State v. Felicity Kathleen Haynes
355 P.3d 1266
Idaho2015Background
- Felicity Haynes was arrested for DUI on Feb. 23, 2013; trooper played an audio advisory (ALS) warning that refusal to submit to evidentiary testing would carry a $250 civil penalty and a one-year license suspension; Haynes submitted and two breath samples exceeded .08.
- Defense moved to suppress breath results, arguing Idaho State Police (ISP) had not adopted breath-testing procedures pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (SOPs instead of formal rules) and later argued Haynes’s consent was involuntary due to the ALS advisories.
- Pretrial: prosecutor sought continuance because the trooper witness was unavailable; magistrate granted continuance; defense later requested appointment of another magistrate to hear an ex parte funding request; denied for failing to comply with I.C.R. 12.2 requirements.
- At hearing magistrate found the stop lawful, the trooper credible, and Haynes’s consent voluntary; magistrate denied the motion in limine to exclude breath-test results; Haynes pled guilty conditionally preserving appeal rights; district court affirmed; Idaho Supreme Court affirmed.
- Court concluded (1) granting continuance and denying appointment of another judge were within discretion; (2) although 2013 SOPs likely constitute rules and thus were void for not following the APA, their invalidity did not preclude the State from otherwise laying a foundation for breath-test admissibility; and (3) requiring a breath test under these facts was not an unreasonable search and Haynes’s consent was valid (majority); concurrence framed analysis within the consent exception and upheld voluntariness under totality of circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Haynes’ Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuance of suppression hearing | Unlawful last-minute excuse; neutral court compromised | Trial court discretion; no prejudice shown | Denial of error; continuance was not an abuse of discretion |
| Appointment of different judge for ex parte funding | Due process required appointment without preliminary showing | Defense failed to comply with I.C.R. 12.2(b); appointment discretionary | Denial affirmed; defense failed required showing |
| Exclusion of breath-test results (SOPs adoption) | SOP changes and lack of APA rulemaking render tests unreliable/invalid | State: SOPs implement statutory authority; admissibility can be proven by foundation | 2013 SOPs likely constitute rules and were void for not following APA, but State could still establish foundation; motion in limine denial affirmed |
| Validity of consent to breath test (ALS advisories) | Consent coerced by threat of civil penalty and license suspension | ALS advisories inform choice; implied/actual consent and public safety justify test | Search not unreasonable; consent valid under circumstances (majority); concurrence: consent voluntary under consent exception and reasonableness analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Payne, 146 Idaho 548 (2008) (continuance rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Wood, 132 Idaho 88 (1998) (denial of continuance requires showing of prejudice)
- State v. Howard, 150 Idaho 471 (2011) (issues not raised below cannot be raised for first time on appeal)
- Asarco, Inc. v. State, 138 Idaho 719 (2003) (factors indicating agency action constitutes a rule under the APA)
- Dachlet v. State, 136 Idaho 752 (2002) (proper foundation for chemical test admissibility may be established by expert testimony)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent judged under totality of circumstances)
- Skinner v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (breath tests are searches; intrusion is minimal)
- State v. Wulff, 157 Idaho 416 (2014) (statutorily implied consent must be capable of withdrawal)