*1 sanctions, to order such and to order them
рaid individually. defense counsel attorney appropriate. fees are not
XI. CONCLUSION discovery We find there was rule violation, judge the trial imposing
abuse his discretion sanctions. sup- We hold that the sanction amount is ported by imposition record and its goals discovery. furthers the award We appeal respondent. costs on C.J., McDEVITT, and JOHNSON and SILAK, JJ., MOSS, Tern., J. Pro concur. Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent,
STATE of REIMER, Defendant-Appellant, Dennis
No. 20991. Idaho, Boise, February 1995Term. 23, 1995.
June Rehearing Aug. Denied *2 stayed
nate, the sentence was execution posted bond. appeal after Reimer pending
I. AND PRIOR
BACKGROUND PROCEEDINGS. February early morning hours of In the (Harring- Harrington Mike Detective ton) City Department Police the Boise pickup truck a white 1969 G.M.C. observed Hi Ho in Garden parking lot of the Club City. Harrington this truck was believed previously ob- for which he had same truck civil forfeiture warrant for tained seizure in a metham- of the truck based on the use Harring- Although phetamine transaction. registered owner of the ton knew that Reimer, Terry Harrington sus- truck was the actual pected that Dennis Reimer was Dennis Reimer of the vehicle because owner day of the the vehicle on the had driven that formed methamphetamine transaction for civil for the seizure warrant the basis forfeiture. officers, Har- of other
With assistance rington began of the vehicle. surveillance copy Harrington left to retrieve While warrant, the other officers the seizure operator of waiting truck for the watched the Harrington came back the vehicle to return. the surveillance then with the warrant and Boise, Collins, Westberg, & McCabe a.m., Sgt. approximately At 1:15 continued. argued. appellant. Thomas J. McCabe (Majors) Majors observed Dennis Lance, Gen., Atty. Douglas A. Alan G. emerge from the and two other individuals Gen., Boise, Werth, respon- Deputy Atty. pickup truck. Hi and enter the Ho Club argued. Douglas dent. A. Werth Majors pickup as the truck was followed alley from distance down an driven short McDEVITT, stop. Majors Chief Justice. came to a the club. The truck lights or siren of either the did not activate Dennis is a criminal case ear, past truck rather he drove his (Reimer) appeals from the denial of a park next to it. then around to turned evidence discovered motion already outside of the Dennis Reimer was the execution of a warrant connection with Majors approachеd him. Reim- vehicle when of a vehicle for civil forfeiture. for the seizure vehicle passenger side of the plea guilty er was on entered a conditional grey cup with a lid in his hand. possession of and had a charged count of single distribute; his waist fastened around He had a coat with intent to methamphetamine identified himself Reimer’s reser- area. conditioned on plea put down and told Reimer appeal the denial of the officer right to vation of his hands on his head. place has his suppress. Although Reimer motion Majors approached closer to complied and eight-year sentence to an been sentenced per- pat-down search of Reimer’s years conduct a years indetermi- fixed six with two from, Majors During that the son. interaction came noticed had a bottom. removed beverage removable the odor of an alcoholic on Reimer’s glass and discovered a bottom Another informed breath. officer plastic baggies, vial small all of and four seizing pur- that the truck which contained a substance he believed suant to seizure warrant. *3 methamphetamine. compartment be The Majors City police called for a Garden drugs not de- which the were found was sobriety officer to administer roadside ma- provide an signed storage, but rather to City police to neuvers Rеimer. The Garden insulating compartment the out- air between responded scene and Reim- officer to the had mug area in er of the and the interior surface perform er a series of tests. Garden liquid held. which a hot or cold is Majors City officer then informed that al- only by prying area can be seen hollowed out drinking, though Reimer had been he was mug. part the tight-fitting off the bottom of intoxicated such that he should be not looser-fitting pro- has a Unlike the lid which driving charged with a vehicle under the removal, truding easy the to facilitate tab influence of alcohol. snugly and bottom of the is sealed During Majors grey mug time had the strong fingernail a or pried comes off if with possession. Majors had first in his retrieved a a flat such as coin or screwdriver. mug from the had the location Reimer charged arrested with Reimer was awaiting arrival of set it while the the Gar- in- possession controlled with substance City officer den who administered the road- to to Reimer filed a motion tent distribute. sobriety During the time side maneuvers. he from what all evidence obtained performing had that Reimer roadside maintained was an unlawful search. tests, Majors had the inspected contents of motion court Reimer’s district denied smelling opening the lid and the the suppress. upholding In addition to to an alcoholic contents. bever- with of the officers’ contacts lawfulness which, age in the based his visual Reimer, court held that the district flashlight, he to with a believed observation was entitled to seize as evidence whiskey mixed Coke and ice cubes. be with it was violation and that container City Ma- the Garden officer informed Once dispose him to of the contents reasonable for charged jors that Reimer should not be with rattling he it when heard influence, Majors driving under the directed noise. issue a for an the officer to Reimer summons guilty plea a conditional Reimer enteréd Although Majors open container violation. charged count single to testified that he intended later distribute; methamphetamine with intent to statute, a a charged with state violation reser- plea conditioned on Reimer’s specify time he under what at the right appeal the denial of vation of his should cited. or ordinance Reimer statute suppress. appeal, On Reimer chal- motion tо go, Majors asked he was free warrant, validity lenges seizure he would be as soon as received said mug, the officer’s seizure of lawfulness of summons.1 constitutionality and the of the search could have his mug.
