State v. Vivian, 518 P.3d 378

Deputy Brott stopped Vivian for a nonworking brake light; body camera recorded the encounter.
Vivian told officers his license was suspended; Brott prepared a citation but delayed returning it while a K-9 was summoned after Officer Short said Vivian might have narcotics.
A drug-detection dog alerted to Vivian’s vehicle; officers searched and found methamphetamine and paraphernalia; Vivian made incriminating statements before and after receiving Miranda warnings.
The district court found the initial stop lawful but that Brott unlawfully extended the detention; it suppressed pre-Miranda statements and physical evidence was held admissible under inevitable discovery; it admitted post-Miranda statements.
Vivian pled guilty reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling; the Court of Appeals declined review on preservation grounds and this Court granted review.

Issue	State's Argument	Vivian's Argument	Held
Preservation of post-Miranda suppression claim	Vivian failed to obtain an adverse ruling and thus did not preserve the issue on appeal	Vivian properly presented the suppression claim in writing, with briefing and a noticed hearing	Vivian preserved the issue; presenting the issue with argument and notice suffices (Court of Appeals’ contrary approach rejected)
Whether inevitable discovery permits admission of post-Miranda statements	Drugs would inevitably have been discovered (vehicle would remain and be lawfully searched), so statements made after confronting that evidence would also be admissible	Statements are fruit of the illegal extension and the State failed to prove any exception to the exclusionary rule	Inevitable discovery does not apply to verbal statements; statements are inherently different from physical evidence and cannot be admitted on that basis
Whether Miranda warnings attenuated the taint (attenuation doctrine)	Post-Miranda statements were products of free will and Miranda dispelled the taint	Miranda warnings do not automatically purge Fourth Amendment taint; burden rests on State to show an exception	The State did not raise attenuation below; appellate court will not consider an unpreserved attenuation argument; district court erred in assuming Miranda alone cleansed the taint

Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree framework)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (Miranda warnings alone do not necessarily attenuate Fourth Amendment taint)
State v. Bills, 166 Idaho 778 (Ct. App. 2020) (verbal statements differ from physical evidence; inevitable discovery inapplicable to statements)
State v. Rowland, 158 Idaho 784 (Ct. App. 2015) (elements and scope of inevitable discovery doctrine)
United States v. Polanco, 93 F.3d 555 (9th Cir. 1996) (inevitable discovery does not salvage inculpatory statements)
State v. Kapelle, 158 Idaho 121 (Ct. App. 2014) (defendant’s initial burden to show factual nexus; burden shifting to State for exceptions)