State v. Dennis Earl Hiebert
329 P.3d 1085
Idaho Ct. App.2014Background
- Hiebert owns and lives on a commercial junk/salvage yard (Mr. D’s) open to the public during business hours. Officers entered through an open gate during business hours after a tip two fugitive felons might be on the property.
- Officers knocked at front buildings, received no response, and walked along established dirt pathways into the junk yard where workers had previously been found.
- An officer observed a late-model, clean vehicle partially hidden among dilapidated cars; upon approaching ~15–30 feet off the path he saw an opened steering column, a screwdriver on the floorboard and the VIN visible from outside the vehicle.
- Dispatch confirmed the vehicle was stolen; officers also observed mismatched license plates on other vehicles. Two search warrants were issued for parts of the property, including Hiebert’s residence.
- Execution of the warrants uncovered methamphetamine and stolen vehicles/parts. Hiebert pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance but preserved his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were officers’ entry and movement on the property a warrantless search violating Fourth Amendment? | Entry beyond front buildings into junk yard and walking past signage exceeded implied invitation; Hiebert’s privacy invaded. | Property was open for business; officers acted like ordinary visitors searching for proprietor and restricted movements to normal access routes. | Entry did not violate Constitution; implied invitation existed for business property and officers stayed within its scope. |
| Did small/ambiguous “no trespassing” sign revoke implied license to enter? | Sign revoked the implied invitation; officers should have left after no response. | Sign was small/obscure/ambiguously placed and did not clearly revoke invitation for ordinary visitors. | Sign was ambiguous/obscure; insufficient to revoke implied invitation. |
| Did officer unreasonably deviate from path by approaching the vehicle (~15–30 ft) and thereby make observations unlawfully? | Officer left normal access route to inspect vehicle, exceeding scope of implied invitation and curtilage protection. | Short deviation to inspect items visible from business area is consistent with what customers would do; open-view observations from lawful vantage. | Deviation was not substantial or unreasonable; observations fell within open-view doctrine. |
| Was evidence used to obtain warrants tainted because initial observations were unlawful? | If initial warrantless entry/observation was unconstitutional, warrant probable cause is tainted and evidence must be suppressed. | Observations were lawfully made from public-accessible routes and provided lawful probable cause for warrants. | Observations were lawfully obtained; warrants valid and evidence admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (implied license to approach home by usual route and knock; used for scope of implied invitation principle)
- New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106 (1986) (VIN inspection is not a search; no expectation of privacy in VIN)
- State v. Howard, 155 Idaho 666 (Ct. App. 2013) (placement/visibility of no-trespass sign affects whether invitation was revoked)
- State v. Clark, 124 Idaho 308 (Ct. App. 1993) (police may be present in curtilage if acting like ordinary visitors; only substantial deviation exceeds implied invitation)
- State v. Linenberger, 151 Idaho 680 (Ct. App. 2011) (open-view doctrine: observations from places ordinary visitors may go do not implicate Fourth Amendment)
- Doe v. State, 131 Idaho 851 (1998) (legitimate societal purposes such as criminal investigation can justify officers’ presence on property where one might reasonably look for a suspect)