Grant v. State

88 P.3d 1016 (Wyo. 2004) · Supreme Court of Wyoming · April 27, 2004 · No. No. 02-217

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the denial of Delroy M. Grant's motion to suppress marijuana seized during a traffic stop. The court held that officers could order a passenger out of a lawfully stopped vehicle under Maryland v. Wilson and that the defendant voluntarily consented to the vehicle search under the totality of the circumstances.

Court
Supreme Court of Wyoming
Writing for the Court
Golden, Justice; Hill, C.J.; Golden, J.; Lehman, J.; Kite, J.; Voigt, J.
Jurisdiction
Wyoming
Decision date
April 27, 2004
Docket number
No. 02-217
Procedural posture
Grant entered a conditional no-contest plea to felony possession of marijuana after the district court denied his motion to suppress marijuana seized from his vehicle. He reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling under W.R.Cr.P. 11(a)(2).
Standard of review
The district court's factual findings on a suppression motion are reviewed for clear error, with evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the district court's determination. The legal question whether an unreasonable search or seizure occurred is reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
Published Wyoming Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Delroy M. Grant v. State of Wyoming
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

suppression of evidencesearch and seizurefourth amendmentcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional lawsearch and seizureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether an officer violates the Fourth Amendment by ordering a passenger and vehicle owner to exit a lawfully stopped vehicle without particularized suspicion of criminal activity or a specific officer-safety justification.
  2. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that Grant consented to the search of the van.
  3. Whether Grant's consent to the search was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.

Holdings

  1. During a lawful traffic stop, an officer may order passengers to exit the vehicle as a matter of course; particularized suspicion of criminal activity or danger is not required.
  2. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Grant gave actual consent to the search of the van.
  3. Grant's consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, despite the officers' failure to advise him that he could refuse consent.

Key quotations

We thus conclude that appellant's constitutional rights were not violated when Trooper Peech ordered appellant to exit the van. (88 P.3d at 1020; ¶ 16)
Although the officers never informed appellant that he could refuse to consent to the search, that factor is not controlling. (88 P.3d at 1021; ¶ 24)

Factual background

A Wyoming highway patrol trooper stopped a van for speeding and discovered that the driver's Minnesota license appeared altered and was later confirmed revoked. Grant, who owned the van and was a passenger, exited the vehicle when asked to confirm ownership. A second trooper arrived with a drug-detection dog and asked Grant and another passenger to exit; the trooper testified that Grant consented to a search. The dog alerted, and officers found marijuana in the van, ultimately seizing forty-two pounds.

Procedural history

Grant was initially charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to deliver. After a suppression hearing, the district court denied his motion to suppress. Grant then entered a conditional no-contest plea to felony possession of marijuana and was sentenced to two to five years in prison. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…