author: ORME, Judge.

text:
    2002 UT App 375
    Roger OLIPHANT, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ESTATE of Joseph R. BRUNETTI and its heirs and assigns; and Florence Brunetti, Defendants and Appellants.
    No. 20010238-CA.
    Court of Appeals of Utah.
    Nov. 15, 2002.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 2003.

      Brian W. Steffensen and William J. Middleton, Salt Lake City, for Appellants.
    Lee Rudd, Draper, for Appellee.
    Before Judges BENCH, ORME, and THORNE, Jr.
   OPINION

ORME, Judge.

¶ 1 This appeal challenges the propriety of an independent action in which relief was granted from a default judgment that had been purportedly satisfied through payment of the underlying obligation. Especially given the coordination between the judge who entered the default judgment and the judge who decided the independent action, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Roger Oliphant had several financial dealings with Joseph and Florence Brunetti in the 1980s and 1990s. Their respective views of the transactions ultimately varied quite dramatically. Oliphant believed that (1) he was paid $5,000 by the Brunettis as a finder’s fee in connection with a loan they made to Heinz Rose; (2) he had no responsibility for repayment of the Rose loan; and (3) he owed the Brunettis something by reason of a failed business dealing in the purchase and sale of coins, but the amount owed should be “net” of the value of coins the Brunettis retained after the venture failed.

¶ 3 The Brunettis’ position, as reflected in a complaint they filed in May of 1995, was that (1) they had loaned $5,000 to Oliphant which had not been repaid; (2) Oliphant was liable for repayment of $50,000 loaned to Rose on Oliphant’s advice; and (3) Oliphant was liable for repayment of the full $19,000 that the Brunettis had invested in the coin business. After Oliphant answered the complaint, Oliphant and the Brunettis agreed that Oliphant would make periodic cash payments to the Brunettis. Oliphant made a number of payments, and the 1995 complaint was eventually dismissed.

¶ 4 In October of 1997, an identical complaint was filed by the Brunettis against Oli-phant. Oliphant claims he never received this complaint, but a return of service in the file says otherwise. A default judgment was taken against him a few months later. Oli-phant also claims he never received the notice of entry of default judgment that was sent to him, and the certificate of mailing does reflect that an incorrect zip code was used. Notwithstanding the default judgment, according to a ledger sheet Oliphant maintained, Oliphant continued to make— and the Brunettis continued to receive and accept — periodic payments pursuant to the prior arrangement. Oliphant claims he first learned of the default judgment when he was served with a writ of execution on April 20, 2000, by which time Joseph Brunetti had died.

¶ 5 On April 27, 2000, Oliphant paid $6,400 to Florence Brunetti. She acknowledged receipt of the payment and its intended legal effect by signing a document, prepared by Oliphant, which provided, in its entirety, as follows:

Joseph and Florence Brunetti along with Roger A. Oliphant agreed to settle all claims in the amount of $24,000.00 paid by Roger A. Oliphant to Joseph & Florence Brunetti.
Amount of monies paid to Joseph and Florence Brunetti through December 31, 1999[i]s $17,600.00. Balance owing is $6,400.00.
Monies received by Florence Brunetti on April 27, [20]00 from Roger A. Oliphant is $6,400.00[.]
With final payment of $6,400.00, bringing total payments of $24,000.00 without interest PAID IN FULL. Joseph and Florence Brunetti and successors have settled, released and resolved all claims, suits, judge-ments, etc. against Roger A. Oliphant, including Civil nos 893003687 and 970907433, Third District Court.

Apparently at the same time, Florence signed her name at the bottom of a copy of Oliphant’s ledger sheet, which showed prior payments totalling $17,600, a final payment of $6,400, and a zero balance.

¶ 6 On June 1, 2000, in the face of execution on the default judgment, Oliphant filed an action against the Brunettis seeking relief from the default judgment. That action was assigned to Judge Bohling. Later that month, Judge Noel, who had entered the default judgment, stayed execution of the judgment pending disposition of the action assigned to Judge Bohling. In that action, the Brunettis filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. Oliphant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court concluded the obligations underlying the default judgment had been discharged, and the judgment thereby satisfied, through an accord and satisfaction. Accordingly, the court granted Oliphant’s motion and denied the Brunettis’ motions. The Brunettis appeal.

ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶ 7 Multiple issues are raised. We believe the issues meriting discussion boil down to these three. First, did Judge Bohl-ing have the authority to consider Oliphant’s challenge to the default judgment in the 1997 action entered by Judge Noel? Questions of the scope of judicial authority are reviewed for correctness. Cf. Beaver County v. Qwest, Inc., 2001 UT 81,¶ 8, 31 P.3d 1147 (subject matter jurisdiction); State v. Wanosik, 2001 UT App 241,¶ 8, 31 P.3d 615 (authority to impose sentence in absentia), cert. granted, 42 P.3d 951 (Utah 2002).

¶ 8 Second, if Judge Bohling had such authority, was he limited to treating the action as tantamount to a motion for relief from judgment under rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure? “[T]he interpretation of a rule of procedure is a question of law that we review for correctness.” Brown v. Glover, 2000 UT 89,¶ 15, 16 P.3d 540.

¶ 9 Third, if Judge Bohling was not constrained by rule 60(b), was summary judgment properly entered on a theory of accord and satisfaction? Whether summary judgment was properly entered on the record before Judge Bohling and whether an accord and satisfaction were established on that record are also questions of law, which we review for correctness. See Gerbich v. Numed Inc., 1999 UT 37,¶ 10, 977 P.2d 1205 (summary judgment); ProMax Dev. Corp. v. Raile, 2000 UT 4,¶ 17, 998 P.2d 254 (accord and satisfaction).

ANALYSIS

¶ 10 The thrust of the Brunettis’ argument, perhaps well-taken as far as it goes, is that any consideration of the viability of the judgment entered in the 1997 action should have been undertaken by Judge Noel, who entered the judgment, rather than Judge Bohling. We need not decide whether, in all circumstances, a judge would have the power to consider, in an independent action, the continued vitality of a judgment entered by another judge. Largely overlooked by the Brunettis is that Judge Noel was apprised of the independent action and had the opportunity to require that the parties raise with him any challenge to his judgment, either by moving to consolidate the independent action with the 1997 action or by filing an appropriate post-judgment motion in the 1997 action. Instead, fully cognizant of the independent action, Judge Noel stayed execution of his judgment pending resolution of the independent action. In essence, then, Judge Noel deferred to Judge Bohling to resolve the challenge to Judge Noel’s judgment and, in the process, obviated the range of problems presented by having a different judge second-guessing the judgment entered by a colleague. This knowledge and coordination between the two judges makes the Brunettis’ first argument something of a red herring, and we turn our attention to the remaining two issues.

I. Effect of Rule 60(b)

¶ 11 The thrust of the Brunettis’ argument is that by bringing an independent action, Oliphant avoided his burden to demonstrate that the default judgment was a result of “excusable neglect.” Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). And insofar as Oliphant’s claim was premised on fraud or misconduct under Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), the Brunettis contend Oliphant’s action was untimely. See id. 60(b) (“The motion shall be made within a reasonable time and for reasons (1), (2), or (3), not more than 3 months after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.”).

¶ 12 We are not persuaded. Even if Oli-phant was bound to proceed under rule 60(b) — -a doubtful proposition in view of the rule’s explicit recognition, with our emphasis, that “[t]he procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action” — Oliphant’s theory should not be viewed as confined to subparts (1) and (3) of rule 60(b). Rather, the thrust of his argument brings him comfortably within subpart (5), entitling a party to relief if “the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged ... or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.” Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). Such a claim only has to be raised “within a reasonable time,” id. 60(b), and the independent action was brought almost immediately after renewed execution efforts seemingly precluded by the parties’ settlement. Accordingly, we now turn to consider whether, on the merits, Oliphant was entitled to the relief he was granted.

II. Merits

¶ 13 Judge Bohling concluded Oli-phant was entitled to relief from the default judgment because the underlying dispute had been resolved pursuant to “a valid accord and satisfaction.” In reaching that result, he concluded that the document signed by Florence Brunetti was “clear and unambiguous on its face.”

¶ 14 These conclusions appear to be sound. “Whether the terms of a contract are ambiguous is a question of law which we review for correctness.” Wade v. Stangl, 869 P.2d 9, 12 (Utah Ct.App.1994). “Contract language may be ambiguous if it is unclear, omits terms, or if the terms used to express the intention of the parties may be understood to have two or more plausible meanings.” Village Inn Apartments v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 790 P.2d 581, 583 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (citation omitted). Absent ambiguity, interpretation of a contract presents a question of law rather than a question of fact, and it is undertaken without resort to extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intentions. See Kimball v. Campbell, 699 P.2d 714, 716 (Utah 1985); Seashores Inc. v. Hancey, 738 P.2d 645, 647 (Utah Ct.App.1987). Only “[i]f a contract is ambiguous [may] extrinsic evidence ... be introduced to clarify the parties’ intent.” Stangl, 869 P.2d at 12.

¶ 15 We see in the succinct document signed by Florence Brunetti nothing that is “unclear, omits terms, or ... may be understood to have two or more plausible meanings.” Village Inn, 790 P.2d at 583 (citation omitted). On the contrary, it is plain from the face of the document that the parties had a dispute; that they agreed to settle all claims for $24,000; that Oliphant had paid about three-fourths of that amount by 1999; that he paid the balance on April 27, 2000; that with the last payment, Oliphant had “PAID IN FULL”; and that with the last payment having been made, all of the parties’ “claims, suits, [and] judgements” had been “settled, released and resolved,” including, specifically, the 1997 action in which the default judgment had been taken.

¶ 16 “To establish an accord and satisfaction, three elements must be present: ‘(1) an unliquidated claim or a bona fide dispute over the amount due; (2) a payment offered as full settlement of the entire dispute; and (3) an acceptance of the payment as full settlement of the dispute.’ ” Dishinger v. Potter, 2001 UT App 209,¶ 19, 47 P.3d 76 (quoting ProMax Dev. Corp. v. Raile, 2000 UT 4,¶ 20, 998 P.2d 254), cert. denied, 40 P.3d 1135 (Utah 2001). These elements are clearly satisfied in this case, largely with reference only to the document signed by Florence Brunetti.

