from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State
of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District
of conviction for possession of a controlled substance,
D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A.
Coster, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for
Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Russell J. Spencer,
Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
K. Hoskins appeals from his judgment of conviction for
possession of a controlled substance. Hoskins argues that the
district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. For
the reasons set forth below, we reverse the district
court's order denying Hoskins' motion to suppress and
vacate Hoskins' judgment of conviction.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
officer conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle in which
Hoskins was a passenger. During the course of the stop, the
owner of the vehicle gave the officer consent to search. Once
the officer obtained consent to search, he asked Hoskins to
exit the vehicle and instructed him to leave his personal
items in the car. One of the items Hoskins left was a pack of
cigarettes. During the course of the vehicle search, the
officer also searched Hoskins' cigarette pack and found
marijuana and methamphetamine.
State charged Hoskins with possession of a controlled
substance and a sentencing enhancement based on a prior drug
conviction. Hoskins filed a motion to suppress, asserting
that: (1) he had standing to challenge the search of his
personal items; (2) the search of his personal items was
illegal; (3) the traffic stop evolved into an illegal
detention because the officer abandoned the original purpose
of the stop in pursuit of a drug investigation; and (4) the
consent to search obtained from the owner of the vehicle was
coerced. The State responded that: (1) Hoskins had standing
to challenge the stop and detention, but did not have
standing to challenge the consent to search or the search of
his personal items; and (2) the length and scope of the
detention was reasonable. The district court denied
Hoskins' motion, concluding that: (1) the length and
scope of the detention was reasonable; (2) the vehicle
owner's consent to search was valid; and (3) Hoskins
lacked standing to challenge the search of the vehicle or his
personal items because both the detention and the vehicle
owner's consent to search were lawful.
entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a
controlled substance, reserving his right to appeal the
district court's denial of his motion to suppress, and
the State agreed to dismiss the sentencing enhancement. The
district court imposed a unified three-year sentence, with
one year fixed, but suspended the sentence and placed Hoskins
on probation. Hoskins appeals.
standard of review of a suppression motion is bifurcated.
When a decision on a motion to suppress is challenged, we
accept the trial court's findings of fact that are
supported by substantial evidence, but we freely review the
application of constitutional principles to the facts as
found. State v. Atkinson, 128 Idaho 559, 561, 916
P.2d 1284, 1286 (Ct. App. 1996). At a suppression hearing,
the power to assess the credibility of witnesses, resolve
factual conflicts, weigh evidence, and draw factual
inferences is vested in the trial ...