2017
Opinion No. 103
Appeal
from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State
of Idaho, Payette County. Hon. Susan E. Wiebe, District
Judge.
District
court order denying motion to suppress, reversed.
Eric
D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for
appellant. Andrea W. Reynolds, Depute State Appellate Public
Defender argued.
Hon.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for
respondent. Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General
argued.
BURDICK, Chief Justice.
Trevor
Glenn Lee appeals the Payette County district court's
denial of his motion to suppress. As part of his plea
agreement, Lee reserved the right to challenge the denial of
his suppression motion on appeal. The district court
concluded the pat-down frisk was reasonable under Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), but the officer exceeded the
scope of the frisk by opening the containers found in
Lee's pocket. However, the district court concluded the
search of the containers was permissible as a search incident
to Lee's arrest because, prior to the search, the officer
had probable cause to arrest Lee for driving without
privileges and the search was substantially contemporaneous
with the arrest. The court of appeals agreed and affirmed the
district court's denial of Lee's motion to suppress.
We reverse.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May
16, 2015, Officer Laurenson of the Fruitland Police
Department observed Trevor Lee driving a pickup. Officer
Laurenson suspected that Lee might be driving without a valid
license due to a prior encounter and confirmed through
dispatch that Lee's license was indeed suspended. Officer
Laurenson then observed Lee park in a Maverik parking lot and
enter the store. He later observed Lee exit the store and
start to walk on the highway instead of getting back into his
pickup. Officer Laurenson pulled in behind Lee, activated his
patrol lights, and made contact with Lee.
During
the initial contact, Officer Laurenson asked Lee why he left
his truck back at the Maverik store. Lee responded that he
wanted to walk. Officer Laurenson then asked Lee for his
driver's license. Lee said that he did not have his
license on him while patting his pockets. Officer Laurenson
told Lee not to touch his pockets and asked if he had any
weapons. Once again, Lee began patting his pockets, mumbling
some words. Officer Laurenson immediately told Lee not to
touch his pockets and to go to the front of his patrol car.
Lee did not move, asking "What did I do?" Officer
Laurenson, once again, told Lee that he saw him driving with
a suspended license. Officer Laurenson told Lee another three
times to go to the patrol car, but Lee did not comply,
arguing that he "was not driving." Finally, on the
fifth request, Lee began to walk towards the patrol car. Once
Lee made it to the patrol car, Officer Laurenson began a
pat-down frisk for weapons. During the frisk, Officer
Laurenson felt a large bulge in Lee's front pocket.
Officer Laurenson felt that the bulge consisted of several
cylindrical items, but one item felt longer, like a
pocketknife. Officer Laurenson asked Lee for his consent to
search his pocket; Lee denied his request, but Officer
Laurenson, not knowing whether the item he felt was indeed a
knife, told Lee that he was going to anyway. Officer
Laurenson pulled each item out one at a time until he reached
and pulled out the last object, a pocketknife. Officer
Laurenson handcuffed Lee and told him that he was being
"detained right now." Officer Laurenson advised Lee
that he was "going to get a citation for driving without
privileges" and in the meantime, that he was "going
to sit in the back of [the] car."
Once
Lee was detained, Officer Laurenson examined the containers
because, based on his experience and training, he believed
the containers contained evidence of drug activity. Officer
Laurenson opened the container that he found to be the
"most worn" and discovered a green leafy substance.
He then opened the other container and discovered a powdery
residue. Officer Laurenson arrested Lee and charged him with
Possession of a Controlled Substance, Possession of
Paraphernalia, and Driving without Privileges.
Lee
moved to suppress the evidence found during the search. The
district court denied Lee's motion to suppress. The court
concluded Officer Laurenson was justified in conducting a
frisk under Terry. However, the court concluded that
Officer Laurenson exceeded the scope of a Terry
frisk when he opened the containers because he did not
believe the containers contained weapons. Nonetheless, the
court held that the search of the containers was permissible
as a search incident to Lee's arrest because Officer
Laurenson had probable cause to arrest Lee based on the
driving offense, and the search was substantially
contemporaneous with the arrest.
The
parties entered into a plea agreement, pursuant to which Lee
pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance
and the State dismissed the misdemeanor charges. The court
imposed a unified sentence of four years, with eighteen
months determinate. The court then suspended the sentence and
placed Lee on probation for three years. The court of appeals
affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to
suppress and judgment of conviction. Lee timely petitioned
for review to this Court.
II.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
1. Regarding the Terry frisk, was the district court
correct in holding that the frisk was reasonable, but that
the officer exceeded the permissible scope under
Terry?
2. Under the search incident to arrest exception, was the
district court correct in holding that the search of the
containers was permissible because the officer had probable
cause to arrest Lee for driving without privileges prior to
the search regardless of whether the officer intended to
arrest Lee before finding the drug paraphernalia?
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When
addressing a petition for review, this Court will give
"serious consideration to the views of the Court of
Appeals, but directly reviews the decision of the lower
court." State v. Schall, 157 Idaho 488, 491,
337 P.3d 647, 650 (2014). In reviewing an order denying a
motion to suppress evidence, this Court applies a bifurcated
standard of review. State v. Purdum, 147 Idaho 206,
207, 207 P.3d 182, 183 (2009). This Court will accept the
trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly
erroneous but will freely review the trial court's
application of constitutional principles to the facts found.
Id. Findings of fact are not clearly erroneous if
they are supported by substantial and competent evidence.
State v. Bishop, 146 Idaho 804, 810, 203 P.3d 1203,
1209 (2009).
IV.
...