State v. Card
| Decision Date | 12 April 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 26450.,26450. |
| Citation | 45 P.3d 838,137 Idaho 182 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent, v. Christopher M. CARD, Defendant-Respondent-Cross-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Hon. Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; Karen A. Hudelson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for appellant. Karen A. Hudelson argued.
Matthews Law Offices; Griffard Law Offices, Boise, for respondent. Leo N. Griffard argued.
This appeal addresses the State's challenge to the district court's grant of Defendant, Christopher Card's ("Card") motion to suppress evidence and to quash an indictment for failing to substantially comply with the statutory scheme requiring peace officers to execute search warrants. Card cross-appeals the district court's denial of his alternative motion to dismiss the indictment for having an unauthorized deputy attorney general present evidence to the grand jury. We uphold the decision of the district court as to the improper execution of the warrant to search Card's business and residence, and we affirm both the suppression order and the order quashing the indictment.
Card is an optometrist who practices and resides in Caldwell, Idaho. In August 1995, the Idaho State Tax Commission received an anonymous tip that Card was avoiding the payment of a portion of his income taxes. In December 1995, the Idaho State Tax Commission notified Card that his tax returns for the years 1992, 1993 and 1994 had been selected for an audit. The purpose for this audit was to determine if there were sufficient grounds to file income tax evasion charges against Card.
During the course of the audit, Card failed to comply with the auditors' requests to meet with Card and for the delivery of certain documents. Affidavits from both Sherman Burger, Audit Supervisor, Tax Discovery Bureau of Idaho State Tax Commission and Virginia Hazzard, Principal Income Tax Auditor, Income Tax Audit Bureau of the Idaho State Tax Commission, were filed in support of requests for warrants to search Card's business and home. The search warrants were issued on June 20, 1997. Three officers from the Caldwell Police Department accompanied Burger and two teams of employees from the tax commission who executed the warrants. On June 26, 1997, Burger filed returns for the search warrants with the magistrate along with the inventories of the items seized.
Deputy Attorney General Jason Griess ("deputy" or "Griess") presented evidence to the grand jury, and Card was charged by indictment with three counts of felony income tax evasion under Idaho Code § 63-3075 on December 8, 1998. The indictment alleged that Card's tax returns for the years 1992, 1993 and 1994 contained false statements made for the purpose of attempting to evade the payment of taxes. Following the indictment, the Ada County Prosecuting Attorney ("Ada County") appointed Greiss as a special prosecutor to handle Card's case pursuant to Idaho Code § 31-2603. A request was also made by Ada County to the district court for the appointment of Griess as a special prosecutor. On February 8, 2000, the district court ordered that Greiss be appointed as a special prosecutor pursuant to I.C. §§ 31-2604 and 31-2603(b).
Card filed a motion to dismiss the indictment asserting, among other things, that the deputy attorney general was unauthorized to present evidence to the grand jury. Card also filed a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to the search warrants permitting the search of his home and business. To support his motion to suppress, Card argued that the search warrants were unlawfully issued because the supporting affidavits contained materially false and misleading statements and that the search warrants were unlawfully executed.
The district court denied Card's motion to dismiss as it related to the deputy attorney general's presence at the grand jury proceeding and Card's motion to suppress for misleading affidavits. The district court, however, granted the motion to suppress as it related to the execution of the search warrants, and quashed the indictment. The district court found that the role that the Tax Commission employees played in the execution of the search warrants did not substantially comply with the statutory scheme requiring peace officers to execute search warrants. The State appeals the district court's order granting the motion to suppress and quashing the indictment. Card cross-appeals, contending the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss.
The review of a district court's grant or denial of a motion to suppress is two-fold. This Court will not overturn the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. However, this Court will freely review a trial court's determination as to whether constitutional requirements have been satisfied in light of the facts found. State v. Wright, 134 Idaho 79, 81, 996 P.2d 298, 300 (2000).
