Wyoming Supreme Court remands DUI conviction

The Wyoming Supreme Court has remanded a driving under the influence conviction against Nancy Hawken back to the Sixth Judicial District Court after she successfully argued on appeal that the Wyoming Highway Patrol trooper who arrested her did not have consent to enter her home.

Whether that means the evidence gathered after the trooper entered the home should be suppressed has yet to be determined.

Hawken originally entered a conditional plea of guilty to the felony charge of driving under the influence. On appeal, she claimed the district court erred when it denied her motion to suppress evidence that was obtained after law enforcement entered her home without a warrant or consent.

The incident in question came to the attention of law enforcement when the trooper received a report that a vehicle had crashed in a ditch near Sundance on December 15, 2020. At the scene, he found nobody in the vehicle but detected a strong odor of alcohol.

Running the plates revealed the vehicle belonged to Hawken, who lived about three miles away, so the trooper visited her home. He allegedly observed tire tracks in the fresh snow and deduced Hawken had received a ride home.

The trooper spoke with Hawken’s husband and asked twice to speak with her. Hawken’s husband said he would go get her and entered the mudroom of the house.

However, according to the opinion, the husband did not invite the trooper to follow him into the mudroom and the record contains no indication that permission was requested. As he stepped into the house, the husband asked him to “wait right there”.

From this position, the trooper allegedly overheard conversation between Hawken and her husband. When Hawken came to the mudroom, the trooper asked her to come outside to his vehicle so they could talk about what happened.

Hawken complied, and the trooper questioned and then arrested her. A breathalyzer test was performed at the detention center.

Hawken filed a motion to suppress the evidence gathered after the trooper had entered the mudroom, claiming that any statements or evidence gained as a result of that unlawful entry should be suppressed. Judge John R. Perry, Sixth Judicial District Court, found that her husband had voluntarily consented to the trooper’s entry and denied the motion.

Hawken entered a conditional guilty plea. Her probation was revoked, with the sentence of 30 to 60 months for that offense reinstated, and was sentenced to between five and seven years of imprisonment for the felony of driving under the influence, to be served concurrently.

In considering Hawken’s appeal, the Wyoming Supreme Court referenced the Fourth Amendment – a person’s right to be secure in their person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Did Hawken’s husband give implied consent for the trooper to enter the home with his nonverbal gestures or actions?

“Implied consent may be found where a reasonable officer would believe a person consented to entry based on the totality of the circumstances,” states the opinion.

Implied consent is equally valid to explicit consent, and may be granted through gestures or other indications of acquiescence. While Hawken’s husband did not explicitly invite the trooper into the house, District Court cited in its decision letter that the trooper testified he did not allow the door to “slam in his face”.

The Supreme Court found that the husband’s statement he would go get Hawken would be reasonably interpreted as a signal to wait for his return and the husband did not invite the trooper to follow him or invite him inside.

“Contrary to the State’s assertion, there is no evidence that Mr. Hawken held the door open for the trooper,” states the opinion. “The only thing we know from the record is that he did not let the door slam in the trooper’s face.”

The husband opening the door to his home and entering is not clear evidence of consent, the Supreme Court found. The trooper did not request or indicate a desire to enter, so there was no request for the husband to verbally refuse and the act of walking towards the house could not reasonably be interpreted as consent.

The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that the husband provided consent when he told the trooper to wait as he entered the mudroom.

“It is difficult to understand how an officer may reasonably infer he has consent to enter a premises based on conduct that occurs after the entry. More importantly, the law requires that consent be obtained before entering a protected area,” states the opinion.

The Supreme Court concluded that the trooper’s entry into the home violated the Fourth Amendment. However, it found that the record was not sufficiently developed for it to review the issue of suppressing the trooper’s interview of Hawken after she left the house and the breathalyzer test.

“Would Ms. Hawken have inevitably left the home to talk with [the trooper] because of her husband’s independent urging? Would Mr. Hawken have been as adamant if [the trooper] were not in the home? Was it her husband’s pressure that caused Ms. Hawken to enter the mudroom, or was it [the trooper] yelling to her husband to return to the mudroom?” states the opinion.

“These are factual questions that must be resolved to determine whether Ms. Hawken has met her burden of showing that but for [the trooper’s] entry, she would not have consented to his seizure and questioning.”

Missing from the record, according to the opinion, are facts such as whether Hawken was read her Miranda rights, whether her level of intoxication was too high for her to knowingly consent to the trooper’s requests and whether it was obvious to the trooper that he did not have consent or that he knew he was crossing a line.

“The district court erred in concluding that [the trooper] had implied consent to enter the Hawken home, and his entry therefore violated the Fourth Amendment,” concludes the opinion.

“We reverse and remand for a determination of whether the unlawful intrusion requires suppression of the evidence against Ms. Hawken.”