from the District Court of the Second Judicial District,
State of Idaho, Nez Perce County. Hon. Jay P. Gaskill,
denying motion to suppress, affirmed.
D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P.
Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for
Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen,
Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
GRATTON, CHIEF JUDGE
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.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
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.
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
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