exclusionary rule in Idaho

2025See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485 (1963) (holding the exclusionary rule bars the use of physical evidence and verbal statements obtained as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation); see also State v. Phelps, 131 Idaho 249, 253 , 953 P.2d 999, 1003 (Ct. App. 1998) (holding dismissal of a charge is not the appropriate remedy when an officer acts outside his jurisdiction in obtaining evidence).

2021“Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is subject to the exclusionary rule, which requires unlawfully seized evidence to be excluded from trial.” State v. Cohagan, 162 Idaho 717, 720 , 404 P.3d 659, 662 (2017); see e.g., Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485 (1963); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 846 , 103 P.3d 454, 459 (2004).

2025The exclusionary rule requires the suppression of “primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure” as well as “evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’” Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 804 (1984) (citation omitted).

2025The exclusionary rule requires the suppression of “primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure” as well as “evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’” Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 804 (1984) (citations omitted).

2024Indeed, “[s]tate [c]ourts are at liberty to find within the provisions of their constitutions greater protection than is afforded under the federal constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.” Donato, 135 Idaho at 471 , 20 P.3d at 7 (quoting State v. Newman, 108 Idaho 5 , 11 n.6, 696 P.2d 856 , 862 n.6 (1985)); see, e.g., State v. Webb, 130 Idaho 462 , 943 P.2d 52 (1997) (holding that Article I, section 17 provides broader protection for curtilage than that provided under the Fourth Amendment); State v. Guzman, 122 Idaho 981 , 842 P.2d 660 (1992) (rejecting a good faith exc

2024Indeed, “[s]tate [c]ourts are at liberty to find within the provisions of their constitutions greater protection than is afforded under the federal constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.” Donato, 135 Idaho at 471 , 20 P.3d at 7 (quoting State v. Newman, 108 Idaho 5 , 11 n.6, 696 P.2d 856 , 862 n.6 (1985)); see, e.g., State v. Webb, 130 Idaho 462 , 943 P.2d 52 (1997) (holding that Article I, section 17 provides broader protection for curtilage than that provided under the Fourth Amendment); State v. Guzman, 122 Idaho 981 , 842 P.2d 660 (1992) (rejecting a good faith exc

2025See State v. Schaffer, 133 Idaho 126, 130 , 982 P.2d 961, 965 (Ct. App. 1999). 6 exceptions” to the exclusionary rule: “independent origin, inevitable discovery, and attenuated basis.” Stuart v. State, 136 Idaho 490, 495 , 36 P.3d 1278, 1283 (2001). “[T]he inevitable discovery doctrine applies when a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the evidence discovered pursuant to an unlawful search or seizure would have inevitably been discovered by lawful methods.” State v. Rowland, 158 Idaho 784, 787 , 352 P.3d 506, 509 (Ct. App. 2015).

2025See State v. Schaffer, 133 Idaho 126, 130 , 982 P.2d 961, 965 (Ct. App. 1999). 6 exceptions” to the exclusionary rule: “independent origin, inevitable discovery, and attenuated basis.” Stuart v. State, 136 Idaho 490, 495 , 36 P.3d 1278, 1283 (2001). “[T]he inevitable discovery doctrine applies when a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the evidence discovered pursuant to an unlawful search or seizure would have inevitably been discovered by lawful methods.” State v. Rowland, 158 Idaho 784, 787 , 352 P.3d 506, 509 (Ct. App. 2015).

2013As we said in State v. Bower, 135 Idaho 554, 558 , 21 P.3d 491, 495 (Ct. App. 2001): “Use of the exclusionary rule imposes a price upon society in that it often enables the guilty to escape prosecution.

2013As we said in State v. Bower, 135 Idaho 554, 558 , 21 P.3d 491, 495 (Ct. App. 2001): “Use of the exclusionary rule imposes a price upon society in that it often enables the guilty to escape prosecution.

2026The dissent succinctly summarized the premise of the doctrine, noting that, under certain circumstances, the deterrence rationale behind the exclusionary rule does not “justify the social cost of excluding probative evidence from a criminal trial.” Id. at 544–45 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (first citing Nix, 467 U.S. at 444–46; and then citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 906–09 (1984)). a.

2025The inevitable discovery doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984) and adopted by the Idaho Supreme Court in Stuart v. State, 136 Idaho 490, 497-99 , 36 P.3d 1278, 1285-87 (2001).

