State v. Munhall, 17472
| Citation | 798 P.2d 61,118 Idaho 602 |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 17472,17472 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Albert MUNHALL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Idaho |
Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Kelly W. Wright, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
Albert Munhall entered a conditional plea of guilty to the crime of conspiracy to manufacture a controlled substance (methamphetamine). I.C. § 37-2732. Munhall reserved the right to appeal the district court's order denying his suppression motion and his motions to dismiss the charges Preliminarily, we set forth the relevant facts. On October 8, 1987, Ronald Clark telephoned Dan Schierman, a deputy with the Shoshone County Sheriff's Department, and informed him that his estranged wife, Valorie Clark, was headed "down river" with a load of marijuana. The record contains conflicting testimony whether Mr. Clark informed Schierman that Munhall or anyone else was riding with Mrs. Clark. In a related phone conversation earlier in the day, Clark had warned Schierman that Clark's wife was leaving the area soon in a station wagon laden with marijuana (or drugs) and headed for Oregon.
[118 Idaho 604] against him. I.C.R. 11(a)(2). Munhall was arrested when a vehicle he was driving was found to contain chemicals and instruments necessary for the production of methamphetamine. Munhall contends that the police lacked the requisite suspicion to effect an investigatory stop of the automobile; thus, the subsequent search of the vehicle was illegal. The state counters that Munhall lacks standing to contest the search. Munhall also argues that the charge should be dismissed because the Information filed against him failed to state a public offense. Munhall maintains that there was insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing to bind him over to district court. The district court rejected Munhall's arguments. We affirm.
Schierman received Clark's October 8 phone tip at his home. Clark told Schierman that his wife's car had just passed his home. Working from the tip, Schierman relayed the information to the sheriff's office. The dispatcher provided Deputy Maucotel with a detailed description of the automobile and notified him that marijuana was being transported in the car.
Maucotel located and followed the vehicle. Maucotel observed the vehicle swerve from the center of the road to the right edge of the road, crossing the fog line, in a jerking pattern. Because the dome light was on in the vehicle, Maucotel was able to observe that the driver was giving more attention to the vehicle passengers than to the road. Maucotel characterized the driving behavior as erratic and inattentive. After the arrival of a backup officer, Deputy Maucotel pulled the vehicle over to the side of the road.
The vehicle had three occupants: the driver, Albert Munhall; the owner, Valorie Clark; and another woman, Carol Matthews. Maucotel requested identification and proof of insurance from Munhall. The occupants were unable to produce proof of insurance. Knowing that the vehicle belonged to Valorie Clark, Maucotel explained to her that he suspected there were drugs in the vehicle. When he requested consent to search, she consented.
Maucotel placed the three occupants of the vehicle in a patrol car and commenced searching the Clark vehicle. The officers located various items, including a box of ammunition, two concealed weapons, a black purse containing syringes, plastic bags with a white powder residue, trace amounts of marijuana and various pieces of laboratory equipment. During the search, the officers detected what they believed to be the odor of ether, a potentially explosive chemical. They had the car towed to the sheriff's impound lot. The next day the police obtained a warrant for another search of the vehicle.
As a result of these searches the occupants of the vehicle were arrested for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. Following a preliminary hearing, a magistrate concluded there was probable cause that the vehicle's occupants had committed the crimes charged in the complaint and bound them over to district court for trial. 1 In district court, Munhall filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the prosecution produced insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing. He also filed a motion to suppress the evidence, contending that the police lacked a basis to stop the vehicle he was driving and, hence, the subsequent search and seizure were illegal. In addition, Munhall filed a motion to dismiss
[118 Idaho 605] Count I of the Information on the ground that it failed to state a public offense. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Munhall's motions. A conditional plea was entered and this appeal followed.
We first address Munhall's contention the search of the vehicle violated his constitutional rights. He postulates that the police performed an invalid investigatory stop. He maintains that because the traffic stop was invalid, the subsequent search of the vehicle was illegal.
Several factors led to the stop of the vehicle. However, we examine only one circumstance which is dispositive of Munhall's contention. After Schierman relayed his suspicions to Deputy Maucotel, Maucotel pursued the vehicle and subsequently observed Munhall engage in conduct indicating inattentive driving. This conduct served as a valid basis for stopping the vehicle. See State v. Reed, 107 Idaho 162, 686 P.2d 842 (Ct.App.1984). Thus the stop of the vehicle Munhall was driving was valid based upon reasonable and articulable suspicions by the police.
Munhall challenges the subsequent search of the vehicle. Although Munhall has standing to contest the investigatory stop of the vehicle, he has demonstrated no proprietary interest in the vehicle giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy within. State v. Ryan, 117 Idaho 504, 788 P.2d 1327 (1990); see State v. Haworth, 106 Idaho 405, 407, n. 2, 679 P.2d 1123, 1125, n. 2 (1984). Valorie Clark owned the vehicle and consented to the search. Munhall has no standing to contest the search of the vehicle.
We next address Munhall's contention that Count I in the Information failed to allege that a public offense had been committed. Count I alleged that the occupants of the vehicle had violated Idaho Code § 37-2732(f), as follows:
That Albert Harold Munhall, Valorie Gaye Hass a/k/a Valorie Gaye Clark, and Carol Ann Mathews, on or about the 8th day of October, 1987, in the County of Shoshone, State of Idaho, then and there being, did then and there conspire to commit an offense in violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, to-wit: by conspiring with each other to manufacture a controlled substance, to-wit: Methamphetamine, a Schedule II(D) Controlled Substance by they, the said defendants, obtaining and possessing glassware and other lab equipment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hanson
...standing alone, is sufficient to give one a reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle. One analogue is State v. Munhall, 118 Idaho 602, 605, 798 P.2d 61, 64 (Ct.App.1990), where this Court determined that a driver had not demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy, but that case ......
-
State v. Brashier
...cause must be based upon substantial evidence of every material element of the offense charged. I.C.R. 5.1(b); State v. Munhall, 118 Idaho 602, 606, 798 P.2d 61, 65 (Ct.App.1990); State v. Greensweig, 102 Idaho 794, 796, 641 P.2d 340, 342 (Ct.App.1982). The term "infamous crime against natu......
-
State v. Porter, Docket No. 29852 (ID 1/4/2005)
...substantial evidence demonstrating every material element of the offense charged. Idaho Criminal Rule 5.1(b); State v. Munhall, 118 Idaho 602, 606, 798 P.2d 61, 65 (Ct. App. 1990). Idaho Code § 19-815A permits a defendant held to answer to a criminal charge to challenge the sufficiency of e......
-
State v. Tankovich
...690, 201 P.3d 657, 663 (Ct.App.2008) ; State v. Lopez, 140 Idaho 197, 199, 90 P.3d 1279, 1281 (Ct.App.2004) ; State v. Munhall, 118 Idaho 602, 606, 798 P.2d 61, 65 (Ct.App.1990) ; State v. Martin, 113 Idaho 461, 466, 745 P.2d 1082, 1087 (Ct.App.1987). It is generally accepted that conspirac......