state constitutional analysis in Wyoming

2023They are merely a list of useful ‘non-exclusive neutral criteria.’”) (quoting Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 309, n.8 (Wyo. 1999)). 2 We have emphasized that “[w]hen a party raises a state constitutional claim and provides proper argument on appeal and in the trial court below, the state constitutional analysis takes primacy—that is, the claim is first analyzed under the Wyoming Constitution.” Levenson v. State, 2022 WY 51, ¶ 18 , 508 P.3d 229 , 235 (Wyo. 2022) (citing O’Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83, ¶ 22 , 117 P.3d 401, 408 (Wyo. 2005)); Vasquez v. State, 990 P.2d 476, 485-86 (Wyo. 1999) (when

2023They are merely a list of useful ‘non-exclusive neutral criteria.’”) (quoting Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 309, n.8 (Wyo. 1999)). 2 We have emphasized that “[w]hen a party raises a state constitutional claim and provides proper argument on appeal and in the trial court below, the state constitutional analysis takes primacy—that is, the claim is first analyzed under the Wyoming Constitution.” Levenson v. State, 2022 WY 51, ¶ 18 , 508 P.3d 229 , 235 (Wyo. 2022) (citing O’Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83, ¶ 22 , 117 P.3d 401, 408 (Wyo. 2005)); Vasquez v. State, 990 P.2d 476, 485-86 (Wyo. 1999) (when

2012Smailfoot's state constitutional argument consists of nothing more than a recitation of a passage from O'Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83 , 117 P.3d 401 (Wyo.2005), and an assertion that "the warrant-less entry and search of [his] residence was not reasonable under all the circumstances." This Court has consistently declined, as a matter of policy, to consider a state constitutional claim in the absence of a sufficient argument supporting "adequate and independent state grounds." Cohen v. State, 2008 WY 78, ¶ 23 , 191 P.3d 956, 962 (Wyo.2008); Rideout v. State, 2005 WY 141, ¶ 15 , 122 P.3d 201, 205

2012Smailfoot's state constitutional argument consists of nothing more than a recitation of a passage from O'Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83 , 117 P.3d 401 (Wyo.2005), and an assertion that "the warrant-less entry and search of [his] residence was not reasonable under all the circumstances." This Court has consistently declined, as a matter of policy, to consider a state constitutional claim in the absence of a sufficient argument supporting "adequate and independent state grounds." Cohen v. State, 2008 WY 78, ¶ 23 , 191 P.3d 956, 962 (Wyo.2008); Rideout v. State, 2005 WY 141, ¶ 15 , 122 P.3d 201, 205

2009Saldana v. State, 846 P.2d 604, 621-24 (Wyo.1993) (Golden, J., concurring). [¶ 12] The appellant's attempt to present an independent state constitutional claim falls short.

2004We have repeatedly directed that, in order for this Court to undertake an independent state constitutional analysis, the appellant must “use a precise and analytically sound approach and provide us with the proper arguments and briefs to ensure the future growth of this important area of law.” Saldana v. State, 846 P.2d 604, 624 (Wyo.1993) (Golden, J., concurring).

2008We have consistently stated that the failure to present a proper argument supporting “ ‘adequate and independent state grounds’ ... prevents this court, as a matter of policy, from considering other than the federal constitutional principles at issue_” Vasar v. State, 2004 WY 125, ¶ 14 , 99 P.3d 987, 993 (Wyo.2004) (quoting Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215, 219 (Wyo. 1994), and Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 , 103 S.Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983)).

2005“A failure to present a sufficient argument supporting ‘adequate and independent state grounds,’ ... prevents this court, as a matter of policy, from considering other than the federal constitutional principles at issue....” Vassar v. State, 2004 WY 125, ¶ 14 , 99 P.3d 987, 993 (Wyo.2004) (quoting Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215, 219 (Wyo.1994), and Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1041 , 103 S.Ct. 3469 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983)).

2024See also Joseph v. State, 2023 WY 58, ¶ 19 , 530 P.3d 1071, 1076 (Wyo. 2023) (“[L]itigants must provide proper argument and briefing using a precise and analytically sound approach before we will consider a state constitutional claim.”) (quoting Sheesley, 2019 WY 32 , ¶ 15, 437 P.3d at 837 ). 10 state to call a particular person to give evidence is not a ground for reversal of conviction when the accused had the opportunity to confront all persons who were witnesses against him at his trial.”).

2024Ramirez v. State, 2023 WY 70, ¶ 16 , 532 P.3d 230 , 235 (Wyo. 2023) (quoting Sheesley v. State, 2019 WY 32 , ¶ 14, 437 P.3d 830, 836 (Wyo. 2019)); see also Jeffrey S. Sutton, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law 174 (2018) (stating that litigants “at a minimum ought to consider the possibility that a state constitutional claim should be added to the mix.”); Allison Bruff, Comment, Ripe for Rejection: A Methodology for States’ Departure from Utah v. Strieff and its Poisonous Fruit, 86 Miss.

