State v. Troy Miles Svelmoe
160 Idaho 327
| Idaho | 2016Background
- Trooper stopped Troy Svelmoe for vehicle equipment violations; officer observed bloodshot eyes, alcohol odor, and Svelmoe failed two of three field sobriety tests. He was arrested and gave two breath samples showing .108 and .106 BAC.
- Because Svelmoe had two prior DUIs, the State charged him with felony DUI. At the first preliminary hearing the State did not introduce certified breath-test records and the magistrate dismissed for lack of probable cause.
- The State timely refiled the complaint and at a second preliminary hearing introduced the breath results; the magistrate bound the case to district court.
- In district court Svelmoe moved to dismiss (arguing refiling violated due process), to suppress the breath results (arguing involuntary consent/coercion), and in limine to exclude breath results (challenging reliability and validity of 2013 SOPs and IDAPA compliance). All motions were denied; breath results were admitted at trial and a jury convicted.
- On appeal the Idaho Supreme Court upheld denial of dismissal and suppression but held the district court erred in admitting the breath-test results because the State relied on the 2013 Idaho State Police SOPs (later declared void under IDAPA) and failed to provide expert foundation to establish reliability. The felony conviction was vacated and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether refiling after preliminary dismissal violated due process | Refiling was in good faith to present additional evidence (breath results) and is permissible | Refiling was improper because breath results were known at first hearing and not presented; constituted harassment/forum-shopping | Refiling did not violate due process; introducing evidence not presented at first hearing can constitute "new evidence" for refiling; no evidence of bad faith |
| Whether admission of breath results violated Fourth Amendment / was involuntary | Breath test was reasonable given probable cause; Haynes controls so voluntariness argument irrelevant | ALS advisory penalties coerced consent, making breath test involuntary | Denial of suppression affirmed; breath test was a reasonable search under Haynes and no warrant required |
| Whether SOPs (2013) could provide foundation for admitting breath results | State relied on compliance with 2013 SOPs to establish reliability of Intoxilyzer results | 2013 SOPs were void (IDAPA) and cannot serve as foundation; SOPs made mandatory steps permissive | District court erred: 2013 SOPs are void under Haynes; State could not rely on them to establish foundation |
| Whether State otherwise established adequate foundation for breath results without SOPs | Officer testimony about procedures, calibration, and result consistency was sufficient | Officer was not an expert; without expert testimony or valid SOPs foundation lacking | Admission was an abuse of discretion: absent valid SOP foundation the State needed expert proof and did not provide it; error not shown harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Haynes, 159 Idaho 36, 355 P.3d 1266 (Idaho 2015) (holding 2013 SOPs were void under IDAPA and breath-test searches reasonable where officer has probable cause)
- State v. Riendeau, 159 Idaho 52, 355 P.3d 1282 (Idaho 2015) (admission of breath results upheld where State provided expert and officer testimony independently establishing foundation despite void SOPs)
- Stockwell v. State, 98 Idaho 797, 573 P.2d 116 (Idaho 1977) (refiling after preliminary dismissal not per se unconstitutional; invalid if done in bad faith for harassment/forum-shopping)
- State v. Ruiz, 106 Idaho 336, 678 P.2d 1109 (Idaho 1984) (State may refile complaint after magistrate dismissal as practical remedy rather than appeal)