Schaub v. State

556 P.3d 215

2024 WY 100

Travis Dean SCHAUB, Appellant (Defendant),

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

S-24-0047

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

September 20, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, The Honorable Joshua C. Eames, Judge

Representing Appellant: Office of the State Public Defender: Ryan Roden, Interim Wyoming State Public Defender^*; Kirk A. Morgan, Chief Appellate Counsel. Argument by Mr. Morgan.

Representing Appellee: Bridget Hill, Attorney General; Jenny L. Craig, Deputy Attorney General; Kristen R. Jones, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Jones.

Before FOX, C.J., and BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, FENN, and JAROSH, JJ.

FOX, Chief Justice.

[¶1] Travis Dean Schaub entered a conditional guilty plea to felony possession of methamphetamine. On appeal, he challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his person. Because Mr. Schaub was searched incident to his lawful arrest, we affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2] The sole issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Mr. Schaub’s motion to suppress.

FACTS

[¶3] In the early morning on July 8, 2022, Officer Luke Thorp of the Mills Police Department was dispatched to the area of Delmar Street and Kiskis Avenue in Mills, Wyoming. The reporting party observed an unconscious male in an older truck, as well as several syringes on the ground outside the driver’s side door. Officer Thorp arrived and observed the truck and syringes. Inside the vehicle was a male who appeared to be asleep or unconscious.

[¶4] Officer Thorp made contact with the driver and identified him as Travis Dean Schaub. Officer Thorp noted that Mr. Schaub appeared disoriented and exhausted, slurred his speech, and had swollen, red eyes. When Officer Thorp ordered Mr. Schaub out of the vehicle, Mr. Schaub was slow to respond and had difficulty opening the door of his truck to the point that Officer Thorp suggested Mr. Schaub climb out through the window.

[¶5] Mr. Schaub eventually exited the vehicle. Officer Thorp then ordered Mr. Schaub to place his hands on his vehicle. Officer Thorp asked Mr. Schaub if he could search him, to which Mr. Schaub said "no." Nonetheless, Officer Thorp proceeded to search Mr. Schaub’s pockets and found two jewelers’ baggies of suspected methamphetamine. Officer Thorp handcuffed Mr. Schaub and escorted him to his patrol vehicle, where he searched him once more, placed him in the vehicle, and read him the Miranda warnings. From the time Officer Thorp approached the truck to the time he read Mr. Schaub his Miranda warnings, less than six minutes elapsed.

[¶6] Mr. Schaub was charged with felony possession of methamphetamine pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1031(c)(i)(C) (2023). He moved to suppress the evidence recovered during Officer Thorp’s search of his person, arguing Officer Thorp had only initiated an investigatory stop and that Officer Thorp’s search of his pockets exceeded the permissible scope of such a stop. He also argued that no other exception to the warrant requirement justified the warrantless search. The State responded, arguing that Officer Thorp had already decided to arrest Mr. Schaub and was in the process of doing so when he searched Mr. Schaub, and therefore the search was justified as a search incident to arrest. The district court agreed with the State, finding that Officer Thorp had probable cause to arrest Mr. Schaub for public intoxication in violation of the Mills Municipal Code. According to the district court, "[b]ecause probable cause existed to arrest Mr. Schaub, Officer Thorp did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his pockets incident to arrest. As a result, Officer[ ] Thorp’s discovery and seizure of the methamphetamine also did not violate Mr. Schaub’s Fourth Amendment rights."

[¶7] After the district court’s denial of Mr. Schaub’s motion to suppress, he entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1–4] [¶8] Motions to suppress evidence are subject to a familiar standard of review:

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)).

Anderson v. State, 2023 WY 65, ¶ 8, 531 P.3d 912, 914 (Wyo. 2023) (quoting Beckwith v. State, 2023 WY 39, ¶ 8, 527 P.3d 1270, 1272 (Wyo. 2023)). "However, the underlying question of whether the search and seizure was constitutional is a question of law, which we review de novo." Anderson, 2023 WY 65, ¶ 8, 531 P.3d at 914 (quoting Beckwith, 2023 WY 39, ¶ 8, 527 P.3d at 1272).

