State v. Reese, No. 24006
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
| Writing for the Court | SCHROEDER; TROUT |
| Citation | 132 Idaho 652,978 P.2d 212 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mark REESE, Defendant-Appellant. Boise, December 1998 Term |
| Docket Number | No. 24006 |
| Decision Date | 02 April 1999 |
Page 212
v.
Mark REESE, Defendant-Appellant.
April 2, 1999.
Alan E. Trimming, Ada County Public Defender; Gary S. Reedy, Deputy Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Gary S. Reedy argued.
Hon. Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; Teresa A. Sobotka, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Teresa A. Sobotka argued.
SCHROEDER, Justice.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court vacating the magistrate's order suppressing evidence.
I.
BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
Mark Reese (Reese) was cited for driving under the influence (DUI) and driving without privileges. He filed a motion to suppress. The only evidence offered was the arresting officer's report. The magistrate suppressed evidence based upon the following findings:
On or about August 22, 1995, Officer Jones was stopped by an unknown informant and advised that a male and female had just gotten out of an older Honda at the Vista Avenue Stinker Station in Boise, Idaho, and both appeared very intoxicated. Officer Jones observed two subjects enter a vehicle at the Stinker Station and drive to a nearby residence, but did not observe
Page 213
any illegal or erratic driving behavior or observe any independent signs of intoxication by the driver. At the residence the male driver went inside the home and the female remained outside. Officer Jones contacted the female and told her he wanted to speak with the male driver. The male driver [exited] his home, was identified as the Defendant, Mark Reese, and was given field sobriety tests by the officer, and subsequently arrested for DUI.The State appealed to the district court which vacated the magistrate's order suppressing evidence. Reese appealed to this Court.
II.
When reviewing a motion to suppress evidence, this Court will defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous. State v. Medley, 127 Idaho 182, 185, 898 P.2d 1093, 1096 (1995). However, the Court exercises free review over
the trial court's determination as to whether constitutional requirements have been satisfied in light of the facts found. Further, when an appeal is initially taken to the district court, any subsequent review will be conducted independent of, but with due regard for, the decision of the district court.
Id. (citations omitted).
The facts of this case come from only one source, the officer's arrest report. The facts are not in dispute--only their legal significance. Therefore, under the above standard, this Court exercises free review.
III.
THE MAGISTRATE...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Willoughby, No. 35289.
...of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous. State v. Hankey, 134 Idaho 844, 846, 11 P.3d 40, 42 (2000) (citing State v. Reese, 132 Idaho 652, 653, 978 P.2d 212, 213 (1999)). This 211 P.3d 95 Court freely reviews the trial court's application of constitutional principles to the facts ......
-
State v. Cardenas, No. 31758.
...to suppress evidence allegedly obtained as a result of an illegal seizure. Page, 140 Idaho at 843, 103 P.3d at 456; State v. Reese, 132 Idaho 652, 654, 978 P.2d 212, 214 (1999); State v. Fuentes, 129 Idaho 830, 832, 933 P.2d 119, 121 (Ct.App.1997). Taking into account all the surrounding ci......
-
State v. Salato, No. 26710.
...864 P.2d 641, 642 (Ct.App.1993); Heinen, 114 Idaho at 658, 759 P.2d at 949. Accordingly, we exercise free review. See State v. Reese, 132 Idaho 652, 653, 978 P.2d 212, 213 III. BASIS FOR THE INITIAL STOP A. Applicable Constitutional Standards The Fourth Amendment to the United States Consti......
-
State v. Schmadeka, No. 26617.
...641, 642 (Ct.App. 38 P.3d 636 1993); Heinen, 114 Idaho at 658, 759 P.2d at 949. Accordingly, we exercise free review. See State v. Reese, 132 Idaho 652, 653, 978 P.2d 212, 213 III. DISCUSSION The Fourth Amendment requires that all searches and seizures be reasonable. State v. Murphy, 129 Id......
-
State v. Willoughby, No. 35289.
...of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous. State v. Hankey, 134 Idaho 844, 846, 11 P.3d 40, 42 (2000) (citing State v. Reese, 132 Idaho 652, 653, 978 P.2d 212, 213 (1999)). This 211 P.3d 95 Court freely reviews the trial court's application of constitutional principles to the facts ......
-
State v. Cardenas, No. 31758.
...to suppress evidence allegedly obtained as a result of an illegal seizure. Page, 140 Idaho at 843, 103 P.3d at 456; State v. Reese, 132 Idaho 652, 654, 978 P.2d 212, 214 (1999); State v. Fuentes, 129 Idaho 830, 832, 933 P.2d 119, 121 (Ct.App.1997). Taking into account all the surrounding ci......
-
State v. Salato, No. 26710.
...864 P.2d 641, 642 (Ct.App.1993); Heinen, 114 Idaho at 658, 759 P.2d at 949. Accordingly, we exercise free review. See State v. Reese, 132 Idaho 652, 653, 978 P.2d 212, 213 III. BASIS FOR THE INITIAL STOP A. Applicable Constitutional Standards The Fourth Amendment to the United States Consti......
-
State v. Schmadeka, No. 26617.
...641, 642 (Ct.App. 38 P.3d 636 1993); Heinen, 114 Idaho at 658, 759 P.2d at 949. Accordingly, we exercise free review. See State v. Reese, 132 Idaho 652, 653, 978 P.2d 212, 213 III. DISCUSSION The Fourth Amendment requires that all searches and seizures be reasonable. State v. Murphy, 129 Id......