State v. Sutterfield, 484 P.3d 839

Sutterfield stole a restaurant-owned cell phone, was confronted at a nearby laundromat, and returned the phone to the restaurant employee.
The employee and a coworker called 911; police arrived minutes later. Officer Barghoorn patted down and handcuffed Sutterfield, then read Miranda warnings and obtained an admission that he stole the phone.
The employee signed an affidavit and a "Statement of Private Person's (Citizen's) Arrest" requesting police transport; those forms were not shown to Sutterfield and the employee did not personally tell Sutterfield he was under citizen's arrest.
Officer Barghoorn told Sutterfield, "You are under arrest for petit theft," and then searched him; the search produced methamphetamine and led to a felony possession charge.
The district court suppressed the meth evidence and dismissed the felony count, concluding the arrest was a warrantless officer arrest for a completed misdemeanor (violating Idaho Const. art. I, § 17) because Idaho Code § 19-608 notice requirements were not satisfied.
The Idaho Supreme Court reversed: it held the restaurant employee effected a lawful citizen's arrest with Officer Barghoorn acting as the employee's agent, and the officer's failure to fully recite the statutory notice did not amount to a constitutional violation requiring suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Sutterfield)	Held
Nature of the seizure: citizen's arrest vs. peace‑officer arrest	It was a citizen's arrest by the employee; the officer acted as the employee's agent.	The officer effectuated a warrantless arrest for a completed misdemeanor he did not observe, violating Article I, § 17.	Court: It was a citizen's arrest; officer acted as agent of the private arresting person.
Compliance with I.C. § 19‑608 (notice: intent, cause, authority)	Officer informed intent and cause; acted as agent—statutory notice largely satisfied.	Officer failed to inform Sutterfield of the officer's authority to effectuate the citizen's arrest (third prong).	Court: Officer failed the third prong, but that statutory shortfall did not convert the seizure into a constitutional violation.
Remedy for statutory noncompliance: suppression appropriate?	Suppression is not proper for a mere statutory violation absent a constitutional violation.	Suppression required because statutory failure rendered the arrest unlawful under Article I, § 17.	Court: Suppression not warranted; remedy applies to constitutional violations, and none occurred here.
Validity of search incident to arrest	Search was permissible as incident to a lawful citizen's arrest; evidence admissible.	Search was fruit of an unlawful arrest and must be suppressed.	Court: Search incident valid; evidence admissible.

State v. Clarke, 165 Idaho 393 (2019) (Article I, § 17 bars warrantless arrests for completed misdemeanors not in officer's presence)
State v. Green, 158 Idaho 884 (2015) (suppression not an appropriate remedy for statutory violations that are not constitutional violations)
State v. Sutherland, 130 Idaho 472 (Ct. App. 1997) (police may act as agent of a private person assisting in a citizen's arrest)
State v. Lagasse, 135 Idaho 637 (Ct. App. 2001) (search‑incident‑to‑arrest exception applies to searches incident to citizen's arrests)
State v. Blythe, 166 Idaho 713 (2020) (warrantless searches presumptively unreasonable; exceptions applied narrowly)
Anderson v. Foster, 73 Idaho 340 (1953) (discussing statutory notice requirement for citizen's arrests and the relevance of a defendant's request for information)