2005Gronski v. State, 910 P.2d 561, 565-66 (Wyo.1996); Parkhurst v. State, 628 P.2d 1369, 1374 (Wyo.1981); Callaway v. State, 954 P.2d 1365, 1371 (Wyo.1998). [¶ 26] In Vasquez, however, we performed a separate state constitutional analysis and concluded that article 1, § 4 provided greater protection than the Fourth Amendment under the particular facts presented.

2001Id. at 621-24 (Golden, J., concurring). 2 [16] Three years later, in a unanimous opinion, this Court rejected a separate state constitutional analysis of a search and seizure issue, but only because the "assertion, unaccompanied by authority or argument, is insufficient to persuade us to consider whether the Wyoming Constitution's Art. 1, § 4 should be independently interpreted as offering greater protection than its federal counterpart." Gronski v. State, 910 P.2d 561, 565 (Wyo.1996).

2025Co., 234 N.W.2d 559 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975); Carmack v. Cichon, 201 N.W.2d 669 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972); Benmark v. Steffen, 132 N.W.2d 48 (Mich. 1965). 15 2000) (discussing the body of law examining the “open courts” provision common to state constitutions) (citation omitted); see also Morgan v. State, 2004 WY 95, ¶ 20 , 95 P.3d 802, 808 (Wyo. 2004) (reiterating that “in order for this Court to undertake an independent state constitutional analysis, the appellant must ‘use a precise and analytically sound approach and provide us with the proper arguments and briefs to ensure the future growth of t

2025Co., 234 N.W.2d 559 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975); Carmack v. Cichon, 201 N.W.2d 669 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972); Benmark v. Steffen, 132 N.W.2d 48 (Mich. 1965). 15 2000) (discussing the body of law examining the “open courts” provision common to state constitutions) (citation omitted); see also Morgan v. State, 2004 WY 95, ¶ 20 , 95 P.3d 802, 808 (Wyo. 2004) (reiterating that “in order for this Court to undertake an independent state constitutional analysis, the appellant must ‘use a precise and analytically sound approach and provide us with the proper arguments and briefs to ensure the future growth of t

2025“General citation to the Wyoming Constitution does not suffice to preserve a state constitutional argument for appeal, nor does citation to cases decided under the Wyoming Constitution without argument concerning how they apply to the case under consideration.” Gibson v. State, 2019 WY 40 , ¶ 13, 438 P.3d 1256, 1259 (Wyo. 2019) (internal citation omitted). [¶12] Nevertheless, within the context of the facts of this case, we apply the same considerations in our Fourth Amendment analysis that would have been applied under a state constitutional analysis.

2023Gibson, 2019 WY 40 , ¶ 13, 438 P.3d at 1259 (“[W]e consistently decline to decide cases under the Wyoming Constitution that are not supported by cogent argument in the lower court or on appeal.”). [¶33] Affirmed. 10

2012This Court will not, as a matter of policy, consider a state constitutional claim in the absence of a sufficient argument supporting "adequate and independent state grounds." Cohen v. State, 2008 WY 78, ¶ 23 , 191 P.3d 956, 962 (Wyo.2008); Rideout v. State, 2005 WY 141, ¶ 15 , 122 P.3d 201, 205 (Wyo.2005); Cotton v. State, 2005 WY 115, ¶ 14 , 119 P.3d 931, 934 (Wyo.2005); Vassar v. State, 2004 WY 125, ¶ 14 , 99 P.3d 987, 993 (Wyo.2004).

2012This Court will not, as a matter of policy, consider a state constitutional claim in the absence of a sufficient argument supporting "adequate and independent state grounds." Cohen v. State, 2008 WY 78, ¶ 23 , 191 P.3d 956, 962 (Wyo.2008); Rideout v. State, 2005 WY 141, ¶ 15 , 122 P.3d 201, 205 (Wyo.2005); Cotton v. State, 2005 WY 115, ¶ 14 , 119 P.3d 931, 934 (Wyo.2005); Vassar v. State, 2004 WY 125, ¶ 14 , 99 P.3d 987, 993 (Wyo.2004).

2025Mr. Boyer challenges the denial of his motion to suppress under article 1, section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [¶11] “When a party raises a state constitutional claim and provides proper argument on appeal and in the trial court below, the state constitutional analysis takes primacy—that is, the claim is first analyzed under the Wyoming Constitution.” Levenson v. State, 2022 WY 51, ¶ 18 , 508 P.3d 229 , 235 (Wyo. 2022) (citing O’Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83, ¶ 22 , 117 P.3d 401, 408 (Wyo. 2005)).

