State v. Anthony Kyle Smith, 367 P.3d 260

Officers responded to reports that a 15-year-old runaway was being sheltered in a shed where Smith lived and that Smith was under a no-contact order regarding the juvenile.
On first contact Smith denied knowledge and permitted officers to look; they found nothing. Later dispatch relayed that the juvenile might be hidden in a hole beneath the shed.
Officers returned without a warrant, heard movement inside, ordered Smith to open the shed, and Smith exited after a delay; officers testified Smith nodded and acknowledged the juvenile was inside.
Officers told Smith they knew the juvenile was inside and suggested alternatives (arrest or a dog) to gain access; Smith then guided officers to remove floorboards and access the hole, where the juvenile was recovered.
During a search incident to Smith’s arrest officers discovered marijuana under the shed; Smith was charged with violating a no-contact order, harboring a runaway, and possession of marijuana.
Smith moved to suppress evidence and statements; the magistrate denied the motion, the district court affirmed on intermediate appeal, and Smith appealed to this Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exigent circumstances justified a warrantless entry to the shed	The State: officers reasonably believed the juvenile’s life/safety was at risk, permitting warrantless entry	Smith: alleged crime nonviolent and officers had time to obtain a warrant; no exigency	Court: exigency (danger to juvenile) was objectively reasonable; warrant not required
Whether Smith consented to warrantless entry	The State: Smith implicitly consented by nodding and guiding officers to the hole	Smith: any consent was coerced/under duress and not voluntary	Court: did not need to decide consent because exigency justified entry (court also found implied consent)
Whether the arrest and search incident to arrest were lawful given entry	The State: entry lawful → arrest lawful → search incident to arrest lawful	Smith: if entry unlawful, arrest and search were fruit of illegal search	Court: because entry lawful under exigency, arrest and search were lawful
Whether destruction-of-evidence or nonviolent-crime limits exigency here	The State: concern was juvenile safety rather than evidence destruction; exigency can apply to protect life	Smith: relied on cases limiting exigency when only evidence destruction for nonviolent crimes	Court: those cases inapplicable; protection of juvenile’s safety justified warrantless entry

Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1978) (warrant generally required to search a home unless exigent circumstances exist)
McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1948) (discussing exigencies that may justify warrantless entry)
State v. Buterbaugh, 138 Idaho 96 (Ct. App. 2002) (exigency exception must be strictly circumscribed by the nature of the exigency)
State v. Bunting, 142 Idaho 908 (Ct. App. 2006) (traditional exigencies listed that may justify warrantless entry)
State v. Robinson, 144 Idaho 496 (Ct. App. 2007) (exigency exception does not apply where there is time to secure a warrant)
State v. Pearson-Anderson, 136 Idaho 847 (Ct. App. 2001) (objective test: facts known to officers must warrant reasonable belief that action was appropriate)
State v. Curl, 125 Idaho 224 (1993) (when only concern is destruction of evidence, the offense must be sufficiently grave)
State v. LaMay, 140 Idaho 835 (2004) (search incident to arrest permitted only when there has been a lawful custodial arrest)