State v. Neimeyer, 490 P.3d 9

Background

At ~2 a.m., officers responded to a welfare check of Neimeyer parked at a Twin Falls gas station; officers observed an open, partially full alcohol bottle in the passenger compartment.
Officers asked about a small closed container on the passenger seat; after initial reluctance and an officer remark about the open alcohol, Neimeyer opened the container.
Officer Thompson smelled marijuana and saw a green, leafy substance; Neimeyer was detained, and a subsequent search of her purse and vehicle produced methamphetamine, marijuana, and paraphernalia.
Neimeyer moved to suppress, arguing officers lacked probable cause to search the container; at the suppression hearing Officer Thompson testified that Twin Falls City Code § 6-2-6 made open containers a misdemeanor, and the prosecutor relied on that ordinance.
The district court denied suppression, quoting the City Code verbatim and finding Neimeyer voluntarily opened the container (or alternatively that inevitable discovery applied); Neimeyer did not object to the testimony about the ordinance or the court’s use of it below.
On appeal Neimeyer argued the State did not prove the ordinance and that the court was precluded from taking judicial notice of a municipal ordinance; the Idaho Supreme Court held those judicial-notice arguments were raised for the first time on appeal and therefore not preserved, and affirmed the denial of suppression.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved existence/application of Twin Falls City Code § 6‑2‑6	City relied on officer testimony and district court quotation to treat § 6‑2‑6 as applicable	Neimeyer argued State did not prove the ordinance (and that an open container off a highway may not be a crime)	Not preserved for appeal; court did not reach merits and affirmed suppression denial
Whether a district court may take judicial notice of a municipal ordinance	State implicitly assumed judicial notice was proper and relied on ordinance	Neimeyer argued on appeal that judicial notice of a municipal ordinance was precluded	Not preserved: argument raised for first time on appeal; court declined to address the merits
Whether officers had probable cause to search the closed container based on the open-container observation	State: open container under city code supplied probable cause and supported the search	Neimeyer: officers lacked objective facts to justify a warrantless search; opening was coerced	Court upheld denial of suppression—primarily on voluntariness of consent and because judicial-notice challenge was not preserved
Whether the search was valid because Neimeyer consented (or under inevitable discovery)	State: Neimeyer voluntarily opened the container; evidence alternatively admissible under inevitable discovery	Neimeyer: consent was invalidated by officer implication and not freely given	Court found substantial evidence of voluntary consent and alternatively relied on inevitable discovery; suppression denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gonzalez, 165 Idaho 95, 439 P.3d 1267 (2019) (clarified preservation rule: new substantive issues generally may not be raised first on appeal)
State v. DuValt, 131 Idaho 550, 961 P.2d 641 (1998) (discusses when an issue decided by the trial court may be raised on appeal)
State v. Miller, 165 Idaho 115, 443 P.3d 129 (2019) (addresses review standard and fundamental error doctrine)
State v. Bernal, 164 Idaho 190, 427 P.3d 1 (2018) (discusses fundamental error preservation requirements)
State v. Purdum, 147 Idaho 206, 207 P.3d 182 (2009) (articulates suppression-review standards)
State v. Bodenbach, 165 Idaho 577, 448 P.3d 1005 (2019) (discusses appellate review of constitutional applications)