2025Mr. Boyer challenges the denial of his motion to suppress under article 1, section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [¶11] “When a party raises a state constitutional claim and provides proper argument on appeal and in the trial court below, the state constitutional analysis takes primacy—that is, the claim is first analyzed under the Wyoming Constitution.” Levenson v. State, 2022 WY 51, ¶ 18 , 508 P.3d 229 , 235 (Wyo. 2022) (citing O’Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83, ¶ 22 , 117 P.3d 401, 408 (Wyo. 2005)).

2023They rely on Damato v. State where we said, “A state constitutional analysis is required unless a party desires to have an issue decided solely under the Federal Constitution.” Damato v. State, 2003 WY 13, ¶ 8 , 64 P.3d 700, 704 (Wyo. 2003) (quoting Vasquez v. State, 990 P.2d 476, 485 (Wyo. 1999)).

2023They rely on Damato v. State where we said, “A state constitutional analysis is required unless a party desires to have an issue decided solely under the Federal Constitution.” Damato v. State, 2003 WY 13, ¶ 8 , 64 P.3d 700, 704 (Wyo. 2003) (quoting Vasquez v. State, 990 P.2d 476, 485 (Wyo. 1999)).

2025See Joseph v. State, 2023 WY 58, ¶ 18 , 530 P.3d 1071 , 1075 n. 2 (Wyo. 2023) (emphasizing “the primacy of the state constitutional analysis and the need for it to be conducted separately from any federal analysis”). [¶107] Third, this Court’s approach to Article 1, Section 14, has its own history that looked broadly at the views of society and considered its response to the punishment at issue.

2025See Joseph v. State, 2023 WY 58, ¶ 18 , 530 P.3d 1071 , 1075 n. 2 (Wyo. 2023) (emphasizing “the primacy of the state constitutional analysis and the need for it to be conducted separately from any federal analysis”). [¶107] Third, this Court’s approach to Article 1, Section 14, has its own history that looked broadly at the views of society and considered its response to the punishment at issue.

2012Smailfoot's state constitutional argument consists of nothing more than a recitation of a passage from O'Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83 , 117 P.3d 401 (Wyo.2005), and an assertion that "the warrant-less entry and search of [his] residence was not reasonable under all the circumstances." This Court has consistently declined, as a matter of policy, to consider a state constitutional claim in the absence of a sufficient argument supporting "adequate and independent state grounds." Cohen v. State, 2008 WY 78, ¶ 23 , 191 P.3d 956, 962 (Wyo.2008); Rideout v. State, 2005 WY 141, ¶ 15 , 122 P.3d 201, 205

2012Smailfoot's state constitutional argument consists of nothing more than a recitation of a passage from O'Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83 , 117 P.3d 401 (Wyo.2005), and an assertion that "the warrant-less entry and search of [his] residence was not reasonable under all the circumstances." This Court has consistently declined, as a matter of policy, to consider a state constitutional claim in the absence of a sufficient argument supporting "adequate and independent state grounds." Cohen v. State, 2008 WY 78, ¶ 23 , 191 P.3d 956, 962 (Wyo.2008); Rideout v. State, 2005 WY 141, ¶ 15 , 122 P.3d 201, 205

2012Smailfoot's state constitutional argument consists of nothing more than a recitation of a passage from O'Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83 , 117 P.3d 401 (Wyo.2005), and an assertion that "the warrant-less entry and search of [his] residence was not reasonable under all the circumstances." This Court has consistently declined, as a matter of policy, to consider a state constitutional claim in the absence of a sufficient argument supporting "adequate and independent state grounds." Cohen v. State, 2008 WY 78, ¶ 23 , 191 P.3d 956, 962 (Wyo.2008); Rideout v. State, 2005 WY 141, ¶ 15 , 122 P.3d 201, 205

2012Smailfoot's state constitutional argument consists of nothing more than a recitation of a passage from O'Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83 , 117 P.3d 401 (Wyo.2005), and an assertion that "the warrant-less entry and search of [his] residence was not reasonable under all the circumstances." This Court has consistently declined, as a matter of policy, to consider a state constitutional claim in the absence of a sufficient argument supporting "adequate and independent state grounds." Cohen v. State, 2008 WY 78, ¶ 23 , 191 P.3d 956, 962 (Wyo.2008); Rideout v. State, 2005 WY 141, ¶ 15 , 122 P.3d 201, 205

2005Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315, 320 (Wyo.1999); Putnam v. State, 995 P.2d 682, 640 (Wyo.2000); Bailey v. State, 12 P.3d 178, 177 (Wyo.2000). [T15]) Although Mr. Cotton mentioned the Wyoming Constitution near the end of his written suppression motion, he provided absolutely no argument or briefing of the issue before the district court.

