State v. Randle, 276 P.3d 732

Approximately 11:30 p.m. on January 4, 2010, an officer found Randle alone in a parking lot with the engine running and two open beer cans in a cup holder.
The beer can mouths faced toward the driver and passenger; the passenger claimed both beers were hers; officer noticed glassy, bloodshot eyes and odor of alcohol on Randle.
Randle initially denied drinking but admitted one beer was his after the officer pointed out the can orientations; field sobriety tests were failed.
Randle was charged with felony DUI; he moved to suppress, arguing the officer seized him without reasonable suspicion when approaching his vehicle.
The district court held the encounter was consensual and denied the suppression motion; Randle entered an Idaho Criminal Rule 11 conditional guilty plea to felony DUI and appealed.
The appellate court reviews suppression rulings by substantial evidence for facts and de novo for legal principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper seizure inquiry under Bostick	State argues totality-of-circumstances governs; no separate leave/decline inquiry.	Randle contends Bostick requires an inquiry about a reasonable person’s ability to decline the officer's requests.	No separate inquiries; totality governs.
Whether the officer’s actions constituted a seizure	State maintains the encounter was consensual and not a seizure.	Randle asserts the officer’s approach and actions created a seizure.	Not a seizure; encounter consensual.
Impact of headlights/exit-blocking on seizure analysis	State argues headlights were less intrusive than a defensive tactic and did not block exit.	Randle contends the conduct conveyed coercion and seizure.	Headlights/approach did not communicate a lack of liberty to leave.
Whether I.C. § 18-705 consideration was required in seizure analysis	State did not raise or consider §18-705 in determining seizure.	Randle argues Bishop requires considering potential criminal liability in seizure analysis.	Not considered; issue was not preserved; would be speculative if reached.

Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (reasonable person may decline requests in a consensual encounter)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (seizure determined by objective conduct indicating coercion)
Fry, 122 Idaho 100 (1991) (consensual encounter not a seizure when officer taps window but does not block exit)
Baker, 141 Idaho 163 (2004) (spotlight approach not per se seizure; safety-related reconnaissance allowed)
Zubizareta, 122 Idaho 823 (1992) (approach and brief questioning of a parked vehicle not a seizure)
McAfee, 116 Idaho 1007 (1989) (police may approach parked vehicle and ask questions without seizure)
Willoughby, 211 P.3d 91 (2009) (additional factors may indicate seizure under totality of circumstances)
Schmidt, 47 P.3d 1271 (2002) (seizure analysis incorporates surrounding circumstances)
State v. Baker, 141 Idaho 163 (2004) (face-to-face contact and actions may be consensual depending on intrusion)