State v. Jose L. Valero, 153 Idaho 910

Valero, 38, was investigated for inappropriately touching a fifteen-year-old foster child at his residence and voluntarily met with police at the station.
Valero denied the allegations and consented to a polygraph exam; he appeared voluntarily for the polygraph at the Ada County Sheriff’s Office and was told he was free to leave, with Miranda rights provided and waived.
Interrogation ran just under three and a half hours and occurred in three parts: pre-polygraph interview, polygraph, and post-polygraph interview; incriminating statements were made during the post-polygraph segment and videotaped.
The district court tentatively suppressed Valero’s statements on grounds of overbearing coercive tactics, later affirming suppression after supplemental briefing; the State appealed.
The detective used deceptive tactics, downplayed the charges, and misrepresented polygraph admissibility and test certainty, creating a perceived Hobson’s choice between lying (more serious) or confessing (lesser offense).
The district court found Valero’s statements not voluntary under the totality of circumstances; the State argues those findings were incorrect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Valero’s statements were voluntary under totality of circumstances	Valero’s statements were voluntary; no coercion found.	Detective’s tactics overbore Valero’s will under totality of circumstances.	Statements were involuntary; district court’s suppression affirmed.
Effect of misrepresentations about the polygraph on voluntariness	Misrepresentations about the polygraph do not necessarily make statements involuntary.	Misrepresentations and coercive framing contributed to overbearing Valero’s will.	Misrepresentations contributed to involuntariness; suppression affirmed.
Whether the district court properly applied totality-of-circumstances review	Review should respect factual findings; voluntariness depends on totality.	District court failed to properly weigh coercive cues and deceptive tactics.	District court correctly applied totality-of-circumstances analysis; suppression upheld.
Whether the detective’s tactics created a Hobson’s choice by pairing minor allegations with a threat of a harsher charge	No improper coercive threat; emphasis on truthful reporting.	Deceptive themes and implied promises effectively coerced confession.	Yes, coercive coercion and false implications rendered statements involuntary.

State v. Cordova, 137 Idaho 635 (Ct. App. 2002) (noncustodial interrogation may be involuntary due to special circumstances)
State v. Whiteley, 124 Idaho 261 (Ct. App. 1993) (preponderance standard for voluntariness; factors including Miranda warnings and intellectual ability)
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (Supreme Court 1991) (totality of circumstances governs voluntariness; police coercion analysis)
State v. Troy, 124 Idaho 211 (Ct. App. 1993) (totally evaluate coercive conduct in voluntariness inquiry)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (Supreme Court 1973) (enumerates factors for voluntariness of confessions (general framework))
State v. Davila, 127 Idaho 888 (Ct. App. 1995) (confessions may be elicited despite police misrepresentation; context matters)
State v. Perry, 139 Idaho 520 (Idaho 2003) (polygraph results generally inadmissible absent stipulation)
State v. Welker, 129 Idaho 805 (Ct. App. 1997) (police tactics and deception analyzed in voluntariness context)
State v. Kysar, 114 Idaho 457 (Ct. App. 1988) (promises by officer without authority may affect voluntariness)
State v. Wilson, 126 Idaho 926 (Ct. App. 1995) (downplaying seriousness may contribute to voluntariness analysis)