432 P.3d 643
Idaho2018Background
- Appellant McDay sought to have two criminal cases removed/expunged from his BCI (Idaho Bureau of Criminal Identification) record after BCI denied his request because the cases were "dismissed" rather than resulting in an "acquittal."
- McDay claims the record denial prevents employment in his field and causes profiling and cross‑border travel problems.
- The district court denied relief; McDay appealed pro se to the Idaho Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court limited review to procedural and briefing defects rather than reaching the merits because McDay’s appellate brief lacked cogent argument, record citations, and legal authority.
- The Court affirmed the district court judgment, denied McDay prevailing‑party fees, but noted a 2018 amendment to Idaho Code § 67‑3004(10) now allows expungement where charges were "dismissed," meaning McDay may reapply to BCI or pursue civil challenge to any future denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BCI must update/expunge McDay's record | McDay: BCI’s refusal to update record (because cases were "dismissed") prevents employment and cross‑border travel; he seeks expungement | State/BCI: Denial was based on statutory requirement (then required "acquittal") and record; procedural posture not reached on appeal | Court declined to reach merits because McDay’s appellate briefing failed to provide cogent argument or authority; affirmed district court |
| Whether appellate court should consider issues raised pro se without proper briefing | McDay: raised claims on appeal seeking relief | State: argued issues inadequately briefed and supported | Court: pro se status affords no special leniency; issues not supported by argument and authority are waived/not considered |
| Whether State should recover attorney fees under I.C. §12‑117 | McDay: not prevailing party | State: requested fees as prevailing party under statute alleging nonprevailing party acted without reasonable basis | Court: denied fees because McDay’s effort relied on a reasonable belief he might be entitled to relief under recent statutory amendment |
| Whether McDay may seek relief after statutory amendment | McDay: seeks expungement now | State: enforcement based on prior statutory text at time of denial | Held: Court noted 2018 amendment now allows expungement for "dismissed" charges; McDay may file a new application or civil challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Jorgensen v. Coppedge, 145 Idaho 524, 181 P.3d 450 (2008) (issues unsupported by argument and authority will not be considered on appeal)
- Inama v. Boise County ex rel. Bd. of Comm'rs, 138 Idaho 324, 63 P.3d 450 (2003) (issues mentioned only in passing without cogent authority are not considered)
- Randall v. Ganz, 96 Idaho 785, 537 P.2d 65 (1975) (assignments of error lacking particularity and authority are too indefinite)
- Suitts v. Nix, 141 Idaho 706, 117 P.3d 120 (2005) (pro se litigants must follow rules; issues not argued per I.A.R. are waived)
- Bettwieser v. New York Irrigation Dist., 154 Idaho 317, 297 P.3d 1134 (2013) (appellate standards for considering unsupported issues; courts will not search record for error)