State v. Wilson, 495 P.3d 1030

Background:

At ~2:30 a.m. a Jack‑in‑the‑Box employee called police reporting a possible "drunk driver" in the drive‑through after occupants said there was alcohol in the car.
Officer Malone approached the vehicle from the passenger side while it remained in the drive‑through; he saw four empty 32‑oz beer cans on the passenger‑side floor but had no driving observations and could not attribute any odor to the driver while speaking through the passenger window.
The officer instructed the driver (Andrew Wilson) to move the car into the restaurant parking lot and park; the district court found that command was a seizure (not contested on appeal).
After Wilson parked and exited, the officer smelled alcohol on Wilson, observed glassy eyes and nystagmus, conducted field sobriety tests, arrested him for DUI, and later obtained a blood warrant showing BAC 0.192%.
Wilson moved to suppress all evidence as the fruit of an unlawful detention; the district court granted the motion and dismissed the charge. The Court of Appeals reversed; the Idaho Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the district court.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Officer Malone’s instruction to move the car was a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion	The initial encounter was consensual or a community‑caretaking welfare check and, in any event, reasonable suspicion existed at seizure	The instruction to move the car was a seizure and there was no reasonable suspicion at that moment	Court accepted seizure finding and held State failed to preserve argument that reasonable suspicion existed at initial seizure; affirmed suppression
Applicability of the community‑caretaking/welfare‑check exception	Officer was performing a welfare check that evolved into a DUI investigation once odor/eyes were attributable to Wilson	No emergency or need for immediate assistance justified community‑caretaking exception	District court (and Supreme Court) found community‑caretaking exception did not apply; State conceded this on appeal
When reasonable suspicion arose	State argued reasonable suspicion existed once officer first contacted vehicle	Wilson argued reasonable suspicion did not exist until after he exited and the odor could be attributed to him	State had argued below that reasonable suspicion developed only after exit; Supreme Court held State may not change position on appeal and decline to consider the new argument
Suppression remedy (fruit of the poisonous tree)	If initial detention lawful, later evidence admissible	If initial detention unlawful, subsequent evidence must be suppressed	Because State failed to preserve its new argument, suppression stands and dismissal is affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Chernobieff, 161 Idaho 537 (2016) (standard for appellate review of Court of Appeals decisions)
State v. Lute, 150 Idaho 837 (2011) (direct review principles when Supreme Court grants review)
Gilpin‑Grubb v. State, 138 Idaho 76 (2002) (Supreme Court narrows scope when hearing matters on review)
Marsalis v. State, 166 Idaho 334 (2020) (discussion of considerations for appellate review)
State v. Hoskins, 165 Idaho 217 (2019) (preservation rule: issues not raised below generally not considered on appeal)
State v. Cohagan, 162 Idaho 717 (2017) (precluding party from changing trial position on appeal after concession below)
State v. DuValt, 131 Idaho 550 (1998) (exception when issue was argued to or decided by trial court)
State v. Jeske, 164 Idaho 862 (2019) (reaffirming DuValt exception)
Siercke v. Siercke, 167 Idaho 709 (2020) (permitting refined appellate arguments only when underlying issue and position were presented below)
Gonzalez v. [State], 165 Idaho 99 (2019) (preservation principles cited)