holding that cireumstantial evidence of Sal-dana's connection with previously convicted drug dealers and the quantity and purity of cocaine ("such that it would not be likely a possessor would have acquired it for personal use") justified inference of specific intent to deliver
How later courts described this case
- holding that cireumstantial evidence of Sal-dana's connection with previously convicted drug dealers and the quantity and purity of cocaine ("such that it would not be likely a possessor would have acquired it for personal use") justified inference of specific intent to deliver
- holding that reasonableness of seizure of a person is determined by balancing the nature of the intrusion against the governmental interest
- “If a defendant is sufficiently associated with the persons having physical custody so that he is able, without difficulty to cause the drug to be produced for a customer, he can also be found by a jury to have dominion and control over the drug and, therefore, possession.”
- evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence regarding Saldana’s “intent to deliver”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by Sheesley v. State, 437 P.3d 830 (2019)
" Id. We disagree with the State, however, that "[a] proper state constitutional analysis should include, at the minimum , examination of" these criteria to justify consideration of the issue on appeal.
The opinion
MACY, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
I write only to comment on the dicta in the majority opinion which states:
The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures found in the Constitution of the State of Wyoming is virtually identical to that found in the federal constitution. Even though the federal law establishes minimum requirements for individual protection and does not mandate any maximum criteria as to the degree of protection afforded an individual under state law, federal interpretations of the Fourth Amendment are regarded as persuasive and this court adheres to them closely absent some contrary direction from the legislature of the State of Wyoming.
(Citations omitted.) I do not concur with the idea that in the future we will blindly follow the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when we interpret the Wyoming Constitution.