Today at the Court: Wednesday Edition

The Court hears two criminal cases today. The first is State v. Munoz. The Court of Appeals decision was discussed in Unexplained Inconsistent and Irreconcilable Testimony Made Under Oath at Different Proceedings Cannot be Deemed Credible. (SCOIDBlog March 25, 2009).

This case presents the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to support a trial court's finding that the police officer's second version of what happened at a search (the one that favored the state) was more credible than the original version (the one that favored the defendant) when the inconsistency is not explained and where the state bore the burden of proving an exception to the warrant requirement existed. There is also an Arizona v. Gant issue here.

In the second case, State v. Frederick, the state concedes that the search of a truck violated Arizona v. Gant, but asks the Court to apply a "good faith" exception to the rule that evidence seized pursuant to an illegal search must be excluded.

The good-faith exception in federal courts is usually applied to searches where the police obtain a warrant, not warrantless searches which are incident to arrest. And there is no good-faith exception to the warrant requirement in Idaho. Plus new rules of criminal procedure apply retroactively to all cases not yet final. So, the state's argument seems like a triple stretch to me. Moreover, one wonders why the police in this case should get a pass on their unconstitutional search when the police in Gant didn't.