quoting
Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215, 220 (Wyo. 1994)). Because the arrest is supported
by probable cause, a search incident to that arrest requires no additional
justification. The crucial difference between an automobile search and a search
incident to arrest is reflected in the common wording of the two exceptions. The
19
“search and/or seizure of an automobile upon probable cause,” Vassar, ¶ 13, 99
P.3d at 993 (emphasis added), expressly requires probable cause. The “search of
an arrested suspect and the area within his control,” id., explicitly does not require
additional justification, because the arrest is already supported by probable cause.
[¶44] A search incident to arrest should also be distinguished from a search
conducted when a person is merely stopped or detained, but not arrested. We
carefully analyzed the constitutional limitations of a search incident to detention in
O’Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83, 117 P.3d 401 (Wyo. 2005). Mr. O‟Boyle was
stopped for speeding. He was detained, questioned extensively by the patrolman,
released, and then detained again for further questioning. He eventually consented
to a search of his vehicle. After the patrolman found marijuana, he arrested
Mr. O‟Boyle. The specific question before the Court was this:
[W]hether a traffic stop involving extensive
questioning, followed by the defendant‟s consent to a
second detention and more questioning, and
culminating in the defendant‟s consent to a vehicle
search was reasonable under all the circumstances.
Id., ¶ 28, 117 P.3d at 409. We concluded that Mr. O‟Boyle‟s extended detention
was not supported by reasonable suspicion, and that his consent to the vehicle
search was coerced. Because the patrolman had no probable cause to make an
arrest, no valid consent for the search, and no “suspicion sufficient to warrant
further detention or a search,” the search of Mr. O‟Boyle‟s vehicle violated
Article 1, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. Id., ¶ 32 n.6, 117 P.3d at 410
n.6.
[¶45] Mr. O‟Boyle was not arrested before his vehicle was searched, and his
appeal “did not arise out of a search incident to arrest.” Id., ¶ 31, 117 P.3d at 410.
Accordingly, O’Boyle cannot stand for the proposition that a vehicle search
incident to arrest requires reasonable suspicion of the presence of evidence or
weapons. There is “a significant distinction between investigative detentions and
arrests.” Fertig v. State, 2006 WY 148, ¶ 26 n.3, 146 P.3d 492, 501 n.3 (Wyo.
2006). An arrest requires probable cause to believe that a person has committed or
is committing a crime. Putnam, 995 P.2d at 639. A detention, being “of a less
intrusive nature than an arrest,” is justified by the lesser standard of “reasonable
suspicion that a person has committed or may be committing a crime.” Medrano
v. State, 914 P.2d 804, 807 (Wyo. 1996). See also Keller v. State, 2007 WY 170,
¶ 14, 169 P.3d 867, 870 (Wyo. 2007).
20
[¶46] This leads to my conclusion that the majority opinion in this case is
inconsistent with Wyoming precedent. It blurs the legitimate distinctions among
automobile searches, searches incident to detention, and searches incident to
arrest. It borrows the probable cause requirement from automobile searches, and
the reasonable suspicion requirement from investigatory detention cases, and
imposes them as new requirements for searches incident to arrest. Fundamentally,
it fails to acknowledge the distinction between the authority to conduct a search
incident to arrest, and the proper scope of that search.
[¶47] The majority finds it significant that the officer who arrested Mr. Holman
did not testify to any particular safety concerns. However, “the test of officer
safety is objective rather than subjective, and therefore the officer need not
personally be in fear” to justify a search. United States v. Dennison, 410 F.3d
1203, 1213 (10th Cir. 2005). Whether or not the officer expressed subjective
concerns for his safety, it is undisputed that he initiated contact with Mr. Holman
based on a report of suspicious behavior, that he did not arrest Mr. Holman until a
backup officer arrived to assist, and that the vehicle was not searched until
Mr. Holman was removed and handcuffed. The objective facts indicate that, at a
minimum, the officer‟s safety concerns were sufficient to prompt him into taking
appropriate safety precautions.
[¶48] The majority also suggests that the validity of a search incident to arrest is
dependent on the nature of the crime. If the nature of the crime indicates that
weapons might be present, the majority would uphold the search. In contrast, in
both Pierce and Mr. Holman‟s case, a person arrested for driving with a suspended
license is portrayed as posing such minimal risk that the arresting officer may not
search the area within the person‟s control at the time of the arrest. If this is the
majority‟s view, then it would be appropriate to provide sufficient guidance to
allow arresting officers to distinguish between crimes that imply the presence of
weapons and crimes that do not. I find it impossible to articulate such guidance,
because I agree with the United States Supreme Court: “Every arrest must be
presumed to present a risk of danger to the arresting officer.” Washington v.
Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 7, 102 S.Ct. 812, 817, 70 L.Ed.2d 778, 785 (1982). The
risk is no smaller in Wyoming than in the rest of the nation, and it is present
