State v. Greub
Decision Date | 29 August 2017 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 44747 |
Citation | 162 Idaho 581,401 P.3d 581 |
Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Rosa L. GREUB, Defendant-Appellant. |
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Rosa L. Greub appeals from the district court's judgment of conviction and claims the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress. Greub argues the district court erred in holding that she did not delimit the scope of her consent to exclude her purse or, alternatively, that she revoked any previously given consent to search her purse. We agree and reverse the district court's order denying the motion to suppress, vacate the judgment of conviction, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The district court made the following factual findings:
Thereafter, Greub was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). Greub filed a motion to suppress alleging her detention was unlawful, and the search of her purse violated her state and federal constitutional rights to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure. In her motion, Greub argued that when the officer retained her identification card, she was seized and that the seizure was unlawful because there was no basis for the officer to suspect Greub was engaged in misconduct. Although Greub gave consent to search her car, her consent was involuntary because it was given during an illegal detention. Greub further argued that even if she had given consent, the officer had no basis to look in Greub's purse because the officer did not demonstrate he was concerned for his safety. Finally, Greub argued that even if she had voluntarily consented to a search of the car, when she got out of the car holding her purse, she revoked any consent related to the purse. And, the officer's order to leave the purse in the car so that it could subsequently be searched, violated the Idaho Supreme Court's holding in State v. Newsom , 132 Idaho 698, 979 P.2d 100 (1998). As a result, Greub requested any evidence derived from the search be suppressed.
The State responded to the motion to suppress. Therein, the State argued the detention was a consensual contact between Greub and the officer, Greub's consent to search the car constituted a valid exception to the warrant requirement, and that Greub needed to do something more than attempt to take her purse with her as she got out of the car in order to revoke her previously given consent. The State noted:
[Greub] did not verbally state she was revoking consent or impliedly revoke her consent by both verbal and physical resistance by staying in her car; instead she told Officer Christ he could search her vehicle and after making that statement then exited the vehicle to allow him to conduct his search.
The State also argued that based on officer safety, the officer was justified in requiring Greub to leave the purse in the car, thereby subjecting it to a search.
The district court denied the motion to suppress, finding the initial encounter was consensual and that the original contact did not constitute a seizure. The district court further found that Greub voluntarily consented to the search of her purse because when the officer asked to search Greub's car for illegal drugs, it was reasonable for the officer to conclude that Greub consented to the search of her purse because a purse may contain drugs.
In analyzing whether Greub revoked her consent to search her purse, the district court noted no Idaho case law interprets whether a person's conduct (as opposed to statements) constitutes a revocation of consent. After reviewing cases from other jurisdictions, the district court held that Greub:
did not tell Officer Christ of any limitations to his search of her car. Furthermore, holding onto her purse and then replacing [it] in her car was not clearly inconsistent with her consent to the search of her car, nor was it a clear [and] unequivocal act to prevent Officer Christ from searching her purse.
The district court concluded: "Therefore, under the circumstances in this case, a reasonable person would have understood that Defendant gave general consent to Officer Christ to search her car and any containers inside of it which might contain alcohol or drugs, and that Defendant did not revoke her consent."
Greub thereafter entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving her right to appeal the district court's denial of her motion to suppress. The district court withheld judgment and placed Greub on probation for four years. Greub timely appealed following her conviction.
The standard of review of a suppression motion is bifurcated. When a decision on a motion to suppress is challenged, we accept the trial court's findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence, but we freely review the application of constitutional principles to the facts as found. State v. Atkinson , 128 Idaho 559, 561, 916 P.2d 1284, 1286 (Ct. App. 1996). At a suppression hearing, the power to assess the credibility of witnesses, resolve factual conflicts, weigh evidence, and draw factual inferences is vested in the trial court. State v. Valdez-Molina , 127 Idaho 102, 106, 897 P.2d 993, 997 (1995) ; State v. Schevers , 132 Idaho 786, 789, 979 P.2d 659, 662 (Ct. App. 1999).
On appeal, Greub argues the district court erred in finding she did not delimit or revoke her consent to search her car and the containers within the car when she got out of the car with her purse. The State asserts that Greub's conduct of grabbing her purse after granting consent to search and after being instructed to step out of the car was not a clear and unequivocal revocation of her previously given consent but instead was, at best, ambiguous.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Warrantless searches are presumed to be unreasonable and therefore, violative of the Fourth Amendment. State v. Weaver , 127 Idaho 288, 290, 900 P.2d 196, 198 (1995). The State may overcome this presumption by demonstrating that a warrantless search either fell within a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement or was otherwise reasonable under the circumstances. Id.
A warrantless search may be rendered reasonable by an individual's consent. State v. Johnson , 110 Idaho 516, 522, 716 P.2d 1288, 1294 (198...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Maloney
...173, 357 P.3d 1281 (Ct. App. 2015), State v. Holt , No. 44125, 2017 WL 3574623 (Ct. App. 2017) (unpublished),1 and State v. Greub , 162 Idaho 581, 401 P.3d 581 (Ct. App. 2017), along with a handful of cases from other states.It is undisputed that Maloney consented to the search of her vehic......
-
State v. Selzer
...to withdraw that consent"). Consent can be withdrawn by words, gestures, or conduct. Greub, 162 Idaho at 586-87, 401 P.3d at 586-87. In Greub, this Court noted jurisdictions also use the objectively reasonable standard but require an unequivocal act or statement inconsistent with the previo......
-
State v. Loosli
...warrants). Rather, the officer's actions were within the scope of the consent granted by Loosli. See State v. Greub , 162 Idaho 581, 585, 401 P.3d 581, 585 (Ct. App. 2017) (noting that, when a search is based on consent, the State must conform its search to the limitations placed upon the r......