Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. McGraw

Court of Appeals of Idaho

April 6, 2018

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BRIAN McGRAW, Defendant-Respondent. STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LACEY KILLEEN, Defendant-Respondent.

         2018 Opinion No. 17

          Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Michael Reardon, District Judge.

         Orders granting motions to suppress, reversed and remanded.

          Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for appellant. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.

          Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for respondent Brian McGraw. Andrea W. Reynolds argued.

          Robyn A. Fyffe, Boise, for respondent Lacey Killeen.

          LORELLO, Judge

         The State appeals from the district court's orders granting Brian McGraw's and Lacey Killeen's motions to suppress evidence resulting from a search subsequent to a drug-dog sniff conducted during a traffic stop. The State argues that the officers did not abandon the initial purpose of the traffic stop, and therefore the district court erred in granting the suppression motions. For the reasons explained below, we reverse and remand.

         I.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         While on patrol, a police officer (Officer One) conducted a traffic stop on a car driven by Killeen in which McGraw was a passenger. A second officer (Officer Two), who was close by, heard the stop over dispatch and arrived at the scene shortly after the stop was initiated. During the course of the traffic stop, Officer One questioned both McGraw and Killeen regarding their probation and/or parole statuses, and McGraw answered that he was on parole for delivery of marijuana. After his initial conversation with Killeen and McGraw, Officer One performed his routine functions for a traffic stop including identifying the car's occupants through dispatch, determining whether there were any outstanding warrants, and checking Killeen's driver's license status. Upon receiving returns from dispatch, Officer One asked Killeen to step out of the car and advised her he was going to have his canine sniff the car while he wrote a citation. When Officer One removed Killeen from the car, Officer Two engaged McGraw in conversation and ultimately had him exit the vehicle as well.

         As Officer One was writing the citation, Officer Two volunteered to complete the citation while Officer One deployed his canine. Officer One transferred the citation writing task to Officer Two and retrieved the canine. The canine alerted and, as a result, the officers searched the vehicle. The search produced marijuana, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia. Killeen and McGraw were arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of paraphernalia. The district court consolidated Killeen's and McGraw's cases.

         Killeen and McGraw filed motions to suppress evidence obtained during the search of Killeen's vehicle arguing, in relevant part, that the traffic stop was unlawfully prolonged. The district court granted the motion because Officer One abandoned the original purpose of the stop. The State appeals.

         II.

         STANDARD ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.