regardless of the nature of the crime. Accordingly, I do not agree that the
underlying crime should determine whether a search may be conducted. The
“constitutionality of a search incident to an arrest does not depend on whether
there is any indication that the person arrested possesses weapons or evidence.
The fact of a lawful arrest, standing alone, authorizes a search.” Michigan v.
DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 35, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 2631, 61 L.Ed.2d 343, 348 (1979);
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-63, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2040, 23 L.Ed.2d 685,
694 (1969).
21
[¶49] The factors considered by the majority, such as the officer‟s subjective
safety concerns and the nature of the crime underlying the arrest, are appropriately
considered in determining whether the scope of a search incident to arrest is
reasonable under all of the circumstances. That is the holding of Vasquez, and
that is the key difference between Wyoming precedent and the federal “brightline”
rule established in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69
L.Ed.2d 768 (1981). The issue presented in Belton was “the proper scope of a
search of the interior of an automobile incident to a lawful custodial arrest of its
occupants.” 453 U.S at 459, 101 S.Ct. at 2863 (emphasis added). The case of
Chimel already established that the police were authorized, upon arresting a
suspect, to search his person and the area within his immediate control. Belton
recognized, however, that lower courts had “found no workable definition of „the
area within the immediate control of the arrestee‟ when that area arguably includes
the interior of an automobile.” 453 U.S. at 460, 101 S.Ct. at 2864. See David S.
Rudstein, Belton Redux: Reevaluating Belton’s Per Se Rule Governing the Search
of an Automobile Incident to an Arrest, 40 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1287, 1292
(2005). The workable definition provided in Belton was this:
[W]hen a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest
of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a
contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the
passenger compartment of that automobile.
It follows from this conclusion that the police may also
examine the contents of any containers found within
the passenger compartment, for if the passenger
compartment is within reach of the arrestee, so also
will containers in it be within his reach. Such a
container may, of course, be searched whether it is
open or closed, since the justification for the search is
not that the arrestee has no privacy interest in the
container, but that the lawful custodial arrest justifies
the infringement of any privacy interest the arrestee
may have.
453 U.S. at 460-61, 101 S.Ct. at 2864 (internal citations and footnotes omitted).
[¶50] In contrast to Belton’s “bright-line rule” allowing broad and thorough
vehicle searches, our decision in Vasquez established that the Wyoming
Constitution restricts the scope of a search incident to arrest to what is reasonable
under all of the circumstances. Vasquez does not prohibit law enforcement
22
officers from searching an arrested person and the area within his immediate
control. It prohibits law enforcement officers from expanding the scope of that
search beyond reasonable limits. Because there were no exigent circumstances
relating to Mr. Holman‟s arrest, and no reasonable suspicion that evidence or
weapons might be present, the officer would not have been justified in expanding
the search of Mr. Holman‟s vehicle to include the inside of a closed fuse box,
compare Vasquez, or the inside of a box that was taped shut, compare Clark.
However, there is no dispute that Mr. Holman was validly arrested upon probable
cause, and no dispute that the search of his vehicle was limited to the area within
his immediate control at the time of his arrest. This limited search incident to
Mr. Holman‟s arrest was not improper.
[¶51] For the safety of law enforcement officers – along with the person arrested,
any passengers, any bystanders, and the public at large – a limited vehicle search
incident to an arrest has been, and should be, permissible under the Wyoming
Constitution. I disagree with the more restrictive rule suggested by the majority.
It does not “make sense to prescribe a constitutional test that is entirely at odds
with safe and sensible police procedures.” United States v. Fleming, 677 F.2d
602, 607 (7th Cir. 1982); United States v. Turner, 926 F.2d 883, 887-88 (9th Cir.
1991).
[¶52] In this case, the majority holds that a search incident to arrest must be
justified by testimony establishing probable cause, as though it were an
automobile search, or by testimony establishing suspicion of the presence of
evidence or weapons, as though it were a detention search. This represents an
unjustified departure from Wyoming precedent. Consistent with that precedent, I
would hold that the valid arrest of Mr. Holman justified the search of his person
and of the area within his immediate control at the time of his arrest. Because the
search of Mr. Holman‟s vehicle was limited to the area within his immediate
control, it was reasonable under all of the circumstances, and I would affirm the
district court‟s decision that the search did not violate Article 1, Section 4 of the
Wyoming Constitution. "

