State v. Sutterfield
| Decision Date | 08 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. 47331 |
| Citation | 168 Idaho 558,484 P.3d 839 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dale Allen SUTTERFIELD, Defendant-Respondent. |
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for appellant. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for respondent. Jenevieve C. Swinford argued.
This appeal concerns a motion to suppress evidence obtained by the police in a search incident to a citizen's arrest. Dale A. Sutterfield stole a cell phone owned by a restaurant in Garden City, Idaho. A restaurant employee and his co-worker confronted Sutterfield, recovered the cell phone, and subsequently contacted the Garden City police for assistance. After the police arrived, the restaurant employee signed an affidavit and citizen's arrest form. The police arrested Sutterfield for petit theft and conducted a search incident to arrest. During their search, the police found a small quantity of methamphetamine. Thus, Sutterfield was also arrested for possession of a controlled substance, a felony.
Sutterfield filed a motion to suppress the methamphetamine evidence, asserting his arrest and the search incident to that arrest violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. After determining that Sutterfield had been arrested by a peace officer for a completed misdemeanor that occurred outside of the officer's presence in violation of the Idaho Constitution, the district court granted Sutterfield's motion to suppress. The district court dismissed the felony count of possession of a controlled substance, and Sutterfield pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor count of petit theft. The State timely appealed, and, for the reasons set forth below, we reverse the district court's order suppressing the evidence and its order dismissing the felony count of possession of a controlled substance.
Sutterfield entered a restaurant in Garden City to order food and inquire about employment. Prior to leaving with his food, Sutterfield stole a cell phone owned by the restaurant. He then left the restaurant and went to a laundromat located in the same commercial complex. The restaurant employee and his co-worker discovered the cell phone was missing and went to the laundromat to confront Sutterfield. Sutterfield eventually admitted he had taken the cell phone and returned the phone to the restaurant employee. The restaurant employee did not tell Sutterfield he was under arrest or that Sutterfield was going to be arrested. Further, the restaurant employee did not restrain Sutterfield or tell him he needed to remain in the area until the police arrived.
The restaurant employee felt unsafe because he thought Sutterfield might have a weapon. Consequently, the restaurant employee and his co-worker left the laundromat and called 911 from the parking lot. The restaurant employee told the 911 dispatcher what had occurred and indicated that Sutterfield might have a weapon. The police arrived on site three minutes later. The restaurant employee did not talk to Sutterfield after the police arrived.
The first police officer to arrive—Officer Barghoorn—immediately approached Sutterfield without talking to the restaurant employee or his co-worker. Believing that Sutterfield could have a weapon, Officer Barghoorn patted down Sutterfield for weapons and detained him in handcuffs. Sutterfield did not make any aggressive movements before or during the pat down. After being informed of his Miranda rights, Sutterfield admitted he stole the cell phone.
Officer Barghoorn then spoke with the restaurant employee and his co-worker. Officer Barghoorn explained that he could issue a citation to Sutterfield or assist the restaurant employee and his co-worker with a citizen's arrest. In response to a question, Officer Barghoorn explained that he could not arrest Sutterfield because the petit theft had not occurred in Officer Barghoorn's presence. After the restaurant employee verbally indicated he wanted Sutterfield arrested, Officer Barghoorn completed two forms for the employee to review and sign—an affidavit and a "Statement of Private Person's (Citizen's) Arrest." The restaurant employee signed both forms and returned the documents to Officer Barghoorn. The citizen's arrest form contained the following language: The affidavit and citizen's arrest form were never given, shown, or read to Sutterfield. Additionally, the restaurant employee never personally informed Sutterfield that he was placing Sutterfield under citizen's arrest.
After the restaurant employee signed the affidavit and citizen's arrest form, Officer Barghoorn returned to the area where Sutterfield was being detained by other officers. Officer Barghoorn testified that he was acting as an agent for the restaurant employee at that point to effectuate a citizen's arrest. To that end, Officer Barghoorn informed Sutterfield he was under arrest. More specifically, the district court found that Officer Barghoorn said, "You are under arrest for petit theft." The district court also found that Officer Barghoorn "did not use the term ‘citizen's arrest’ when notifying Sutterfield."
After placing Sutterfield under arrest, Officer Barghoorn searched Sutterfield. During the course of the search, Officer Barghoorn removed various items from Sutterfield's pants pockets. After the items had been removed from Sutterfield's pockets, Sutterfield asked, "So they are pressing charges?" Officer Barghoorn responded to Sutterfield's question by saying, "Yep." Sutterfield was then placed in a police vehicle, and Officer Barghoorn examined the items he had removed from Sutterfield's pants pockets. One of the items was a baggy containing a white substance that tested positive for methamphetamine. As a result, Officer Barghoorn informed Sutterfield he was also under arrest for possession of a controlled substance.
Sutterfield filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search incident to arrest with the district court, asserting that his arrest and the resulting search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The district court determined the citizen's arrest was not valid because the restaurant employee and Officer Barghoorn did not fully comply with the notice requirements for a citizen's arrest delineated in Idaho Code section 19-608. For that reason, the district court concluded the arrest was actually a warrantless arrest by a peace officer for a completed misdemeanor that occurred outside of the officer's presence in violation of Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. Therefore, the district court granted Sutterfield's motion to suppress.
After the district court granted Sutterfield's motion, it dismissed the felony count of possession of a controlled substance, and Sutterfield pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor count of petit theft. The State timely appealed the district court's order suppressing evidence and its order dismissing the felony count.
When this Court reviews a trial court's order granting or denying a motion to suppress evidence, the standard of review is bifurcated. State v. Gonzales , 165 Idaho 667, 671, 450 P.3d 315, 319 (2019) (quoting State v. Purdum , 147 Idaho 206, 207, 207 P.3d 182, 183 (2009) ). Unless clearly erroneous, this Court will accept the trial court's findings of fact. Id. This Court will, however, freely review the trial court's "application of constitutional principles to the facts as found." State v. Bodenbach , 165 Idaho 577, 589, 448 P.3d 1005, 1017 (2019) (quoting State v. Moore , 164 Idaho 379, 381, 430 P.3d 1278, 1280 (2018) ).
The State contends that the district court erred when it granted Sutterfield's motion to suppress because Sutterfield's arrest and the search incident to that arrest were constitutional. Sutterfield asserts that the district court properly granted his motion to suppress because his arrest and the search incident to arrest violated his rights under Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. More specifically, Sutterfield contends that his arrest was an arrest by a peace officer, and that Officer Barghoorn violated his constitutional rights by arresting him without a warrant for a completed misdemeanor that Officer Barghoorn had not observed. See State v. Clarke , 165 Idaho 393, 399, 446 P.3d 451, 457 (2019) ().
A. The requirements to effectuate a citizen's arrest.
A private person's right to conduct a citizen's arrest is well established under common law. See Ira P. Robbins, Vilifying the Vigilante: A Narrowed Scope of Citizen's Arrest , 25 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 557, 562 (2016) (discussing the origins of a private person's right to conduct a citizen's arrest). The common law rules find their origins in English practices dating back to the Middle Ages. Id. In the United States of America, many states have now codified the common law rules surrounding a private person's right to conduct a citizen's arrest. See id. at 569–72 (). Idaho is one of those states. See I.C. § 19-601 (). In fact, Idaho's statutes concerning an individual's right to conduct a citizen's arrest were enacted by the territorial legislature well before...
To continue reading
Request your trial