¶ 17 On appeal, the Brunettis insist that at the time the final payment was tendered and accepted, there was no unliquidat-ed claim or bona fide dispute. Rather, they contend, the default judgment served to liquidate the claim and resolve the parties’ dispute. Thus, the payment tendered on April 27 must be regarded merely as a partial payment toward the judgment.

¶ 18 This theory fails to take into account certain critical facts and thus is unavailing. First, as the ledger sheet signed by Florence Brunetti demonstrates, the basic settlement accord reached by the parties, and many of the payments made thereon, predated the default judgment, while a substantial portion of the payments were made after the judgment was entered. The complaint commencing the 1997 action did not recognize the accord or the payments made pursuant thereto and, thus, did not serve to liquidate the then-amount of the claim. Indeed, the disputed default judgment was a component of the parties’ ongoing dispute rather than a means to resolve it.

¶ 19 Second, and more importantly, the document signed contemporaneously with the receipt of the final payment conclusively establishes how the amount was calculated, the purpose for which the payment was tendered, and the basis on which it was received. Any dispute about how this payment fits into the parties’ course of dealing is resolved by the clear language of that document. The Brunettis’ theory is flawed because it sees significance only in the 1997 judgment and the tendered check; it essentially ignores the highly significant prior complaints, the ledger sheet, and the unambiguous document signed by Florence Brun-etti.

¶ 20 In addition, the Brunettis argue there was no meeting of the minds reflected in the document signed by Florence. Her affidavit submitted below states she did not really know what she was signing. She understood she was only signing a receipt for that one payment and intended to do nothing beyond acknowledging that simple fact. Significantly, she does not, in her sworn affidavit, attribute this claimed confusion on her part to any misrepresentation or connivance on the part of Oliphant. Thus, any mistake about the meaning and effect of the document was entirely unilateral.

¶ 21 To prevail on a theory of unilateral mistake, “the mistake must have occurred notwithstanding the exercise of ordinary diligence by the party making the mistake.” John Call Eng’g, Inc. v. Manti City Corp., 743 P.2d 1205, 1209 (Utah 1987). As a matter of law, there was no such diligence here. The document is short and easy to understand. It does not use difficult or technical language. Lest the point be missed, “PAID IN FULL” appears in all capital letters. What was said in John Call applies with equal force in this case:

Generally, one party to an agreement does not have a duty to ensure that the other party has a complete and accurate understanding of all terms embodied in a written contract. Rather, each party has the burden to read and understand the terms of a contract before he or she affixes his or her signature to it. A party may not sign a contract and thereafter assert ignorance or failure to read the contract as a defense.

Id. at 1207-08 (footnotes omitted).

¶ 22 Finally, the Brunettis contend the document signed by Florence Brun-etti is not a fully integrated agreement and that parol evidence may properly be considered in ascertaining the true agreement of the parties, even if the evidence is at variance with the clear terms of the written agreement. We need not consider this contention, which is raised for the first time on appeal. See Wade v. Stangl, 869 P.2d 9, 11 (Utah Ct.App.1994).

CONCLUSION

¶ 23 Oliphant could, in an independent action, seek relief from the default judgment entered against him where the underlying indebtedness had been paid but execution on the judgment was undertaken nonetheless. Adjudication of the independent action could properly be undertaken by a judge other than the judge who entered the default judgment, at least where the first judge was made aware of the independent action and was amenable to its resolution by the second judge. The document signed by Florence Brunetti clearly and unambiguously memorialized an accord and satisfaction of the obligations claimed by the Brunettis, which were “PAID IN FULL” upon the final payment tendered by Oliphant.

¶ 24 Affirmed.

¶ 25 WE CONCUR: RUSSELL W. BENCH and WILLIAM A. THORNE JR., Judges.

      . The Brunettis raise a trust document for the first time on appeal, arguing the trust should have been named as a defendant rather than the estate of Joseph Brunetti. We will not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Wade v. Stangl, 869 P.2d 9, 11 (Utah Ct.App.1994).

      . Moreover, the argument is not adequately briefed and fails on that basis as well. See Smith

        v. Smith, 1999 UT App 370, ¶ 8, 995 P.2d 14 ("An issue is inadequately briefed when 'the overall analysis of the issue is so lacking as to shift the burden of research and argument to the reviewing court.' ") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 4 P.3d 1289 (Utah 2000). The Brunettis’ argument, limited to a single page in their brief, merely asserts in conclusory fashion: “Judge Noel had jurisdiction over [the prior] case, and had the sole power and jurisdiction to entertain a claim that the judgment debt was satisfied." The contention is alternatively stated: "Oliphant had to bring his satisfaction of judgment claim before Judge Noel, not before Judge Bohling in an entirely different case.” Although passing reference is made to rules 60(b) and 58B of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, no authority is cited in support of the quoted contentions, and they are not to be found in rules 60(b) and 58B.

      . In resisting Oliphant's motion for summary judgment, the Brunettis attacked the viability of Oliphant's accord and satisfaction theory, contending the amount owed was liquidated upon entry of the default judgment such that there was no consideration for the accord claimed by Oli-phant. They also urged their "no meeting of the minds” theory. It is true that some portions of the affidavit filed below by Florence Brunetti might be relevant in a dispute over the applicability of the parol evidence rule. However, that theory was not articulated in the motions or memoranda filed by the Brunettis below. It is axiomatic that "[a] matter is sufficiently raised if it has been submitted to the trial court” for consideration' and ruling. James v. Preston, 746 P.2d 799, 801 (Utah Ct.App.1987). "For an issue to be sufficiently raised, even if indirectly, it must at least be raised to a level of consciousness such that the trial judge can consider it.” Id. at 802. That did not happen here.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: GOLDEN, Justice. HILL, Chief Justice,

license: Public Domain

text:
    2003 WY 13
    Nicholas DAMATO, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
    No. 01-88.
    Supreme Court of Wyoming.
    Jan. 29, 2003.

      Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN , KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

       Chief Justice at time of oral argument

   GOLDEN, Justice.

[¶ 1] Appellant Nicholas Damato’s stop for a traffic violation led to the discovery of more than 300 pounds of marijuana in the trunk of his car. After charges were filed, the district court granted his motion to suppress this evidence; however, upon the State’s motion for reconsideration, the trial court reversed its ruling. In its second ruling, the district court denied the motion to suppress the evidence upon finding that the marijuana would inevitably have been discovered by a canine drug sniff. Damato entered a conditional plea of guilty, preserving his right to appeal the evidentiary ruling, and now appeals this denial.

[¶ 2] We reverse and remand.

ISSUES

[¶ 3] Damato states the issues as:

1. Whether the continued detention of Mr. Damato was justified by a reasonable and articulable suspicion of illegal activity.
2. Whether the district court erred in ruling that the drugs found in the trunk of Mr. Damato’s vehicle would have been inevitably discovered by a canine drug unit.

The State believes the issues are:

I. Did the district court err in holding that Trooper Bauer had reasonable articu-lable suspicion to detain appellant for a reasonable period of time awaiting the arrival of the drug detection dog?
II. Did the district court err in holding that the marijuana in the trunk of appellant’s vehicle would have been inevitably discovered by the drug detection dog?
III. Did Trooper Bauer have independent lawful cause to search the trunk of appellant’s vehicle, either as an inventory search following appellant’s arrest for possession of marijuana, or based upon appellant’s admission that there was marijuana in the trunk?

FACTS

[¶ 4] The parties do not dispute the following findings of fact made by the district court:

On April 16, 2000, at approximately 3:30 p.m., Patrolman David Rettinger stopped Defendant Nicholas Damato for speeding on [eastjbound Interstate 80 in Albany County, Wyoming. Defendant was traveling 82 in a 75 mile per hour zone. During the stop Patrolman Rettinger became suspicious of Defendant because he appeared unusually nervous, his luggage was in the back seat instead of the trunk, and there was an unusual quantity of fast food wrappers on the passenger floorboard of the vehicle. Patrolman Rettinger also noticed discrepancies in Damato’s answers to where he had rented the ear and where he was headed to. Damato told Patrolman Rettinger that he had rented the car in San Francisco and that he was returning to his home in Illinois, when the rental agreement showed that the car was rented in San Diego and was to be dropped off in Omaha. All of these observations led Patrolman Rettinger to be suspicious of Mr. Damato. Patrolman Rettinger then requested to search the vehicle and Damato refused. Patrolman Rettinger, believing he could not detain Damato any longer, allowed him to leave without issuing a citation for speeding.
Patrolman Rettinger then radioed the highway patrol dispatch to inform other officers of his observations and to ask other officers to look for the vehicle. He told Patrolman Baner that the driver did not consent to a search, which inferred the officer was looking for drugs. Patrolman John Bauer was one of the officers who received the call. He proceeded to head eastbound on 1-80, trying to “get probable cause to stop him,” when he identified a vehicle he believed to be Defendant’s.... Patrolman Bauer, in an effort to look like he was ignoring Damato, went on past the car before he turned around. Patrolman Bauer then followed the vehicle, looking for probable cause, until he was able to lock Damato’s vehicle in on radar traveling 77 in a 75 mile per hour zone. Patrolman Bauer then closed in on Damato, who moved right to get out of the patrol car’s way, and Patrolman Bauer turned on his lights. Patrolman Bauer noted that at this point, Damato had also not used his turn signal for 100 feet prior to changing lanes. Patrolman Bauer then stopped the vehicle.
Patrolman Bauer called for the canine unit and then proceeded to the vehicle. Patrolman Bauer then asked to see Defendant’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. Defendant questioned why he had been stopped saying he did not believe he was speeding and that he had been careful since he had just been pulled over by Patrolman Rettinger. As Defendant reached for the glove box to retrieve the documents, he said something about them being in the “trunk” and then corrected himself. At this point, Patrolman Bauer noticed the wrappers on the floor and luggage in the backseat, while also observing the Defendant was unusually nervous. Additionally Patrolman Bauer noticed Vi-sine on the console and that Defendant appeared to have pink “dope” eyes.
Patrolman Bauer then directed Damato to get out of the car to come look at the radar. The officer testified that Mr. Damato was not free to leave at this time as the patrolman still had possession of his license and other documents. As Damato reached the back of the vehicle, Patrolman Bauer did a pat-down search. Patrolman Bauer justified this action by saying it was for his own safety since Damato was going to be getting into the front seat of the patrol car. The pat-down revealed two small, ordinary pocket knives, and Patrolman Bauer felt what he believed to be marijuana in a cellophane bag in Defendant’s right, back pocket. Patrolman Bauer then asked Damato what was in his pocket, and after fumbling around, and being asked again, Defendant pulled a cellophane bag with approximately 3 grams of marijuana in it out of his pocket.
Defendant was then arrested and the canine units were called again, along with DCI. Patrolman Bauer then read Defendant his Miranda warnings. Defendant did not appear to orally or otherwise agree to answer questions, but he acknowledged that he understood his rights and later answered questions from Patrolman Bauer. Patrolman Bauer told Defendant repeatedly that Defendant could help himself now by telling Patrolman Bauer what was in the car, and that he would find out anyway when he did an inventory of the car. After repeated questions and repeated denials, Defendant told Patrolman Bauer first that there was a marijuana cigarette in the console of the vehicle, and later that the trunk was full of marijuana. Defendant was subsequently arrested for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. No citations were issued for the traffic violations or the misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

