State v. Danney
| Decision Date | 01 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 38557.,38557. |
| Citation | 283 P.3d 722,153 Idaho 405 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Filip DANNEY, Defendant–Appellant. |
The Cox Law Firm, PLLC, Boise, for appellant. Sean Beaver argued.
The Honorable Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Mark Olson argued.
This appeal comes before this Court on a Petition for Review from a decision of the Court of Appeals. Filip Danney appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of drugs obtained through the use of a drug dog during a traffic stop. On appeal, Danney argues that the district court erred in determining that: (1) a proper foundation was laid for the admission of Global Positioning System (GPS) data used in his prosecution; (2) reasonable suspicion existed to justify the warrantless extension of his traffic stop; and (3) the government's placement of a GPS device constituted an impermissible warrantless search. Because we agree that the officer had a reasonable articulable suspicion of possible criminal activity justifying the limited detention of Danney for purposes of a drug dog search, we affirm the district court's decision.
At the suppression hearing, Ada County Detective Matt Taddicken testified that in March, 2007, based upon an anonymous tip he had received, he was investigating Danney's possible connection to a marijuana trafficking ring. Following up on this information, Taddicken went to Danney's house and searched his discarded trash on several occasions. He eventually discovered items bearing the name "Filip Vogelpohl" (Danney's alias), a tissue or paper towel bearing marijuana residue,1 a heat-sealed bag, and several sections that appeared to be cut from similar bags. On approximately May 16, 2007, Taddicken testified that he located a truck registered to Danney parked outside Danney's business, Boise Art Glass, and attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside. The GPS allowed Taddicken to monitor the location of the truck via an online program, and on May 21, 2007, he noticed that Danney's vehicle was in and around Arcata, Humboldt County, California. Taddicken testified at the suppression hearing that, based on his prior training and experience, Arcata is a known source city for Boise area marijuana. The next day, Taddicken noticed that Danney's vehicle was travelling back toward Boise. He contacted Ada County Deputy Matthew Clifford when Danney's vehicle was entering Boise and told Clifford that the vehicle may be carrying drugs. At that time, Clifford was on patrol and had with him his drug detection dog, Shad.
Upon observing Danney fail to signal for five seconds before changing lanes on two occasions, Clifford initiated a traffic stop and called for a backup officer. Clifford identified Danney and asked where he was coming from, to which Danney responded that he was coming from a sandwich shop and was on a "lunch break."2 After obtaining Danney's documentation, Clifford returned to his patrol car and called Taddicken to discuss Taddicken's suspicions of drug activity. Approximately six minutes into the stop, the backup officer arrived and Clifford deployed his drug dog to sniff the vehicle. The dog alerted, and a subsequent search of Danney's vehicle revealed marijuana.
Danney was charged with felony trafficking in marijuana under Idaho Code § 37–2732B(a)(1). He filed a motion to suppress "any evidence obtained by the State through the search of the Defendant's vehicle during an alleged traffic stop on May 22, 2007, along with any evidence obtained by the State as a result of the information obtained in that illegal search," on the basis that the warrantless extension of the stop was not justified by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. At the suppression hearing, Danney objected repeatedly to Taddicken's testimony about information he received from the GPS device, arguing that the State did not lay a proper foundation. The district court admitted the GPS evidence and denied the motion to suppress, concluding that "Officer Clifford and Detective Taddicken had a collective knowledge of articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was involved in trafficking marijuana." Danney then entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion. Danney timely appealed, and the case was assigned to the Idaho Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress. This Court granted Danney's Petition for Review.
On appeal, Danney raised a number of issues which can be distilled to three specific challenges: (1) whether there was a proper foundation for the GPS data; (2) whether the officers had a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity; and (3) whether the placement of the GPS device constituted a warrantless search. For the reasons which follow, we determine that the only issue which needs to be addressed is the second issue raised.