2005Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315, 320 (Wyo.1999); Putnam v. State, 995 P.2d 632, 640 (Wyo.2000); Bailey v. State, 12 P.3d 173, 177 (Wyo.2000); Meadows v. State, 2003 WY 37, ¶ 21 , 65 P.3d 33, ¶ 21 (Wyo.2003).

2025See In re McDonald, 33 P. 18, 21 (Wyo. 1893) (stating “in order to declare the law unconstitutional, that the punishment provided by the law is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the people.”) (citation omitted); see also Fisher, 64 P. at 1061 (stating for a Court to find a punishment cruel or unusual, it should be so out of proportion to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the people or “so excessive or so cruel as to meet the disapproval and condemnation of the conscience and reason of men generally.”) (quoting State v. Becker, 51 N.W. 1018, 1022 (S.D. 1

2025See In re McDonald, 33 P. 18, 21 (Wyo. 1893) (stating “in order to declare the law unconstitutional, that the punishment provided by the law is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the people.”) (citation omitted); see also Fisher, 64 P. at 1061 (stating for a Court to find a punishment cruel or unusual, it should be so out of proportion to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the people or “so excessive or so cruel as to meet the disapproval and condemnation of the conscience and reason of men generally.”) (quoting State v. Becker, 51 N.W. 1018, 1022 (S.D. 1

2025See In re McDonald, 33 P. 18, 21 (Wyo. 1893) (stating “in order to declare the law unconstitutional, that the punishment provided by the law is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the people.”) (citation omitted); see also Fisher, 64 P. at 1061 (stating for a Court to find a punishment cruel or unusual, it should be so out of proportion to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the people or “so excessive or so cruel as to meet the disapproval and condemnation of the conscience and reason of men generally.”) (quoting State v. Becker, 51 N.W. 1018, 1022 (S.D. 1

2023Id. (cleaned up); see also Fertig v. State, 2006 WY 148, ¶ 16 , 146 P.3d 492, 497 (Wyo. 2006) (“We note also that our analysis is not limited to the [Saldana] factors.

2023Id. (cleaned up); see also Fertig v. State, 2006 WY 148, ¶ 16 , 146 P.3d 492, 497 (Wyo. 2006) (“We note also that our analysis is not limited to the [Saldana] factors.

2023They are merely a list of useful ‘non-exclusive neutral criteria.’”) (quoting Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 309, n.8 (Wyo. 1999)). 2 We have emphasized that “[w]hen a party raises a state constitutional claim and provides proper argument on appeal and in the trial court below, the state constitutional analysis takes primacy—that is, the claim is first analyzed under the Wyoming Constitution.” Levenson v. State, 2022 WY 51, ¶ 18 , 508 P.3d 229 , 235 (Wyo. 2022) (citing O’Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83, ¶ 22 , 117 P.3d 401, 408 (Wyo. 2005)); Vasquez v. State, 990 P.2d 476, 485-86 (Wyo. 1999) (when

2023They are merely a list of useful ‘non-exclusive neutral criteria.’”) (quoting Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 309, n.8 (Wyo. 1999)). 2 We have emphasized that “[w]hen a party raises a state constitutional claim and provides proper argument on appeal and in the trial court below, the state constitutional analysis takes primacy—that is, the claim is first analyzed under the Wyoming Constitution.” Levenson v. State, 2022 WY 51, ¶ 18 , 508 P.3d 229 , 235 (Wyo. 2022) (citing O’Boyle v. State, 2005 WY 83, ¶ 22 , 117 P.3d 401, 408 (Wyo. 2005)); Vasquez v. State, 990 P.2d 476, 485-86 (Wyo. 1999) (when

2023See Vasquez, 990 P.2d at 485 (citing People v. Belton, 432 N.E.2d 745 (N.Y. 1982) for its recognition “that identical provisions do not mean that an independent interpretation is not warranted”); People v. McKnight, 446 P.3d 397, 407 (Colo. 2019) (“State courts have a freer hand in doing something the Supreme Court cannot: allowing local conditions and traditions to affect their interpretation of a constitutional guarantee and the remedies imposed to implement that guarantee.”) (quoting Jeffrey S. Sutton, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law 17 (2018)).

2023See Vasquez, 990 P.2d at 485 (citing People v. Belton, 432 N.E.2d 745 (N.Y. 1982) for its recognition “that identical provisions do not mean that an independent interpretation is not warranted”); People v. McKnight, 446 P.3d 397, 407 (Colo. 2019) (“State courts have a freer hand in doing something the Supreme Court cannot: allowing local conditions and traditions to affect their interpretation of a constitutional guarantee and the remedies imposed to implement that guarantee.”) (quoting Jeffrey S. Sutton, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law 17 (2018)).