## Facts

- Near 12:31 a.m., a Casper police officer saw Wesley Wilson limping and walking quickly and approached to ask if he was okay and what happened.
- Wilson said he twisted his ankle at a party; the officer smelled alcohol on Wilson’s breath.
- The officer requested and received Wilson’s identification and initiated a routine warrants check (NCIC and local files); the initial contact lasted about a minute and a half.
- During the encounter, smoke and reports of a nearby building fire drew the officer’s attention; before leaving to investigate, the officer told Wilson to “stay in the area.”
- Wilson was later treated as a suspect in the fire-related incident, and evidence obtained after the encounter was used to convict him.
- Wilson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing it was derived from an unconstitutional stop and detention conducted pursuant to a departmental policy of stopping pedestrians for identification and warrant checks without individualized justification.

## Issues

1. Whether detaining a pedestrian to complete an identification-and-warrant check pursuant to a routine police policy, without individualized justification, violates the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether the officer’s direction that Wilson “stay in the area” transformed the interaction into a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion.
3. Whether evidence obtained after the detention was inadmissible as fruit of an unconstitutional seizure.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the judgment and sentence.
- The court held that Wilson was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when he was detained to complete a warrants check.
- The seizure violated the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by reasonable suspicion of present or past criminal conduct.
- Because the seizure was unconstitutional, evidence obtained as a result was tainted and should have been suppressed.
- Although Wilson cited the Wyoming Constitution, the court did not conduct an independent state-constitutional analysis due to inadequate supporting argument and authority.

## Legal Principles

- An officer may approach a person and ask questions in a consensual encounter; no Fourth Amendment justification is required so long as the person remains free to leave.
- A seizure occurs when, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or to disregard the officer’s direction.
- Detaining a person to run or complete a warrants check is a seizure that must be supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.
- A generalized departmental practice or administrative convenience cannot substitute for individualized reasonable suspicion.
- Evidence obtained as a product of an unlawful seizure is subject to suppression under fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree principles.

## Conclusion

The court held that detaining a pedestrian to complete a routine warrant check under a departmental policy, without individualized reasonable suspicion, violates the Fourth Amendment, requiring suppression of resulting evidence and reversal of the conviction.


Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215 (Wyo. 1994)