State v. Randall

• Decision Date: 05 October 2021
• Docket Number: Docket No. 48692
• Citation: 496 P.3d 844,169 Idaho 358
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jacob Steele RANDALL, Defendant-Appellant.

169 Idaho 358

496 P.3d 844

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Jacob Steele RANDALL, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 48692

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, June 2021 Term.

Opinion Filed: October 5, 2021

Eric D. Fredericksen, Idaho Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Sally Cooley argued.

Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Andrew Wake argued.

BRODY, Justice.

Today we consider whether the Fourth Amendment applies when a police officer's drug-detection dog does what the officer may not—trespasses into a stopped car during a drug trafficking investigation without a warrant, probable cause, or consent. A drug dog leapt into Jacob Steele Randall's rental car during what was supposed to have been an exterior sniff. After the dog alerted to the presence of narcotics, officers searched the car and discovered 65 pounds of marijuana. Relying on an Idaho Court of Appeals case providing that a drug dog's "instinctive" actions do not violate the Fourth Amendment, the district court denied Randall's motion to suppress evidence of the marijuana because it found the dog's entry was instinctive. We reverse because the rule articulated by the Court of Appeals and applied by the district court is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In early September 2018, Randall drove past Idaho State Police Corporal Tyler Scheierman on Interstate 86 while Scheierman was observing traffic from the interstate median. Though Scheierman estimated Randall's car to be traveling at the speed limit, he noticed that Randall slowed as he approached the marked patrol car and was "sitting in a very rigid, uncomfortable, unnatural driving position, and pressing himself backwards in his seat" such that his face was obscured from Scheierman's view as he passed. Based on what he described as an "abnormal" response to seeing a marked patrol car, Scheierman decided to follow Randall to "take a closer look." After Randall passed a tractor-trailer and failed to signal for the required five seconds before changing lanes, Scheierman stopped Randall.

Scheierman asked to see Randall's license, registration, and, upon learning Randall had rented the car, the rental agreement. As Randall gathered the documents, Scheierman talked with Randall about his travel plans and noticed that Randall's hands were "visibly shaking" and the "carotid artery in his neck [was] beating profusely." Randall said he was driving home to St. Paul, Minnesota, from Las Vegas, Nevada, where he had flown for a vacation because the flight cost only $75. This statement drew Scheierman's attention because the rental agreement showed it had cost more than $500 to rent the car, and, in Scheierman's words, "it makes no sense to me to fly out, and then to drive back, especially ... [since] it's so much cheaper to fly." Further, as Scheierman later testified, he was "familiar with current trends" in drug trafficking, including traffickers "flying to a destination and driving contraband back." Finally, Scheierman noticed the rental car had a "lived-in look," with "food wrappers, gallon jugs of water, [and] toiletries strewn across" the vehicle's interior, which he testified is "consistent with people ... traveling continuously, ... involved in criminal activity." For these reasons, Scheierman asked Randall to get out of his car and accompany him to his patrol car while he validated Randall's driver's license and checked for warrants.

After the license and warrant check came back clear, Scheierman told Randall his travel plans were consistent with drug trafficking and asked Randall whether he would consent to a drug dog sniff of the exterior of his car. Randall agreed to the sniff. Scheierman retrieved his drug detection dog, Bingo, from his patrol car.

Scheierman's dashboard camera captured a video of the sniff. The video shows that Bingo moved rapidly ahead of Scheierman toward the driver's side window, which had been left open by Randall. When he arrived at the driver's side door, Bingo immediately leapt into the car through the open window. However, Bingo's hindquarters caught just outside the window and Scheierman gave Bingo a boost, pushing him fully into the car. As Scheierman testified, he gave Bingo the boost to prevent Bingo from injuring himself or causing damage to the door of the car. Less than three seconds elapsed after Bingo left the side of Scheierman's patrol car before he was fully inside Randall's rental car, and he spent 16 seconds in the rental car before leaping back out. Bingo's behavior inside the car is not visible in the video, but Scheierman testified that Bingo proceeded to the back seat of the car and alerted there to the presence of narcotics.

