State v. Armbruster
| Decision Date | 11 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 17700,17700 |
| Citation | 117 Idaho 19,784 P.2d 349 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James C. ARMBRUSTER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Bruce H. Greene, Sandpoint, for defendant-appellant.
Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Jack B. Haycock, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), for plaintiff-respondent.
James Armbruster entered a conditional plea of guilty to the misdemeanor offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. I.C. § 18-8004. By entry of this conditional plea, Armbruster reserved the right to appeal the magistrate's order denying the suppression of the blood-alcohol tests. We are asked to decide whether probable cause existed to arrest Armbruster and to request that he take a blood-alcohol test. After considering the issue, we affirm the district court's decision upholding the magistrate's order denying suppression of the test results.
On appeal, our review of probable cause determinations is bifurcated. We defer to the lower court's findings of fact when supported by substantial evidence. However, we exercise de novo review over the question whether the facts as found constitute probable cause. State v. Middleton, 114 Idaho 377, 757 P.2d 240 (Ct.App.1988). "Reasonable or probable cause has been defined as information that 'would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe or entertain an honest and strong suspicion that such person is guilty.' " State v. Alger, 100 Idaho 675, 677, 603 P.2d 1009, 1011 (1979).
The essential facts, as found by the magistrate, are as follows. James Armbruster was driving at night on Highway 95 when he was stopped by an Idaho State Police Officer for crossing the fog line twice and driving with a tail light out. When the officer approached Armbruster's car, Armbruster rolled down his window and handed out his driver's license. The officer testified that there was a strong odor of alcohol on Armbruster's breath, his eyes were bloodshot and glazed, and his speech was slightly slurred. In addition, Armbruster admitted to drinking three beers that evening. The officer then ordered Armbruster out of his car to evaluate Armbruster's performance on field sobriety tests. Armbruster initially refused but then agreed to do the tests. The magistrate found that he performed the tests only "after being coerced by the officer's threat to arrest him if he refused to do them." Armbruster failed the tests and the officer subsequently placed him under arrest. Upon arrival at the police station, Armbruster was requested to take an "Intoximeter 3000" test to determine his blood-alcohol concentration. The test disclosed alcohol concentrations of .17 and .16 percent.
Neither party disputes that the officer had sufficient grounds to stop Armbruster's car. As noted, Armbruster crossed the fog line twice and drove with a tail light out. I.C. §§ 49-902(1) and 49-906(1); Matter of Nowoj, 115 Idaho 34, 764 P.2d 111 (Ct.App.1988) (review denied). However, Armbruster claims that the results of the subsequent blood-alcohol test should be excluded because the tests represent the "fruits" of an illegal search and seizure which occurred when the field sobriety tests were coercively administered to Armbruster by the officer. Armbruster further contends that without the field sobriety tests, the officer's observations were insufficient to constitute probable cause. In contrast, the state argues that the results of the field sobriety tests together with the officer's observations constituted probable cause to arrest Armbruster and to request that he take the blood-alcohol test. The state also asserts that even if the field sobriety tests were excluded, the officer's observations prior to those tests yielded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Martinez-Gonzalez
...are supported by substantial evidence and review de novo whether those facts as found constitute probable cause. State v. Armbruster, 117 Idaho 19, 784 P.2d 349 (Ct.App.1989), superseded by statute on other grounds, I.C. § 18–8002(4)(b), 1992 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 133, § 1, as recognized in ......
-
State v. Martinez-Gonzalez, 37737.
...that are supported by substantial evidence and review de novo whether those facts as found constitute probable cause. State v. Armbruster, 117 Idaho 19, 784 P.2d 349 (Ct.App.1989), superseded by statute on other grounds, I.C. § 18–8002(4)(b), 1992 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 133, § 1, as recognize......
-
State v. Ferreira
...sobriety tests may be administered, and relies on State v. Reichenberg, 128 Idaho 452, 915 P.2d 14 (1996) and State v. Armbruster, 117 Idaho 19, 784 P.2d 349 (Ct.App. 1989). However, Reichenberg was a case wherein the Supreme Court addressed the appellant's double jeopardy argument and, in ......
-
State v. Martinez-Gonzalez
...are supported by substantial evidence and review de novo whether those facts as found constitute probable cause. State v. Armbruster, 117 Idaho 19, 784 P.2d 349 (Ct. App. 1989), superseded by statute on other grounds, I.C. § 18-8002(4)(b), 1992 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 133, § 1, as recognized i......