2023“The exclusionary rule requires the suppression of both ‘primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure’ and, pertinent here, ‘evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality,’ the proverbial ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’ ” Cohagan, 162 Idaho at 720 , 404 P.3d at 662 (emphasis added) (quoting Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 804 (1984) (internal quotations omitted)).

2023“The exclusionary rule requires the suppression of both ‘primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure’ and, pertinent here, ‘evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality,’ the proverbial ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’ ” Cohagan, 162 Idaho at 720 , 404 P.3d at 662 (emphasis added) (quoting Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 804 (1984) (internal quotations omitted)).

2026The dissent succinctly summarized the premise of the doctrine, noting that, under certain circumstances, the deterrence rationale behind the exclusionary rule does not “justify the social cost of excluding probative evidence from a criminal trial.” Id. at 544–45 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (first citing Nix, 467 U.S. at 444–46; and then citing United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 906–09 (1984)). a.

2012The Court also held that “the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates.” Id. at 916 , 104 S.Ct. at 3417 , 82 L.Ed.2d at 694 .

2026We again stress the astute observation of our Court of Appeals: ‘The inevitable discovery doctrine ‘is not intended to swallow the exclusionary rule whole by substituting what the police should have done for what they really did.’ Id. (quoting State v. Holman, 109 Idaho 382, 392 , 707 P.2d 493, 503 (Ct. App. 1985)) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

2026We again stress the astute observation of our Court of Appeals: ‘The inevitable discovery doctrine ‘is not intended to swallow the exclusionary rule whole by substituting what the police should have done for what they really did.’ Id. (quoting State v. Holman, 109 Idaho 382, 392 , 707 P.2d 493, 503 (Ct. App. 1985)) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

2021“Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is subject to the exclusionary rule, which requires unlawfully seized evidence to be excluded from trial.” State v. Cohagan, 162 Idaho 717, 720 , 404 P.3d 659, 662 (2017); see e.g., Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485 (1963); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 846 , 103 P.3d 454, 459 (2004).

2021“Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is subject to the exclusionary rule, which requires unlawfully seized evidence to be excluded from trial.” State v. Cohagan, 162 Idaho 717, 720 , 404 P.3d 659, 662 (2017); see e.g., Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485 (1963); State v. Page, 140 Idaho 841, 846 , 103 P.3d 454, 459 (2004).

2017As our Court of Appeals has stated, “The [inevitable discovery] doctrine ‘is not intended to swallow the exclusionary rule whole by substituting what the police should have done for what they really did.’” State v. Holman, 109 Idaho 382, 392 , 707 P.2d 493, 503 (Ct. App. 1985) (citing State v. Cook, 106 Idaho 209, 226 , 677 P.2d 522, 539 (Ct. App. 1984)).

2017As our Court of Appeals has stated, “The [inevitable discovery] doctrine ‘is not intended to swallow the exclusionary rule whole by substituting what the police should have done for what they really did.’” State v. Holman, 109 Idaho 382, 392 , 707 P.2d 493, 503 (Ct. App. 1985) (citing State v. Cook, 106 Idaho 209, 226 , 677 P.2d 522, 539 (Ct. App. 1984)).

2026The exclusionary rule requires the suppression of “primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an 5 illegal search or seizure” as well as “evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’” Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 237 (2016) (citation omitted).

2022“The exclusionary rule encompasses both the primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure and . . . evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality, the so-called fruit of the poisonous tree.” Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232, 237 (2016) (quotations omitted).

2021Because the exclusionary rule imposes a price upon society that can enable the guilty to 2 escape prosecution, the exclusionary rule is only applicable if there is a causal connection between the police misconduct and the acquisition of the challenged evidence, i.e., if the evidence is “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 805 (1984); State v. Keene, 144 Idaho 915, 918 , 174 P.3d 885, 888 (Ct. App. 2007).

2021Because the exclusionary rule imposes a price upon society that can enable the guilty to 2 escape prosecution, the exclusionary rule is only applicable if there is a causal connection between the police misconduct and the acquisition of the challenged evidence, i.e., if the evidence is “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 805 (1984); State v. Keene, 144 Idaho 915, 918 , 174 P.3d 885, 888 (Ct. App. 2007).