This Court applies an abuse of discretion standard when it reviews the decision of a trial court on a motion to dismiss. State v. Hammersley, 134 Idaho 816, 818, 10 P.3d 1285, 1287 (2000) (citing State v. Pratt, 125 Idaho 546, 556, 873 P.2d 800, 810 (1993)).
The State argues that the district court erred by suppressing evidence that was obtained from a valid search warrant where state tax commission employees aided the officers in the execution of the search. The State further asserts that even if the search did not substantially comply with the relevant statutes that the error was not of a constitutional dimension and the evidence should not be suppressed. See State v. Mason, 111 Idaho 660, 667, 726 P.2d 772, 778 (Ct.App.1986). Card asserts the district court properly suppressed the evidence because there was not substantial compliance with the relevant statutes.
The district court found that the tax commission employees rather than the Caldwell Police Department were executing the search warrants, which led to the intrusion into Card's home and business. The district court granted the motion to suppress evidence gathered under the search warrants solely for failure to substantially comply with Idaho's statutory scheme governing searches.
Idaho Constitution Article I, § 17 protects an individual's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. This protection is supplemented by Idaho's statutory scheme governing search warrants, codified in I.C. §§ 19-4401—4420 and by Idaho Criminal Rule 41. Initially, I.C. § 19-4401 defines a search warrant. The code sections pertinent to this case are I.C. § 19-4408 which provides:
I.C. § 19-4413, which states:
And I.C. § 19-4415, which provides:
Idaho case law makes it clear that where a search warrant is improperly returned or the inventory fails to list all items seized, the mistake is ministerial and the procedural defect does not merit suppression of the evidence absent a showing of prejudice by the defendant. See e.g., State v. Bussard, 114 Idaho 781, 787, 760 P.2d 1197, 1203 (Ct.App.1988); State v. Mason, 111 Idaho 660, 726 P.2d 772 (Ct.App.1986); State v. Curry, 103 Idaho 332, 647 P.2d 788 (Ct.App.1982). In this case, Card has not shown any prejudice flowing from the preparation by the auditor, Mr. Burger, of the warrant and inventory or by Mr. Burger's delivery of them to the magistrate.
Beyond that, Idaho case law does not give guidance as to the scope of suppression when the execution of the search is improper.
Other states have addressed issues similar to those raised in this case. We find helpful the approach explained by the Florida courts. Florida has a statutory provision similar to I.C. § 19-4408, and a similar admonition that there should be strict adherence to search and seizure statutory provisions. The courts there have held that authorized police authorities are allowed to request assistance in conducting search and seizures. See State v. Vargas, 667 So.2d 175 (Fla.1995); Morris v. State, 622 So.2d 67 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993). The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Branigh
...was not warranted because no constitutional violation was shown).The only contrary Idaho authority we have found is State v. Card, 137 Idaho 182, 45 P.3d 838 (2002), where the defendant asserted that a search warrant was unlawfully executed because statutes required that search warrants be ......
-
State v. Akins
...court’s decision on a motion to dismiss." State v. Eversole , 160 Idaho 239, 244, 371 P.3d 293, 298 (2016) (citing State v. Card , 137 Idaho 182, 184, 45 P.3d 838, 840 (2002) ). To determine if a trial court abused its discretion, this Court considers whether the trial court perceived the i......
-
State v. Green
...citing State v. Rauch, 99 Idaho 586, 586 P.2d 671 (1978) ; State v. Mathews, 129 Idaho 865, 934 P.2d 931 (1997) ; and State v. Card, 137 Idaho 182, 45 P.3d 838 (2002). Each of these cases will be discussed in turn. Green argues that her arrest in this case impacted her constitutional rights......
-
State v. Sutterfield
...to extend that remedy to violations that are merely statutory." Id. at 892, 354 P.3d at 454 (citing State v. Card , 137 Idaho 182, 188, 45 P.3d 838, 844 (2002) (Schroeder, J., dissenting)). We are mindful that the statute in question here— Idaho Code section 19-608 —was enacted prior to the......