" The state supreme court made the right decision. This protects us all from search and seizure without probable cause. I wish someone would challenge random drug testing in the workplace-another illegal search and seizure. Random drug testing takes us one step closer to living in police state. "

" SGT, it's people like you who would rob us of our freedom and create a police state. Search and seizure without probable cause is unconstitutional. If you are, indeed in law enforcement, you should get out. You are dangerous to the ideals upon which this country was founded. "

" whatswrongwithyou, you seem to be the sheep here. God forbid you are ever stopped for anything, and the cop decides, without your permission, to search your car. If he finds an aspirin that has no markings on it, you are going to jail on possession charges, until they bother to get around to sending said tablet to the state lab for testing. If you think that doesn't happen...you are WRONG!
Maybe you, and SGT think we should just throw out the amendments that protect the average citizen, in the name of "law and order". Personally, I don't want the cops searching my car or house without a warrant. I have nothing to hide, but why the hell do I want strange people digging thru my stuff?
I recall a story from years ago, where a man was picked up for DUI, and refused to "allow" the officer to search his car. He told the officer his snake was loose in the car, and didn't want it to get away. The cop hauled him to jail, and proceeded to search the car, illegally. He was one surprised and foolish looking officer when the snake (boa) crawled out from under the seat and looked him in the eye. Frankly, that was the fastest I had ever seen that particular man move! haha
If the police want to search my vehicle or home, they can darned well trot their behinds to the nearest "cop friendly" judge, who will issue the warrant, whether there is probable cause or not. But at least they will then be following the law they are sworn to uphold! "

" Whatswrongwithyou, your blog name seriously understates your personal situation. Maybe you need to consider just how quickly and completely your world would crumble with no constitutional foundation. If you want to live in a police state, fine, but most of us do not choose that existence. I believe most people would willingly accept and deal with the fact of criminal activity in our world, rather than surrender our rights and freedom for mostly hot air and oppression, most of which does not reduce criminal activity significantly anyway.

Sgt. I appreciate all of the work and research that you obviously did in order to challenge the Wyoming Supreme Court's ruling in these two cases. It appears that most of your argument is that the supreme court is not being consistent with earlier precedent and/or the Wyoming State Constitution itself. I disagree with you for these reasons. Much of the case law that you cited is based upon precedent. Has it occurred to you that most of these precedents may be wrong? In the last 30 years, courts have been establishing precedents concerning search and seizure that are not in keeping with the U.S. Constitution or states' constitutions. Did it ever occur to you that most of the various "warrant exceptions" are not reasonable. These "exceptions", or blantant violations of the 4th amendment, have come about because to many courts did not have the courage to stand up to the self-created police state and protect the rights of citizens. In short, law enforcement has lobbied and bullied it's way into favorable judicial rulings in recent years that have gone way to far, and now they want to rely on these rulings as precedents for protection and support of unconstitutional police activities and behavior. Let's face it, police are always looking for some way to circumvent the constitution and exert their power over individual freedom, and justify it by saying "We can't do the job you want us to do if we are not given these unconstitutional powers." If you cannot do your job without violating the constitution, then you are as much a part of the problem as the criminals and not any part of a solution. Often the manner in which law enforcement does it's job is more criminal than the criminal being arrested. I understand that you want to be important, necessary and relevant in our society, but you are going to have to settle for being as relevant as the school teacher, the doctor, the plumber or anyone else that serves our culture in some positive way. No more, no less.