2026State v. Vivian, 171 Idaho 79 , 83–84, 518 P.3d 378 , 382–83 (2022).

2026State v. Vivian, 171 Idaho 79 , 83–84, 518 P.3d 378 , 382–83 (2022).

2020Fruits of the Poisonous Tree The State argues that even if the search of the vehicle or the bottles was unconstitutional, the district court erred in suppressing the field sobriety and BAC tests as fruits of the poisonous tree. “[S]uppression of evidence under the exclusionary rule is appropriate only where the challenged evidence is in some sense, whether direct or indirect, the product of illegal government activity.” State v. Keene, 144 Idaho 915, 918 , 174 P.3d 885, 888 (Ct. App. 2007); see also Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 815 (1984); State v. McBaine, 144 Idaho 130, 133 , 157 P

2020Fruits of the Poisonous Tree The State argues that even if the search of the vehicle or the bottles was unconstitutional, the district court erred in suppressing the field sobriety and BAC tests as fruits of the poisonous tree. “[S]uppression of evidence under the exclusionary rule is appropriate only where the challenged evidence is in some sense, whether direct or indirect, the product of illegal government activity.” State v. Keene, 144 Idaho 915, 918 , 174 P.3d 885, 888 (Ct. App. 2007); see also Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 815 (1984); State v. McBaine, 144 Idaho 130, 133 , 157 P

2020State v. Bunting, 142 Idaho 908, 915 , 136 P.3d 379, 386 (Ct. App. 2006).

2020State v. Bunting, 142 Idaho 908, 915 , 136 P.3d 379, 386 (Ct. App. 2006).

2016Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 815 (1984); State v. Wigginton, 142 Idaho 180, 184 , 125 P.3d 536, 540 (Ct. App. 2005).

2016Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 815 (1984); State v. Wigginton, 142 Idaho 180, 184 , 125 P.3d 536, 540 (Ct. App. 2005).

2012In State v. Rauch, 99 Idaho 586 , 586 P.2d 671 (1978), this Court stated that Weeks v. United States “accurately described the pul-póse of the exclusionary rule.” Id. at 592 , 586 P.2d at 677 .

2012In State v. Rauch, 99 Idaho 586 , 586 P.2d 671 (1978), this Court stated that Weeks v. United States “accurately described the pul-póse of the exclusionary rule.” Id. at 592 , 586 P.2d at 677 .

2025“The exclusionary rule requires the suppression of both ‘primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure’ and, pertinent here, ‘evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality,’ the proverbial ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’” State v. Plata, 171 Idaho 833 , 839, 526 P.3d 1003, 1009 (2023) (emphasis and citation omitted).

2025“The exclusionary rule requires the suppression of both ‘primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure’ and, pertinent here, ‘evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality,’ the proverbial ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’” State v. Plata, 171 Idaho 833 , 839, 526 P.3d 1003, 1009 (2023) (emphasis and citation omitted).

2021“In time . . . [the United States Supreme Court] came to acknowledge the exclusionary rule for what it undoubtedly is—a ‘judicially created remedy’ of [that] Court’s own making.” Davis, 564 U.S. at 238 (citing United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (1974)).

2017Strieff, — U.S. at —, 136 S.Ct. at 2062 , 195 L.Ed.2d at 408-09; Simpson, 439 F.3d at 495 . c.Flagrancy and purpose The purpose of the exclusionary rule, under federal law, is to deter police *723 misconduct. 3 Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236-37 , 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2426-27 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285, 293-94 (2011).

2026We again stress the astute observation of our Court of Appeals: “The inevitable discovery doctrine ‘is not intended to swallow the exclusionary rule whole by substituting what the police should have done for what they really did.’ ” Id. (citations omitted and emphasis added).

2024We again stress the astute observation of our Court of Appeals: “The inevitable discovery doctrine ‘is not intended to swallow the exclusionary rule whole by substituting what the police should have done for what they really did.’ ” Id. (citations omitted and emphasis added).

2025See State v. Schaffer, 133 Idaho 126, 130 , 982 P.2d 961, 965 (Ct. App. 1999). 6 exceptions” to the exclusionary rule: “independent origin, inevitable discovery, and attenuated basis.” Stuart v. State, 136 Idaho 490, 495 , 36 P.3d 1278, 1283 (2001). “[T]he inevitable discovery doctrine applies when a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the evidence discovered pursuant to an unlawful search or seizure would have inevitably been discovered by lawful methods.” State v. Rowland, 158 Idaho 784, 787 , 352 P.3d 506, 509 (Ct. App. 2015).