Reimer asked if he Majors replied keeping that he was back. II. pour liquid began to as evidence. whiskey and Coke he believed to be ANALYSIS. ground. course onto the THE A. VALIDITY OF WARRANT doing this he detected argues Turning cup up- first
coming
cup.
from the
con-
him and
hаd no
basis
contact
where the
lawful
to determine
side down
charged
open container
with an
Reimer was ever
Court does
include
The record before this
any
for an
copy
open
issued
or a munici-
summons
either
state statute
violation under
was no testimo-
violation. There
pal ordinance.
by Majors
as to whether
ny
or
other witness
responds that once
The State
person because
seized.
pat-down
search of his
duсt
seized,
longer
Reimer no
Specifi-
cup was
invalid.
the forfeiture warrant was
inter-
privacy interest
its
protectable
had a
cally,
argues that the
State,
According to the
compartments.
nal
to the
invalid because the affidavit submitted
to search
therefore entitled
the officers were
Magistrate
issued the seizure warrant
who
either for additional
reports that
the interior
incorporated police
relied on
inventory sеarch.
part
con-
of an
in fact attached. The State
were not
validity of the warrant
tends that
begin
the well-
always, we
with
As
on the facts of the case.
immaterial based
principle that:
established
However,
necessary for
because it is not
inquiry involves
Fourth Amendment
each
question,
of the case to decide this
resolution
*4
(1)
the defendant
determining:
whether
analysis only,
proceed
purposes of
we will
actual, subjective expectation of
had an
assumption
that
on the
(2) whether the defendant’s
privacy; and
Reimer, subject-
contacting
in
acted
objectively,
privacy, viewed
expectation of
having
and
him
pat-down
him to a
justifiable
under
was reasonable
perform the roadside maneuvers.
circumstances.
Wilkins,
215, 222,
P.2d
125 Idaho
868
State v.
THE
B.
OF
MUG
SEIZURE
(1994).
1231,
there is no
In this case
1238
challenges
mug
Reimer
the seizure of
that,
in
by secreting contraband
dispute
open
to show an
contаiner violation.
place,
evidenced an actual
unusual
probable
that the officers had no
maintains
subjective expectation
privacy in the
the Idaho
cause to believe
had violated
mug.
of the
The dis-
compartment
interior
statute,
23-505,
§
“open
be-
container”
I.C.
inquiry
therefore whether
positive
open
covers
containers that
cause
objectively
under
expectation
reasonable
was
completely
“origi-
at one time
sealed
were
that it was.
circumstances.
believe
these
We
packaging.
suggests the
nal”
Reimer also
mug
The
without the contents was
seizure of
tightly
The contents of the com
sealed.
cup,
emptied,
unlawful because the
once
opening
partment
not visible without
evidentiary
even if Reimer’s ac-
of no
value
initially had the
compartment.
by
open
tions were covered
possession, and there is
pеrsonal
in his
statute.
suggesting that he
no evidence in the record
again,
of this issue is
Here
determination
together,
mug.
