State v. Wolfe, 445 P.3d 147

In early 2017 a family dog died from antifreeze ingestion; other suspicious acts (chewed golf balls, punctured tires) led to a police investigation.
A witness (Collins) told police Wolfe solicited him to kill her ex (Robert Wolfe) and poison a dog; he recorded a conversation and gave statements to detectives.
Detective Seibel interviewed Monica Wolfe, read Miranda rights, and discussed allegedly incriminating text messages on a cell phone Wolfe had; near the interview’s end the detective seized the phone without a warrant or Wolfe’s consent.
After the warrantless seizure, Wolfe made incriminating statements; days later police obtained a warrant, searched the phone, and found evidence used to charge Wolfe with aiding and abetting poisoning animals (a conspiracy count was later dismissed).
At the suppression hearing the district court ruled the warrantless seizure unlawful and suppressed phone-derived evidence; the State unsuccessfully advanced several exceptions below and then raised the independent source doctrine for the first time on appeal.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding the State failed to preserve the independent source argument because prosecutors expressly relied on attenuation (not independent source) below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence from phone should be admissible despite warrantless seizure under the independent source exception	Independent source applies because a subsequent, valid warrant (untainted) authorized the search	Phone was seized without warrant or consent; no exigency; later warrant was tainted by prior illegal seizure	Not reached on merits — State failed to preserve independent source claim; suppression affirmed
Whether attenuation or other exceptions justify admission	Attenuation, consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances justified seizure/search	No consent, no exigency, improper warrantless seizure; suppression required	District court properly rejected State’s attenuation/consent/exigency claims; no change on appeal
Preservation of issues for appeal	State argued Russo and cited it below; thus independent source was preserved	Defense argued State expressly disavowed independent source below; issue not litigated	Court held parties are bound to theories presented below; State expressly relied on attenuation, so independent source not preserved
Whether warrant for Google accounts was invalid due to timing	State contended the Google warrant was valid	Wolfe argued late execution voided the warrant	District court did not suppress Google-account evidence; court affirmed that warrant was not executed late

State v. Watts, 142 Idaho 230 (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)
State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841 (bifurcated review: factual findings vs. legal conclusions)
Halen v. State, 136 Idaho 829 (state bears burden to prove exception to warrant requirement)
State v. Downing, 163 Idaho 26 (independent source exception discussion)
State v. Russo, 157 Idaho 299 (cell-phone search and principles on excluding unlawfully obtained info from warrant affidavits)
State v. Garcia-Rodriguez, 162 Idaho 271 (issue-preservation principle applies equally to all parties)
Smith v. Sterling, 1 Idaho 128 (early articulation of preservation and fairness in appellate review)