There has never in the history of American law enforcement been any legal provision or tool of power that was not immediately gobbled up and put into full use and more by cops. Not all cops, but by most cops. There are reasonable and intelligent people in the police business, but they are outnumbered not by "the few bad apples", but by a solid majority within their ranks.

Sgt., you are relying upon rulings that are themselves based upon some very vague assumptions about what is constitutional. For example, what exactly is "probable cause"? Who or what exactly determines the definition and parameters of probable cause, a cop, the courts or the constitution? Why, in your opinion does a routine traffic stop with no other evidence of a crime other than a minor traffic offense, no evidence of the presence of an illegal substance, and no evidence or actual circumstances that presents a threat to anyone justify a search of the interior of a vehicle and the containers within it?
Being stopped for a routine traffic violation does not void a citizen's right to privacy.

The problem here is that law enforcement has it exactly backwards. They want the laws to be created, modified, interpreted and molded to fit the desires of law enforcement. They don't want to have to operate within the plain and obvious intent of constitutional law. Law enforcement does not see the constitutional as something that all of us must respect and that exists as the legal foundation of our lives, they see it as an obstacle to their personal mission. Most law enforcement people don't think that they could lose any of their personal rights and freedoms, because after all, they are members of law enforcement so they or their families will not be subject to unconstitutional treatment by others in law enforcement. The biggest problem today is that law enforcement believes IT is the law, not the agency that upholds the law and in a lawful manner. Why should a relatively poorly trained individuals with respect to the law, suddenly assume the power to determine probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or what exactly an exigent circumstance is? Why should American citizens have their rights, their liberty and their lives sacrificed to accommodate this ego maniacal insanity?

Sgt, you are attempting to rely on some very faulty case law that essentially allows a complete search of a person, and their vehicle or home simply because they have been placed under arrest. And this arrest does not even need to be relative to any evidence of a crime that may be obtained subsequent to a search of that person's home, place of business or vehicle. Worse, you suggest that the mere circumstance of detaining someone who is not under arrest for a specific crime is sufficient grounds alone to search the person, their home, vehicle, business, etc. What you are seeking is carte blanche to search anyone or anything anytime you want to. What you want is a totalitarian police state. What you want is for all the laws to be interpreted by all the courts so as to give you complete power over all the citizens, and justify it by claiming this is necessary in order for you to protect and serve the public. The public is well served by our rights and freedoms Sgt. When a wise court upholds those rights and freedoms we are well protected from tyranny, which is much worse than small-time, non-violent criminals.

I find it interesting that police are quite adept at finding judicial rulings and precedents when it serves their interests and equally skilled at scoffing at and denigrating rulings that do not fit their view of how things should be. One would think that these must not be American citizens when you consider how easily they will part with their own and others' constitutional protections. It is a matter of attitude. Law enforcement people were not born cops. Human attitudes are acquired. Police are not the law! They are charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law, all the law and nothing but the law. They are charged with the responsibility of protecting not just citizens, but the law itself. Sgt. you don't need loopholes or poor legal precedents to do a good job, you need dedication to mature professionalism and a sense of caring about your own rights too. The Wyoming Supreme Court in these two cases is protecting your freedom as citizens also. The law is not perfect, so we all must do our utmost to make it as reasonable as we can. Our continuity depends on it. "

" Hello profit the entire US including Wyoming has followed these ways since the Carrol doctrin and Delaware vs Prouse. Wyoming Supreme court has confused the issue and just as Justice Burke outlines has confused the Probable cause exception with Searchn incident to lawful arrest and the area within the the immediate control of a suspect. As outlined in the dissenting opinion The Wyoming Supreme court soesn't even follow it's own phoney doctrine. It's not people like me who take away your freedom it's people like me who protect the ordinary law abiding citizen and attempt to keep a handle on the crime in your neighborhood. It's peole like you who tie the hands of the police and cry when the sheep dogs protect the sheep from the wolves. Profit you will never be happy with the police response to whatever situation that you deem is your emergency at the time. You obviously have no clue about the ins and outs of law enforcement and I wager a guess that you would not place your life on the line on a daily basis to protect others like you who think the cops are over abusive of their power. In fact until this became an issue had you been arrested for DUS your car would have been searched and nobody would have said a thing about it Because that is how it was. Now all of a sudden somebody claims that a right has been denied to you and you are on the band wagon and OMG what a travesty the cops are doing what! Wake up join forces with the police to fight crime. If you don't keep drugs or as a felon guns in your car yu didn't have and still don't have anything to worry about. "

