from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State
of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Christopher S. Nye, District
of conviction and determinate sentence of seven years for
possession of a controlled substance and consecutive
indeterminate sentence of five years for possession of
contraband in a correctional facility, affirmed.
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.
these consolidated cases, Jessica Jean Ibarra, aka DeLeon,
appeals from her judgments of conviction and sentences for
possession of a controlled substance and possession of
contraband in a correctional facility. Ibarra argues that the
district court erred in denying her motion to suppress
evidence she discarded in the booking area of a correctional
facility. She also argues that her sentences are excessive.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
was arrested and booked into jail for possession of
methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia (Docket
No. 44948). While Ibarra was in custody, detention deputies
received information from another inmate that Ibarra was
concealing methamphetamine in her vagina. Ibarra was placed
in handcuffs and transported to the booking area of the jail
where a female deputy conducted a search, which did not
reveal methamphetamine. While still in the booking area,
Ibarra asked to use the restroom. Officers accommodated
Ibarra's request by providing her with a port-a-toilet.
Officers visually inspected Ibarra's urine for
contraband, but did not discover any. Ibarra was returned to
the booking area for approximately two and one-half hours
while the officers attempted to obtain a warrant to search
Ibarra's body cavities. While waiting in the booking
area, Ibarra stood up and threw a small white "plastic
thing" containing methamphetamine on the ground. Ibarra
was subsequently charged with possession of a controlled
substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1), and possession of
contraband in a correctional facility, I.C. § 18-2510(3)
(Docket No. 44949).
filed a motion to suppress the methamphetamine, arguing that
the continued detention after the search and inspection of
her urine was unlawful and unsupported by probable
cause. The district court denied Ibarra's
motion. The district court found that the methamphetamine was
not discovered as a result of a search, but was discovered
after it was abandoned by Ibarra. The district court also
found Ibarra's detention was reasonable under the
to a plea agreement, Ibarra pled guilty to possession of a
controlled substance in Docket No. 44948 and entered a
conditional guilty plea to possession of contraband in a
correctional facility in Docket No. 44949, reserving her
right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. As part
of the plea agreement, the State dismissed the remaining
charges in both cases and the sentencing enhancements filed
in both cases. The district court imposed a determinate term
of seven years for possession of a controlled substance to
run concurrently with Ibarra's sentences in unrelated
cases and a consecutive indeterminate term of five years for
possession of contraband in a correctional facility to run
concurrently with her other unrelated sentences. Ibarra filed
I.C.R. 35 motions for a reduction of her sentences, which the
district court denied. Ibarra appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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 court. State v.
Valdez-Molina, 127 Idaho 102, 106, 897 P.2d 993, 997
(1995); State v. Schevers, 132 Idaho 786, 789, 979
P.2d 659, 662 (Ct. App. 1999).