State v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 27 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 48693 |
| Citation | 169 Idaho 342,495 P.3d 1030 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew Reed WILSON, Defendant-Respondent. |
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for appellant State of Idaho. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.
Eric D. Frederickson, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for respondent Andrew Reed Wilson. Andrea Reynolds argued.
In December 2018, a Jack-in-the-Box employee suspected a "drunk driver" was in the restaurant's drive-through line and reported this suspicion to law enforcement. An officer arrived on the scene and reported an odor of alcohol emanating from the passenger side of the vehicle (which was then occupied by a passenger), as well as empty alcohol containers on the floor near the vehicle's passenger. The officer directed the driver, later identified as Andrew Wilson, to park the car. Wilson exited the vehicle. After noticing the odor of alcohol coming from Wilson, the officer began conducting field sobriety tests. The officer interpreted Wilson's results as presenting signs of impairment. The officer then arrested Wilson for driving under the influence (DUI). A warrant for a blood draw was ultimately obtained after Wilson refused to submit to a breath test. The result of the blood draw conducted at the Pocatello Police Department reported a blood alcohol content of 0.192 percent.
Wilson was charged with felony DUI based on two prior DUI convictions within the previous ten years. Wilson moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of his initial detention, arguing that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him in the restaurant parking lot. The district court granted Wilson's motion and dismissed the charge against him with prejudice. The State appealed this decision to the Idaho Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court. See State v. Wilson , No. 47275, 2020 WL 4876845 (Idaho Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2020). This Court granted Wilson's timely petition for review. For the reasons set out below, we affirm the district court's decision to suppress.
On December 8, 2018, at approximately 2:30 a.m., an employee at Jack-in-the Box phoned the non-emergency number of the Pocatello police to report that he suspected a "drunk driver" was in the drive-through line at the fast-food restaurant. The employee testified that a purple car in the restaurant's drive-through line contained several occupants who were "really laughing," as they placed their orders, which, according to the employee, "is usually a sign of something." The employee further testified that after informing the vehicle's occupants of a ten to fifteen minute wait time for their food, someone in the vehicle said the wait was fine because there was alcohol in the car, which prompted the employee to call the police.
Officer Ryan Malone with the Pocatello Police Department arrived several minutes later and approached a vehicle from the passenger side while it was still stationary in the drive-through line. The officer had no prior driving pattern of the vehicle. The vehicle the officer approached "was the only car in the parking lot that matched the possible description [provided by the employee of the Jack-in-the-Box]"; however, the Officer testified there was no purple car. Rather, the Officer first approached a car maroon in color, and he didn't know whether the car he approached was the same that had been reported by the Jack-in-the-Box employee. Officer Malone first spoke to the driver through the passenger-side window, and informed him why he was there: "to perform a welfare check, and that the employees of the Jack-in-the-Box felt that the occupants may be possibly intoxicated." As the officer was speaking to the driver through the passenger side of the vehicle, he observed "four empty 32-ounce beer cans on the passenger side floor at the feet of [the passenger]." The officer then directed the driver to drive his vehicle into the parking lot so the officer could verify that Wilson was not intoxicated.
The driver, later identified as Andrew Wilson, parked the car and exited the vehicle in compliance with Officer Malone's commands. The officer testified that when Wilson approached him toward the back of the vehicle, he "could smell the odor of intoxicating beverage coming from his breath and person." The officer further testified that when he "began checking his eyes for nystagmus,1 [he] immediately observed it."
At that point, the officer began to formally conduct field sobriety tests on Wilson. The officer asked Wilson if he had consumed any alcohol, to which Wilson admitted that he had consumed four beers and one shot within the past six hours. Wilson failed the nystagmus test, which measured his eye movements both horizontally and vertically. The officer also observed that Wilson's eyes were "glassy." Wilson satisfactorily completed two additional field sobriety tests, but the officer placed him under arrest for suspicion of driving under the influence.
