State v. Hale
| Decision Date | 22 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 48578 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William Joseph HALE, II, Defendant-Appellant. |
Eric D. Frederickson, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for Appellant. Jenevieve C. Swinford argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent. Justin R. Porter argued.
This case concerns whether a law enforcement officer unlawfully prolonged a traffic stop by inquiring as to a driver's permission to operate the stopped vehicle. William Joseph Hale, II, appeals his judgment of conviction for two counts of felony possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. After a drug-detecting dog alerted on the car Hale had been driving, law enforcement conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle, discovering various controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. Hale moved to suppress the evidence resulting from the search, arguing that the responding officer had impermissibly prolonged the stop while waiting for the drug-detecting dog by inquiring about Hale's permission to operate the vehicle. The Ada County district court denied Hale's motion, reasoning that the officer's questions were within the permissible scope of the traffic stop. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the questions regarding Hale's permission to operate the vehicle comported with the Fourth Amendment. This Court granted review. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the district court's decision.
Shortly after 9:00 pm on April 24, 2017, a law enforcement officer on patrol with the Garden City Police Department observed a car parked by itself in the unlit parking lot of a closed business. When the officer drove by the vehicle, he noticed it lacked a front license plate, piquing his suspicion. The officer turned around to follow the vehicle as it exited the parking lot, observing that it also lacked a rear license plate. Shortly thereafter, the officer pulled the vehicle over in the parking lot of a nearby convenience store.
Subsequently, the officer approached the vehicle and the driver handed him an Idaho driver's license identifying himself as William Joseph Hale, II. The officer explained to Hale the reasons he had been pulled over: first, for being in the parking lot of a closed business;1 and second, for failing to display license plates or a temporary registration permit. Hale pointed out that he did, in fact, have a temporary permit displayed in the rear window of the vehicle. The officer confirmed the presence of the temporary permit, but did not inspect it at that time, asking instead if the registration belonged to Hale. Hale responded by saying the vehicle belonged to his friend ("the owner") and that he was merely borrowing it. The officer then asked Hale to provide proof of insurance for the vehicle. Hale did not know if the vehicle was insured or not but did find a registration card after sifting through documents in the glove box. While Hale searched for proof of insurance, the officer asked some follow-up questions including whether Hale had any weapons or drugs in the vehicle and the owner's name. As to the owner, Hale told the officer his full name and gestured while saying, "he lives right across from there." With Hale unable to provide an insurance card, the officer returned to his vehicle to run standard license, registration, and warrant checks.
By the time the officer returned to his vehicle to run those checks, roughly three to five minutes had elapsed. At that point, before conducting the license, registration, and warrant checks, the officer requested a drug-detecting dog to be dispatched to the stop. The routine checks did not raise any concerns nor indicate that Hale had outstanding warrants. However, the officer noted that the registration provided by Hale listed a Boise address for the owner, which conflicted with the officer's understanding that Hale stated the owner lived in Garden City. Based on this discrepancy, the officer returned to question Hale about who owned the vehicle and requested the owner's phone number to confirm Hale's permission to drive the car. Hale provided the owner's phone number and the officer contacted him after several attempts, confirming Hale had permission to drive the vehicle and that the vehicle did not have insurance.
At some point prior to initiating the phone call, at approximately 9:14 p.m., the officer started to write Hale a ticket for failure to provide proof of insurance. Meanwhile, during the officer's phone conversation with the owner, the drug-detecting dog and its handler arrived at the stop to sniff around the vehicle. After calling the owner, the officer returned to issuing Hale a citation for failure to provide proof of insurance. Unbeknownst to the officer, while he finished the ticket, the drug-detecting dog alerted to the presence of drugs in the car being driven by Hale. The officer then approached Hale for a third time to verify the address information on Hale's driver's license. Before he was able to make contact with Hale, however, the handler informed the officer of the alert and presence of paraphernalia in the vehicle. During the subsequent warrantless search of the vehicle, the officers discovered methamphetamine and hydrocodone in addition to the previously discovered paraphernalia.
After the traffic stop, the State charged Hale with two counts of possession of a controlled substance in violation of Idaho Code section 37-2732(c) and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Idaho Code section 37-2734A. Hale moved to suppress the evidence gleaned from the warrantless search of the car, arguing that law enforcement did not have a reasonable basis to stop him and that the stop was unlawfully prolonged. Prior to oral argument, Hale withdrew his argument that the initial stop was unlawful, and proceeded only with the argument that the stop was unlawfully prolonged.
The district court heard oral argument on the motion to suppress on January 18, 2018, and issued a written order denying Hale's motion on January 26, 2018. The district court reasoned that the key issue in the case was whether law enforcement had unlawfully prolonged the stop by inquiring into Hale's authorization to drive the stopped vehicle. Answering that question in the negative, the district court ruled "that an officer may, without unlawfully prolonging a traffic stop, take reasonable steps to verify a non-owner driver's claim of permission to drive the stopped vehicle, at least when there is some reason to be skeptical of that claim." In addition, the district court concluded that the skepticism about a non-owner driver's claim of permission need not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion to justify an inquiry into the truth of that claim.
Following trial, a jury found Hale guilty on all three counts. The district court sentenced Hale to two concurrent eight-year sentences with two-and-one-half years fixed for the possession charges and to time served with respect to the paraphernalia charge. Hale timely appealed.
Hale's appeal was assigned to the Idaho Court of Appeals, which issued an opinion affirming the district court's denial of Hale's motion to suppress on May 13, 2020. State v. Hale , No. 46766, 2020 WL 2465744 (Ct. App. May 13, 2020). The Court of Appeals adopted substantially the same reasoning as the district court, holding "that during the course of a traffic stop an officer may take reasonable steps to verify a ... claim of permission to drive the stopped vehicle where there is reason to be skeptical of that claim." Id. at *4.
Hale petitioned for review by this Court, arguing that the district court's and Court of Appeal's decisions expanded the scope of ordinary inquiries incident to a traffic stop in conflict with the United States Supreme Court's holding in Rodriguez v. United States , 575 U.S. 348, 135 S.Ct. 1609, 191 L.Ed.2d 492 (2015). This Court granted review.
Did the district court err in denying Hale's motion to suppress by concluding that the post-stop verification of Hale's permission to operate the vehicle was an ordinary inquiry incident to the stop?
"When reviewing a case on petition for review from the Court of Appeals this Court gives due consideration to the decision reached by the Court of Appeals, but directly reviews the decision of the trial court." State v. Jeske , 164 Idaho 862, 867, 436 P.3d 683, 688 (2019) (quoting State v. Schmierer , 159 Idaho 768, 770, 367 P.3d 163, 165 (2016) ). In reviewing a motion to suppress, this Court employs a bifurcated standard of review. State v. Danney , 153 Idaho 405, 408, 283 P.3d 722, 725 (2012) (citing 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. A trial court's findings of fact that are supported by substantial and competent evidence are not clearly erroneous. Id.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."2 U.S. Const. amend IV. "The stop of a vehicle by law enforcement constitutes a seizure of its occupants to which the Fourth Amendment applies." State v. Linze , 161 Idaho 605, 608, 389 P.3d 150, 153 (2016) (citing Delaware v. Prouse , 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979) ). Stopping a vehicle and seizing its occupants to investigate a traffic violation is permissible under the Fourth Amendment "so long as the seizing officer had reasonable suspicion that a violation had occurred." Id. Thus, like a Terry...
To continue reading
Request your trial