No Amount of Meth is Too Small to Prosecute, Rules Wyoming Supreme Court

A Casper man's drug sentence appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court underscores the fact that no amount of meth, no matter how small, is inconsequential.

Despite previous drug convictions, the man argued that he shouldn't be held accountable for having "empty baggies," but the courts did not see it that way.

On November 25, 2023, Casper police were dispatched for a welfare check on David Gober, who was seen walking down the middle of a street wearing a black jacket at night. The caller was concerned he might get struck by a car.

When officers arrived, they found Gober had an active warrant for an unpaid fine. They placed him under arrest and conducted a search.

Court records show they found three glass pipes with a crystal-like residue inside, a jeweler's bag with two other bags inside, two metal tooter pipes, and several unused syringes in Gober's coat.

Gober said he wished they could do a “magic trick” and “make it all go away.”

Gober was given a two to four year prison sentence, suspended in lieu of two years of supervised probation. In part because this was a third or subsequent drug possession offense. He appealed.

The residue was sent to the Wyoming State Crime Lab where it later tested positive for methamphetamine.

At the trial, the prosecutor informed the jury this case involved a “small amount” of meth.

Gober argued he should not be convicted for possessing “empty baggies.”

Officers testified they could see the residue in the glass pipes and bags with their naked eyes.

The forensic analyst from the State Crime Lab testified the jeweler’s bags contained “some weighable material.” The bags contained “.022 grams, plus or minus 0.10 grams” of the crystal-like substance.

Gober tried to introduce the de minimis defense in district court, which would've allowed him to challenge violations of the law under the premise that his illegal conduct was too trivial to warrant condemnation and/or that it posed no potential harm, but the district court denied his proposal. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirms the lower court's decision in this matter.

In his appeal, Gober asked the Supreme Court to "empower the jury to decide how much methamphetamine one can actually possess before they should be prosecuted for it, or not prosecuted for it, but convicted for it.”

Records show the Supreme Court acknowledged Gober's argument, but ultimately uphold that "possessing any amount of methamphetamine, no matter how small, is unlawful."