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. Farrell

Court of Appeals of Idaho

August 6, 2019

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JACOB D. FARRELL, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Nez Perce County. Hon. Jay P. Gaskill, District Judge.

         Order denying motion to suppress, affirmed.

          Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

          GRATTON, CHIEF JUDGE

         Jacob D. Farrell appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence for trafficking in heroin. Farrell argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Farrell was originally charged with possession of methamphetamine. The charge arose after Officer Reese stopped the vehicle in which Farrell was a passenger based on a suspicion that the windows were tinted darker than permitted by Idaho Code § 49-944(1). After making the traffic stop, Officer Reese identified the occupants of the vehicle, asked for the driver's license, informed the driver and Farrell about his reason for stopping the vehicle, and asked if the vehicle's windows had ever been tint tested. Farrell informed Officer Reese that the vehicle belonged to his mother and was purchased with the tint in place. Officer Reese explained that he was going to conduct a tint test and returned to his patrol vehicle to retrieve his tint meter.

         Thereafter, Officer Reese, and another officer who had arrived at the scene, returned to the vehicle to perform a tint test on the windows. Officer Reese tested both rear passenger windows and the back window of the vehicle. During the encounter, both Farrell and the driver claimed that the tint was original to the vehicle. Ultimately, the two officers confirmed that the rear window had a light transmission of "approximately 25%" and was darker than allowed by law. At that time, Officer Reese instructed the other officer to issue the driver a citation for the window tint violation. While the other officer was filling out the citation, Officer Reese retrieved a drug detection dog from his patrol vehicle and engaged in a drug-dog sweep of the vehicle. The dog alerted and a subsequent search of both the vehicle and the passengers revealed the presence of paraphernalia and methamphetamine.

         As relevant to the issue on appeal, the officers issued the driver a citation for the window tint violation pursuant to I.C. § 49-944(1) which states:

It is unlawful for any person to place, install, affix or apply any window tinting film or sunscreening device to the windows of any motor vehicle, except as follows:
. . . .
Nonreflective window tinting film or sunscreening devices that have a light transmission of not less than thirty-five percent (35%) with a tolerance limit of plus or minus three percent (3%) and a luminous reflectance of no more than thirty-five percent (35%) with a tolerance limit of plus or minus three percent (3%) may be applied to the front side vents, ...

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.