State v. Brian Keith Calderwood
Background
- At ~3:11 a.m., an anonymous tip reported a car with parking lights on and a male walking near a closed auto shop; caller gave phone/address but not name.
- An officer encountered Calderwood walking in dark clothing; Calderwood averted his eyes and immediately fled when the officer turned around.
- The officer pursued (driving onto curb/grass with lights off), observed Calderwood digging in his pockets, and detained him after ordering him to get on his knees and handcuffing him.
- Calderwood said he was "getting rid of paraphernalia." Officers recovered syringes and drug-related items along Calderwood’s route; additional syringes were found on his person during or after arrest.
- Calderwood was charged with felony possession and paraphernalia; he moved to suppress evidence as the product of an illegal detention. The district court denied suppression; Calderwood conditionally pleaded guilty and appealed the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to detain Calderwood | Officer: tip + furtive behavior (eye-averting, flight, digging) justified investigatory detention | Calderwood: detention lacked reasonable suspicion; flight alone insufficient | Court affirmed: although it would have upheld reasonable suspicion on the totality, appeal affirmed on uncontested alternative bases |
| Whether evidence should be suppressed as fruit of illegal detention | State: some items were abandoned and syringes on person would have been inevitably discovered after arrest | Calderwood: all evidence flowed from illegal detention and must be suppressed | Court upheld denial of suppression because Calderwood did not challenge findings that items were abandoned or that syringes would have been inevitably discovered |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Atkinson, 128 Idaho 559, 916 P.2d 1284 (Ct. App. 1996) (standard of review for suppression rulings: defer to factual findings, review legal conclusions de novo)
- State v. Valdez-Molina, 127 Idaho 102, 897 P.2d 993 (1995) (trial court assesses witness credibility and resolves factual conflicts at suppression hearings)
- State v. Schevers, 132 Idaho 786, 979 P.2d 659 (Ct. App. 1999) (same principles regarding suppression hearing factfinding)
- Rich v. State, 159 Idaho 553, 364 P.3d 254 (2015) (appellate court must affirm on uncontested alternative grounds)