When reviewing a Court of Appeals decision, this Court directly reviews the decision of the lower court but gives serious consideration to the views of the Court of Appeals. State v. Hansen, 151 Idaho 342, 345, 256 P.3d 750, 753 (2011). In reviewing an order denying a motion to suppress evidence, this Court applies a bifurcated standard of review. State v. Purdum, 147 Idaho 206, 207, 207 P.3d 182, 183 (2009). This Court will accept the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous but will freely review the trial court's application of constitutional principles to the facts found. Id. Findings of fact are not clearly erroneous if they are supported by substantial and competent evidence. State v. Bishop, 146 Idaho 804, 810, 203 P.3d 1203, 1209 (2009).
On appeal, Danney does not argue with the basis for the officer's initial traffic stop and concedes that, based upon the traffic law violation, the stop was valid. Instead, Danney asserts that there was no basis for the officer to then unreasonably delay the traffic detention while he waited for backup and then conducted the drug dog search.
Danney asserts on appeal that the officer's placement of a GPS tracking device on his automobile without a warrant constituted a violation of his reasonable expectation of privacy and was an unreasonable warrantless search. We need not reach this issue because it was not preserved for review on appeal. Generally, issues not raised below may not be considered for the first time on appeal. State v. Fodge, 121 Idaho 192, 195, 824 P.2d 123, 126 (1992). While Danney objected repeatedly at the suppression hearing to a lack of foundation for admission of the GPS data, he did not at any time object that the placement of the GPS device itself constituted a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Thus we decline to address this issue on appeal.
On appeal, Danney points to a number of alleged foundational deficiencies in Taddicken's testimony regarding the GPS technology used to monitor his vehicle, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence the GPS device produced. Specifically, Danney asserts that Taddicken failed to demonstrate: (1) the scientific principles behind the GPS technology, such as its rate of error, method of calibration, and accuracy over long distances; (2) that the particular GPS device used in this case was functioning properly; (3) that Taddicken followed proper police protocols in using the device; and (4) that the GPS device produced accurate and reliable data.
The problem with Danney's argument is that the State was not seeking to admit the actual GPS data obtained as a result of the use of the GPS monitoring device for the purposes of establishing a fact in issue. See I.R.E. 702 (). Danney compares the admission of the GPS data with other cases in which the courts have grappled with the admission of data relating to laser detection speed devices, State v. Williamson, 144 Idaho 597, 166 P.3d 387 (Ct.App.2007), or evidence obtained through a polygraph, State v. Perry, 139 Idaho 520, 81 P.3d 1230 (2003). Those cases are not on point. In those instances, the scientific data was part of the proof necessary to establish a fact in issue, the commission of a crime, and thus, the question arose as to whether there was a sufficient foundation laid for its admissibility. Here, whether Danney's vehicle went to Arcata, California, is not a necessary element of the crime; rather, it is simply part of the information on which Taddicken based his suspicion of criminal activity. Indeed, it is not necessary that police officers rely only on evidence which will be admissible in court in finding a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. See, e.g., State v. Bishop, 146 Idaho 804, 813–14, 203 P.3d 1203, 1212–13 (2009) (). The question is whether the information is such that a reasonable officer would rely on it in forming that suspicion, not whether the State will ultimately be successful in having all of that information admitted in court. See State v. Gallegos, 120 Idaho 894, 896–97, 821 P.2d 949, 951–52 (1991).
Taddicken testified that he had been through training with the GPS device, that he was familiar with its operation, and that he had successfully tested the accuracy of the GPS device in question. The detective testified that the device communicates with orbiting satellites and uses the information they transmit "to figure a location." Detective Taddicken testified as to the brand and model of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harrell
...fact unless they are clearly erroneous but will freely review the trial court's application of constitutional principles to the facts found." Id. "Findings of fact are not clearly erroneous if they are supported by substantial and competent evidence." State v. Bishop, 146 Idaho 804, 810, 20......