State v. Gabbrielle R. Aberasturi, 162 Idaho 517

Officer observed Aberasturi parked near and inside a dumpster in a private alley behind a commercial building; loitering on private property without permission is disorderly conduct under Idaho law.
Responding officer ordered Aberasturi out of the dumpster and her acquaintance from the car, then began to run their information and issued a warning for disorderly conduct.
A second officer remained with the two and recorded the interaction; less than two minutes after initial contact a second officer arrived, and about four minutes later a third (canine) officer arrived.
The canine officer performed a dog sniff of Aberasturi’s vehicle and later indicated the dog alerted; officers testified the alert occurred while the responding officer was still giving the warning, but only one officer recorded audio and that recording did not corroborate the alert’s timing.
The district court found the officers’ testimony conflicted with the audio and concluded the initial investigative stop’s purpose was completed when the warning ended; because the State failed to prove the canine alerted before that point, the subsequent canine sniff and search unlawfully extended the stop.
The district court granted suppression of evidence from the search; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the State did not meet its burden to show the sniff occurred before the stop concluded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the investigative detention was unlawfully extended by a canine sniff	The canine alerted during the officer’s warning, so the officer learned of the alert before the stop concluded and the sniff did not unlawfully extend the detention	The sniff occurred after the initial stop’s purpose was completed, so it unlawfully extended the detention and any resulting evidence must be suppressed	Held: The State failed to prove the canine alerted before the warning ended; the stop was unlawfully extended and evidence suppressed
Whether reasonable suspicion or probable cause was required to justify the post-warning search	The canine alert provided probable cause during the valid detention	The detention had ended so no reasonable suspicion/probable cause was developed during the valid stop	Held: Court noted reasonable suspicion would suffice but found the State failed to show the alert occurred during the valid stop; therefore no reasonable suspicion/probable cause existed before the unlawful extension

State v. Atkinson, 128 Idaho 559, 916 P.2d 1284 (Ct. App. 1996) (standard of review for suppression motions: factual findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
State v. Valdez-Molina, 127 Idaho 102, 897 P.2d 993 (1995) (trial court credibility determinations at suppression hearings)
State v. Schevers, 132 Idaho 786, 979 P.2d 659 (Ct. App. 1999) (trial court’s role in resolving factual conflicts at suppression hearings)
State v. Roe, 140 Idaho 176, 90 P.3d 926 (Ct. App. 2004) (two-part test for investigative detention: inception and scope/proportionality)
State v. Parkinson, 135 Idaho 357, 17 P.3d 301 (Ct. App. 2000) (detention must be temporary and limited to purpose)
State v. Sheldon, 139 Idaho 980, 88 P.3d 1220 (Ct. App. 2003) (investigative detention based on specific articulable facts)
State v. Gutierrez, 137 Idaho 647, 51 P.3d 461 (Ct. App. 2002) (duration of detention must be no longer than necessary)
State v. Flowers, 131 Idaho 205, 953 P.2d 645 (Ct. App. 1998) (appellate deference to trial court credibility and inferences)
State v. Howell, 159 Idaho 245, 358 P.3d 806 (Ct. App. 2015) (investigative detention duration limits reiterated)