Pryce v. State

477 P.3d 90

Kellon Christon PRYCE, Appellant (Defendant),

v.The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

S-20-0055

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

December 16, 2020

Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Diane M. Lozano, Wyoming Public Defender; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel; Robin S. Cooper, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel. Argument by Ms. Cooper.

Representing Appellee: Bridget L. Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Joshua C. Eames, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Donovan Burton, Student Intern. Argument by Mr. Burton.

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

BOOMGAARDEN, Justice.

[¶1] After a jury trial, Kellon Christon Pryce was convicted of two controlled substance charges. On appeal, he argues the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence found during a search of the rental van he was driving. We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2] Did the district court err when it denied Mr. Pryce's motion to suppress?

FACTS

[¶3] On July 28, 2018, Wyoming Highway Patrol Trooper Joseph Dellos was driving eastbound on Interstate 80 to Cheyenne when he observed the driver of a Dodge van change lanes without signaling. The trooper could not read the registration sticker on the license plate so he followed the van and radioed dispatch to determine whether the registration was current. Dispatch informed him the registration expired in April 2018. He activated the overhead lights on his patrol car, which activated his dash cam video. The driver pulled onto the shoulder of the interstate without incident.

[¶4] Trooper Dellos approached the passenger side, and when the passenger rolled down the window, he introduced himself and explained that he stopped the van for failing to signal and expired registration. He requested the driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. Three people, all adults, were in the van: the male driver, a male passenger in the front seat, and a female passenger in the back seat. Trooper Dellos identified the driver as Mr. Pryce from his Florida driver's license. Mr. Pryce said the van was a rental. Compared to other stops, the trooper noticed that Mr. Pryce appeared "very nervous" and visibly shook as he handed over documents. He requested Mr. Pryce come back to his patrol car so he could issue a warning citation for the turn signal violation.

[¶5] Trooper Dellos asked the front passenger for identification as Mr. Pryce walked back to the patrol car. He also asked the passenger where they were going, and "what for." Jonathan Sooknanan provided his identification and said they were going to Nebraska to visit family.

[¶6] On meeting Mr. Pryce at the patrol car about 30 seconds later, Trooper Dellos sat in the driver's seat and Mr. Pryce joined him in the front passenger seat. While writing the warning citation, Trooper Dellos asked Mr. Pryce where he was "headed." Mr. Pryce said they were "just traveling around." They had never been on a road trip so they were taking one, and then "the baby got sick" and his girlfriend had to fly out.

[¶7] Because Mr. Pryce and Mr. Sooknanan gave different answers about where they were going, Trooper Dellos asked more travel plan questions while he continued writing the warning citation. When he asked Mr. Pryce where they were traveling from, Mr. Pryce answered they had visited family in Salt Lake City, Utah. When Trooper Dellos asked who Mr. Pryce was traveling with, Mr. Pryce answered his best friend and his best friend's fiancé.

[¶8] After a pause in the conversation, Trooper Dellos asked whether they were returning to Florida. Mr. Pryce confirmed they were, but explained that they were going to make a couple stops along the way, depending on the state. Trooper Dellos asked whether they had any family "out this way" and Mr. Pryce responded "no." Mr. Pryce volunteered that he wanted to stop in Georgia. When asked for clarification whether they had any family "out here"—meaning in Nebraska, Wyoming, or Colorado—Mr. Pryce indicated they did not, but he did have a friend in Colorado.

[¶9] Certain of the inconsistency, Trooper Dellos then asked Mr. Pryce questions about the rental. He asked who rented the van. After a pause, Mr. Pryce said that Mr. Sooknanan rented it at an airport. Seeking clarification, the trooper learned that they flew to Salt Lake City and then drove to the airport in Eugene, Oregon to rent the van because Salt Lake City did not have any rentals due to the forest fires in Utah. Mr. Pryce did not know how long the drive took because he slept on the way. Trooper Dellos noted that it seemed "strange" to drive such a long way for a rental car and inquired whether there were any rentals closer. Mr. Pryce responded there were not.

[¶10] At this point, approximately 12 minutes into the stop, Trooper Dellos believed he had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and requested dispatch send a drug dog to his location. While waiting for the dog, he asked Mr. Pryce when he rented the van, when he flew into Salt Lake City, when and where they were returning the van, where they went after leaving Oregon, and whether they stopped to visit any family or friends along the way. Mr. Pryce responded that they rented the van on the 25th and they were returning it to Orlando on Sunday, which Trooper Dellos noted was the following day. Mr. Pryce could not remember where they went after leaving Oregon. They did not stop to visit any family or friends.