" Well Sgt. your last comment posted May 25th at 4:15 pm clearly proves that you are among the "ends justifies the means" crowd. This club, made up mostly of law enforcement people, is precisely the threat to Americans' freedom that concerns so many people today. Like I said in my earlier comments, you rebuke the public citizens that want you to operate fully within the law ( the constitutions), and claim that this pesky little requirement "ties your hands". Fine, then your hands, in certain circumstances, should remain tied. Your attitude demands that Americans surrender their constitutional rights, so you are free to pursue your job as you see fit with no accountability. Maybe it didn't occur to you Sgt., but most ordinary, law abiding Americans want to be as secure in their constitutional and civil rights as they are in their neighborhoods.

You mentioned that until this became an issue, people would have their vehicles searched routinely when they are arrested for DUI. That was wrong then, and it is wrong now. I don't care how long you were getting away with this very low threshold of justification to conduct an intrusive search of a person's vehicle and the closed compartments and containers inside the vehicle in the past, this court obviously considered the precise circumstances of an individual's arrest or detainment when determining that in some cases this is an unlawful search. Again, you want Carte Blanche and the court said no. You mentioned the Carrol doctrine and Delaware vs. Prouse. These judicial findings were decided at another time, by other judges, and their findings may be totally flawed.

Some of us do have a clue about the "ins and outs" of law enforcement, and we know that the job can be done well within the parameters of the constitution. Do us a favor, quit using that phony "light and siren" personality claim that you are " putting your life on the line" every day. It is not true. Most of your work days are routine with only a small possibility of harm coming to you. Some of the events that you encounter on a fairly rare basis are indeed dangerous just like a veterinarian, a firefighter, an oilfield derrick worker, a high voltage power line worker or a host of other jobs that have a risk factor. Please quit trying to equate your vocation with a that of a soldier who is taking hostile fire on a daily, if not hourly basis somewhere in the world.

Your last comment is the worst of all. You again expose yourself as a member of the law enforcement club that subscribes to the empty, illogical and often unconstitutional theory that goes like this: If you are not doing something illegal, and you have nothing illegal in your possession, then when law enforcement searches your person, your vehicle or your property you have nothing to worry about. Nothing could ever be more false. That is the epitome of the sick attitude that to many people in law enforcement have adopted. Violating a citizen's constitutional and civil rights is never justified by what the unconstitutional acts by the state may turn up. This is the crux of our differences Sgt. You believe that the end justifies the means, and I don't. What about when law enforcement clearly violates a person's 4th amendment right against unreasonable and unwarranted search, and nothing illegal is found? Are you implying that because the person whose vehicle is searched and that because that search turns up nothing that there is no harm? Are you seriously implying that since the person is not detained and or arrested and charged with a crime because nothing illegal was found on their person or in their vehicle that their constitutional rights have not been violated??!!??? Whenever an illegal and unconstitutional search of a person or their property (home or vehicle) happens, there has been a serious violation of law! Just because there was nothing of an illegal nature to be found on that person or in their vehicle or home, does not mean that nothing wrong has happened! Something hugely wrong has happened, the U.S. Constitution and perhaps the state constitution has been violated!!! The person whose rights were violated should sue the government agent who violated the constitution and receive damages for this.

