from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Samuel A. Hoagland, District
of conviction for trafficking in heroin, possession of a
controlled substance, and possession of paraphernalia,
D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R.
Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for
Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kale D. Gans, Deputy
Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Eugene Vaughn appeals from his judgment of conviction for
trafficking in heroin, possession of a controlled substance,
and possession of paraphernalia. On the first day of trial,
Vaughn made assertions related to a speculative
Miranda issue that he thought could form the basis
of an untimely motion to suppress. The district court stated
that it was not going to grant any motion to suppress based
on what it heard regarding any alleged Miranda
violation. On appeal, Vaughn challenges the district
court's "order admitting his un-Mirandized
statements." For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
was under investigation by state and federal law enforcement
officials for trafficking in heroin. As part of the
investigation, a federal search warrant for a GPS tracking
device was obtained and attached to Vaughn's vehicle
because it was suspected that Vaughn was travelling to Salt
Lake City to purchase heroin and transport it back to Idaho.
Vaughn subsequently travelled to Salt Lake City and back in
one day, which law enforcement tracked via the GPS. While
Vaughn was driving back to Boise, a patrol officer observed
Vaughn speeding and conducted a traffic stop of his vehicle.
Before making contact with Vaughn, a second officer arrived
to assist. A canine officer also responded, arriving almost
simultaneously with the stop. The initial officer made
contact with Vaughn and requested that he step out of the
vehicle. The canine was deployed and alerted on the vehicle.
A search of the vehicle by two of the officers uncovered
heroin, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia.
the search was being conducted, Vaughn sat on the guardrail
nearby, talking with one of the officers. Without being
questioned, Vaughn informed the officer that there was drug
paraphernalia in the vehicle and admitted that the items in
the vehicle were Vaughn's. The officer then asked Vaughn
questions regarding his drug use, and Vaughn admitted he had
used methamphetamine approximately thirty minutes prior to
the traffic stop. A grand jury indicted Vaughn for
trafficking in heroin, I.C. § 37-2732B(a)(6)(B);
possession of a controlled substance, I.C. §
37-2732(c)(1); and possession of drug paraphernalia, I.C.
filed a motion to suppress, challenging the stop, which the
district court denied. The State subsequently filed an I.R.E.
404(b) motion to admit evidence of Vaughn's ongoing
heroin distribution and trafficking, including
post-Miranda statements Vaughn made during his
interview with law enforcement on the day of his arrest.
Vaughn objected to the State's motion as it related to
evidence of prior drug trafficking, arguing the evidence was
unfairly prejudicial, unnecessary, cumulative, and
inflammatory. At the hearing on its I.R.E. 404(b) motion, in
addition to presenting argument on its motion, the State also
presented argument that the incriminating statements Vaughn
made during the traffic stop should be
admitted. Those statements included, "I have a
syringe in the truck;" Vaughn's admission to using
methamphetamine thirty minutes prior to the traffic stop; and
Vaughn asking the officer whether Vaughn was being arrested
just for a syringe. In response, Vaughn's counsel
discussed statements Vaughn made during his interview with a
detective and special agent as well as statements Vaughn made
to the patrol officers at the time of the traffic stop:
Your Honor, the State disclosed on Thursday the
audio--redacted audio of [Vaughn's] interview with
Detective Bruner and Special Agent Williams. Prior to that, I
did not have any type of audio of that interview.
[Vaughn] tells me that a lot of the information he provided
to these officers [was] prior to being advised of his right
to remain silent or his right to have an attorney present.
I didn't get a chance to look into that more--in more
detail. Of course, this would delay proceedings in search of
another Motion to Suppress those ...