[¶11] Trooper Dellos then exited his patrol car, returned to the van, and spoke to Mr. Sooknanan for two and a half minutes. He asked Mr. Sooknanan where they were going, where they came from originally, where they rented the van, whether they stopped anywhere else along the way, who rented the van, whether they all traveled together, and how the group was related. Contrary to Mr. Pryce, Mr. Sooknanan claimed they all came from Nevada and that they flew to Portland, Oregon to rent the van.

[¶12] After speaking to Mr. Sooknanan, Trooper Dellos briefly spoke to another trooper who had arrived to assist. For the next four minutes the troopers together questioned Mr. Pryce about the rental van and his travel plans. Then Trooper Dellos informed Mr. Pryce there were some "huge inconsistencies" in his and Mr. Sooknanan's stories. He told Mr. Pryce that he was not under arrest and advised him of his Miranda rights. Mr. Pryce agreed to speak to Trooper Dellos further.

[¶13] The drug dog arrived approximately 25 minutes into the stop, and alerted to the presence of a controlled substance. On searching the van, Trooper Dellos found multiple large duffle bags containing a total of 121 pounds of raw marijuana in vacuum-sealed packages. He also found 415 ounces of THC oil.

[¶14] The State charged Mr. Pryce with four felonies: possession of marijuana, possession of THC oil, possession with intent to deliver marijuana, and possession with intent to deliver THC oil. After pleading not guilty to those offenses, Mr. Pryce moved to suppress the evidence found in the van. The district court held an evidentiary hearing where Trooper Dellos testified. The parties stipulated to in camera review of his dash cam video.

[¶15] The court denied Mr. Pryce's motion to suppress following the hearing, and the case proceeded to trial in September 2019. The jury found Mr. Pryce guilty of the two possession charges, but could not reach a unanimous verdict on the two intent to deliver charges. The district court entered judgment on the jury's verdict. It imposed concurrent sentences of three to five years, suspended in favor of three years of supervised probation. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶16] Mr. Pryce challenges denial of his motion to suppress under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we adopt the district court's factual findings unless those findings are clearly erroneous. Rodriguez v. State , 2018 WY 134, ¶ 15, 430 P.3d 766, 770 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Jennings v. State , 2016 WY 69, ¶ 8, 375 P.3d 788, 790 (Wyo. 2016) ). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the district court's decision because the court conducted the hearing and had the opportunity to "assess the witnesses’ credibility, weigh the evidence and make the necessary inferences, deductions and conclusions." Kunselman v. State , 2008 WY 85, ¶ 9, 188 P.3d 567, 569 (Wyo. 2008) (quoting Hembree v. State , 2006 WY 127 ¶ 7, 143 P.3d 905, 907 (Wyo. 2006) ). "On those issues where the district court has not made specific findings of fact, this Court will uphold the general ruling of the court below if supported by any reasonable view of the evidence." Feeney v. State , 2009 WY 67, ¶ 9, 208 P.3d 50, 53 (Wyo. 2009) (citing Neilson v. State , 599 P.2d 1326, 1330 (Wyo. 1979) ). "The ultimate question of whether the search or seizure was legally justified, however, is a question of law we review de novo." Rodriguez , ¶ 15, 430 P.3d at 770.

Brown v. State , 2019 WY 42, ¶ 10, 439 P.3d 726, 730 (Wyo. 2019). Mr. Pryce does not challenge the district court's factual findings. Consequently, our discussion focuses on the legal issues. See Feeney , ¶ 15, 208 P.3d at 55.

DISCUSSION

[¶17] The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects Mr. Pryce from "unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. "Fourth Amendment jurisprudence recognizes three tiers of interaction between law enforcement and citizens: consensual encounter, investigatory detention and arrest." Robinson v. State , 2019 WY 125, ¶ 21, 454 P.3d 149, 156 (Wyo. 2019) (citation omitted). The interaction between Mr. Pryce and Trooper Dellos began as a traffic stop, which is an investigatory detention. Id. (citation omitted).

[¶18] We evaluate the reasonableness of an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment by using the two-part inquiry from Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 19–20, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) : "(1)...