After making these findings of fact, the district court determined that

Standing alone, the Visine, the litter on the floor, the suitcase in the rear seat do not give rise to the level of conduct which would justify a finding of articulable suspicion. However, when the false information about the point of origin and destination is added to the mix, the facts support a suspicion that the defendant is transporting something that may be evidence of criminal activity.
When the trooper ordered the drug sniffing dogs he would have been justified in detaining the defendant until the dogs arrived. However, he did not wait for the dogs, instead he directed Damato to exit the vehicle, and to proceed to the patrol car to view the radar ....

[¶ 5] The district court determined that the trooper improperly ordered Damato from the car and the subsequent pat-down required that the motion to suppress be granted. The State filed for reconsideration, contending that the inevitable discovery doctrine applied because the marijuana in the trunk would have been discovered by the canine sniff that had been ordered. Following a hearing that established the reliability of the particular dog, the district court denied the motion to suppress.

[¶ 6] Damato entered a conditional plea of guilty and was sentenced to four and one-half to nine years and fined $10,000.00. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

[¶ 7] Our standard of review was stated in McChesney v. State, 988 P.2d 1071, 1074 (Wyo.1999):

Findings on factual issues made by the district court considering a motion to suppress are not disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215, 218 (Wyo.1994). Since the district court conducts the hearing on the motion to suppress and has the opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses, weigh the evidence, and make the necessary inferences, deductions, and conclusions, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the district court’s determination. Id. The issue of law, whether an unreasonable search or seizure has occurred in violation of constitutional rights, is reviewed de novo. Id.; Brown v. State, 944 P.2d 1168, 1170-71 (Wyo.1997).

[¶ 8] A state constitutional analysis is required unless a party desires to have an issue decided solely under the Federal Constitution. Vasquez v. State, 990 P.2d 476, 485 (Wyo1999). Damato limits his analysis to the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. That amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const, amend. IV.

The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security. Reasonableness, of course, depends on a balance between the public interest and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09, 98 S.Ct. 330, 332, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) (per curiam) (quotation marks and citations omitted); see also, Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326, 331-32, 121 S.Ct. 946, 950, 148 L.Ed.2d 838 (2001).

[¶ 9] A traffic stop is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, “even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 1396, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). However, a routine traffic stop is more analogous to an investigative detention than a custodial arrest and such stops are analyzed under the principles developed for investigative detentions set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

“The investigatory stop represents a seizure which invokes Fourth Amendment safeguards, but, by its less intrusive character, requires only the presence of specific and articulable facts and rational inferences which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or may be committing a crime.” Wilson, 874 P.2d at 220 (citing Lopez v. State, 643 P.2d 682, 683 [ (Wyo.1982) ]); see also Putnam [v. State], 995 P.2d [632] at 637 [ (Wyo.2000) ]; and McChesney v. State, 988 P.2d 1071, 1074 (Wyo.1999). We have a dual inquiry for evaluating the reasonableness of an investigatoiy stop: (1) whether the officer’s actions were justified at the inception; and (2) whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first instance. Wilson, 874 P.2d at 223 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 20, 88 S.Ct. at 1879); see also United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 228, 105 S.Ct. 675, 680, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985). An officer’s conduct is judged by an objective standard which takes into account the totality of the circumstances. Putnam, 995 P.2d at 637; Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22, 88 S.Ct. at 1879-81; United States v. Lang, 81 F.3d 955, 965 (10th Cir.1996).

Martindale v. State, 2001 WY 52, ¶ 11, 24 P.3d 1138, ¶ 11 (2001). In applying this test, the Court has “consistently eschewed bright-line rules, instead emphasizing the fact-specific nature of the reasonableness inquiry.” Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 421, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996). “The government has the burden of demonstrating that the seizure it seeks to justify on the basis of a reasonable suspicion was sufficiently limited in scope and duration to satisfy the conditions of an investigative seizure.” United States v. Perdue, 8 F.3d 1455, 1462 (10th Cir.1993) (quotation marks omitted).

[¶ 10] The mandated two-part inquiry requires that we first determine whether the stop was justified at its inception. Our inquiry is limited to Officer Bauer’s stop. Officer Bauer testified that the information he received from Officer Rettinger motivated him to search for Damato’s car and, after finding it, follow it with the intent to find probable cause to stop it and detain it for a canine drug sniff. The Court has been unwilling to entertain Fourth Amendment challenges based on the actual motivations of individual officers and has held unanimously that “[s]ubjeetive intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.” Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 1774, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). Whren held that “a traffic-violation arrest ... [will] not be rendered invalid by the fact that it was ‘a mere pretext for a narcotics search.’ ” Id. (citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 221 n. 1, 94 S.Ct. 467, 470 n. 1, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973)). The Court later confirmed the validity of Whren in Arkansas v. Sullivan, 532 U.S. 769, 771-72, 121 S.Ct. 1876, 1878, 149 L.Ed.2d 994 (2001) (per curiam), reversing the Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision that a legitimate traffic stop was invalid when motivated for the purpose of conducting a search for drugs. A concurring opinion written by Justice Ginsburg in Sullivan noted that the Arkansas court feared the Whren decision would accord police officers disturbing discretion to intrude on individuals’ liberty and privacy. Id. at 772-73,121 S.Ct. at 1879 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). The Arkansas Court had expressed unwillingness “to sanction conduct where a police officer can trail a targeted vehicle with a driver merely suspected of criminal activity, wait for the driver to exceed the speed limit by one mile per hour, arrest the driver for speeding, and conduct a full-blown inventory search of the vehicle with impunity.” Id. The concurring opinion also noted that the Court has held that such exercises of official discretion are unlimited by the Fourth Amendment and cited Whren and Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 121 S.Ct. 1536,149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001).

[¶ 11] The Court clarified that had the Arkansas Supreme Court decided that it could not apply Whren under its own state constitution, the Court would not interfere. Sullivan, 532 U.S. at 772, 121 S.Ct. at 1878. The concerns of the Arkansas Supreme Court are also ours where, as here, the officer intended to use any traffic violation as a pretext to conduct a narcotics investigation; however, because Damato does not contend that the Wyoming Constitution provides greater protection in this area, we must follow the federal constitutional decisions in Whren and Sullivan.

[¶ 12] In addition to pretextual reasons, we are concerned also that Damato had previously been stopped and released, and, in a “tag-team” fashion, was passed on to the next jurisdiction to be stopped in hopes the subsequent officer would be more successful in obtaining a canine sniff within a reasonable time. Limited to a federal constitutional analysis, we are constrained to say Whren is controlling in this particular case because Officer Bauer stopped Damato for an observed traffic violation. The officer activated his patrol car lights to stop Damato after observing on radar that Damato exceeded the maximum allowable speed limit by two miles per hour in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-301. Under Wyoming statute, exceeding the maximum allowable speed limit is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-5-1201 (LexisNexis 2001). Officer Bauer, therefore, had probable cause to stop Damato because he had observed a traffic violation. Whren, 517 U.S. at 810, 116 S.Ct. at 1772.

[¶ 13] Having found that the initial stop was valid, we must examine the second prong of Terry, “whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.” 392 U.S. at 20, 88 S.Ct. at 1879. “In the course of making a routine traffic stop, a law enforcement officer may: request a driver’s license and vehicle registration; run a computer check; and issue a citation.” Burgos-Seberos v. State, 969 P.2d 1131, 1133 (Wyo.1998) (citing United States v. Elliott, 107 F.3d 810, 813 (10th Cir.1997)); see also, Wilson, 874 P.2d at 224. Generally, the driver must be allowed to proceed without further delay once the officer determines that the driver has a valid license and is entitled to operate the vehicle. Burgos-Seberos, 969 P.2d at 1133. “In the absence of the particular individual’s valid consent, an officer may expand an investigative detention only if there exists an ‘objectively reasonable and articulable suspicion’ that criminal activity has occurred or is occurring.” United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d 1262, 1267 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1019, 122 S.Ct. 1610, 152 L.Ed.2d 624 (2002) (citing United States v. Hunnicutt, 135 F.3d 1345, 1349 (10th Cir.1998)). “[I]n justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1880.

