State v. Gneiting, 468 P.3d 263

Police found Nicole Gneiting in a car at a motel; a female officer felt a "hard, bulgy object" in Gneiting’s upper thigh during a pat-down; Gneiting pulled a flashlight from her pants and said she was menstruating when asked about the bulge.
Officers later recovered a purse in a motel room containing items including Gneiting’s debit card and drugs; Gneiting was arrested and advised of Miranda rights and charged.
Officers repeatedly asked Gneiting whether she had illegal items and warned that bringing contraband into the jail would bring additional charges; Gneiting denied having contraband each time.
At booking, after unsuccessful requests for voluntary disclosure, female officers strip-searched Gneiting and recovered a paper envelope between her legs containing 31.41 grams of methamphetamine.
Gneiting was convicted by a jury of trafficking in methamphetamine and possession of major contraband within a correctional facility (I.C. § 18-2510(3)(c)), among other counts; she appealed claiming the possession was not voluntary because she was transported and confined involuntarily.
The Idaho Supreme Court held the State presented substantial evidence: an arrestee who, after warning and opportunity to surrender contraband, chooses to retain it has acted voluntarily; the court affirmed the conviction and treated an erroneous jury instruction conflating "introduce" and "possess" as harmless.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was substantial evidence that Gneiting voluntarily possessed major contraband within a correctional facility	State: multiple warnings and opportunities to surrender meant Gneiting made a voluntary choice to retain contraband before entering jail	Gneiting: because she was arrested and involuntarily transported, her possession inside the jail was not a voluntary act	Affirmed: voluntariness satisfied where arrestee was warned and given chances to relinquish contraband but chose to conceal it; conviction stands
Whether trial instructional error (conflating "introduce" and "possess") requires reversal	State: error was harmless because proving introduction necessarily required proof of possession here	Gneiting: instruction was erroneous	Held harmless: no due process reversal; jury necessarily found possession proven

Barrera v. State, 403 P.3d 1025 (Wyo. 2017) (adopts majority rule that continuing to conceal contraband after warning is a voluntary act)
State v. Tippetts, 43 P.3d 455 (Or. Ct. App. 2002) (voluntariness requires conscious choice; conviction reversed where no showing of conscious choice after opportunity to discard)
State v. Eaton, 177 P.3d 157 (Wash. 2008) (reversed sentence enhancement where officer, not defendant, effectively brought contraband into jail under facts)
Taylor v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 563 (Ky. 2010) (holding arrestee’s choice to retain contraband after warning is voluntary; Fifth Amendment does not excuse the choice)
State v. Taylor, 87 P.2d 454 (Idaho 1939) (act must be voluntary; intent and act must coincide)
Cargile v. State, 916 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio 2009) (presence in detention may be involuntary but bringing drugs is voluntary because defendant could have discarded them)
State v. Canas, 597 N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 1999) (defendant had option to disclose or discard drugs before jail; Fifth Amendment does not shield making that choice)