State v. Howard, 496 P.3d 865

Police stopped Aaron Howard for a traffic violation, discovered an outstanding warrant, and detained him; they then brought a certified drug dog (Pico) to sniff the vehicle.
Pico momentarily put his nose through an open passenger window during the sniff, then gave a trained final indication; officers searched the car and found methamphetamine, heroin, and paraphernalia.
Howard moved to suppress the evidence, arguing Pico’s nose-through-window intrusion was a trespass and therefore a Fourth Amendment search under United States v. Jones.
The district court denied suppression relying on State v. Naranjo (drug-dog behavior deemed instinctual and not a search). Howard entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed.
The Idaho Supreme Court held Pico’s any-degree intrusion into the vehicle constituted a search under Jones, found the State failed to show probable cause existed before the intrusion, reversed the suppression denial, vacated the conviction, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a drug-dog’s brief intrusion (nose through open window) is a Fourth Amendment “search” under the Jones trespass test	State: Naranjo controls; the dog’s action was instinctual and not a search	Howard: Jones bars any government trespass to obtain information; dog intrusion is a trespass/search	Any intrusion by a law-enforcement drug dog into a vehicle’s interior, however slight, is a Fourth Amendment search under Jones (no de minimis exception)
Whether probable cause existed before Pico’s intrusion so the automobile exception justified the search	State: Officer testimony shows Pico detected odor before entry, providing probable cause	Howard: No objective indicia of a reliable alert existed before entry; handler’s subjective belief is insufficient	State failed to meet its burden; officer’s subjective belief without objective indicia did not establish probable cause before intrusion
Whether the State may raise lack of Fourth Amendment standing for the first time on appeal	State: May raise standing on appeal (Hanson authority)	Howard: State waived the issue by not raising it below; preservation rule applies	State cannot raise standing for the first time on appeal; issue must be presented to trial court first

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (trespassory test: government trespass to obtain information is a Fourth Amendment search)
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (exterior sniff by a well-trained dog that reveals only contraband is not a search)
State v. Naranjo, 159 Idaho 258, 359 P.3d 1055 (Ct. App. 2015) (Court of Appeals held a dog’s instinctive sniff through an open window was not a search)
State v. Anderson, 154 Idaho 703, 302 P.3d 328 (2012) (automobile exception and probable cause standard)
State v. Danney, 153 Idaho 405, 283 P.3d 722 (2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Taylor v. City of Saginaw, 922 F.3d 328 (6th Cir. 2019) (slight physical interference—tire chalking—constituted a search under Jones)
State v. Mann, 162 Idaho 36, 394 P.3d 79 (2017) (defendant bears burden to show Fourth Amendment privacy interest/standing)
State v. Hoskins, 165 Idaho 217, 443 P.3d 231 (2019) (Idaho courts enforce preservation requirement; State may not raise new grounds on appeal)
State v. Weber, 116 Idaho 449, 776 P.2d 458 (1989) (probable cause reviewed de novo with deference to trial court’s factual findings)