Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent Douglas Juarez was stopped by a state trooper for failing to signal his merge from an entrance ramp onto the right lane of an interstate. A subsequent search of Juarez's vehicle yielded nine pounds of marijuana. As a result, Juarez was charged with possession and possession with intent to deliver. Juarez filed a motion to suppress the search and seizure of the marijuana on the grounds that the initial traffic stop was illegal. The district court granted the motion, holding that Juarez was not required to signal his merge because Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-5-217 did not require motorists to signal when merging onto an interstate roadway. On review, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) there is no basis in the statute to conclude that a motorist is absolutely required to signal to enter the interstate in every instance; and (2) the district court did not err in granting the motion to suppress. View "State v. Juarez" on Justia Law

K.C., a juvenile, was adjudged delinquent. As part of her disposition, she was allowed to remain in a home environment and placed on supervised probation. After K.C. violated various terms of her probation, her probation was revoked and her disposition changed to placement at a state girls' school for an indefinite period. K.C. appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions because placement at the girls' school fell within the statutorily allowable sanctions applicable to K.C. and, thus, the court was not required to provide a written justification for the placement; (2) the juvenile court's consideration of a statement K.C. made that she would not follow the rules of a residential program did not violate K.C.'s right against self-incrimination because the statement was considered only in the dispositional phase of the delinquency proceedings; and (3) there was no violation of Wyo. R. Crim. P. 11 because the rule does not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings. View "In re K.C." on Justia Law

Defendant Richard Vasco was arrested for interference with a police officer and for driving under the influence of alcohol. Vasco refused to submit to chemical testing, and the Wyoming DOT advised him that it was suspending his driver's license for six months. Vasco requested a hearing, at the conclusion of which the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the suspension. Vasco sought review in the district court, which affirmed the OAH order. Vasco appealed, claiming the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for interference, and therefore the subsequent search was improper and the evidence obtained in the search that supported the DUI arrest was inadmissible. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that substantial evidence supported the OAH decision where (1) the officer had probable cause to arrest Vasco for interference with a police officer, and (2) the officer had probable cause to believe Vasco had been driving under the influence of alcohol. View "Vasco v. Wyo. DOT" on Justia Law

In an effort to address a perceived drug and alcohol problem among its students, Goshen County School District No. 1 ("school district") adopted a policy requiring all students who participated in extracurricular activities to consent to random testing for alcohol and drugs. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the school district where both parties agreed that there were no genuine issues of material fact but disagreed about whether the district court correctly applied the provisions of the Wyoming and United States Constitutions to the undisputed facts. The court held that appellants failed to demonstrate that the school district's policy subjected students to searches that were unreasonable under all of the circumstances and therefore, the policy did not violate Article 1, section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. The court also held that the fact that the policy did not subject students to unreasonable seizures was, therefore, determinative of appellants' equal protection claim as well. The court further held that appellant had not demonstrated infringement of due process rights where appellants' speculation that judicial review might be denied in the future was insufficient to support a due process claim now. Accordingly, because appellants failed to prove that the school district's policy was unconstitutional, there was no basis for their claim that they were entitled to a permanent injunction or for their claim that the district court erred in granting summary judgment. View "Hageman v. Goshen County Sch. Dist. No. 1" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree sexual assault and first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Appellant, acting pro se, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 contending that he was denied his constitutional right of access to the courts because he did not have adequate access to Wyoming legal research materials in a Nevada state correctional facility. Appellant challenged the district court's dismissal of his suit based on a failure to state a claim. The court affirmed the judgment and held that the facts set forth in the complaint did not allege an actual injury and without any facts to indicate that appellant could have filed a viable petition for post-conviction relief, it could not determine that he had been injured by the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. The court also held that, because appellant was able to file at least five petitions seeking relief from his conviction while he was an inmate at the Nevada state prison, and he was represented by court-appointed counsel in at least one of those actions, appellant's ability to conduct this volume of legal activity further indicated that he retained meaning access to the courts.