You are absolutely crazy if you think that just because a person does not have something illegal in their possession, and that because this non-existent "something" was not discovered so that the person was not arrested and charged with a crime, that this person has no valid complaint about being illegally searched!!!!! Well Sgt. you just proved to everyone with your own words why everyone has something to worry about. Law enforcement people like you who think that they have the right to compromise or obliterate the constitution in the pursuit of law enforcement. People like you who wear a badge and who are charged with upholding the law, including the constitution, thinking that just because you did not find anything illegal in a person's possession that you have not violated the law, when the search was not reasonable considering the circumstances and not allowed by a lawfully obtained warrant. I wrote "lawfully obtained" warrant, because it is no secret that police habitually make false, incomplete or greatly embellished statements upon applications to obtain search warrants. They know that a judge is not going to go out and actually first hand verify the truthfulness of the statements that the law enforcement person presents on the warrant application. Another tactic used in a police state.

No we have something to worry about alright, and it is those individuals who subscribe to the practices and procedures of a police state with reckless disregard for the supreme law of the land. We have to worry about people running around in this country with a badge, a gun and the authority of law thinking that a person whose civil and constitutional rights were violated, but because the person was not arrested and charged with a crime then that person has nothing to worry or complain about. That theory and attitude is the foundation of a police state! That theory and attitude is what is being taught to law enforcement people all over the country, and the purpose is to destroy a constitutional republic and replace it, ever so gradually, with a totalitarian police state. Unfortunately, even the law enforcement people are not aware of what they are helping to put into place. Totalitarianism. Fortunately for all of us, once in awhile some wise people sitting on a bench somewhere like Cheyenne, Wyoming, decide to protect the constitutional republic and the citizens of the state from this fate. Soldiers who are fighting a just and lawful war that is absolutely necessary to protect American freedom and lives are heroes. Firefighters who work to pursue human safety and survival are heroes. Police who lawfully protect the lives and property of American citizens are heroes. Judges who strive to interpret and apply the law in the best possible intellectual and factual way in order to preserve Americans' rights and liberty are heroes too. "

" Jesus, what is the discussion all about? The police violated his rights! Period, end of story. I am in favor of taking this type of person off the streets, however, to ensure that ALL persons are afforded their civil rights, the courts must rule as they have. As Sherri has stated above, law enforcement has for many years, relied on a very loose interpretation of "probable cause".

The "Law enforcement safety" argument holds no water in this case. The offender was cuffed and placed in the squad car. Exactly what threat was posed?

Lastly, there are LEGAL procedures that can be taken in cases such as these. If the officers felt the need to search the car for whatever reason, they have the option of phoning into a judge, presenting their concerns, and asking for a LEGAL search warrant. Instead, the officers chose to take the lazy, convenient, ILLEGAL way out. Unfortunately for the Casper PD, they did this to the wrong guy this time. Like I said, I want this type of violator off of the streets, but I also want our law enforcement to play by the rules. They absolutely can not be given the power to decide to whom the constitution applies. "

" SGT, I'm not a felon, nor would I ever have drugs in my vehicle, not do I drive drunk. Still, if I were stopped for going 2 miles over the speed limit and you asked to search my vehicle, i would say no. If you used my response as "probable cause" to get a warrant, I would sue your sorry butt. Law enforcement must uphold the Constitution. You endanger the freedom of this country and your penchant for creating a police state weighs heavily on my soul. "

" You are completely illogical and ignorant of how the police do business and reading your comments have convinced me that you lack the basic knowledge to have a rational conversation about this subject. It's obvious that your responses are full of anti police rethoric and emotion that you preclude yourself from rational thought process. Aren't you the same blogger that married a sex offender and brought other children into an unsafe enviornment? I don remember reading that. No wonder you hate the cops. Everyone knows and it is well documented in case law that refusing a consent search cannot be used when establishing probable cause. This is taught in basic civil law classes. Oboyle and the attorney gernerals opinion goes a long way in inturpretting how to obtain a consent search in Wyoming. I won't go into details because you wouldn't understand and would just have more hate cop speech anyway. Hernandez-Dominguez is another case lae that outlines what Judges consider as Probable cause. In the end of it all the term probable cause and searches based on probable cause are scrutinized by the judges and they decide if the search is valid or not. Just because the search was deemed invalid does not mean that that persons civil rights were violated if the police were acting in good faith. It just means that certain evidence gets left out at trial. Probable cause and good faith also have definitions that I will not list here for the previously stated reasons.

