Rice v. State

2004 WY 130 (Wyo. 2004) · Supreme Court of Wyoming · November 3, 2004 · No. No. 03-116

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the denial of Glen Eric Rice's motion to suppress evidence and statements following his conditional guilty plea to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. The court held that the initial police contact was reasonable, Rice was informed he was free to leave, and the district court did not clearly err in finding that Rice consented to the exterior canine sniff and voluntarily produced marijuana.

Court
Supreme Court of Wyoming
Writing for the Court
Hill, C.J.; Golden, J.; Lehman, J.; Kite, J.; Voigt, J.
Jurisdiction
Wyoming
Decision date
November 3, 2004
Docket number
No. 03-116
Procedural posture
Rice entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and statements.
Standard of review
The court reviews factual findings on a suppression motion for clear error, viewing the evidence favorably to the district court's ruling and deferring to its credibility determinations. The constitutionality of a search or seizure is reviewed de novo. Voluntariness of a statement is also reviewed de novo, subject to deference to factual findings unless clearly erroneous.
Precedential value
Published Wyoming Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Glen Eric Rice v. State of Wyoming
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

fourth amendmentsearch and seizuresuppression of evidencecriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional lawevidenceappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the police's initial contact with Rice constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
  2. Whether the scope and duration of the police encounter became unreasonable before Rice was arrested.
  3. Whether Rice consented to the exterior canine sniff and voluntarily produced the marijuana found on his person.
  4. Whether the evidence and statements were fruits of an unlawful detention and therefore subject to suppression.

Holdings

  1. The initial contact with Rice was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officer approached him in a public place to check his welfare and inform him that he could not remain in the customer-only parking lot.
  2. The evidence supported the district court's finding that Rice's identification was returned and that he was told he was free to go; the subsequent questioning did not convert the encounter into an unlawful detention.
  3. The district court did not clearly err in finding that Rice consented to the exterior canine sniff and voluntarily produced the marijuana container after the dog alerted.
  4. The district court properly denied the motion to suppress the evidence and statements because the factual findings were not clearly erroneous and the encounter, consent, and admissions were constitutionally valid.

Key quotations

The general rule is that this alone does not constitute a seizure and, thus, does not invoke Fourth Amendment protection. (¶ 25)
The district court's finding that Rice did consent to allow Officer Brothers to have his drug detection canine sniff around his car is not clearly erroneous and is supported by the evidence presented at the suppression hearing. (¶ 26)

Factual background

Police contacted Rice while he was sleeping in his automobile in a Gillette convenience-store parking lot that had posted customer-only parking and a history of loitering complaints. The officer checked Rice's identification, returned it, told Rice he was free to leave, and then obtained his consent to have a drug-detection dog sniff the exterior of the vehicle. After the dog alerted, Rice voluntarily produced a container of marijuana from his pocket and was arrested; subsequent searches of the vehicle revealed approximately seventy pounds of marijuana.

Procedural history

Police contacted Rice while he was sleeping in a vehicle parked at a convenience-store parking lot. After a suppression hearing, the district court denied Rice's motion to suppress. Rice entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced to five to eight years in prison; he appealed the suppression ruling.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…