State v. SKURLOCK, 150 Idaho 404

Skurlock resided in a Sandpoint motel; police executed a daytime search warrant at ~6:00 p.m. on Feb 27, 2009.
Evidence from the search led to charges of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver.
Skurlock moved to suppress; he argued the warrant was not executed during daytime hours.
District court found sunset at 5:28 p.m., but the search began at 6:00–6:01 p.m.; officers testified they could see clearly without artificial light.
District court relied on Burnside to define daytime as dawn to darkness; denied suppression.
Skurlock entered a conditional guilty plea preserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling; sentence imposed but stayed pending appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Burnside should be overruled for defining daytime.	Skurlock argues Burnside is flawed and a bright-line rule should be adopted.	State contends Burnside is controlling and rational; Skurlock failed to show constitutional error.	Court affirms district court; Burnside defense applied; refuses overruling.

State v. Burnside, 113 Idaho 65, 741 P.2d 352 (Ct.App.1987) (definition of daytime for daytime searches)
State v. Lindner, 100 Idaho 37, 592 P.2d 852 (1979) (nighttime searches greater privacy invasion; rationale for daytime rule)
State v. Watts, 142 Idaho 230, 127 P.3d 133 (2005) (standard of review for suppression orders; bifurcated review)
State v. Diaz, 144 Idaho 300, 160 P.3d 739 (2007) (application of constitutional principles to suppression rulings)