FInally, I highly doubt that you will get pulled over for 2 mph over the speed limit get real. Even though a conviction could be upheld for such an offense the police have better things to do unless ofcourse it was a perfectly legal pretextual stop -more case law Im sure your not aware of and are against. And as far as a law suit goes you would be wasting your time with a frivilous law suit and wasting the courts time. I bet that you don't even know that you should sue under title 18 USC 1983 which happens to be under the federal judicial system that allows search incident to lawful arrest Ha ha ha. Have fun and good luck finding an attorney. "

" An additional thought. When a motorist is stopped for a routine traffic violation and the police ask if they may search the vehicle and the motorist says no, this is not suspicious activity on the part of that motorist. Nor does it in anyway whatsoever support a claim of probable cause or reasonable suspicion. All this indicates, is a citizen who knows their rights and has every reasonable expectation that the law enforcement community will respect them. I am not stopped often for anything when I am driving my vehicle, but on the few occasions when I have been during the course of the last 20 or so years, I have always routinely refused to allow law enforcement to search any part of my vehicle. I never have anything of any illegal nature on my person or in my home or vehicle, but I routinely refuse permission to search my vehicle just for the general principal of doing my small part to help uphold the 4th amendment. This is very personally important to me, even if that amendment means absolutely nothing to law enforcement. If my vehicle is ever searched without my consent, expect to be dragged through the federal court for the next few years under Section 42, U.S.C. 1983. I strongly recommend this same course of action to any other citizen as well. Do your part to protect our freedom and what small amount of liberty we have left, if not for yourself, but for future generations. This goes to the heart of the quality of life we will have or we will lose, and the police could care less about your or anyone else's quality of life besides their own. If you let them, or if they are empowered to get away with it they will.

People are getting d... sick and tired of police embellishing any little thing they can to make a claim of "suspicious behavior", or to justify "probable cause". This is how it is: Law enforcement MUST actually see physical evidence of criminal activity and they must see this in plain view without intrusively searching a person or their vehicle. Shining flashlights into the windows of a vehicle would not be intrusive, but opening a door, trunk or window or reaching into any of the interior of a vehicle or a storage container that is attached to a vehicle without the plain view of evidence of criminal activity, or in the absence of a lawfully obtained warrant to search for and seize specific articles is unconstitutional.

This same standard applies to a person's home or place of business. The only lawful exception which is reasonable would be a "pat-down" search of a person for the presence of a weapon or other means of threat to the safety of the law enforcement personnel or the general public, and this "pat-down" search must be non-intrusive and not in the least bit of a sexual nature.

Strip searches of people without strong physical evidence that the person is harboring or concealing evidence of criminal activity or a significant weapon (finger nail clippers, tweezers, etc. do not constitute a significant weapon), or without the presence of a "lawfully obtained" warrant that specifically describes the places of the person's clothing or anatomy to be searched and the articles to be seized are strictly unconstitutional. Such searches when lawfully authorized should never be conducted by nor in the visual presence of members of the opposite sex of the person being searched. These searches should be as physically non-intrusive as possible. Anal and vaginal searches should be unconstitutional in almost all circumstances, in that it is highly unlikely that a weapon that could pose a significant threat to anyone could be contained therein, and anything else that might fall into the category of illegal contraband would probably be small, or of such a small amount, that it probably would not rise to the level of a serious crime anyway, at least not a crime serious enough to warrant a search of these bodily cavities.

