State v. Shoemaker, Docket No. 33047 (Idaho App. 4/27/2009)
| Decision Date | 27 April 2009 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 33047. |
| Parties | STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TODD E. SHOEMAKER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner County. Hon. Steven C. Verby, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction for trafficking in marijuana, affirmed.
Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Elizabeth A. Allred argued.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Rebekah A. Cudé, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Rebekah A. Cudé argued.
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Todd E. Shoemaker appeals from his judgment of conviction for trafficking in marijuana. Specifically, he contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
On January 31, 2005, Detective Kit Sanger with the Sundance Drug Task Force was called to a traffic stop due to the discovery of a mobile methamphetamine lab in the trunk of the stopped vehicle. The three passengers, Wendy Woods, Joel Diekhoff, and Joshua Florence, were questioned regarding their recent activities. Florence and Diekhoff had departed from Coeur d'Alene in the early morning hours of January 30 to drive to Sandpoint in order to obtain marijuana. Diekhoff directed Florence to a residence "in the woods on a mountain," where they met Woods. It was not Woods' home, but rather the cabin of a friend who was letting her stay there. During the course of the evening, the three consumed methamphetamine together. None of the three described the location of the cabin, although Woods referred to it being in the Priest River area. Woods did not give the name of her friend or a home address.
While searching the trunk of the car, officers opened a black bag belonging to Woods which contained several photographs of Shoemaker. Detective Sanger recognized Shoemaker from previous involvement with him. Detective Sanger also developed the film from two disposable cameras found in the trunk of the car, one of which was in Woods' bag. The photographs, fewer than a dozen altogether, were taken inside two different residences, as indicated by the different walls in the backgrounds of the pictures. One residence had finished walls, while the other appeared to be a log cabin. One photograph depicted both Diekhoff and Florence, and appeared to be recent. Florence's facial hair appeared to be the same length in the photos as it was at the time of his arrest, and Diekhoff had a bandaged hand at the time of arrest and the hand was visible in the photo. Woods' black bag was also depicted in at least one of the photographs. There was also a photograph of a man Detective Sanger determined to be Shoemaker, although the man's face is obscured by his arm. Detective Sanger recognized Shoemaker from his physique, hair and glasses. A methamphetamine lab is visible in the background behind this man.
Detective Sanger sought and obtained a warrant to search Shoemaker's property in LaClede, including his home and all outbuildings, for evidence of controlled substances, specifically methamphetamine and marijuana, paraphernalia associated with the use or manufacture of controlled substances, proof of identity, residency or occupancy, as well as ledgers, currency, firearms and photographs.1 Detective Sanger provided Shoemaker's address1 and a description of how to reach the property after another detective confirmed that Shoemaker's vehicle was parked out front. Upon executing the search warrant, Shoemaker was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1), and trafficking in marijuana, I.C. § 37-2732B(a)(1)(A). Shoemaker had a small amount of methamphetamine on his person, a similar small amount in his bedroom, and over two pounds of marijuana in the house. Shoemaker filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized from his house, asserting that there was no probable cause to support issuance of the warrant in the first place. The district court denied his motion, and Shoemaker was found guilty of trafficking in marijuana following a jury trial.2 This appeal followed.
The standard of review of a suppression motion is bifurcated. When a decision on a motion to suppress is challenged, we accept the trial court's findings of fact which are supported by substantial evidence, but we freely review the application of constitutional principles to the facts as found. State v. Atkinson, 128 Idaho 559, 561, 916 P.2d 1284, 1286 (Ct. App. 1996). At a suppression hearing, the power to assess the credibility of witnesses, resolve factual conflicts, weigh evidence, and draw factual inferences is vested in the trial court. State v. Valdez-Molina, 127 Idaho 102, 106, 897 P.2d 993, 997 (1995); State v. Schevers, 132 Idaho 786, 789, 979 P.2d 659, 662 (Ct. App. 1999). This Court looks only at the evidence before the district court at the time of the motion to suppress, and not at evidence subsequently adduced at trial. State v. Lafferty, 139 Idaho 336, 339, 79 P.3d 157, 160 (Ct. App. 2003); State v. Whiteley, 124 Idaho 261, 266, 858 P.2d 800, 805 (Ct. App. 1993).