Once back outside, Bingo sniffed his way around the car before leaping through the driver's side window again. After emerging from the car the second time, Scheierman "redeployed [Bingo] onto the trunk of the vehicle." Shortly thereafter, Bingo alerted on the trunk of the car. The total duration of the sniff was slightly less than one minute, with Bingo inside the car for 21 seconds. Following the sniff, Scheierman conducted a warrantless search of the car and found approximately 65 pounds of marijuana stuffed into duffel bags in the trunk.

The State charged Randall with trafficking marijuana in excess of 25 pounds in violation of Idaho Code section 37-2732B(a)(1)(C). Randall filed a motion to suppress evidence of the marijuana, alleging violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court held a suppression hearing at which Scheierman testified and the video of the sniff was admitted into evidence. After the hearing, the parties submitted written arguments.

Randall argued that Scheierman violated his Fourth Amendment rights by impermissibly expanding the purpose and duration of the traffic stop. Specifically, Randall argued that Scheierman lacked reasonable suspicion Randall had committed any offense other than the traffic violation. Therefore, once Scheierman learned that Randall's driver's license was valid and there were no warrants for his arrest, the purpose of the stop was complete and Scheierman could not continue to detain Randall and conduct the dog sniff. Further, he argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when Bingo entered his car before probable cause was established.

The State argued that Scheierman was justified in making the initial stop based on Randall's failure to signal lane changes properly, and that Scheierman developed reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking during the traffic stop, justifying expansion of the scope of the stop. As to Bingo's sniff of the interior of the car, the State argued that Bingo leapt into the car of his own accord, and therefore, no "search" had occurred for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. At the end of its argument, the State mentioned that Bingo alerted both inside and outside of the car, but it did not explain how this fact was relevant to a probable cause analysis, nor did the State raise any defenses to suppression.

The district court denied Randall's motion to suppress, holding that Scheierman had reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking before extending the duration of the stop to include a drug sniff. Further, citing the Idaho Court of Appeals decision in State v. Naranjo , 159 Idaho 258, 359 P.3d 1055 (Ct. App. 2015), and caselaw from several federal courts, the district court held that an "instinctive" entry by a drug dog into a vehicle is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment:

[A]bsent police misconduct, the instinctive actions of trained drug dogs do not expand the scope of an otherwise legal dog sniff to an impermissible search without a warrant or probable cause. The term instinctive implies that a dog enters a car without assistance, facilitation, or other intentional action by its handler. Thus, during a lawful detention, when a drug dog's leap into a car is instinctual rather than orchestrated by police conduct, courts have upheld the legality of such a search. Further, a dog's independent act of entering a vehicle is lawful where the dog was attracted into the car by the smell of contraband.

Because the district court found Bingo's leap into the car was instinctive, it held there had been no Fourth Amendment violation, and it denied Randall's motion to suppress:

Based upon the testimony and the evidence presented, Trooper Scheierman's drug dog made [an] independent entry into the Defendant's car because the dog detected an odor emanating from the vehicle. While Trooper Scheierman testified that he did assist the dog's entry into the vehicle, that assistance was only given to prevent injury to the animal and car and came only after the dog had independently placed its paws on the open front driver's side window and jumped inside. Trooper Scheierman did nothing to initiate the dog's entry into the vehicle.

After the denial of his motion to suppress, Randall entered a conditional plea of guilty to a reduced charge of trafficking between five and 25 pounds of marijuana under Idaho Code section 37-2732B(a)(1)(B). The district court accepted Randall's plea and sentenced him to seven years in prison, with three years fixed, and imposed a $10,000 fine. Randall timely appealed the denial of his motion to suppress and appealed from his sentence, arguing it was excessive.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the denial of a motion to suppress using a bifurcated standard. State v. Danney , 153 Idaho 405, 408, 283 P.3d 722, 725 (2012). We will "accept the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous but will freely review the trial court's application of constitutional principles to the facts found." Id.

III. ANALYSIS

Randall argues the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress on two grounds. First, Randall argues the traffic stop was unconstitutionally prolonged because Scheierman lacked reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking activity in order to...