Vassar v. State

99 P.3d 987 (Wyo. 2004) · Supreme Court of Wyoming · October 29, 2004 · No. No. 03-99

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Peter B. Vassar's motion to suppress evidence seized after a vehicle rollover. The court held that an officer properly seized and searched a wooden marijuana “stash box” under the plain-view and probable-cause doctrines. The court also held that probable cause supported a warrantless search of the automobile and its contents under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

Court
Supreme Court of Wyoming
Writing for the Court
Voigt, Justice; Hill, C.J.; Golden, J.; Lehman, J.; Kite, J.; Voigt, J.
Jurisdiction
Wyoming
Decision date
October 29, 2004
Docket number
No. 03-99
Procedural posture
Vassar appealed from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his automobile and belongings. After the denial, he conditionally pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.
Standard of review
The district court's factual findings on a suppression motion are reviewed for clear error, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court's determination. The legal question whether an unreasonable search or seizure violated constitutional rights is reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
Published Wyoming Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Peter B. Vassar v. State of Wyoming
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

suppression of evidencefourth amendmentsearch and seizureprobable causewarrant requirement

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional lawappellate procedureevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the officer properly seized the wooden stash box under the plain-view doctrine.
  2. Whether the officer had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the wooden stash box.
  3. Whether the officer had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the automobile's contents.

Holdings

  1. The warrantless seizure of the wooden box was justified under the plain-view doctrine because the officer was lawfully positioned to view it, its incriminating character was immediately apparent under the probable-cause standard, and the officer had lawful access to it.
  2. The officer had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the wooden stash box because its distinctive configuration essentially proclaimed that it contained contraband, making its contents a foregone conclusion and eliminating a reasonable expectation of privacy in those contents.
  3. The officer had probable cause under the automobile exception to search the vehicle and any containers or areas capable of concealing marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia, including the luggage and the zippered folder.

Key quotations

However, probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard. (994)
The scope of a warrantless search of an automobile thus is not defined by the nature of the container in which the contraband is secreted. (997)
Probable cause has never been defined quantitatively and the appellant's theory that "smaller is not necessarily bigger" must be rejected. (998)

Factual background

After Vassar's Jeep Wrangler rolled over on a dry, sunny day, Trooper Guenther observed from a lawful location a wooden box behind the driver's seat bearing an image he recognized as a marijuana leaf. Based on his training and experience, Guenther identified the box as a marijuana stash box, seized it, and found marijuana residue and the odor of marijuana inside. He then searched vehicle luggage and found equipment and materials associated with a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory.

Procedural history

Following a rollover accident, law enforcement seized and searched a wooden box in Vassar's vehicle and searched other vehicle contents, discovering marijuana residue, marijuana odor, and clandestine methamphetamine-laboratory equipment. The district court denied Vassar's suppression motion. Vassar then entered a conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to engage in a clandestine laboratory operation, was sentenced to twenty-two to twenty-eight months' imprisonment and fined $10,000, and appealed the suppression ruling.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…