February Arguments Preview

The Idaho Supreme Court will hear argument in four criminal law cases in February.

February 9: In State v. Doe, No 35699, Tom Sullivan from Wiebe and Fouser will argue that his client, a 12-year-old boy charged with attempted first-degree murder, should not have been waived into adult court.

February 13: State v. Kofoed, No. 34589, involves the application of the knock and announce requirement during the execution of a search warrant. The United States Supreme Court has held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment knock and announce standard does not require suppression of evidence. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006). However, the Idaho Court of Appeals has held that evidence acquired following a violation of I.C. § 19-4409, and presumably the knock and announce requirement implicit in the Idaho Constitution, does require suppression. State v. Ramos, 142 Idaho 628, 634, 130 P.3d 1166, 1172 (Ct. App. 2005). This case looks like it will give the Idaho Supreme Court to decide the question of whether the state exclusionary rule applies.

February 20: The Court will hear two criminal law cases. The first, State v. Sanchez, No. 35547, is a probation revocation case. The Court of Appeals reversed the order revoking probation because the state did not show that probationer's failure to maintain weekly contact with his probation officer was willful, and because failure to maintain weekly contact did not justify revocation as the probation officer knew the probationer was under close supervision in California halfway house. Sara Thomas, Chief Appellate Deputy for SAPD, is Mr. Sanchez’s attorney. The COA opinion is at 2008 WL 1973662.

The second case, State v. Willoughby, No. 35289, is a state’s appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress. The magistrate judge, the district judge on appeal and the Court of Appeals on further appeal have all held that the defendant, who was in a parked car, was "seized" by the officers when they arrived at the parking lot with their overhead lights flashing and remained so while the officers investigated him for driving under the influence but that the police lacked a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the seizure of the defendant. Fred Loats is the attorney for Mr. Willoughby. The COA opinion in this case is reported at 2008 WL 1973662.