State v. Pylican
| Decision Date | 27 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 47308 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jennie Lynn PYLICAN, Defendant-Respondent. |
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for appellant State of Idaho. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for respondent Jennie Lynn Pylican. Sally J. Cooley argued.
This appeal rises from the district court's order granting Jennie Pylican's motion to suppress evidence that she unlawfully possessed methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia on the evening of October 12, 2017. An officer observed Pylican enter a storage facility after hours. When she left, the officer followed and observed her make a turn without signaling. Pylican was initially stopped for the traffic violation and later questioned about her presence in a storage facility after hours. The district court granted the motion, holding that the arresting officer unconstitutionally extended the stop when he questioned Pylican regarding her presence in the storage facility. In the alternative, the district court ruled that the officer unconstitutionally extended both the scope and duration of the seizure by requiring Pylican to exit her car. The State timely appealed.
The Idaho Court of Appeals heard the State's appeal in State v. Pylican , No. 45999, 2019 WL 2070468 (Ct. App. May 10, 2019). In an unpublished opinion, the appellate court affirmed the district court's order granting Pylican's motion to suppress, holding that the officer did not provide any evidence of suspicious activity at the storage facility that would justify Pylican's extended detention on that basis. Id. at *5. The State filed a petition for review to this Court, which we granted. The State argues that the district court erred in granting Pylican's motion to suppress because (1) the deputy had reasonable suspicion to question Pylican regarding her presence in the storage facility, and (2) the deputy's order to exit the vehicle did not unconstitutionally extend the duration of the stop. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the district court's order and remand for further proceedings.
Late on the evening of October 12, 2017, an Ada County Sheriff's deputy was patrolling the area near the Trust Storage Facility on Maple Grove Road in Boise, Idaho. A sign outside the facility indicated that the hours of operation were 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The storage facility had a coded gate. On prior occasions, the deputy had witnessed several individuals attempt to enter the facility after hours, but those individuals had been unable to gain entry. At approximately 11:55 p.m., the deputy observed a Mazda sedan in the parking lot of an apartment complex near where he had parked his patrol vehicle. He watched the Mazda as it drove toward the storage facility. Other vehicles on the road obstructed the deputy's view so that he did not witness the Mazda drive up to and enter through the facility's gate; however, he noticed that the storage facility's gate was closing and that the Mazda had gained access to the facility.
Concerned that the Mazda had entered the storage facility after hours, the deputy initiated a call to dispatch regarding a suspicious vehicle and requested assistance. The area near the storage facility had had frequent reports of vehicle and residential burglaries. The deputy testified that he was suspicious that the occupants of the vehicle might "be either breaking into storage units or doing other type of activity that's obviously not conducive to the safe neighborhood."
The deputy approached the storage facility in his SUV, but waited for other officers to arrive before approaching on foot. The other officers arrived shortly after his request for assistance. One of the other officers communicated that there was a second vehicle inside the storage facility. The deputy, as well as the other officers on the scene, exited their vehicles and approached the storage facility on foot in order to "make contact with the vehicles inside and see what they were doing in there." However, as the officers neared the entrance to the storage facility, they witnessed several individuals getting into the vehicles. The officers elected to return to their vehicles and wait until the drivers exited the storage facility before initiating contact. The Mazda left the storage facility just after 12:30 a.m.
Approximately thirty-five minutes had elapsed from the time the Mazda entered the storage facility to the time that it exited. Although the deputy had watched the vehicle and storage facility for over forty minutes, he did not observe Pylican engage in any criminal activity inside the storage facility. The deputy could only see the vehicle parked inside the storage facility and some movement near the car.
After the Mazda exited the facility, the deputy followed it. The Mazda turned from the main road into the same apartment complex from which it had come before it went to the storage facility. However, because the driver failed to use the turn signal, the deputy initiated a traffic stop. There were two occupants of the car: the driver, Pylican, and her passenger, Megan O'Reilly. The deputy informed Pylican that he stopped her because of the traffic violation and "for being in the storage facility after hours."
In response to the statement regarding her presence in the storage facility, Pylican stated that she and her husband were switching storage units. The deputy asked her about being inside the facility after hours. In response, Pylican stated that the storage facility allowed people to be inside after hours as long as they were inside before 10:00 p.m., and that she had entered the storage facility prior to that time. The deputy believed Pylican had lied because he had witnessed the Mazda enter the facility after 10:00 p.m.
After obtaining information from Pylican and her passenger, the deputy told Pylican he would take a few minutes and then he would "cut [them] loose." As he walked away from Pylican's vehicle, before checking any of Pylican's information, he noticed that the K-9 officer had arrived. After quickly conferring with the K-9 officer, the deputy ordered Pylican and her passenger to exit the vehicle. The proffered reason for Pylican and her passenger to exit the vehicle was for the safety of the officers while the dog was led around the car. Pylican and the passenger were escorted to the area in front of the patrol car.
After Pylican and her passenger were escorted from the car, the K-9 officer ran his dog around the exterior of the vehicle. While the K-9 officer executed the canine search, the deputy denied Pylican's request to call her husband, and instead initiated another conversation with Pylican regarding her presence in the storage facility. With the K-9 search still in progress, the deputy contacted dispatch to run a warrant check on both Pylican and her passenger, and to confirm that Pylican had a valid driver's license. Approximately two minutes had elapsed from the time the deputy had ordered Pylican and her passenger from the car to the time that the deputy first contacted dispatch. Meanwhile, the dog alerted outside the driver's side of the vehicle. As a result, the K-9 officer deployed the dog inside the vehicle, at which time the dog alerted on a backpack in the back seat. The K-9 officer hand searched the backpack and found drug paraphernalia.
After the K-9 officer searched the vehicle, he spoke with the deputy about what he had found. Near that time, dispatch informed the deputy that Pylican's passenger had an outstanding warrant. A short time later, Pylican was arrested for the items in the backpack. After the deputy arrested Pylican, he performed a more extensive search of Pylican's vehicle. He located a contact lens case containing methamphetamine underneath the center console.
Based on these facts, Pylican was charged by information with one count of possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) under Idaho Code section 37-2732(c), and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia under Idaho Code section 37-2734A. Pylican moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the search of the vehicle, arguing that the deputy had unlawfully extended the scope and duration of the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity regarding Pylican's presence in the storage facility. The State objected, arguing that the deputy had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity regarding Pylican's presence in the storage facility. Further, the State contended that the outstanding warrant for Pylican's passenger would have inevitably extended the stop.
The district court granted Pylican's motion to suppress, ruling that the deputy had probable cause to detain Pylican for the purposes of the traffic violation, but did not have independent reasonable suspicion that criminal activity had occurred at the storage facility. Accordingly, the district court ruled that the deputy had unconstitutionally extended the duration of his justifiable seizure of Pylican by asking her about the storage facility. Alternatively, the district court concluded that the deputy unconstitutionally extended both the scope and duration of the stop when he ordered Pylican and her passenger to exit the vehicle. Further, the district court denied the State's contention that the passenger's warrant would have inevitably extended the duration of the stop beyond the initial traffic stop.1 The State timely appealed. After the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the district court on appeal, the State filed a petition for review to this Court.
"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...
To continue reading
Request your trial