State v. Towner
| Citation | 169 Idaho 789,503 P.3d 989 |
| Decision Date | 03 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 48899 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gregory Wade TOWNER, Sr., Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, attorney for Appellant. Kimberly Coster argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, attorney for Respondent. Kenneth Jorgensen argued.
This case comes to the Court on a petition for review from the Idaho Court of Appeals. Gregory Wade Towner, Sr., appeals from his conviction for possession of methamphetamine. The arresting officer found the contraband on Towner's person during a warrantless search. Towner moved to suppress, arguing that the officer's conduct violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The district court denied Towner's motion after concluding that the officer's seizure and subsequent search were a reasonable exercise of the officer's community caretaking function. Towner appealed and the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed. This Court granted Towner's petition for review. For the reasons below, we reverse the district court's denial of Towner's motion to suppress and remand the case for further proceedings.
On August 9, 2018, Officer Johns was on patrol when he received a call that someone was on the side of the road who appeared to be hallucinating. Officer Johns pulled into a nearby gas station and monitored a male for about thirty seconds to a minute. He recognized the man as Towner from previous interactions. Officer Johns testified that he observed Towner standing on the side of the road, yelling and screaming at the sky, and making very aggressive actions towards the air like he was arguing with somebody, but nobody else was there.
Officer Johns exited his patrol car and contacted Towner. Towner was dressed in a short sleeve t-shirt and long pants, wearing a hat, and sipping on a soda as he talked to Officer Johns. Towner told Officer Johns that he had been off his medication for a while, and suggested "maybe I could go to the hospital ..." Officer Johns asked if Towner wanted to go to the hospital and he responded "sure." Towner said he was feeling "kind of out of it" but that he wasn't thinking about hurting himself or somebody else. Towner admitted he was depressed but stated that he had never attempted suicide and had never thought about hurting himself. Towner then claimed there were invisible wires covering him that were going to "send [him] to hell."
As Officer Johns and Towner began walking toward the patrol car, Towner suggested "I don't know, maybe I'm good," and stated that he needed to get his truck. Towner asked to call a friend to see if he could get his truck. Towner stated he needed a ride to the shop and then called someone on his cellphone. Towner asked Officer Johns if he could give him a ride to his truck, which he stated was located on Government Way by Pawn 1. Officer Johns answered "probably" and Towner ended the phone call.
Officer Johns confirmed Towner was not using any drugs or alcohol at the time and then asked Towner where he was staying. Towner stated that he had been evicted from where he was staying at First Street so he planned to go to a motel, however, they were all full. During the encounter, Towner continued to move his hands in the air and reference the invisible wires around him. Moments later, Officer Johns told Towner that he had to put him in handcuffs before he could go in the back of the patrol car. Officer Johns placed Towner in handcuffs and stated:
So here's the deal Greg, I've got a lot of concerns for you being out here, with you thinking that these wires are out here, there's no wires out here, man. And you're thinking that they're trying to send you to hell. And you agree that you need to be on your meds right? So I'm taking you to the hospital to go talk to somebody first. I don't wanna just send you over to a friend's house. We've been dealing with you a whole bunch and when we talked to the people at First Street they were really worried about you. ...
Officer Johns conducted a pat search of Towner and he felt "a plastic object in [the small coin area of Towner's pant pocket] that had – that felt fairly hard, and at the time [he] believed it was a replacement razor blade head with the plastic cover still on it." Officer Johns removed the item and realized it was a plastic bag that was tightly rolled up with a white crystalline powder substance that, through his training and experience, Officer Johns identified to be methamphetamine. Officer Johns put Towner in the back of the patrol car and drove him to the Kootenai County jail, not a hospital.
On August 10, 2018, the State filed a criminal complaint charging Towner with possession of a controlled substance. Towner moved to suppress, arguing that Officer Johns’ conduct violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The State filed a memorandum in opposition, alleging that the search was justified under the community caretaking function, specifically Idaho Code section 39-307A(b) [].
At a hearing on Towner's motion to suppress, Officer Johns testified that he was trained that he could take a person into protective custody "[i]f somebody is a threat to themselves or the general public or gravely disabled." Officer Johns testified that he believed Towner was a threat to himself because:
Officer Johns also testified that he believed Towner was a threat to the general public because as he approached, Towner went to step out into the street without looking to see whether vehicles were coming. Officer Johns explained that once Towner was detained, he conducted a search to make sure he didn't have any weapons or items that could harm himself, Officer Johns, or the hospital staff. Officer Johns testified that it was normal practice to search someone whenever they are taken into custody.
The State argued that under Idaho Code section 39-307A, which allows officers to take an individual incapacitated by drugs or alcohol into protective custody, Officer Johns acted reasonably by searching Towner to ensure he had no hazardous items on his person before placing him in the patrol car. Towner countered that Officer Johns’ conduct was not justified under Idaho Code sections 66-329 or 66-317. Towner asserted that pursuant to these statutes, Officer Johns had to find that he was a danger to himself or others, or was gravely disabled before he could take him into protective custody. Towner argued that there was no substantial evidence to support such a finding. Thus, Towner asserted there was no justification for Officer Johns’ seizure or subsequent search.
Ruling from the bench, the district court denied Towner's motion to suppress. First, relying on Officer Johns’ testimony that his initial concerns were that Towner was hallucinating because of mental health issues, the district court found that Idaho Code section 39-307A did not apply. That said, the district court found that the community caretaking function did apply. The court stated that it was required to look to the totality of the circumstances, and whether the intrusive action of the police was reasonable in view of all the circumstances. The court found that up until the time Towner was searched, the intrusion was minimal:
As for the reasonableness of the search of Towner's pockets, the district court provided two alternative rationales. First, the court found Officer Johns had a right to conduct a weapons pat search before placing him in the patrol car. Second, the court cited the unpublished Court of Appeals decision State v. Burns , No. 43114, 2016 WL 4938244 (Idaho Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2016), and reasoned that the search was not limited to a weapons search for officer safety, speculating there could be "other reasons" to conduct a search to get to the bottom of why Towner was hallucinating.
On November 9, 2018, the district court entered an order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swanson v. Swanson
... ... Father filed a motion to dismiss Mother's petition for divorce for lack of jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, arguing that the Utah court had "home state" jurisdiction.Mother objected to the motion to dismiss and filed a motion for the Idaho magistrate court to accept child custody jurisdiction ... ...