[¶ 14] Even though the initial stop was justified, we must still assess the reasonableness of the subsequent pat-down search. In order to comport with the Fourth Amendment, that search must have been “reasonably related in scope” to the basis for the stop, which in this case was a traffic violation. Id. at 20, 88 S.Ct. at 1879. In that regard, the Court states that an officer may remove occupants from the vehicle and may conduct a pat-down search if he or she harbors an articulable and reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 117-18, 119 S.Ct. 484, 488, 142 L.Ed.2d 492 (1998) (citing Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111, 98 S.Ct. at 334-35, and Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. at 1883). In this case, the district court stated:

The Fourth Amendment balances the nature and quality of the intrusion against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion. U.S. v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 226, 105 S.Ct. 675, 83 L.Ed.2d 604 (1985). “The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always ‘the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.’ ” Mimms, 434 U.S. at 108-9, 98 S.Ct. 330, citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 19, 88 S.Ct. 1868. The governmental interest in directing Damato to view the monitor and hence frisk him must outweigh a citizen’s right to be free from unreasonable intrusion. Officer Bauer does not adequately explain the necessity of having Damato view the monitor, nor does he explain why such viewing necessitated Damato to sit in the patrol car for viewing, when the monitor was plainly visible from outside the car. I have no choice but to conclude that the State has failed to justify the intrusion.

The district court granted the motion to suppress. We agree with the district court’s decision that Damato was unlawfully seized when he was commanded to exit his car and “frisked.” As the district court determined, although the officer could have removed Damato from the vehicle for the sake of safety, the officer had no objectively based suspicion that Damato was armed and dangerous, and the subsequent pat-down search he performed violated Damato’s Fourth Amendment rights. Thus, the product of the pat-down and everything thereafter must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. McChesney, 988 P.2d at 1078.

[¶ 15] The State again argues that, upon stopping Damato by activating his lights, Officer Bauer immediately called for the canine drug unit, and the drug discovery was inevitable. The record shows that the canine drug unit was called for at 10:27 a.m. and arrived at 11:11 a.m., some forty-four minutes after Damato was first stopped. This detention period is beyond that necessary to complete a routine traffic stop and, thus, must be justified by articulable, reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Williams, 271 F.3d at 1267-68. The district court determined that, based on the information provided to Officer Bauer by Officer Rettinger, reasonable suspicion existed that would have justified detaining Damato until the canine unit arrived. Ultimately, the district court determined that the inevitable discovery doctrine applied and denied the motion to suppress. We disagree with the district court’s determination that Officer Bauer had reasonable suspicion that justified Damato’s prolonged detention and find that the inevitable discovery doctrine is inapplicable to these facts.

[¶ 16] We find that the analysis of the factors supporting reasonable suspicion should be governed by United States v. Wood, 106 F.3d 942 (10th Cir.1997). As the Tenth Circuit stated in Wood, we must determine if the totality of the circumstances demonstrates the existence of objectively reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. Id. at 946.

The “whole picture” must be taken into account. Common sense and ordinary human experience are to be employed, and deference is to be accorded a law enforcement officer’s ability to distinguish between innocent and suspicious actions. Inchoate suspicions and unpartieularized hunches, however, do not provide reasonable suspicion. Even though reasonable suspicion may be founded upon factors consistent with innocent travel, some facts must be outrightly dismissed as so innocent or susceptible to varying interpretations as to be innocuous. We therefore examine, both individually and in the aggregate, the factors found by the trooper and the district court to give rise to reasonable suspicion to detain....

Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). [¶ 17] The Court has said:

Articulating precisely what “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” mean is not possible. They are commonsense, nontechnical conceptions that deal with “ ‘the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.’ ” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2328, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (quoting Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1311, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949)); see United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7-8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585-1586,104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989). As such, the standards are “not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” Gates, supra, at 232, 103 S.Ct. at 2329. We have described reasonable suspicion simply as “a particularized and objective basis” for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity, United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 694-695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981), and probable cause to search as existing where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found, see Brinegar, supra, at 175-176, 69 S.Ct. at 1310-1311; Gates, supra, at 238, 103 S.Ct. at 2332.

Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 695-96, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 1661, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996).

[¶ 18] The Tenth Circuit has recently distinguished between reasonable suspicion and probable cause:

Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause.

United States v. Tuter, 240 F.3d 1292, 1296 n. 2 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 886, 122 S.Ct. 195, 151 L.Edud 137 (2001) (citing Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990)).

[¶ 19] Assuming without deciding that the collective knowledge of Officer Bauer and Rettinger could be aggregated to permit Officer Bauer to call for the canine unit immediately upon stopping Damato, the district court found that the evidence indicated that the following factors during Officer Rettinger’s stop created Officer’s Bauer’s suspicion of criminal activity:

1) Damato seemed unusually nervous for a routine traffic stop;
2) Damato told the patrolman that the ear was rented from San Francisco instead of San Diego, which is a known drug hub;
3) Damato said that he was taking the car home to Illinois when it was to be dropped off in Omaha;
4) Damato’s luggage was in the back seat instead of the trunk;
5) many fast food wrappers on the passenger floorboard suggested Damato was on a “hard run”; and
6) Damato did not consent to the search which caused Patrolman Rettinger to suspect drugs.

“The failure to consent to a search cannot form any part of the basis for reasonable suspicion.” Wood, 106 F.3d at 946. Thus, the last factor has no place in our determination.

[¶ 20] The “extreme nervousness” factor is generally considered of limited significance. In Wood, the court noted that is not uncommon for most citizens whether innocent or guilty to exhibit signs of nervousness when confronted by a law enforcement officer who is making a subjective assessment of a person with whom he had no prior acquaintance and cannot compare with his usual demeanor. Id. at 948. The court stated that it had “repeatedly held that nervousness is of limited significance in determining reasonable suspicion and that the government’s repetitive reliance on nervousness as a basis for reasonable suspicion must be treated with caution.” Id. Officer Rettinger provided the following descriptive account of Damato’s nervousness:

Q. In the course of contacting him did you ask him for his driver’s license and registration?
A. Yes, sir. And as I asked for that information, I asked a number of other questions. He started to seem somewhat not normal than from someone on a normal traffic stop.
Q. Could you explain to the Court what you mean by that? What do you mean by “not normal?”
A. Most people are very comfortable — or I shouldn’t say very comfortable, but they’re somewhat comfortable with what law enforcement’s role is and what we do. They don’t seem to be very surprised when they’re pulled over or of that nature. I have experienced some people that live in different parts of the world or the nation where they do have fear of police, and they will act somewhat like that. But he didn’t seem to have any reason to be acting somewhat kind of jerky, unsure about his questions, really methodically thinking out what he was telling me or saying.
Q. When you asked him for his driver’s license and his registration, was that early on in the stop you did that?
A. Yes, yes, right away, just like I normally would ask anyone who I stop.

[¶ 21] It is generally accepted that nervousness upon the initial confrontation is normal and the telling information is whether the citizen calmed after the initial few minutes of the encounter. “Extreme and continued nervousness, however, ‘is entitled to somewhat more weight.’ ” Williams, 271 F.3d at 1268 (quoting United States v. West, 219 F.3d 1171, 1179 (10th Cir.2000)). Williams distinguished its facts from Wood in this manner:

[In] Wood, [the] panel concluded that the officer’s testimony as to the defendant’s rapid breathing, trembling hands, and throat-clearing constituted a mere “generic claim of nervousness,” and therefore discounted the nervousness as a factor in its reasonable suspicion analysis. 106 F.3d at 948. In Wood, however, the officer and the defendant engaged in casual conversation, including a discussion of the good rate the defendant had received on the rental car. Id. at 944. Thus, Wood appears to have involved the more common situation where a citizen exhibits initially “signs of nervousness when confronted by a law officer,” id. at 948, but then tends to “settle down” as the traffic stop continues. See West, 219 F.3d at 1179.
In this case, the district court found credible the officer’s testimony that Mr. Williams’ extreme nervousness did not dissipate throughout the entire stop. Given our standard of review, the record supports the district court’s finding that Mr. Williams’ nervousness exceeded that of the average citizen during a routine traffic stop. While we do recognize that “nervousness alone cannot support reasonable suspicion of criminal activity,” United States v. Salzano, 158 F.3d 1107, 1113 (10th Cir.1998) (citing United States v. Fernandez, 18 F.3d 874, 880 (10th Cir. 1994)), we see no reason in this case to ignore Mr. Williams’ nervousness in reviewing the totality of the circumstances. See West, 219 F.3d at 1179.

Williams, 271 F.3d at 1268-69.

[¶ 22] Officer Rettinger testified that he returned to his patrol car, ran a criminal history and found that Damato’s record and driver’s license status was clear. The officer then returned to Damato and completed a warning for speeding. He returned Dama-to’s paperwork and then leaned in and asked if Damato would be willing to answer a few questions.

Q. What did you ask him?
A. I asked him if he was sure about where the vehicle was coming to and going from, since the documents said differently. He became very nervous as I was asking.

[¶ 23] By this, Officer Rettinger explained that he observed Damato sweating heavily although it was a chilly day, his carotid artery pulsating hard and fast, and an inability to keep eye contact. Although this descriptive account supplies more than a generic claim of nervousness, it in and of itself remains of limited significance given that Officer Rettinger at the time that he observed these matters was asking Damato whether he had any large amounts of money or drugs in the vehicle and whether Damato would permit him to search. Upon Damato’s refusal, the officer asked Damato whether there was some reason he did not want the officer looking in the vehicle. Realistically, few citizens would not have become uncomfortable to some degree with these questions. The evidence does not indicate that the officer treated the stop as a routine traffic stop and, despite this, Damato’s nervousness continued throughout the stop without ceasing. We believe Damato’s reaction to the officer’s behavior was as consistent with innocence as with criminal activity, and we, therefore, find this factor of no significance.

[¶ 24] Damato stated that he had rented the car in San Francisco, although the rental agreement indicated that he had rented it in San Diego, and was “going home” to Illinois, although the rental documents showed that he would be leaving the car in Omaha, Nebraska. Officer Rettinger testified that he knew that both San Diego and Omaha were “known drug hubs.” Few large cities in the western states are not “known drug hubs.” The rental document information likely would have been equally significant to the officers because it showed that Damato had rented the car in San Diego and was ending his trip in Omaha although his driver’s license showed that his home was in Illinois. Although proper documentation of ownership or legal possession of a vehicle can be crucial in ascertaining whether criminal activity is in progress, Officer Rettinger did not believe that Damato possessed a stolen car, and the failure to ask Damato for an explanation about the discrepancies requires that we find that the officer based suspicion upon mere inconsistency, which is prohibited.

