Wilson v. State
Wyoming Supreme Court
874 P.2d 215 (1994)
- Written by Paul Neel, JD
Facts
Officer Kamron Ritter observed Wesley Wilson (defendant) limping down the sidewalk. Ritter pulled his patrol car over to the see whether Wilson was alright. Ritter smelled alcohol and asked for Wilson’s identification. Ritter called in a routine warrants check. Passersby interrupted the encounter to inform Ritter of a building fire a block away in the direction from which Wilson had walked. Ritter reported the fire and told Wilson to remain in the area while Ritter checked on the fire. Wilson limped another 40 feet in the opposite direction and tried to cross the street. Ritter returned and assisted Wilson across the street, telling Wilson to remain on the street corner and await Ritter’s return. Ritter directed traffic as emergency vehicles arrived. Ritter kept an eye on Wilson. Ten minutes after the initial encounter, dispatch informed Ritter that Wilson had two outstanding warrants. Ritter arrested Wilson on the outstanding warrants. The next morning, Wilson volunteered information that connected him to the fire. Wilson moved to suppress the incriminating information, arguing that Ritter’s initial stop, request for identification, and warrants check constituted an unreasonable seizure. The state (plaintiff) argued that Wilson was not seized until he was arrested on the outstanding warrants. The trial court denied the motion, and a jury convicted Wilson. Wilson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Taylor, J.)
Dissent (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.