One of the largest areas of unconstitutional police activity is that whole broad, unreasonable practice of the police "making it up on the spot", or "making it up as they go". Just because someone appears nervous when stopped or confronted by police is not lawful "probable cause" to detain them, search them, or search their vehicle. Almost everyone is nervous to some degree when stopped by the police. People who are absolutely not violating any law whatsoever often are quite nervous when stopped by the police. It is insane and complete bull.... to try to make a case of "reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe" that there is a crime in progress or that a crime has been committed because of very normal and understandable human nervousness. This is just one more filthy, inhumane and illegal stunt that law enforcement uses in order to illegally search or detain a person or their vehicle. Earth to Law enforcement: "You are a cop, not a medical person that is sufficiently trained to know much at all about human psychology and normal human nervous reactions", and even if you were so trained, every person reacts differently to certain situations. Finally, quit using dogs that have been trained to "react" anytime the police want them to, by silent or otherwise unnoticeable signals that the police give to the dogs. This is one more HUGE area in which the not so clever police have discovered that they can circumvent the constitution and get away with violating American citizens rights. Dogs can be trained to do practically anything. Dogs' sniffers are often wrong and way out in left field. It is a sad day for our country when the police can bring a dog to a vehicle, give it a silent, unnoticeable signal, (usually while the person whose vehicle is being searched is handcuffed and in the back of a police car where they cannot see the police conducting the dog inspection), and then when the dog does it's little thing on command the police then say "the dog reacted, that is probable cause to search or get a warrant." This is out and out horse....! This cute little gem is illegal as h... and should never be allowed by the courts. No judge should ever presume a dog's nose is working correctly on any given occasion, and every judge should be fully aware that this innovation by the police really came into being several years ago, so they could have yet one more "tool" that helped them circumvent the constitution. Dogs are routinely trained by cops to "react" with just a slight tug of the leash. Dogs get colds. Dogs have bad days. Dogs are sometimes super sensitive to allergens just like humans. Dogs' sniffers come to the wrong conclusions concerning scents all the time. Are our constitutional rights going to hinge upon how reliable a d... dog's nose is!?!? This is police state insanity!! Unbelievable that our courts and our laws have elevated the credibility of a dog's nose over human beings. What kind of sick, empty-headed bow wow is that?? I submit that if the founders and framers had possessed 20 20 vision hundreds of years into the future, and they could see our modern world, they would still say an emphatic NO to this type of law enforcement c...! Fortunately for us and our country, a few contemporary judges say it for them. "

" Thank-you Sheri for proving my previous point. this conversation is completely laughable. You'll have managed to come to a battle of wits completely unarmed. It's a good thing your not an attorney you would do more damage to the suspect/ defendant than the cops could ever do. "

" No, sarge, not married to a sex offender. I believe that a number of arrests are made on our highways that began with pulling over a vehicle exceeding the speed limit as little as 2 MPH. Law enforcement should not have the attitude that the courts shall decide after the fact if a search was valid. If you are so well versed in law, you should also follow it as you are the first responder. Law enforcement should not believe that they can trample on the rights of citizens and ignore the Constitution. "

" Actually Sgt. you proved your own point for yourself, and that point is that you believe the ends justifies the means. No intelligent, sane person is going to agree with you. I wish the conversation was laughable, but the issues are to important. I am quite certain that you have never seen me perform in a courtroom either. I have on a number of occasions represented myself in a few civil trials, including jury trials, and I have never lost. I have won every case I have been involved in. I have not been charged with anything more serious than a misdemeanor traffic ticket, so I have not had to defend myself in a criminal trial. However, in another state under the terms of a "power of attorney" I was allowed to defend a person in a criminal trial (misdemeanor) and won handily. No, I am not married to a sex offender either. What a pathetic, desperate attempt on your part to try to discredit the other bloggers when you know you have been whipped. You are right about one thing you mentioned earlier, I am generally opposed to five and dime traffic stops that are done as a pretext to allow the police to do something else. Unless that something else is an absolutely necessary police procedure with factually exigent circumstances present, then this is nothing more than a sleazy, sneaky, despicable way of harassing citizens and in most cases with only the thinnest reasoning that a greater crime has been or is being committed.

An excellent way for this conversation to end, would be a full and complete confession on your part. Admit that you hate the existence of a constitution. Admit that you hate human beings having civil and constitutional rights. Admit that you can't stand human beings having human rights. The sooner you admit these things, even to yourself, the sooner you can move on to step 2 of the 12 step program. But first you have to face the fact and acknowledge that you have a "light and siren" personality, that you acquired most of your attitude about what law enforcement is all about from the tv and all the propaganda cop shows, and finally that you crave legal impunity for anything and everything that you want to do out there on the old patrol trail. You never know, you may not be completely beyond help yet. In the meantime, ask for a desk assignment and leave the firearm locked up at home. "