State v. Phipps, 454 P.3d 1084

Parole officers conducted a routine, suspicionless parole search of parolee Terry Wilson’s apartment; officers asked all present to remain in the living room while they cleared bedrooms.
Kari Phipps, a non‑parolee and guest, was detained (not free to leave) though officers had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause concerning her.
Before the search, an officer asked if there was anything they should know; Phipps admitted she had a methamphetamine pipe in her backpack.
Officers recovered the pipe and additional drugs; Phipps was cited for paraphernalia and moved to suppress her statement and the pipe.
Magistrate denied suppression relying on Summers (detention incident to search); district court reversed, holding non‑residents may not be detained absent suspicion; State appealed.
Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding Summers and its progeny permit limited, suspicionless detention of all occupants during a lawful parole/probation search and allow brief questioning so long as it does not prolong the detention.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Phipps)	Held
Whether officers may detain a non‑parolee present during a lawful parole search without reasonable suspicion or probable cause	Detention is reasonable: Summers’ balancing and its justifications (prevent flight, officer safety, orderly search) apply to parole searches; detention of all occupants is categorical and brief questioning is permitted	Detention of non‑residents absent individualized suspicion is unconstitutional; Summers applies only to searches pursuant to warrants	Court held officers may categorically detain all occupants during a lawful parole/probation search and may ask brief questions that do not prolong the detention

Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) (a search warrant implicitly authorizes limited detention of occupants during execution of the search)
Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (confirms Summers is categorical; officers may question detainees so long as detention is not prolonged)
Sanchez v. Canales, 574 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009) (extends Summers’ rule to parole/probation compliance searches)
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parolees have diminished expectations of privacy)
United States v. Motley, 432 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (addresses officers’ authority to search a parolee’s residence when they have reason to believe the parolee resides there)
Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013) (discusses risks of flight and the need to secure a scene during searches)