[¶25] Finally, the luggage in the back seat and fast food wrappers on the car floor can be said to describe “a very large category of presumably innocent travelers and any suspicion associated with these items is virtually nonexistent.” Wood, 106 F.3d at 947 (citation omitted).

[¶ 26] Although we have decided that each of these factors are innocent, under the totality of the circumstances test, individually innocuous factors can combine to arouse a reasonable suspicion for the experienced officer. Id. at 948. In this case, however, none of these factors were sufficient to arouse a reasonable suspicion on the part of Officer Rettinger. Because Officer Bauer relied on these factors when he called for the canine unit immediately upon stopping Dam-ato, intending to detain him for that purpose, and without conducting his own investigation first, we must conclude that Damato was detained without reasonable suspicion.

[¶27] That Damato was illegally transporting a large amount of marijuana is undisputed; however, few decisions on Fourth Amendment issues vindicate innocent people. It has been said that the “safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people.” United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69, 70 S.Ct. 430, 436, 94 L.Ed. 653 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). In performing our duty of properly applying Fourth Amendment law to this case, we are obligated to ignore Damato’s guilt and focus our analysis on the state action that led to his arrest.

[¶ 28] The illegal detention and subsequent impermissible seizure and pat-down search require suppression of the evidence. The State does not argue that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies when no reasonable suspicion existed for calling a canine unit, and we do not address that doctrine. See United States v. Buchanon, 72 F.3d 1217 (6th Cir.1995). The order denying the suppression motion is reversed, and this case is remanded to the district court, where Dama-to “shall be allowed to withdraw” his plea of guilty. W.R.Cr.P. 11(a)(2).

HILL, C.J., files a dissenting opinion.

HILL, Chief Justice,

dissenting.

[¶ 29] I respectfully dissent because I see the majority’s proposed decision as an inexplicable departure from our established precedents, as well as a divergence from the nation-wide developments in this area of the law.

[¶ 30] As a point of embarkation I think it is of value to set out in more detail our holding in State v. Welch, 873 P.2d 601 (Wyo.1994). After a detailed recitation of the facts and circumstances, which bear a significant resemblance to the facts and circumstances of this case, we determined that the detention of Welch was pursuant to a lawful and permissible traffic stop. As was the case in Welch, the evidence used to prove Damato’s guilt was the fruit of a search of his person and automobile, incidental to a traffic stop on Interstate 80:

The respondents assert that many, if not all, of Patrolman Dyer’s observations were as consistent with innocence as they were with guilt. We embrace the doctrine that even conduct which is wholly lawful and seemingly innocent may form the basis for a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 6-8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989); United States v. Glover, 957 F.2d 1004, 1013 (2d Cir.1992). Patrolman Dyer did not necessarily attribute this stop and his suspicion that the respondents were drug couriers to his drug profile training, though he had received such training. Rather, he credited his knowledge of, and experience with, similar arrests where, in fact, circumstances such as those he observed that day were correctly put together to form reasonable articulable suspicions.
The respondents rely upon several Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals eases, but those eases are not in point. In each case, the Tenth Circuit Court found that reasonable articulable suspicions were lacking, which was not the situation here. See United States v. Walker, 933 F.2d 812 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1093, 112 S.Ct. 1168, 117 L.Ed.2d 414 (1992) (suspect acted nervous); United States v. Guzman, 864 F.2d 1512 (10th Cir.1988) (stop made on the basis of a hunch in the middle of New Mexico’s August desert heat; suspect nervous); and United States v. Recalde, 761 F.2d 1448 (10th Cir.1985) (stop made on the basis of a hunch alone). The Tenth Circuit decision which is most relevant to our inquiry today is United States v. Soto, 988 F.2d 1548 (10th Cir.1993). In that case, the Tenth Circuit Court distinguished Walker, Guzman, and Recalde and found that a police officer’s observations that the suspect was “panicky” and unable to give an address for his uncle from whom he had borrowed the car which he was driving formed the basis of a reasonable articulable suspicion. In the case here, Patrolman Dyer had a list of circumstances which far exceeded the circumstances enumerated in Soto and the other cases cited in Soto (e.g., United States v. Corral, 899 F.2d 991 (10th Cir. 1990) (spare tire out of place and bulge in spare tire well)). Soto, 988 F.2d at 1555.
The critical question which we must answer in more detail is whether Patrolman Dyer violated the respondents’ constitutional rights by detaining them along the highway for approximately fifty minutes while he concluded his investigation.
The case of United States v. Hardy, 855 F.2d 753 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1019, 109 S.Ct. 1137, 103 L.Ed.2d 198 (1989), is directly in point. In assessing the reasonableness of a fifty-minute detention in that case of a suspected drug courier by the Georgia State Patrol, the court said:
The Georgia State Patrol could not have anticipated appellants’ journey, and appellants make no suggestion that every state trooper must be accompanied by a narcotics dog. The state patrol did have a trained dog available within twenty-five miles, a distance we find sufficiently short given the rural nature of the area.

855 F.2d at 760.

In Glover, the court held that a thirty-minute detention at a bus terminal in Buffalo, New York, while officers awaited arrival of the narcotics dog, was not unreasonable. 957 F.2d at 1013; and see Cresswell v. State, 564 So.2d 480 (Fla.1990) (tacitly approving approximately forty-five-minute detention to await arrival of narcotics dog); and 3 WAYNE R. LAFAYE, SEARCH AND SEIZURE § 9.2(f) (2d ed. 1987 & Supp.1993).
Given the circumstance that the stop in this case was made six miles east of Laramie and that a narcotics dog was transported to the scene with dispatch from twenty-five miles west of Laramie, we hold that the detention here was not unreasonable in any respect.
In summary, we hold that the district court erred in suppressing evidence obtained as a result of the “canine sniff’ of the respondents’ vehicle. The initial stop was lawful and was followed by a minimally intrusive detention of the vehicle and the respondents on a reasonably articula-ble suspicion premised upon objective facts indicating that the respondents’ vehicle contained contraband. We specifically reject the bright line rule adopted by the trial court for its judicial district. The reasonableness of the detention is to be measured by whether the police acted diligently under all the circumstances of the case and whether the detention involved delay unnecessary to a legitimate police inquiry. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 683-88, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 1574-76, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985).

Welch, 873 P.2d at 604-605.

[¶ 31] Justice Taylor’s concurring opinion augmented this Court’s analysis of the Welch case:

I concur. I write separately to acknowledge the vital role of a police officer’s “reasonable suspicions.” The majority decisions in these appeals and in Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d [215,] 219 (Wyo.1994) illustrate that a seizure must only occur when an officer possesses articulable facts which, when combined with police experience, indicate that criminal conduct is occurring or may be about to occur.
The Fourth Amendment guarantee of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures requires fact specific inquiry by the reviewing court. Wilson, 874 P.2d at 219-220. The focus of the court’s inquiry following a seizure for an investigative stop is the objective reasonableness of the limited seizure based upon the specific and articulable facts and reasonable inferences the police officer possessed at the time of the stop. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27-28, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); United States v. Werking, 915 F.2d 1404, 1407 (10th Cir.1990).
In Wilson, the police officer, acting as a community caretaker, initially had a consensual encounter with a citizen who was having trouble walking. Wilson, 874 P.2d at 220. The encounter became a seizure when the police officer ordered Wilson to “wait” for the results of a computerized identification check. Id. at 222. The police officer admitted that he acted without a reasonable suspicion of possible criminal conduct. Id. at 222. Therefore, the seizure to complete the computerized identification check resulted in an intrusion into protected Fourth Amendment rights.
In this case, unlike Wilson, the investigating officer possessed articulable facts to justify the seizure of Welch and Michener. Patrolman Dyer stopped the pickup truck after he observed a violation of Wyo. Stat. § 31 — 5—217(b) (1989). The patrolman’s observation gave rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to permit a limited detention for the purposes of issuing a citation. United States v. Walker, 933 F.2d 812, 816 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1093, 112 S.Ct. 1168, 117 L.Ed.2d 414 (1992); United States v. Guzman, 864 F.2d 1512, 1519 (10th Cir.1988). See also United States v. Ferguson, 8 F.3d 385, 391 (6th Cir.1993) (holding traffic stop is not pre-textual if the officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic offense has occurred, regardless of whether this was the only basis or merely one basis for the stop).
After issuing the citation, further investigatory detention required a reasonable suspicion of possible criminal behavior. The majority of this court has correctly acknowledged that even seemingly innocent conduct can give rise to a reasonable suspicion of possible criminal behavior. Inquiring whether the conduct of Welch and Michener would create an inference of possible criminal behavior in a reasonable police officer discloses the objective validity of this detention.
During the traffic stop, Patrolman Dyer observed that the ceiling of the camper shell was sagging. The plastic liner placed in the bed of the pickup was unusually clean, as if it had been recently removed, and showed signs of having been altered. These observations suggest it was a reasonable inference that contraband could be hidden in the vehicle. However, Patrolman Dyer’s observations of the vehicle’s condition were coupled with other articula-ble facts, including: the nervous behavior of the driver; the unusual indifference of the supposedly sleeping passenger; and the mispronunciation of the registered owner’s name despite the evidence from the California speeding ticket that the driver used the vehicle in the past. Police experience would also indicate that the average interstate traveler does not carry a fist-sized clove of garlic in a vehicle to present an aromatic challenge to prying noses, human or canine.
A reasonable person, after observing the same facts Patrolman Dyer did, would want to make further inquiry. Patrolman Dyer did not need the vaunted drug courier profile to draw an inference that contraband might be hidden in this vehicle. Common sense was sufficient.
The investigatory stop provided a means to resolve Patrolman Dyer’s reasonable suspicions without undue delay to Welch and Michener. In my opinion, this was not an unreasonable intrusion into protected Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, I concur in the majority opinion.

