Ingersoll v. State

In Ingersoll v. State, 2004 WY 102, 96 P. 3d 1046, P22 (Wyo. 2004), the Court noted in dicta that "Ingersoll gave consent to the officer to search the vehicle." The validity of Ingersoll's consent was not the issue before us. Rather, Ingersoll claimed that defense counsel was ineffective in failing to file a second suppression motion, after the first one was denied, attacking the validity of his consent. In addressing the ineffectiveness issue, we suggested the consent was voluntary, cited in dicta a Wyoming case for the proposition that an officer is not required to inform a driver during a traffic stop that he is free to leave and cited in dicta a Maryland case for the proposition that "even when a police officer has no basis for suspecting criminal activity beyond that which prompted a traffic stop, the police officer may generally ask questions of an individual so long as it is not conveyed that compliance with any requests is required." Id., P23.