2025See State v. Schaffer, 133 Idaho 126, 130 , 982 P.2d 961, 965 (Ct. App. 1999). 6 exceptions” to the exclusionary rule: “independent origin, inevitable discovery, and attenuated basis.” Stuart v. State, 136 Idaho 490, 495 , 36 P.3d 1278, 1283 (2001). “[T]he inevitable discovery doctrine applies when a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the evidence discovered pursuant to an unlawful search or seizure would have inevitably been discovered by lawful methods.” State v. Rowland, 158 Idaho 784, 787 , 352 P.3d 506, 509 (Ct. App. 2015).

2007The Court noted that the Miranda warnings were a prophylactic rule employed to protect Fifth Amendment rights against the compulsion inherent in custodial interrogations, while the exclusionary rule, when applied to Fourth Amendment violations, “serves interests and policies that are distinct from those its serves under the Fifth.” Id. at 602 , 95 S.Ct. at 2261 , 45 L.Ed.2d at 426 .

2007The Court noted that the Miranda warnings were a prophylactic rule employed to protect Fifth Amendment rights against the compulsion inherent in custodial interrogations, while the exclusionary rule, when applied to Fourth Amendment violations, “serves interests and policies that are distinct from those its serves under the Fifth.” Id. at 602 , 95 S.Ct. at 2261 , 45 L.Ed.2d at 426 .

2012However, the court in Arregui specifically relied upon United States Supreme Court authority in adopting the exclusionary rule.” According to the State, this shows “that the Idaho Supreme Court did not adopt an exclusionary rale for the Idaho Constitution different from that pronounced by the United States Supreme Court for the Fourth Amendment.” In Arregui , this Court did quote the three-justice concurrence in State v. Myers, which approved of the doctrine of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914).

2012However, the court in Arregui specifically relied upon United States Supreme Court authority in adopting the exclusionary rule.” According to the State, this shows “that the Idaho Supreme Court did not adopt an exclusionary rale for the Idaho Constitution different from that pronounced by the United States Supreme Court for the Fourth Amendment.” In Arregui , this Court did quote the three-justice concurrence in State v. Myers, which approved of the doctrine of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 , 34 S.Ct. 341 , 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914).

2021Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 492 (1976); State v. Bower, 135 Idaho 554, 558 , 21 P.3d 491, 495 (Ct. App. 2001).

2012Rather, “[t]he primary justification for the exclusionary rule ... is the deterrence of police conduct that violates Fourth Amendment rights.” Id.

2016The Flagrancy and Purpose of the Police Misconduct As to the third factor, determining the flagrancy and purpose of the police misconduct “satisfies the deterrence rationale for application of the exclusionary rule.” United States v. George, 883 F.2d 1407, 1416 (9th Cir. 1989); Bainbridge, 117 Idaho at 250 , 787 P.2d at 236 .

2016The Flagrancy and Purpose of the Police Misconduct As to the third factor, determining the flagrancy and purpose of the police misconduct “satisfies the deterrence rationale for application of the exclusionary rule.” United States v. George, 883 F.2d 1407, 1416 (9th Cir. 1989); Bainbridge, 117 Idaho at 250 , 787 P.2d at 236 .

2012The Court has since expanded the good-faith exception to include a search conducted in reasonable reliance upon a subsequently invalidated statute because legislators, like judges, are not the focus of the rule, Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987); an arrest in reasonable reliance upon information that the arrestee had an outstanding warrant, where the warrant had been quashed but the court clerk had failed to notify the sheriffs office, because applying the exclusionary rule would not deter mistakes made by court employees, Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 , 1

2012The Court has since expanded the good-faith exception to include a search conducted in reasonable reliance upon a subsequently invalidated statute because legislators, like judges, are not the focus of the rule, Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 , 107 S.Ct. 1160 , 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987); an arrest in reasonable reliance upon information that the arrestee had an outstanding warrant, where the warrant had been quashed but the court clerk had failed to notify the sheriffs office, because applying the exclusionary rule would not deter mistakes made by court employees, Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 , 1