Welch, 873 P.2d at 611-612; and see Perry v. State, 927 P.2d 1158, 1160-66 (Wyo.1996).

[¶ 32] Turning now to the case at hand, these are the facts I have gleaned from a review of the transcripts and the audio/video tape that captured the arrest from beginning to end. On April 16, 2000, State Trooper David Rettinger, a patrolman with nine years of experience, stopped Damato for speeding near Mile Post 330 on 1-80. Rettinger observed that Damato’s behavior was not normal for that of someone merely stopped for speeding: “Most people are very comfortable — or I shouldn’t say very comfortable, but they’re somewhat comfortable with what law enforcement’s role is and what we do. They don’t seem very surprised when they’re pulled over or of that nature .... But he didn’t seem to have any reason to be acting somewhat jerky, unsure about his questions, really methodically thinking out what he was telling me or saying.”

[¶ 33] As is routine, Rettinger asked for Damato’s driver’s license and registration. Damato responded that he was driving a leased vehicle and fumbled to find the papers, which Rettinger could see inside the car. Rettinger pointed them out, and Dama-to handed them to him. The vehicle was a rented, rather than leased, vehicle, and Ret-tinger considered that significant because most people know the difference (ie., that a rental car is used to drive from point A to point B, whereas a leased car is usually kept for a lengthier period of time). Rettinger also asked where he had rented the vehicle and where he was going with it. Damato said he was coming from San Francisco and going home (according to his driver’s license, Illinois was Damato’s home). The paperwork for the vehicle indicated that it was rented in San Diego and was to be dropped off in Omaha. In addition, Rettinger observed there was an abundance of fast food wrappers on the floor of the car, and in his experience and training that suggested the person was “traveling hard.” Rettinger considered it significant that Damato’s luggage was in the back seat rather than in the trunk of the large luxury automobile. As Rettinger returned Damato’s paperwork and gave a warning ticket to him, he leaned into Dama-to’s ear and asked if he would be willing to answer a few questions, and Damato said he would. Rettinger questioned Damato about the discrepancies with respect to where Damato rented the car and where he was going with it. As he did so, Rettinger noted that Damato became very nervous and, when asked to be specific by the trial court, Ret-tinger said: “I seen the temple on top of his head start to bead” [later testimony clarified that Damato’s carotid artery was “pulsating hard and fast.”]. I seen the neck beading heavily. He was sweating, that he had taken a handkerchief and wiped the top of his head. It was a cool day with the wind blowing very strong. In fact, it was a bit chilly.” Damato could not maintain eye contact with Rettinger. Rettinger asked if Damato would let him search his vehicle and Damato declined. Rettinger then felt he had to let Damato go on his way and that is what he did.

[¶ 34] However, Rettinger had second thoughts about Damato. All of his experience and training made him suspect that something was wrong (i.e., that Damato might be a drug mule), so he contacted State Trooper John Bauer, who was in Cheyenne, and relayed to him all the information he had gathered. Bauer, a patrolman with over six years of experience, spotted Damato on 1-80 between Laramie and Cheyenne and began following him. Using his radar, Bauer ascertained that Damato was driving 77 miles per hour (in a 75 mph zone) as he passed a vehicle. Bauer had not yet turned on his lights to stop Damato when Bauer perceived that Damato saw him and slowed down and moved into the right-hand lane without using a signal light, also a violation of the regulations of traffic on highways. Bauer then stopped Damato as Rettinger had done earlier that day. It is of importance to our decision that all that occurred in the ensuing 50-60 minutes is on audio/video tape, so that while we rely on Trooper Bauer’s testimony, we can also judge his testimony against the audio/video record of it.

[¶ 35] Bauer assigned some significance to the fact that Damato pulled over near a bridge, which is an unsafe spot for such stops. It was Bauer’s experience that some persons do such a thing because they think it will reduce the likelihood of the Trooper spending as much time on the stop because of safety concerns. Bauer gave Damato his “general spiel” about why he was stopping him and asked for his license and registration. Damato initially said the registration was in the trunk, but then quickly corrected himself to say glove box. Bauer made a note of that because “to me that’s a subconscious statement.” Of course, at this point Bauer knew that Damato did not want his trunk searched because he refused to let Rettinger do it, so it can fairly be inferred that Bauer might well treat that as a subconscious statement given all the information available to him. Bauer also noted that Damato had red/pinkish eyes, what he considered “dope eyes,” and he had a bottle of visine on the console. Bauer indicated that his experience suggested that the color of Damato’s eyes looked more like those of someone who had been smoking marijuana than those of someone who had been drinking. He also noted the luggage in the back seat and the food wrappers — things that suggested Damato was making a “hard run.” Bauer also perceived that Damato was “evasive,” “didn’t want to look at me,” was “extremely nervous,” and had “beading on his forehead.”

[¶ 36] Damato had questioned that he was speeding, so Bauer wanted to show him the radar, as well as check him for marijuana intoxication. As he was walking with Dama-to to the patrol car, Bauer said he needed to pat him down, that that was a standard safety/self-preservation practice before letting someone inside the patrol vehicle. Indeed, Bauer related an incident from his personal experience where he was almost killed by a person he had stopped in 1995. Bauer found two small pocket knives in Dam-ato’s front pockets, and felt what he thought was a packet of marijuana in his back pocket. Bauer testified that his experience and training suggested to him that the object in Dam-ato’s back pocket probably was marijuana. He asked Damato what it was, and he said he did not know but “fiddled around in there for a little bit” but eventually Damato pulled out a piece of cellophane with marijuana in it. Bauer then placed Damato under arrest for marijuana possession.

[¶ 37] Next, Bauer placed Damato in the front seat of his patrol car and read him the Miranda, warnings. Damato agreed to talk with Bauer. Bauer told Damato that honesty was the best policy, and Bauer could tell that Damato was very nervous. Damato said there was nothing in the trunk of his car (by this time Bauer had requested a sniffer dog to come to the scene), but Bauer persisted in his questioning, suggesting to Damato that his body language was telling something else. Damato eventually said that it was “a trunkful of weed.” Bauer opened the trunk of the car and discovered that it was packed solid with what turned out to be more than 300 pounds of marijuana (leaving no room for luggage in the trunk). Bauer also testified that he told Damato that he was going to be arrested for marijuana possession and, incidental to that arrest and the impoundment of his vehicle, the contents of the car would have been inventoried. Within less than an hour from the initial stop, the sniffer dog, agents from the Division of Criminal Investigation, and a tow truck had arrived at the scene, and the investigation was moved into Cheyenne for further processing.

[¶ 38] The district court initially made a determination that the evidence against Damato should be suppressed. However, upon motion of the State, the district court agreed to rehear the matter and, after taking additional testimony, it reversed its decision and denied the motion to suppress, largely on the basis that Trooper Bauer had called for a sniffer dog, the sniffer dog did arrive on the scene in a timely manner, and the marijuana most certainly would have been discovered at that time, even though Bauer had opened the trunk and found it earlier.

[¶ 39] The testimony at the rehearing of the motion to suppress augments the record we must review in this case. Special Agent Jimmy Siler of the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation was called as a witness and related that, from his experience and training, he had come to know that the Southwest and Southern California regions of the country are the principal sources and/or conduits of the narcotics, and more specifically marijuana, which are transported through Wyoming to markets in the Midwest.

[¶ 40] State Trooper Charles Caruthers, a 22-year veteran of the Highway Patrol, was called as a witness, and he testified that he was summoned to assist Trooper Bauer at the scene of Damato’s arrest. He helped move Damato’s car, as well as the patrol cars, across the bridge and out of harm’s way. He also related that the trunk of Dam-ato’s car was closed at the time the sniffer dog arrived on the scene.

[¶ 41] Cheyenne Police Officer Lyle Pinch, who was off duty and lives about 11 miles from the crime scene, testified that he was called at 10:30 a.m. to report to the scene, along with his dog, Carlos, to participate in the investigation. Finch was asleep when he received the call, and it took some time for him to prepare himself and Carlos to go out on duty. He related the details of his. training and experience, as well as that of Carlos. Bauer stopped Damato at about 10:27 a.m., and Finch was not able to leave for the crime scene until about 11:00 a.m. He arrived at the scene at 11:11 a.m. Finch then employed Carlos in his assigned task, according to the established protocol, and Carlos indicated that there were narcotics in the trunk of Damato’s car.

[¶ 42] The majority concludes that Damato was “commanded to exit his car” and the “pat down” search violated the Fourth Amendment because Bauer had no objectively based suspicion that Damato was armed and dangerous. I disagree with that characterization of the facts on several points. First, I cannot agree that Damato was “commanded to exit his car.” Bauer’s testimony was that he asked Damato to come back to his car and see the radar readout of his speed, and that is consistent with the audio/video tape. While Bauer may have been persistent in that regard, as well he should have been, Damato went with him voluntarily — most certainly he was not “commanded.” As a safety precaution, Bauer did a “pat down” on Damato before he allowed him into the patrol car. The videotape reveals that Bauer was extremely polite and not especially insistent about the pat down and that Damato was cooperative both with the pat down, as well as with all else that followed. Bauer was within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment in using the pat down to uncóver weapons (of which there were two), as well as contraband (marijuana). See Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 2136-39, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993); and Kate Donovan Reynaga, Annotation, Application of “Plain-Feel" Exception to Warrant Requirements — State Cases, 50 A.L.R.5th 581 (1997 and Supp.2001).