Viewed
ever abandoned
unnecessary
appeal.
to our decision of this
that,
cir
facts demonstrate
under the
these
Accordingly,
accept,
purposes
also
we
cumstances,
deserving
mug was as
Reimer’s
only,
analysis
argument
the State’s
that Ma-
protection as a suit
of Fourth Amendment
jors lawfully
disposed
seized the
container used to
case or
other closed
its contents.
transport personal effects.
expec-
legitimate
can manifest
Individuals
THE
OF
C.
WARRANTLESS SEARCH
by placing items in
tations of
THE MUG
closed, opaque containers that conceal
Having given
the State the benefit
their contents from
view. United
above,
assumptions
we commence
described
Ross,
[822-23];
798,
102
456 U.S.
States
analysis
point
at the
in the course
our
(1982);
2157, 2172,
572
72 L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
had in his
events when
420 [426-
Robbins v.
just
made a
empty mug which he had
noticed
2841, 2846,
27];
L.Ed.2d 744
101
69
peculiar
noise.
Chadwick,
(1981);
433
United
2483,
1, 11,
2476,
53 L.Ed.2d
an arti-
97 S.Ct.
argues that the seizure of
U.S.
(1977).
general-
type of container
containing
538
having
capability
other
cle
lawful,
protection afforded
articles,
ly does not affect the
not of itself
even
does
Amendment. The
any-
the Fourth
justify
general exploratory search
initially
concluded that “a constitutional
Court has
thing contained within the article
Bannister, 449
‘worthy’
(quoting
Colorado v.
distinction between
‘unwоr
(1980)).
thy’
inappropriate.”
would
U.S.
101 S.Ct.
66 L.Ed.2d
containers
Ross,
However,
a search
still be constitu-
[
it in inventory any search was conducted ... or one of well- search warrant es criteria or accordance with standardized re- еxceptions to the warrant delineated con Id. Even when procedures. tablished quirement. away from the station with ducted involved, inventory searches automobile 128, 141 11, n. Horton v. lawfully upheld for searches n. 110 L.Ed.2d pur when the search was (citations omitted). locked containers departmental proce suant to an established Having interior com- that the determined Evans, See, e.g., dure. United States area for partment was an (10th Cir.1991). (Inventory F.2d objectively reason- Reimer had an actual and bag at a bus station carry-on conducted proceed privacy, we next able search.) a lawful was held as consequences offi- assess protected cer’s warrantless search of introduced before No evidence was space.2 that the search court establish district any depart in with was conducted connection are “deemed to Warrantless searches ” pre was not argument policy ment and ‘per Bottel se unreasonable.’ certainly it is son, appeal. while served for any way the sei- suggest, authorized nor can be seri- 2. The State does the vehicle. argued, zure ously the interior of warrant search of court hold that the district able this we might have been possible that the State successfully granting Reimer’s motion inventory exception erred in not to assert the seized, justification supрress for the warrantless search the evidence court, not do so. the district it did before III. explicitly articu does not
The State recognized exception to the late other CONCLUSION. justify the in order to point At in its the State search.3 one brief ruling denying Reim- court’s The district Majors’ inspection lawful be claims that motion to is reversed er’s the cause of the cause it was “to determine proceedings for further case is remanded amplifies оn this rattle.” The State never opinion. with this consistent any explanation of how the statement with hidden inside sound of solid JJ., TROUT, JOHNSON any way the sealed Tern, TRANSTRUM, Pro concur. Justice “open an container” violation. And relates to argument give SILAK, Justice, even we were State’s dissenting. reading an allu exceedingly generous part be- respectfully dissent from II.C. I exception,” “plain view container sion to under the circumstances cause I believe that аbsolutely there is no evidence the record case, objectively rea- Reimer had no readily dis suggesting that the justifiable expectation sonable illegal of the interior closed the contents plastic cup was seized. once his Donnes, compartment. See United opinion correctly focuses on The Court’s Cir.1991) (“the (10th objectively reason- Reimer had an whether exception view container to the warrant *6 privacy mug’s in the inte- expectation able requirement fourth amendment re 217, (Opinion the circumstances at rior under mains valid. when a container is ‘not 430, citing v. 899 P.2d at State Wilkins closed’, ‘transparent’, or or its ‘distinc when (1994)), 215, 222, 1231, Idaho 868 P.2d ‘proclaims ... configuration’ tive its con sup- In wrong conclusion. but reaches the tents’, supports the container no reasonable port of the conclusion that Reimer’s expectation privacy can and the contents рrotection, the deserved Fourth Amendment (footnote be said to be view” opinion says mug’s bottom was Court’s omitted); citations see also United States sealed, tightly the interior contents were not (9th Cir.1985). Miller, 554, Ma being opened, and Reimer visible without
jors’ curiosity
rattling
about the
noise of the
never
mug in his
had the
justify
cup did not
a warrantless search of
217,
at
(Opinion
it.