Shoemaker asserts that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized in his home pursuant to the search warrant. He argues that there was no probable cause to support issuance of the search warrant for his home because there was no evidence connecting the criminal activity discovered during the vehicle stop with his home. Therefore, he contends, the search violated both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution.3
The Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 17 prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. Their purpose is to impose a standard of reasonableness upon the exercise of discretion by government agents and thereby safeguard the individual's privacy and security against arbitrary invasions. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653-54 (1979); State v. Maddox, 137 Idaho 821, 824, 54 P.3d 464, 467 (Ct. App. 2002). When a search is conducted pursuant to a warrant, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the search was invalid. State v. O'Keefe, 143 Idaho 278, 287, 141 P.3d 1147, 1156 (Ct. App. 2006); State v. Kelly, 106 Idaho 268, 275, 678 P.2d 60, 67 (Ct. App. 1984). For a search warrant to be valid, it must be supported by probable cause. State v. Molina, 125 Idaho 637, 639, 873 P.2d 891, 893 (Ct. App. 1993). A search conducted pursuant to a warrant which is invalid for lack of probable cause is unlawful, and all evidence seized as a result of such a search must be suppressed. State v. Johnson, 110 Idaho 516, 528, 716 P.2d 1288, 1300 (1986). In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), the Supreme Court established a "totality of the circumstances" test for determining whether probable cause exists to issue a search warrant. Molina, 125 Idaho at 639, 873 P.2d at 893. Under this test, which was adopted by Idaho's Supreme Court in State v. Lang, 105 Idaho 683, 684, 672 P.2d 561, 562 (1983),
[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.
Gates, 462 U.S. at 238; see also O'Keefe, 143 Idaho at 287, 141 P.3d at 1156; Molina, 125 Idaho at 639, 873 P.2d at 893.
In dealing with probable cause, the Court is concerned with probabilities. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 (1949); see also State v. Carlson, 134 Idaho 471, 478, 4 P.3d 1122, 1129 (Ct. App. 2000). "These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men [and women], not legal technicians, act." Brinegar, 338 U.S. at 175. Probable cause is a fluid concept, "turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts." Gates, 462 U.S. at 232. When probable cause to issue a search warrant is challenged on appeal, the reviewing court's function is to ensure that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed based on the information in the warrant affidavit and the recorded testimony in support of the warrant application. Id. at 239; State v. Josephson, 123 Idaho 790, 792, 852 P.2d 1387, 1389 (1993); Lang, 105 Idaho at 684, 672 P.2d at 562; O'Keefe, 143 Idaho at 286, 141 P.3d at 1155; State v. Stevens, 139 Idaho 670, 673, 84 P.3d 1038, 1041 (Ct. App. 2004). In this evaluation, great deference is paid to the magistrate's determination. Gates, 462 U.S. at 236; State v. Wilson, 130 Idaho 213, 215, 938 P.2d 1251, 1253 (Ct. App. 1997). The magistrate is allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented, including inferences about where evidence is likely to be kept based on the nature of the evidence and the type of offense. Gates, 462 U.S. at 240; see also O'Keefe, 143 Idaho at 287, 141 P.3d at 1156; Wilson, 130 Idaho at 216, 938 P.2d at 1254; Molina, 125 Idaho at 642, 873 P.2d at 896. Moreover, the magistrate may take into account the experience and expertise of the officer conducting the search in making a probable cause determination. United States v. Terry, 911 F.2d 272, 275 (9th Cir. 1990); O'Keefe, 143 Idaho at 287, 141 P.3d at 1156; State v. Wilson, 120 Idaho 643, 647, 818 P.2d 347, 351 (Ct. App. 1991).
Detective Sanger testified before the magistrate that Florence and Diekhoff drove to Sandpoint in order to purchase drugs. Diekhoff directed Florence to a cabin in the woods on a mountain where they met Woods. This cabin was behind the residence of Woods' friend in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial