State v. Heath
| Decision Date | 08 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 47334 |
| Citation | 168 Idaho 678,485 P.3d 1121 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Richard M. HEATH, Defendant-Appellant. |
Richard M. Heath, Pollock, appellant pro se argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. John McKinney argued.
BRODY, Justice, This appeal arises from a magistrate court's denial of a defendant's motion for the return of property under Idaho Criminal Rule 41(f) (" Rule 41(f)"). During a traffic stop, police confiscated a pipe, a bong, and some marijuana possessed by Richard Heath. Heath was charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. Heath moved to suppress the pipe and bong as evidence against him and the magistrate court granted the motion. Heath also moved for the return the pipe and the bong under Rule 41(f), but the magistrate court denied the motion after holding that the pipe and bong were contraband. Heath appealed the denial of his motion to the district court, which affirmed. For the reasons set out below, we too affirm.
On August 21, 2017, Heath was a passenger in a pickup truck driven by his brother when a police officer stopped them for speeding. After apparently deciding to let Heath's brother go with a warning, the police officer began questioning the two about an odor of marijuana the officer detected in the vehicle. During an exchange with the officer, Heath admitted that he had some marijuana and produced a small vial of buds and a pipe made from an elk antler. The officer then searched the pickup and found three more small vials of marijuana and a bong, also fashioned out of an elk antler. The officer seized the drugs, pipe, and bong, and cited Heath for misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance under Idaho Code section 37-2732(c)(3) and possession of drug paraphernalia under Idaho Code section 37-2734A(1).
In September 2017, Heath pleaded not guilty and informed the magistrate court that he intended to represent himself. Heath later filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the officer's conduct during the stop and subsequent search violated his constitutional rights. The State opposed the motion, treating it as a motion to suppress. Two hearings and a number continuances later, the magistrate court ruled in June 2018, that the officer unlawfully extended the traffic stop. Accordingly, the magistrate court suppressed the evidence obtained from the stop. The State then dismissed the charges against Heath.
Though the magistrate court granted the motion to suppress, it reserved judgment on the motion at the center of this appeal—a motion under Rule 41(f) for return of the pipe and bong, which Heath filed in March 2018. Heath submitted three supplementary briefs in support of his motion in July, August, and October 2018, and the magistrate court held hearings on the motion in August and November 2018. Heath raised a number of arguments, but his primary contentions were: (1) that Rule 41(f) required the return of his pipe and bong, (2) that marijuana is improperly prohibited as a schedule I drug under Idaho Code section 37-2705, and (3) that the prohibition of marijuana violated his right to religious liberty. The magistrate court denied the motion to return property at the November hearing and issued a written opinion shortly thereafter. Heath appealed to the district court in January 2019. The district court affirmed the decision of the magistrate court in July 2019. Heath timely appealed to this Court.
"On appeal from a decision rendered by the district court while acting in its intermediate appellate capacity, this Court directly reviews the district court's decision." State v. Phipps , 166 Idaho 1, 4, 454 P.3d 1084, 1087 (2019) (quoting State v. Chernobieff , 161 Idaho 537, 539, 387 P.3d 790, 792 (2016) ).
The Supreme Court reviews the trial court (magistrate) record to determine whether there is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate's findings of fact and whether the magistrate's conclusions of law follow from those findings. If those findings are so supported and the conclusions follow therefrom and if the district court affirmed the magistrate's decision, we affirm the district court's decision as a matter of procedure.
Id. (quoting Pelayo v. Pelayo , 154 Idaho 855, 858, 303 P.3d 214, 217 (2013) ).
Idaho Criminal Rule 41(f) provides that "[a] person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property may move for the property's return." However, the magistrate court denied Heath's motion for the return of the pipe and bong because it determined they were contraband under Idaho Code section 37-2734A. That statute provides: "[i]t is unlawful for any person to use, or to possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to ... inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance." I.C. § 37-2734A(1). Heath does not dispute that he used the pipe and bong to consume marijuana and he has not suggested they have any other use.
Primarily, Heath contends that the magistrate court erred in refusing to return the pipe and bong because he disagrees that they are contraband. We address these arguments in Section B, below. First, however, we consider Heath's argument that the pipe and bong must be returned even if they are contraband. In support, Heath notes that Rule 41(f) is silent on the issue of contraband and that the magistrate court granted his motion to suppress because the search of his brother's pickup was unlawful. Thus, Heath asserts that if we upheld the denial of his Rule 41(f) motion, we would "presuppose that violations of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 17 of the Idaho State Constitution are fully permitted if the property seized is later claimed to be ‘contraband.’ "
Heath is correct that Rule 41(f) does not mention contraband. However, "[w]e will not interpret a rule in a way that would produce an absurd result." State v. Montgomery , 163 Idaho 40, 44, 408 P.3d 38, 42 (2017). The absurd consequences of Heath's position are evident. If we interpreted Rule 41(f) to require the return of contraband whenever evidence is suppressed, we would open the door for defendants to reclaim much more than drug paraphernalia. For example, Heath's reading of the rule would allow defendants to reclaim illegal drugs themselves (no matter the type or quantity), or weapons that defendants may not legally possess, or even property stolen by defendants from others. Moreover, there is no basis for Heath's contention that constitutional violations would be "fully permitted" unless we adopt his interpretation of the rule. The remedy we have long recognized in criminal proceedings for illegal searches and seizures (in addition to any potential civil remedies) is suppression of evidence. Heath prevailed on his suppression motion and the charges against him were dismissed as a result. We need not, and will not, fashion an additional remedy from Rule 41(f).
Though Heath argues that contraband is returnable under Rule 41(f), his primary contention is that the district court erroneously concluded the pipe and bong were contraband in the first instance. Heath argues the pipe and bong are not contraband for two reasons. First, he contends that the provisions of Idaho's enactment of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act ("CSA") prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana are invalid. Second, he argues that the prohibition of marijuana conflicts with constitutional and statutory guarantees of religious liberty.
Both the magistrate court and district court held that the use of marijuana was validly proscribed under the CSA. Heath raises five arguments to the contrary: (1) marijuana was placed on schedule I of the CSA by the Idaho Board of Pharmacy ("Board"), an executive agency, in violation of the separation of powers provisions of the Idaho Constitution; (2) marijuana is not subject to any regulation because it is a natural herb created by God, not a pharmaceutical drug; (3) the State may not regulate marijuana because the Idaho Constitution does not contain a provision (analogous to the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution) that permits prohibition of marijuana; (4) although marijuana is categorized as a schedule I drug under the CSA, it does not meet the criteria for placement on that schedule; and (5) marijuana is not harmful to people and, if it were legalized, it could help "heal the Earth through regenerative agriculture."
Heath abandoned his first argument after the State pointed out that the legislature, not the Board, placed marijuana on schedule I of the CSA. Thus, we do not address the parties’ arguments regarding the legislature's delegation of authority to the Board.
As to Heath's second and third arguments, it is well established that the regulatory power of the state is plenary. Idaho Power & Light Co. v. Blomquist , 26 Idaho 222, 241, 141 P. 1083, 1091 (1914). Unlike Congress, which may only exercise the powers expressly granted to it by the federal Constitution, the Idaho legislature may enact any law on any matter unless it is constitutionally prohibited from doing so. Id. ; see also U.S. Const. amend. X ; Standlee v. State , 96 Idaho 849, 852, 538 P.2d 778, 781 (1975). Thus, no authority analogous to the 18th Amendment was necessary for the legislature to prohibit marijuana under the CSA. Further, while Heath argues that the CSA attempts to "criminalize God" for creating marijuana, the CSA only purports to...
To continue reading
Request your trial