State v. Amstutz, 492 P.3d 1103

Background

Dispatch received a citizen report of a suspected drunk driver who followed the driver to her home and provided the license plate; dispatch returned a vehicle/driver report showing Patricia Amstutz as the driver and listing two prior DUI convictions with dates.
Officer Kale White drove to Amstutz’s address, waited for a cover officer, viewed the vehicle and driver returns on his in‑car computer but did not recall whether he checked the prior DUI dates before contact.
White knocked, Amstutz opened the door and allowed the officers inside; White observed signs of intoxication, attempted FSTs, and arrested Amstutz for DUI without specifying misdemeanor vs. felony and without a warrant.
Amstutz was transported for a breath test (.230/.229) and only after arriving at the jail White re‑checked the driver return, confirmed prior DUIs (2010, 2016), and booked her on a felony (third‑offense) DUI.
Amstutz moved to suppress under State v. Clarke (Idaho Const. Art. I, §17 prohibits warrantless arrests for completed misdemeanors outside officer presence); the district court denied suppression relying in part on the collective knowledge doctrine; the State limited its appeal argument to the collective knowledge doctrine.
The Idaho Supreme Court reversed: White lacked the requisite knowledge at the time of arrest to treat the offense as a felony, so the warrantless arrest for a completed misdemeanor outside his presence violated Clarke; conviction vacated and matter remanded.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Amstutz's Argument	Held
Whether a warrantless arrest for a completed misdemeanor outside the officer’s presence violated Article I, §17 as interpreted in State v. Clarke	Clarke does not bar the arrest if probable cause existed that the offense was a felony; alternate statutory bases and collective knowledge justify arrest	Clarke prohibits warrantless arrests for completed misdemeanors outside officer presence; no warrant here and Amstutz was arrested before any felony knowledge	Court held arrest unlawful under Clarke; warrantless misdemeanor arrest outside officer presence violated Idaho Constitution; conviction vacated
Whether the collective knowledge doctrine allowed imputing dispatch’s knowledge (driver return) to Officer White to provide probable cause for a felony arrest	Dispatch had the driver/convictions and transmitted the driver return; that knowledge can be imputed to White under the collective knowledge doctrine	Collective knowledge requires that the arresting officer actually be aware of or be told the facts; mere database transmission without conveyed knowledge is insufficient	Court held collective knowledge did not apply: officer must possess or be informed of the facts at time of arrest; availability of data alone is insufficient
Whether information merely "available" in the officer’s possession (but not relied on or remembered) can supply probable cause for felony charges	Probable cause is an objective inquiry; information in the officer’s possession can support probable cause even if not subjectively relied upon	Officer must have knowledge at the moment of arrest; subsequent review cannot retroactively justify the initial warrantless misdemeanor arrest	Court rejected State’s position; officer’s later discovery does not retroactively validate an earlier warrantless misdemeanor arrest

Key Cases Cited

State v. Clarke, 165 Idaho 393 (2019) (Idaho Supreme Court held framers intended Article I, §17 to prohibit warrantless arrests for completed misdemeanors outside officer presence)
State v. Carr, 123 Idaho 127 (Ct. App. 1992) (collective knowledge of dispatch can support probable cause when arresting officer is informed)
State v. Julian, 129 Idaho 133 (1996) (probable cause is an objective inquiry; officers may be justified in arresting for a related felony when facts support it)
United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985) (collective knowledge doctrine does not eliminate requirement that some knowledge exist; objective reading of bulletins determines reliability)