State v. Loosli

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 46744 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: February 21, 2020 Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk v. ) ) COLLEY W. LOOSLI, ) ) Defendant-Respondent. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Gerald F. Schroeder, District Judge. Hon. Daniel L. Steckel and Hon. Howard Smyser, Magistrates. Order of the district court, on intermediate appeal from the magistrate court, reversing order denying motion to suppress, reversed; case remanded. Anthony R. Geddes, Ada County Public Defender; Jessica A. H. Howell, Deputy Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Jessica A. H. Howell argued. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Mark W. Olson argued. ________________________________________________ LORELLO, Judge The State appeals from an order of the district court, on intermediate appeal from the magistrate court, reversing the magistrate court’s order denying Colley W. Loosli’s motion to suppress. We reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND An officer on patrol observed Loosli riding a bicycle down an alleyway. The officer parked his patrol vehicle and exited the vehicle as Loosli approached. The officer did not activate the patrol vehicle’s overhead lights or block Loosli’s path. During the interaction, the 1 officer asked if he could see Loosli’s driver’s license and then asked if he could write down the information on the license. Loosli agreed to both. After recording the information, the officer returned the license to Loosli. The two engaged in additional conversation during which the officer asked Loosli if he had anything illegal and whether he minded if the officer checked. Loosli gave an ambiguous response, which the officer attempted to clarify. However, prior to the search, Loosli began reaching into his pocket and, at one point, threw an item away from him. The officer placed Loosli under arrest and recovered the thrown item, which was drug paraphernalia. The officer also discovered paraphernalia in Loosli’s pocket. The State charged Loosli with possession of drug paraphernalia and destruction or concealment of evidence. Loosli filed a motion to suppress, arguing he was illegally detained and that his license was illegally seized without reasonable suspicion. The State responded that “the entire contact was consensual until [Loosli] made concerning movements and then threw an object.” At the suppression hearing, Loosli argued that “retaining a driver’s license amounts to a seizure.” The magistrate court concluded the encounter was consensual and denied Loosli’s motion to suppress. Loosli entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of drug paraphernalia and the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charge. Loosli appealed to the district court, and the district court reversed. The State appeals. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW For an appeal from the district court, sitting in its appellate capacity over a case from the magistrate division, this Court’s standard of review is the same as expressed by the Idaho Supreme ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals