State v. Huskey

Decision Date10 January 1984
Docket NumberNo. 14473,14473
Citation675 P.2d 351,106 Idaho 91
PartiesSTATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Kenneth HUSKEY, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtIdaho Court of Appeals

Robert Fallowfield, Luboviski, Wygle & Fallowfield, Ketchum, for defendant-appellant.

Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., Neil Tillquist, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

BURNETT, Judge.

A jury found Kenneth Huskey guilty of five counts of embezzlement. On appeal, his sole claim of error concerns the district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search. 1 The issue is whether the search was within the scope of a search warrant, or--in any event--whether the search was justified under an exception to the warrant requirement. Because we hold the search valid under the consent exception, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

This case focuses upon the second of two searches conducted after Huskey had been arrested on the embezzlement charges. These charges were based upon allegations that Huskey fraudulently had misappropriated money or property received from persons doing business with his auto body repair shop in Ketchum, Idaho. Huskey was jailed in lieu of bond. From jail Huskey telephoned a friend who, with Huskey, co-owned a Jeep Wagoneer automobile. Huskey asked the friend to pick up the automobile in Jackpot, Nevada, where Huskey had been apprehended, and drive it back to Ketchum. The friend contacted the police and, upon obtaining their approval, brought the automobile to Ketchum. There the police, pursuant to a warrant, searched the vehicle and seized numerous business documents. The vehicle then was released to the friend. The validity of that search is not contested here.

A preliminary hearing followed, and Huskey was bound over to district court. During the hearing, a criminal investigator understood Huskey's friend to say that the Wagoneer contained other items belonging to Huskey and that the friend had them at his residence. The investigator then sought and obtained a second warrant to search for those belongings at the friend's address. The investigator later saw the friend in downtown Ketchum and told him about the warrant. The friend voluntarily accompanied the investigator to the residence, where the warrant was served. The investigator explained that he was there to collect Huskey's belongings. The friend responded that some of the items were on the porch and others were still in the automobile, which was parked in the front yard. The friend said there was no need to search the residence. The friend later testified at a suppression hearing that he had shown the investigator where the objects of the search were located and had "thanked" him "for getting them out of there." The friend further acknowledged that he had said to the investigator, "Here, take it, please; get it off my hands.... Good; now I am rid of this; I can sell this Wagoneer."

Huskey argues that the second search was unconstitutional because the automobile was not mentioned in the warrant. The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and art. I, § 17 of the Idaho Constitution both prohibit unreasonable searches. They employ nearly identical language. 2 A warrantless search, or a search beyond the authority conferred by a warrant, is presumed to be unreasonable. "[S]earches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment--subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (footnotes omitted).

In this case the State argues that the warrant should be interpreted to include the automobile. However, we need not address that contention because the search would be deemed permissible, in any event, if conducted under a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. Here the State has urged two exceptions--consent to the search, and exigent circumstances for the search. We focus solely upon the question of consent.

A warrantless search may be conducted with consent of a third party who shares control of the premises or of the items to be searched. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969). "[W]here two persons have equal rights to the use or occupation of premises, either may give consent to a search, and the evidence thus disclosed can be used against either." United States v. Sferas, 210 F.2d 69, 74 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 935, 74 S.Ct. 630, 98 L.Ed. 1086 (1954). See also United States v. Stone, 471 F.2d 170 (7th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 931, 93 S.Ct. 1898, 36 L.Ed.2d 391 (1973).

As noted, Huskey's friend was a co-owner of the Wagoneer. At the suppression hearing, the court specifically questioned the friend regarding the extent of his control over the vehicle. When asked if there was any restriction on his use of the vehicle, the friend stated "No. None that I know of, no. We had an equal partnership." The district court then ruled that the friend "had the right to grant permission to take the property out of the car." We agree.

Huskey further argues that his friend's consent was not given voluntarily and freely. This argument is grounded entirely upon the following colloquies during the suppression hearing:

Q. [by public defender] Now, did you resist [the investigator's] attempt to execute that search warrant?

A. [by friend] Oh, no, no.

Q. Why not?

A. It was a search warrant. I wouldn't think of resisting a search warrant. Never thought of it.

....

Q. [by prosecutor] It's true ... is it not, that if [the investigator] hadn't showed [sic] you any warrant at all and he wanted Mr. Huskey's stuff, you would have been glad to get rid of it?

A. Actually not. This is such a legal conflagration. I would not have released it, you know, without proper, without checking with you, without checking with [the public defender] or something, yes.

These colloquies were supplemented by the following dialogue:

Q. [by prosecutor] But you weren't coerced by [the investigator]?

A. No, I was not coerced.

Q. Was your consent freely given?

A. It was.

Q. It was voluntarily given?

A. Yes.

Q. Let's face it; you are relieved to have that stuff off your hands?

A. Certainly.

Whether a person's consent to search is voluntary must be determined from the "totality of the circumstances." Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227, 93 S.Ct. 2041,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • State v. Reynolds
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • July 14, 2008
    ...v. Abeyta, 131 Idaho 704, 708, 963 P.2d 387, 391 (Ct.App.1998); Johnson, 110 Idaho at 522, 716 P.2d at 1294; State v. Huskey, 106 Idaho 91, 93, 675 P.2d 351, 353 (Ct.App.1984). If the consent was preceded by police conduct that violated the accused's constitutional rights, however, the Stat......
  • State v. Brauch
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 22, 1999
    ...or joint tenants. Matlock, 415 U.S. at 171 n. 7, 94 S.Ct. at 993 n. 7, 39 L.Ed.2d at 249-50 n. 7; see also State v. Huskey, 106 Idaho 91, 93, 675 P.2d 351, 353 (Ct.App.1984). If a person consenting to a search does not have actual authority, but government agents reasonably believe that the......
  • State v. Zavala
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • June 14, 2000
    ...at 261, 858 P.2d at 803. The state has a heavy burden to prove that consent was given freely and voluntarily. State v. Huskey, 106 Idaho 91, 94, 675 P.2d 351, 354 (Ct.App.1984). The state must show that consent was not the result of duress or coercion, either direct or implied. Schneckloth ......
  • State v. Weaver
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • October 17, 1994
    ...here, the State conducts a search without a warrant, a presumption arises that the search is per se unreasonable. State v. Huskey, 106 Idaho 91, 675 P.2d 351 (Ct.App.1984). The burden of proof is thus shifted to the State to demonstrate that the search either fell within a well-recognized e......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT