State v. Rosa L. Greub
162 Idaho 581
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On June 10, 2016, Officer Christ approached Rosa Greub in a parking lot, asked for ID, and questioned her about illegal items in her car; Greub provided an identification card but not a driver’s license.
- Officer Christ asked to search Greub’s vehicle for “anything illegal”; Greub agreed.
- Officer Christ asked Greub to exit the car; she attempted to take her purse with her but the officer ordered her to leave the purse in the vehicle for safety, and she complied.
- While searching the vehicle, Officer Christ found a partially exposed alcohol bottle, then searched Greub’s purse and discovered methamphetamine and later, a pipe.
- Greub moved to suppress the evidence, arguing (1) the encounter was an unlawful seizure and any consent was involuntary, (2) the purse was outside the scope of consent under Newsom, and (3) she revoked or limited consent by attempting to remove her purse. The district court denied suppression; Greub entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Greub clearly and unequivocally limited/revoked consent as to her purse when she attempted to remove it and that the officer’s order forcing her to leave it did not cure the improper search.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Greub's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial encounter was a consensual contact or an unlawful seizure | Contact was consensual; no seizure occurred | Retaining ID and persistent questioning rendered the encounter a seizure, so consent was involuntary | Court accepted trial-court fact findings that encounter was consensual and did not reverse on seizure ground (focus on consent scope/revocation) |
| Whether general consent to search the car included closed containers like a purse | General consent to search for drugs reasonably includes containers that might hold drugs | Purse has an independent privacy interest and (under Newsom) need not be searched just because it is in the car | General consent can include containers, but scope is limited by any express or reasonably implied exclusions; here purse revocation controlled |
| Whether Greub’s attempt to remove her purse revoked or limited consent to search it | Attempting to take the purse was ambiguous, not a clear revocation; acquiescence after officer’s command shows no valid revocation | Attempt to remove purse was a clear, unequivocal act limiting/revoking consent as to the purse | Held that removing the purse (and thus excluding it from the vehicle) was a clear, unequivocal limitation/revocation of consent as to the purse |
| Whether Greub’s compliance with the officer’s command to leave the purse in the car ratified or waived her earlier revocation | Compliance manifested consent (or at least was ambiguous) so search was lawful | Compliance was coerced by officer command; acquiescence to asserted authority is not voluntary consent | Held that compliance under an officer’s command did not negate the earlier unequivocal revocation; evidence from purse suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (general vehicle-search consent reasonably includes containers when the object of the search is narcotics)
- State v. Newsom, 132 Idaho 698 (Idaho 1998) (purse in passenger’s hands entitled to privacy; officer’s order to leave it in car eliminates that privacy protection for search-incident rationale)
- State v. Thorpe, 141 Idaho 151 (consent may be revoked by statements that a reasonable person would understand as withdrawing consent)
- State v. Halseth, 157 Idaho 643 (consent can be withdrawn; once revoked officers may no longer rely on earlier consent)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness of consent judged under totality of the circumstances)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (fruits of unconstitutional searches/seizures must be suppressed)