State v. Hill

• Docket Number: 49421
• Decision Date: 28 November 2023
• Parties: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CODI RICHARD HILL, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

1

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CODI RICHARD HILL, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 49421

Court of Appeals of Idaho

November 28, 2023

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Cynthia K.C. Meyer, District Judge.

Order granting motion to suppress, affirmed.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Justin R. Porter, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for appellant.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for respondent.

GRATTON, JUDGE

The State of Idaho appeals from the district court's order granting Codi Richard Hill's motion to suppress evidence found on his person subsequent to a detention. The State argues the district court erred in ruling the deputy unlawfully prolonged the detention to confer with Hill's probation officer. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A deputy with the Kootenai County Sheriff's office was notified by a concerned citizen that a man was behaving oddly and collecting rocks on a nearby road. The deputy proceeded to the area and discovered Hill standing in the middle of a rural road. The deputy approached Hill and asked for his name. When the deputy relayed the name to dispatch it did not return any matches. The deputy asked Hill if he had provided an incorrect name and eventually Hill provided

2

his legal name. Dispatch then informed the deputy that Hill was on probation and that he had an intellectual disability. The deputy requested Hill's probation officer contact him.

While the deputy reviewed Hill's information and the statute prohibiting pedestrians on roadways, Idaho Code § 49-708(2), the probation officer called. The deputy and the probation officer spoke for approximately three minutes about the incident. The deputy relayed the events of the encounter and asked if there was anything else the probation officer wanted done. The probation officer asked the deputy to conduct a compliance check and instruct Hill to report to the probation officer in the morning. The deputy did not work on Hill's citations while he spoke with the probation officer. After the call, completion of the citations for being in the road in violation of I.C. § 49-708(2), and providing a fictitious name, Hill was informed that the deputy would be conducting a probation compliance check. Hill then admitted he had narcotics in his pocket and was arrested.

The State charged Hill with possession of methamphetamine and providing false information to law enforcement. Hill filed a motion to suppress. Hill asserted the deputy impermissibly deviated from the purpose of the initial investigation in order to speak with his probation officer thereby unlawfully prolonging the detention. The State argued the deputy had a reasonable articulable suspicion justifying Hill's detention for being on the roadway that expanded when Hill provided a false name. The State asserted Hill's probation status inquiry occurred while the deputy was pursuing the initial investigation. The district court granted the motion to suppress, ruling that the deputy extended the seizure when he called the probation officer and that the detour unlawfully prolonged the detention. The State timely appeals.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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).

3

III.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, the State argues the deputy acquired reasonable suspicion that Hill violated his probation, which justified the probation inquiries. The State further contends that, as a probationer, Hill had a reduced expectation of privacy and that the time conferring with Hill's probation officer did not unreasonably prolong the detention. Hill asserts the State did not argue below that the detention was lawful due to reasonable suspicion that Hill violated his probation, and therefore, the theory is not preserved on appeal. Additionally, Hill argues the deputy unlawfully prolonged the detention by talking with the probation officer.

The State argued below that both the discovery of Hill's probation status and the call with his probation officer occurred while the deputy was actively pursuing the investigation. The State also argued that contacting the probation officer was...