[¶ 43] I also part company with the majority with respect to Bauer’s “articulable suspicion.” In reaching this conclusion, I rely on some of the same cases cited by the majority, but I am also persuaded that a comprehensive review of the most soundly reasoned and the most directly pertinent cases counsels the opposite result, under all the facts and circumstances of this case. Thomas Fusco, Annotation, Permissibility Under Fourth Amendment of Detention of Motorist by Police, Following Lawful Stop for Traffic Offense, to Investigate Matters not Related to Offense, 118 A.L.R.Fed. 567 (1994 and Supp. 2001). When the information gathered by Rettinger is combined with the information gathered by Bauer, the “articulable suspicion” cases mandate a conclusion that the state troopers acted responsibly, within the limits erected by the Fourth Amendment (as well as the Wyoming Constitution), and in conformance with the duties they are required to carry out daily on our state’s highways. In so concluding, I find it unnecessary to further characterize or attempt to parse what the state troopers related in their testimony. I have attempted to set out what is in the transcripts accurately and completely. I am satisfied that, based upon their experience and training,, what they observed constituted “articulable suspicion.”

[¶ 44] Finally, the majority shrugs off the concept of “inevitable discovery” far too hastily. I, of course, do not think we need to reach that harbor. However, even if I were convinced that Trooper Bauer’s actions (in patting down Damato and opening the trunk of the car) transgressed the Fourth Amendment, then I can readily accept that the sniffer dog would have inevitably discovered the damning evidence, and Damato would be in the same hot water. The sniffer dog arrived in less than an hour, and the detention of Damato does not meaningfully exceed the line we drew in Welch. Martin J. McMahon, Annotation, What Circumstances Fall Within “Inevitable Discovery” Exception to Rule Precluding Admission, in Criminal Case, of Evidence Obtained in Violation of Federal Constitution, 81 AL.R.Fed. 331 (1987 and Supp.2001).

[¶ 45] I would affirm the suppression order and remand for execution of the sentence imposed by the district court.

      . In the discussion portion of its order, the district court found:
      [Patrolman Bauer] did not wait for the dogs, instead he directed Damato to exit the vehicle, and to proceed to the patrol car to view the radar displaying 77 m.p.h. Although Patrolman Bauer testified his action was justified because Mr. Damato "requested [to see the] radar,” the Highway Patrol videotape of the stop does not disclose such a request. Bauer further testified that Damato "made a little argument about the speeding,” so he offered to show Damato the radar. I have carefully reviewed the videotape of the stop and have played it back several times. I do not see or hear Defendant arguing or requesting to see the radar on the tape. Defendant reacted with a sense of bafflement over the stop, no different than any driver. He did not resist the officer’s questions and cooperated as any driver would.

      . "Standing alone, a vehicle that hails from a purported known drug source area is, at best, a weak factor in finding suspicion of criminal activity. In this Circuit alone, police testimony has identified an extremely broad range of known 'drug source areas.’ See, e.g., United States v. Nicholson, 144 F.3d 632, 638 (10th Cir.1998) (identifying the entire West Coast as a drug source area); United States v. Scarborough, 128 F.3d 1373, 1378 (10th Cir.1997) (Colorado); Wood, 106 F.3d at 947 (California); United States v. Garrett, 47 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1265 (D.Kan.1999) (Texas); see also United States v. Beck, 140 F.3d 1129, 1138 & n. 3 (8th Cir.1998) (collecting cases and noting that law enforcement officers have identified a number of drug supply states and a significant number of the largest cities in the United States as "drug source cities”)." Williams, 271 F.3d at 1270.

      . I also acknowledge that Justices Golden and Cardine dissented in the Welch case.


author: VOIGT, Justice.

text:
    2003 WY 24
    Robert GUNN, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
    No. 02-39.
    Supreme Court of Wyoming.
    Feb. 26, 2003.

      Kenneth M. Koski, Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Ryan R. Roden, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel, Representing Appellant.
    Hoke MacMillan, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Rebecca A. Lewis, Special Assistant Attorney General, Representing Ap-pellee.
    Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.
   VOIGT, Justice.

[¶ 1] Robert Gunn (Gunn) entered a conditional plea of guilty to an amended charge of indecent liberties with a child, a felony, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14r-3-105 (LexisNexis 2001). Gunn appeals the Judgment and Sentence of the district court sentencing him to a term of not less than three years and not more than five years in the state penitentiary. The district court suspended the penitentiary term on the condition that Gunn serve six consecutive weekends in the Natrona County Detention Center and complete four years of supervised probation. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] The issues presented on appeal are:

ISSUE I
Whether statements made by [Gunn] at his home were involuntary and in violation of his Miranda rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United [States] Constitution and Article 1 § 6 and Article 1 § 11 of the Wyoming Constitution?
ISSUE II
Whether statements made by [Gunn] to [a] deputy sheriff at the sheriffs office were involuntary and in violation of [his] rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United [States] Constitution and Article[ ] 1 §§ 6 and 11 of the Wyoming Constitution?

FACTS

[¶ 3] On June 25, 2001, Investigator Davis (Davis) arrived at Gunn’s residence and questioned him about an alleged sexual assault in which he was the suspect. Davis did not advise Gunn of his Miranda rights, and Gunn made an incriminating statement. Davis then told Gunn that if he would accompany Davis to the sheriffs department and discuss the alleged crime and his involvement, Davis would thereafter return Gunn to his home. Gunn concedes that his Miranda rights were given to him with respect to the statements made at the sheriffs department.

[¶ 4] An Information filed on June 25, 2001, charged Gunn with two counts of third-degree sexual assault in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-304(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2001). The State amended the Information in November 2001 to charge Gunn with unlawfully and knowingly taking immodest, immoral, or indecent liberties with a child, who was under the age of sixteen, while Gunn was at least four years older than the victim, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-105. Gunn changed his plea to guilty, pursuant to a conditional plea agreement with the State, under which he reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress his incriminating statements.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 5] The district court denied Gunn’s Motion to Suppress. Our standard of review of the denial of such a motion is as follows:

“When we review a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we do not interfere with the findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. When the district court has not made specific findings of fact, we will uphold its general ruling if the ruling is supportable by any reasonable view of the evidence. We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the distinct court’s ruling because of the district court’s ability to assess ‘the credibility of the witnesses, weigh the evidence, and make the necessary inferences, deductions, and conclusions’ at the hearing on the motion.”

Meek v. State, 2002 WY 1, ¶ 8, 37 P.3d 1279, 1282 (Wyo.2002) (quoting Frederick v. State, 981 P.2d 494, 497 (Wyo.1999)). Voluntariness, however, is a question of law; thus, it is reviewed de novo. Lewis v. State, 2002 WY 92, ¶ 18, 48 P.3d 1063, 1068 (Wyo.2002).

DISCUSSION

Statement at Home

[¶ 6] Gunn contends that he was in “custody” when Davis arrived at his home, separated him from his live-in companion, took him outside, and asked him questions that elicited an incriminating response. Gunn claims that Davis did not advise him that he was free to leave or that he had the right not to speak to the officers. Gunn contends that because he was deprived of his freedom in a significant way and was subsequently interrogated without the warnings required by Miranda, the incriminating statement should be suppressed. In addition, Gunn argues that even if Miranda was not required, his statement to police was not voluntary as required by the federal and state constitutions.

[¶ 7] Statements made by a suspect during custodial interrogation are admissible into evidence, providing certain ad-visements are made. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Statements made during custodial interrogation must be excluded upon a showing that the defendant was not advised of his Miranda rights. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1106, 122 S.Ct. 2315, 152 L.Ed.2d 1069 (2002). In Dickerson, 530 U.S. at 435, 120 S.Ct. 2326, the United States Supreme Court stated:

Accordingly, we laid down “concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow.” ... Those guidelines established that the admissibility in evidence of any statement given during custodial interrogation of a suspect would depend on whether the police provided the suspect with four warnings. These warnings (which have come to be known colloquially as “Miranda rights”) are: a suspect “has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.”

[¶ 8] Custodial interrogation means “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602. See also Glass v. State, 853 P.2d 972, 976 (Wyo.1993) and Wunder v. State, 705 P.2d 333, 334 (Wyo.1985). Neither general on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime nor statements volunteered freely without compelling influences are considered to fall within this definition. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 477-78, 86 S.Ct. 1602.

[¶ 9] The totality of the circumstances must be considered in determining whether a suspect is in custody when questioned. In Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 347, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976), the United States Supreme Court rejected the notion that a person who is the “focus” of a criminal investigation is, by that fact, “in custody.” The United States Supreme Court made clear that “Miranda implicitly defined ‘focus,’ for its purposes, as ‘questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.’ ” Id. at 347, 96 S.Ct. 1612 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602) (emphasis in original). The proper inquiry is to ask “whether a reasonable man in Appellant’s position would have considered himself to be in police custody.” Glass, 853 P.2d at 976.

[¶ 10] Several factors are relevant to be considered in determining whether a restraint is “custodial” for Miranda purposes. Among these are: (1) whether a suspect is questioned in familiar or neutral surroundings; (2) the number of police officers present; (3) the degree of physical restraint and whether it is comparable to those associated with a formal arrest; and (4) the duration and character of the interrogation. See 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H. Israel and Nancy J. King, Criminal Procedure § 6.6(c) at 527 (2nd ed.1999); see also Wunder, 705 P.2d at 335. The nature of the interrogator, the nature of the suspect, the time and place of the interrogation, the progress of the investigation at the time of the interrogation, whether the suspect is informed that his detention would not be temporary, and the elapsed amount of time between questioning and the arrest may be important factors as well. Wunder, 705 P.2d at 335; J.F. Ghent, Annotation, What Constitutes “Custodial Interrogation” Within Rule of Miranda v. Arizona Requiring that Suspect be Informed of His Federal Constitutional Rights Before Custodial Interrogation, 31 A.L.R.3d 565 (1970). No one factor alone will necessarily establish custody for Miranda purposes, and not all factors will be relevant to a given case.

[¶ 11] The giving of Miranda warnings, by itself, does not suffice to render a statement admissible. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Wyo. Const, art. 1, §§ 6 and 11, require that statements also must be voluntary. Lewis, 2002 WY 92, ¶ 18, 48 P.3d at 1068; Mitchell v. State, 982 P.2d 717, 721 (Wyo.1999); Doyle v. State, 954 P.2d 969, 971-72 (Wyo.1998).