899 P.2d
abandoned
cup because
the inside
430).
unconvincing,
analysis is
because
rattling
nothing
there was
аbout the
sound of
already
cup had
ignores
it
the fact that the
objects
suggested further
solid
properly
as evidence.
seized
justification
for seizure of the
related to
liquid
based on its
contents.
could have his
Reimer asked
When
back,
Sgt.
replied that he was
has failed to meet its
Because
point,
At that
Reim-
establishing
applicability
keeping
it as evidence.
burden of
objectively
justifi-
reasonable and
any exception
require-
er had no
to the search warrant
cup’s
in the
inner
ment,
expectation
able
presumptive
unreasonableness of
jail
part of the administrative
the search was autho-
and searched as
3. The State contends that
reasoning
simply
booking
Supreme
rized under the
of United
procedure,
Court
800,
1234,
Edwards, 415 U.S.
94 S.Ct.
delay
prevent
justifiable
did not
held that the
(1974).
of Edwards re-
L.Ed.2d 771
A review
conducting
type of
police from later
the same
position.
support
veals that it does not
the State's
initially
they
to undertake.
entitled
search
Edwards, although the defendant was arrested
In
short,
“booking”
inapplicable
Edwards is an
personal
jailed, he was allowed to retain his
and
clothing
clothing
involving
which in no
a search of
case
day when substitute cloth-
until the next
way
the search of a closed container
authorizes
Recognizing that the defen-
was obtained.
booking procedure.
apart
a
seizеd
initially
clothing
been seized
dant’s
could have
reasonably expect
important
contents.
would
ment of
Fourth
val-
One
Amendment
would be handled and its contents
ues.
legiti-
has
that a
tested. This Court
declared
Although
precise holding
may
Ross
mate
means
than
more
(pursuant
excep-
control here
to “automobile
subjective expectation
being
of not
discov-
tion” to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant
ered.
State Wilkins 125
requirement,
probable
who have
(quoting
868 P.2d
State v.
cause
conduct warrantless search of ve-
Jennings, 101 Idaho
611 P.2d
thorough
hicle
and its contents that is
(1980)).
person under
No reasonable
warrant),
magistrate
could authorize
justifiably expect
could
circumstances
quoted
appropriate.
above
rationale is
a separate
have to obtain
would
removing
cup’s
search warrant before
probable
There was
cause
search
bottom.
Sgt.
suspicious
heard the
after
however,
Court,
According to the
lawful-
opinion
says
noise. The
Court’s
ly
piece
of evidence with
justify
warrantless
opened
cannot
without the
first
sug-
nothing about the noise
because
obtaining
separate
warrant. The
gested
regarding
cup’s
further evidence
recognized
has
United States
liquid
(Opinion at
P.2d at
contents.
that such
would im-
a blanket
432).
disagree
hindsight
I
with the .Court’s
pose substantial burdens on law enforcement
glass
appraisаl.
easily
could
vial
advancing legitimate Fourth Amend-
without
bourbon,
rum,
whiskey,
in-
contained
or
concurring opinion
In a
ment values.
had,
methamphetamine.
If
such
stead of
420, 433-434,
Robbins
certainly
probative to the
evidence could
2841, 2849-50,
wise,
Villarreal,
in U.S. v.
In view of the burdens on limited resources, judicial it is unreason- able under the require circumstances here to get a search warrant before they may plastic cup remove the bottom of a which has seized as evidence. Accordingly, I dissent.
TION, employer, Loggers and Associated Exchange, surety, Defendants-Appel-
lants.
No. 21537. Idaho, Court of Idaho, April North 1995Term.
June 1995. Rehearing Aug. Denied