State v. Jon Curtis May
Background
- May was reported by his parole officer as having absconded and there was an agent’s arrest warrant (no written warrant provided to police).
- While officers were conducting an unrelated search of a residence, an officer opened the front door and encountered May at the door.
- The officer told May to turn around; May initially complied, put his hands behind his back, then pulled away and fled. The officer chased and subdued May in the street.
- While struggling, the officer observed May attempting to eat Oxycontin pills and found white powder and a prescription bottle; May admitted he intended to trade Oxycontin for methamphetamine.
- The State charged May with possession with intent to deliver, destruction of evidence, and resisting/obstructing; May moved to suppress evidence and statements on the ground the arrest violated I.C. § 20-227.
- The district court found a statutory violation of I.C. § 20-227 but denied suppression because the violation did not amount to a constitutional violation; May pleaded guilty to possession and appealed the suppression denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether violation of I.C. § 20-227 requires suppression as a constitutional violation | May: Violation of statute makes arrest unlawful and requires suppression | State: Statutory violation does not necessarily trigger constitutional suppression | Court: § 20-227 enacted after state constitution; violation is not per se constitutional; suppression not required |
| Whether warrantless arrest/search violated Fourth Amendment | May: Officer lacked authority/probable cause to arrest or detain May, so seizure and search were unconstitutional | State: Officer had information from parole officer and knowledge of drugs at residence supporting detention/arrest; alternatively probable cause arose when May fled and resisted | Court: Parole officer’s tip gave reasonable suspicion to detain; May’s flight and resistance provided probable cause for arrest for resisting/obstructing; search incident to arrest lawful |
| Preservation of Fourth Amendment claim on appeal | May: Argued Fourth Amendment basis at suppression hearing and questioned officer about reasonable suspicion | State: Claim not preserved because not pled in motion and not addressed in order | Court: Claim preserved — Fourth Amendment basis was apparent from the hearing context |
| Remedy for statutory-only violation | May: Suppression appropriate as remedy for § 20-227 violation | State: Suppression is not appropriate absent constitutional infringement | Court: Suppression not appropriate where statute lacks historical constitutional foundation and violation is not itself constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Atkinson, 128 Idaho 559, 916 P.2d 1284 (trial court findings accepted; constitutional application reviewed de novo)
- State v. Valdez-Molina, 127 Idaho 102, 897 P.2d 993 (trial court credibility and factual resolution standards at suppression hearing)
- State v. Schevers, 132 Idaho 786, 979 P.2d 659 (trial court’s role in weighing evidence at suppression hearing)
- State v. Donato, 135 Idaho 469, 20 P.3d 5 (appellate free review of constitutional questions based on found facts)
- State v. Green, 158 Idaho 884, 354 P.3d 446 (statutory arrest-procedure violations enacted after constitution are not per se constitutional violations)
- State v. Julian, 129 Idaho 133, 922 P.2d 1059 (definition of probable cause for arrest)
- State v. Sheldon, 139 Idaho 980, 88 P.3d 1220 (standard for investigative detention; specific articulable facts)
- State v. Bishop, 146 Idaho 804, 203 P.3d 1203 (tips from known citizen-informants can supply reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Armstrong, 158 Idaho 364, 347 P.3d 1025 (preservation of suppression issues: claim must be apparent from context of hearing)