“To be voluntary, the defendant’s statements must result from ‘free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception.’ Madrid v. State, 910 P.2d 1340, 1344 (Wyo.1996) Because we presume a defendant’s statements to be involuntary, the burden rests on the State to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant’s statements were voluntary. [State v.] Evans, 944 P.2d [1120] at 1126-27 [ (Wyo.1997) ]. Once the State has met its burden and rebutted the presumption of involuntariness, the defendant may be required to present evidence demonstrating the involuntariness of his statements. Id. at 1126. If such statements resulted from coercion, then the statements are inadmissible at trial for any purpose because their validity is suspect. Id. at 1125.”

Lewis, 2002 WY 92, ¶ 18, 48 P.3d at 1068 {quoting Mitchell, 982 P.2d at 721). We look to the totality of the circumstances to determine if the defendant’s statements were voluntary. Lewis, 2002 WY 92, ¶ 18, 48 P.3d at 1068 (quoting Mitchell, 982 P.2d at 721).

[¶ 12] Factors a trial court may consider in determining whether statements were made voluntarily include:

“[T]he atmosphere and events surrounding the elicitation of the statement, such as the use of violence, threats, promises, improper influence or official misconduct, the conduct of the defendant before and during the interrogation and the defendant’s mental condition at the time the statement is made[,] ... whether the defendant was in custody or was free to leave and was aware of the situation; whether Miranda warnings were given prior to any interrogation and whether the defendant understood and waived Miranda rights; whether the defendant had the opportunity to confer with counsel or anyone else prior to the interrogation; whether the challenged statement was made during the course of an interrogation or instead was volunteered; whether any overt or implied threat or promise was directed to the defendant; the method and style employed by the interrogator in questioning the defendant and the length and place of the interrogation; and the defendant’s mental and physical condition immediately prior to and during the interrogation, as well as educational background, employment status, and prior experience with law enforcement and the criminal justice system.”

Simmers v. State, 943 P.2d 1189, 1195-96 (Wyo.1997) {quoting State v. Evans, 944 P.2d 1120, 1125-26 (Wyo.1997); People v. Gennings, 808 P.2d 839, 845 (Colo.1991) and People v. Pearson, 725 P.2d 782, 783 (Colo.1986)).

[¶ 13] In the instant case, Gunn was questioned at home while one investigator and two deputy sheriffs were at the residence. Davis testified that he went to Gunn’s residence, identified himself, told Gunn why he was there, and asked Gunn to step outside and speak privately with Davis about the alleged sexual assault. Once outside, Davis and Gunn walked down the front yard toward Gunn’s truck and stood beside it. Deputy Walters was in close proximity and Deputy Frimml was inside the residence with Davis’ live-in companion, Eva Bibb (Bibb). Davis was standing between Gunn and his residence. No Miranda warnings were given to Gunn at this time.

[¶ 14] Gunn initially denied any knowledge of the matter, but then said that he did not rape the minor; she “wanted it.” Davis then asked Gunn if he would go to the sheriffs office and make a statement, which Gunn agreed to do. The entire conversation between Davis and Gunn lasted only ten to fifteen minutes, and Davis did not arrest or handcuff Gunn.

[¶ 15] Davis next went inside and talked with Bibb. Davis testified that Bibb told him that she had left the residence in the early morning hours and that upon returning, she entered the bedroom and saw Gunn engaged in sexual activity with a fifteen-year-old girl. After this conversation, Davis went back outside and talked with Gunn. Davis told Gunn that it was imperative that he go to the sheriffs office and speak with Davis about the sexual activity. Davis then asked Gunn to go back into the house with Deputy Walters and show him the underwear he had on at the time of the sexual encounter so that the underwear could be taken into physical evidence. Davis testified that Gunn voluntarily went in and complied with the request. Deputy Walters took Gunn to the sheriffs office, and Gunn admits he went voluntarily.

[¶ 16] Given the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Gunn was not in police custody when questioned at his residence. He was questioned at home, a presumptively non-coercive environment; he was not detained against his will; he was not formally arrested; there was no restraint on his freedom of movement; only two officers were present during questioning at the residence; and the questioning lasted only ten to fifteen minutes. Viewing these facts as a reasonable man in Gunn’s position would have understood the situation, we conclude that any reasonable person would have felt at liberty to terminate the interview. Gunn testified that he agreed to talk with Davis outside because Davis was “the law.” However, a reasonable person would not have considered the ensuing conversation in his front yard to be equivalent to a formal arrest or custody. Because Gunn was not in custody at the time of the questioning at his residence, no Miranda warnings were required.

[¶ 17] We further conclude that the statement made by Gunn at his home was made voluntarily. There is no indication in the record that the investigator or the deputy sheriffs were standing close to Gunn or intimidating him, that they were blocking his physical movements, or that they used violence, improper influence or other misconduct. No overt or implied threat was directed at Gunn, and Gunn appeared to be mentally and physically sound when he volunteered the statement. We agree with the district court that the statement made at Gunn’s residence was voluntary.

Statement at SHERIFF’S Office

[¶ 18] Gunn next argues that even though he was read his Miranda rights at the sheriffs office and signed a waiver of those rights before any questioning took place, “[sjatisfying Miranda does not resolve the question of voluntariness. A confession may be found involuntary because of the means used to obtain it.” Evans, 944 P.2d at 1125. Because the law presumes a defendant’s statements to be involuntary, the State has the burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Gunn’s statements were voluntary. Mitchell, 982 P.2d at 721. In determining voluntariness, a court examines the totality of the circumstances that existed when the statements were made.

[¶ 19] After arriving at the sheriffs office, Davis and Gunn went to an interview room for a tape-recorded interview. Gunn initially provided his name, date of birth, Social Security number, address, and other background information. The following dialogue then took place:

[DAVIS:] ... Before I uh, talk to you about the incident this morning, I’ve already told you that if you’d come in here freely and voluntarily and speak with me today, that ir-regardless [sic] the results of it, I would take you back home, is that correct?
[GUNN:] Yeah.
[DAVIS:] Fully understand it?
[GUNN:] Yes sir.
[DAVIS:] Ok. And you understand that you’re not under arrest?
[GUNN:] Yes sir.
[DAVIS:] Ok. With that having been said, I want to advise you of your rights. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask any questions and have him with you during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you will still have the right to stop answering any time. You will also have the right to stop answering anytime until you talk to a lawyer. Do you understand those? [GUNN:] Yes sir.
[DAVIS:] Ok, what I’d like you to do then, if you would, sign that right there. Read that paragraph and sign that.
[GUNN:] Uh huh.
[DAVIS:] Ok. Acknowledge for the tape that he signed the waiver at uh, 9:15.

[¶ 20] The paragraph Gunn read and signed stated:

I have read this statement of my rights and I understand what my rights are. I am willing to make a statement and answer questions. I do not want a lawyer at this time. I understand and know what I am doing. No promises or threats have been made to me and no pressure or coercion of any kind has been used against me.

[¶ 21] Davis wrote “Yes sir” in the left margin of the form next to the advisement of rights, to indicate Gunn’s response after Davis asked him if he understood his rights. As the interview continued, Gunn made incriminating statements. At the end of the interview, Davis turned the tape recorder off, and Deputy Frimml entered the room. Davis informed Gunn that the appropriate charge was going to be indecent liberties and not rape. Davis told Gunn that he had two options. He could either go to jail that day and try to get bond to secure his release or Davis could obtain an arrest warrant, which could take some time. Deputy Frimml testified that Gunn thought about this and decided to go to jail at that time. Deputy Frimml transported Gunn to jail and booked him for indecent liberties.

[¶ 22] Before leaving the interview room, Gunn became very upset because Davis had initially told him that no matter what happened that day, Davis would return him home. Davis told him that he had decided to go to jail, and that was where he was going. Gunn admitted at the hearing on the motion to suppress that he had been given the two options, but claimed that he really had no choice.

[¶ 23] The district court, in regard to the incriminating statements made at the sheriffs department, specifically found: (1) that the statements were made subsequent to Miranda warnings and that they were not involuntary; and (2) Davis promised Gunn that he could go home after the interview but, at the conclusion of the interview, Gunn surrendered his right to go home.

[¶ 24] Gunn argues that his statements at the sheriffs office in response to Davis’ questioning were not voluntary, but he does not specify what made them involuntary. He claims that he was somehow coerced or tricked, after making the incriminating statements, into allowing himself to be arrested instead of being taken home. Gunn also asserts that he was tricked into waiving his rights and making the inculpatory statements by Davis’ earlier promise that he could return home regardless of what he said. This argument is contrary to the testimony presented by Davis and corroborated by Deputy Frimml, that Gunn was given the chance to go home after the interview, but chose to be arrested at that time.

[¶ 25] This Court has stated that “ ‘[i]nvoluntariness requires coercive state action, such as trickery, psychological pressure, or mistreatment.’ ” Evans, 944 P.2d at 1125 (quoting Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 708, 113 S.Ct. 1745, 1762, 123 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1073, 114 S.Ct. 882, 127 L.Ed.2d 77 (1994) (O’Connor, J., concurring)). Coercive government action is a necessary predicate to finding involuntariness within the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Evans, 944 P.2d at 1125. “Once the evidence establishes state actor coercion, a court must consider the effect of that coercion on the defendant’s choice to confess or make an admission or statement.” Id. at 1125-26. The use of misstatements or tricks in and of themselves does not render a confession or admission involuntary. Id. at 1126. Gunn points to no evidence in the record to support a showing of coercive government action. Gunn acknowledged that Davis read him his Miranda rights and that he waived those rights. There was no use of violence, threats, promises, improper behavior or official misconduct in regard to the interview, other than the promise that Gunn could go home, which Gunn voluntarily relinquished. We conclude that Gunn’s statements during the custodial interview were made voluntarily.

CONCLUSION

[¶ 26] Gunn was not in custody when questioned by an investigator at his home. Therefore, no Miranda warnings were required. Furthermore, the incriminating statements made at his home were made voluntarily, as were his statements at the sheriffs office after he was properly Miran-dized and had waived his rights. We affirm the decision of the district court.