Officer Malone informed Wilson that he would be transported to the police station and offered a breathalyzer test. Wilson refused to submit to a breathalyzer test multiple times, so the officer applied for a warrant for a blood draw. The warrant was issued, and a blood sample was taken from Wilson at the Pocatello Police Department. The results of the blood draw showed that Wilson had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.192 percent.
The State filed a criminal complaint against Wilson, charging him with felony DUI in violation of Idaho Code sections 18-8004 and 18-8005(6) based on two prior DUI convictions within the preceding ten years. A preliminary hearing was held, and the magistrate court found probable cause to bind Wilson over to district court. Wilson filed a motion to suppress, arguing that he had been unlawfully detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The State did not file a response to Wilson's motion. A hearing on the motion to suppress was held, and the district court requested further briefing from Wilson and responsive briefing from the State.
Wilson argued that he had been seized without reasonable suspicion in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Wilson asserted that Officer Malone did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him because Wilson initially denied consuming alcohol, the officer did not see an erratic driving pattern, and the empty beer cans were in front of the feet of the passenger in the vehicle. Wilson further noted that the officer failed to verify with the restaurant employee that he was investigating the correct vehicle and was instead acting on a "hunch." Wilson concluded by arguing that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine operated to exclude all evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful detention.
In response, the State first argued that Officer Malone's interaction with Wilson began as a consensual encounter. Second, the State argued that the officer was exercising his community caretaking function by performing a welfare check on Wilson and the occupants inside the vehicle. Next, the State contended that "as soon as the defendant exited the vehicle and Officer Malone could smell the odor of alcohol coming from [him] and could see his glassy eyes [the encounter] evolved from a welfare check to a DUI investigation based upon reasonable suspicion given the circumstances." "Once the[ ] officer had reasonable suspicion," the State continued, "he was allowed to extend the stop into a full DUI investigation to determine whether or not the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while impaired."
The district court entered a Memorandum Decision and Order granting Wilson's motion to suppress. The district court first held that the community caretaking function of law enforcement did not apply to Officer Malone's interaction with Wilson because the officer did not believe that the occupants of the vehicle were in need of immediate assistance.2 Next, the district court found that the officer detained Wilson when he "instructed him to move his car from the drive through to the restaurant parking lot." The State has not challenged this finding on appeal. Finally, the district court determined that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain Wilson based on the totality of the circumstances. Accordingly, the district court granted Wilson's motion to suppress and dismissed the charge against him with prejudice.
The State timely appealed to the Idaho Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court's decision. State v. Wilson , No. 47275, 2020 WL 4876845 (Idaho Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2020). Wilson petitioned this Court for review, which we granted.
"When reviewing a case on petition for review from the Court of Appeals this Court gives due consideration to the decision reached by the Court of Appeals, but directly reviews the decision of the trial court." State v. Chernobieff , 161 Idaho 537, 539, 387 P.3d 790, 792 (2016) (quoting State v. Lute , 150 Idaho 837, 839, 252 P.3d 1255, 1257 (2011) ). "This Court is not merely reviewing the correctness of the Court of Appeals’ decision; rather, this Court is hearing the matter as if the case were on direct appeal from the trial judge's decision." Gilpin-Grubb v. State , 138 Idaho 76, 79, 57 P.3d 787, 790 (2002).
Marsalis v. State , 166 Idaho 334, 458 P.3d 203, 208 (2020).
"Issues not raised below will not be considered by this [C]ourt on appeal, and the parties will be held to the theory upon which the case was presented to the lower court." State v. Hoskins , 165 Idaho 217, 221, 443 P.3d 231, 235 (2019) (quoting State v. Garcia-Rodriguez , 162 Idaho 271, 275, 396 P.3d 700, 704 (2017) ).
A. The State failed to preserve its argument for appeal.
Wilson filed his motion to suppress on January 30, 2019...
To continue reading
Request your trial