State v. Kirk Julliard Gosch
339 P.3d 1207
Idaho Ct. App.2014Background
- Gosch was stopped for possession of marijuana and paraphernalia, with prior paraphernalia arrest in his history.
- ISP connected Gosch to cross-border marijuana smuggling based on years of reports.
- Police searched Gosch’s garbage and found items linking to trafficking and marijuana; a warrant for Gosch’s apartment and Jeep was sought.
- magistrate issued a warrant for 11974 North Rimrock Road apartment and a black 1996 Jeep in the driveway; handwritten addition specified the Jeep.
- During execution, officers used a drug dog on three vehicles in the driveway; the dog alerted on the sedan, leading to seizure.
- Gosch was charged with manufacturing marijuana, possession with intent to deliver, and possession over three ounces; motion to suppress the sedan search denied; Gosch was convicted on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of warrant—whether sedan search exceeded authorization | Gosch argues sedan not described; outside warrant scope | State contends sedan within broad drive-by scope or exception | Sedan search exceeded warrant scope |
| Automobile exception applicability to sedan | State must show sedan readily mobile for exception | Automobile exception valid due to probable cause and mobility factors | Sedan search valid under automobile exception; no warrant needed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (probable cause for vehicle search allows warrantless search of vehicle)
- State v. Smith, 266 P.3d 1220 (Idaho Ct. App. 2011) (automobile exception analyses in Idaho)
- State v. Fairchild, 829 P.2d 550 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992) (scope of warrant and seizure boundaries)
- Schaffer, 133 Idaho 126 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999) (particular description requirement in search warrants)
- Yoder, 534 P.2d 771 (Idaho 1975) ( Fourth Amendment particularity and privacy safeguarding)
- Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1985) (automobile exception rooted in mobility and privacy expectations)
- United States v. Hatley, 15 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 1994) (objective mobility or immobility indicators govern mobility for exception)
- United States v. Hepperle, 810 F.2d 836 (8th Cir. 1987) (immobility not apparent in residential driveway searches)
- State v. Wigginton, 125 P.3d 536 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005) (carve-outs for automobile searches in Idaho)
- State v. Gibson, 108 P.3d 424 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005) (drug-dog reliability and search theories)