from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State
of Idaho, Bonner County. Hon. Barbara A. Buchanan, District
denying motion to suppress, affirmed.
D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A.
Coster, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for
appellant. Kimberly A. Coster argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Ted S. Tollefson,
Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Ted S.
GRATTON, Chief Judge.
Ray Still appeals from his judgment of conviction and
sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.
Still argues that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress. For the reasons set forth below, we
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon
and unlawful possession of methamphetamine. The charges arose
after two police officers, Officer Clark and Officer Kingery,
stopped Still's vehicle for a traffic violation. Officer
Clark was the driver of the patrol car and Officer Kingery
was the passenger. Officer Clark approached the driver's
side of the vehicle and made contact with Still. Officer
Clark informed Still that he was stopped for speeding and an
expired license. Officer Clark asked Still for his
driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance.
Still handed Officer Clark his driver's license and began
searching through his vehicle to retrieve the remaining
items. As Still was searching for the items, Officer Clark
called a drug-dog officer (Officer Inman) using his on-body
radio. Officer Clark stated: "SP39, you and your partner
want to head my way, if you are available?" Thereafter,
Still provided Officer Clark with the remaining documents.
Officer Clark questioned Still about the vehicle's
registration and asked Still if there were any weapons or
drugs in the vehicle. Still denied possessing either.
Officer Clark and Officer Kingery returned to the patrol
vehicle to run Still's license and registration. After
reaching the patrol vehicle, Officer Clark sat down in the
driver's seat, picked up the in-car radio, and called
Officer Inman for a second time. Officer Clark stated,
"SP 39?, [this is] SP 30," "Are you and your
partner available?" The district court found that
"When [Officer] Clark began making the second call,
[Officer] Kingery was entering the passenger's side door.
By the time the call had concluded, [Officer] Kingery was
seated, and the passenger's side door was closed."
The second call to Officer Inman took approximately ten
seconds. Thereafter, Officer Clark placed Still's
driver's license on the in-car computer and began
processing and obtaining information. Officer Clark completed
a citation for speeding and began filling out a warning for
Still's expired registration. At that time, Officer Inman
arrived at the scene and deployed his drug dog. The dog
alerted on the vehicle and a subsequent search revealed the
presence of a firearm and methamphetamine. Consequently, the
State charged Still with unlawful possession of a firearm by
a felon and unlawful possession of methamphetamine.
filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle.
The district court held a hearing on the motion to suppress.
At the hearing and in his brief in support of the motion,
Still argued that pursuant to Rodriguez v. United
States, U.S., 135 S.Ct. 1609 (2015) and State v.
Linze, 161 Idaho 605, 389 P.3d 150 (2016), the traffic
stop was unlawfully prolonged when Officer Clark radioed to
Officer Inman a second time. In response, the State argued
that the Idaho Supreme Court did not intend for
Linze to apply to the facts of this case and Officer
Clark did not abandon or deviate from the purpose of his
only evidence presented at the motion to suppress hearing was
testimony from Officer Clark and a video of Officer
Clark's body camera. During his testimony, Officer Clark
stated that he made the second call to Officer Inman because
the officers were having issues with their on-body radios. He
We had been having radio issues, and we still are, to where
essentially we'll try to radio one party and they'll
reply, but we won't get the reply.
So I remember now when I had requested it the first time, I
didn't hear anything back. So that's why the second
request was--and our in-car radios, they're a different
brand--so our in-car radios, they actually don't miss
transmissions ever, where ...