Sam v. State, 2008 WY 25

The Cody Police Department in Wyoming arrested Sam (the defendant) for violating an order of protection and for driving with a suspended license. The defendant wanted to suppress the fruits of a subsequent motor vehicle search, which uncovered evidence of unrelated drug crimes. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the judgment and the conviction for the drugs. 

A sergeant with the Cody Police Department became aware of an order of protection in favor of Candie Hinton and her daughter, protecting them from the defendant and, among other things, prohibiting the defendant from calling them on the phone. The sergeant was aware that the defendant was in violation of the terms of the protection order due to Hinton’s recent reports of phone harassment, and the sergeant was preparing to seek a warrant for the defendant’s arrest. The sergeant was also aware that he had the authority to make a warrantless arrest if he gained knowledge of a specific instance of a violation of the protection order. Before the sergeant was able to obtain the arrest warrant, the Crisis Intervention Office contacted him and informed him that Candie Hinton and her daughter were at the Office, that the defendant had been calling the daughter’s cell phone, and that the defendant had driven by the Office twice already. When the sergeant observed the defendant driving by for a third time, he stopped him and arrested him based on the violation of the protection order. It was also discovered during this arrest that the defendant was driving on a suspended license. During the search of the defendant’s car for evidence relating to violation of the protection order, the sergeant uncovered evidence of drug crimes, but no evidence of the defendant’s violation of the protection order. The Supreme Court of Wyoming sustained the conviction and ruled the evidence of drug crimes as admissible under these circumstances because the officer was aware that the defendant was the subject of an order of protection and that he had violated that order several times immediately prior to this search and arrest. The sergeant was justified in searching for evidence, which might serve to sustain the defendant’s prosecution for violating the protection order and/or that he might have been an imminent danger to his victims, given his prior behavior.

Topics

Geographical location

Keywords

Year

  • 2008

External URL

Court

Type

Jurisdiction