State v. Sydney Lorelei Neal, 314 P.3d 166

On March 27, 2011 Sidney (Sydney) Neal gave birth; the newborn showed signs of opiate withdrawal and umbilical cord testing returned positive for methadone, confirmed by an outside lab.
Neal admitted taking prescribed oxycodone and hydrocodone during pregnancy but denied ever taking or being prescribed methadone.
The State charged Neal with felony possession of methadone under I.C. § 37-2732(c); a magistrate found probable cause and bound her over to district court.
Neal moved to dismiss for lack of probable cause, arguing that the mere presence of a drug in the body (or in the infant’s cord blood) cannot establish possession because no dominion or control existed over the substance after ingestion.
The district court denied the motion, the parties stipulated Neal could plead guilty while preserving the dismissal issue on appeal, Neal pleaded guilty with withheld judgment and probation, and she timely appealed the denial of the motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether umbilical-cord positive test can establish probable cause for possession of methadone	The presence of methadone in cord blood plus circumstantial evidence of opioid use supports an inference Neal knowingly ingested and therefore possessed methadone before consumption	Cord blood result alone cannot prove possession because once ingested the defendant lacks dominion or control; a positive test without additional evidence is insufficient	Probable cause exists: magistrate could reasonably infer Neal consumed methadone, possessed it prior to consumption, and knew its identity or that it was a controlled substance
Whether the State charged possession of the drug while it was in the cord blood	N/A (State argued it charged possession prior to ingestion)	Neal contended the information alleged possession "on or about" April 4, 2011, suggesting possession of cord blood residue	The Court found the information’s date did not mean the State charged possession of the cord; the State argued and pursued possession at time of ingestion, so the court need not decide post-consumption possession

State v. Fain, 116 Idaho 82 (1989) (probable cause standard at preliminary hearing)
State v. Gibson, 106 Idaho 54 (1983) (definition of probable cause)
State v. Edmonson, 113 Idaho 230 (1987) (probable cause less than preponderance)
State v. Fox, 124 Idaho 924 (1993) (possession requires knowledge of possession)
State v. Blake, 133 Idaho 237 (1999) (knowledge of the identity of the substance supports possession)
State v. Tucker, 131 Idaho 174 (1998) (knowledge that substance is controlled suffices)
State v. Rhode, 133 Idaho 459 (1999) (no requirement that possessed amount be usable)
State v. Owens, 101 Idaho 632 (1979) (time need not be exact in information when time is not element)