DISCUSSION

[5–8] [¶9] Mr. Schaub argues that Officer Thorp’s search of his person violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.¹ The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Robinson v. State, 2019 WY 125, ¶ 21, 454 P.3d 149, 156 (Wyo. 2019). "Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable unless they are justified by probable cause and an established exception to the warrant requirement." Sen v. State, 2013 WY 47, ¶ 26, 301 P.3d 106, 117 (Wyo. 2013) (citing Owens v. State, 2012 WY 14, ¶ 10, 269 P.3d 1093, 1096 (Wyo. 2012)). One established exception to the warrant requirement is for searches conducted incident to a lawful arrest. Sen, 2013 WY 47, ¶ 26, 301 P.3d at 117. When an officer makes a lawful arrest, the officer is not required to obtain a warrant to search both "the arrestee’s person [and] the area within the arrestee’s ‘immediate control.’ " United States v. Knapp, 917 F.3d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2040, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969)).

[¶10] Mr. Schaub contends that while his condition justified a limited investigatory stop, it did not warrant a full search of his person for evidence. He also argues that he was not actually under arrest at the moment Officer Thorp searched his person. The State responds that Officer Thorp had probable cause to arrest Mr. Schaub at the time Mr. Schaub exited his vehicle and that Officer Thorp did in fact arrest Mr. Schaub at that time. The parties disagree as to whether there was a lawful basis for Mr. Schaub’s arrest and whether Officer Thorp’s search of Mr. Schaub occurred "incident" to the eventual arrest.

I. Officer Thorp had probable cause to arrest Mr. Schaub for public intoxication.

[9, 10] [¶11] The preconditions for an officer to make a lawful arrest are found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-2-102 (2023). That statute permits a warrantless arrest when:

(i) Any criminal offense is being committed in the officer’s presence by the person to be arrested;

(ii) The officer has probable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and that the person to be arrested has committed it; or

(iii) The officer has probable cause to believe that a misdemeanor has been committed, that the person to be arrested has committed it and that the person, unless immediately arrested:

(A) Will not be apprehended;

(B) May cause injury to himself or others or damage to property; or

(C) May destroy or conceal evidence of the commission of the misdemeanor.

Id. § 7-2-102(b). Probable cause is a factcentered inquiry and exists "when, under the totality of the circumstances, a prudent, reasonable, and cautious peace officer would be led to believe that a crime has been or is being committed and that the individual arrested is the perpetrator." Tingey v. State, 2017 WY 5, ¶ 53, 387 P.3d 1170, 1185 (Wyo. 2017) (quoting McCallie v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Transport, 2014 WY 18, ¶ 7, 317 P.3d 1142, 1145 (Wyo. 2014)). The standard is objective and is measured from the point of view of a reasonable, prudent, and cautious officer operating at the time of arrest. Dixon v. State, 2019 WY 37, ¶ 20, 438 P.3d 216, 227 (Wyo. 2019) (citing Shaw v. State, 2009 WY 18, ¶ 20, 201 P.3d 1108, 1112 (Wyo. 2009)).

[¶12] The district court concluded that Officer Thorp had probable cause to arrest Mr. Schaub for public intoxication in violation of the Mills Municipal Code. Mills Municipal Code 9.20.021 makes it unlawful to be under the influence of any alcohol or scheduled drugs on any highway, street, or public place. Mills, Wy., Code ch. 9.20, § 021(a)-(b) (2021). The district court relied on Officer Thorp’s testimony that

Mr. Schaub was exhibiting signs of intoxication, including delayed cognitive abilities and slurred speech. Further, Mr. Schaub’s truck was parked on a public street in Mills, Wyoming. When taken in conjunction with Officer Thorp’s knowledge that Mr. Schaub was a methamphetamine user and the needles near the truck, the [c]ourt concludes that the evidence was sufficient to give a reasonable officer probable cause to arrest Mr. Schaub for public intoxication.

The district court also relied on § 7-2-102(b)(iii)(C) as a lawful basis for Officer Thorp to arrest Mr. Schaub, noting that failure to immediately arrest an intoxicated suspect can lead to the destruction of evidence due to the body’s natural processing of intoxicants.

[11] [¶1...