Justia Education Law Opinion Summaries

The issue this appeal presented for the Idaho Supreme Court's review centered on whether Shelaina Neimeyer’s argument concerning judicial notice of a municipal ordinance was properly preserved for appeal. An employee at a gas station in Twin Falls, Idaho, contacted the police about a vehicle that had been parked at the gas station for over an hour. The employee reported that a woman who had previously purchased alcohol at the gas station (later identified as Neimeyer) had not moved from the vehicle for over 30 minutes. Consequently, Officers Tracy Thompson and Candace Comeau were dispatched at approximately 2 a.m. to conduct a welfare check. When the officers approached Neimeyer's vehicle, Officer Comeau then asked Neimeyer about a small, closed container on the passenger seat. Neimeyer initially refused to allow the officers to search the container, but she acquiesced, and the officers smelled the odor of marijuana inside. After Officer Thompson asked Neimeyer to exit her vehicle, she complied and took her purse with her. Neimeyer was placed in handcuffs and told she was being detained because of the alcohol found in her vehicle, the marijuana found in the container, and the possibility that she may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Officer Thompson then searched Neimeyer’s purse and discovered incriminating evidence, including methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. After Neimeyer was charged with possession of methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia, she filed a motion to suppress evidence, contending the district court erred when it denied her motion because: (1) the State did not prove the existence of a City of Twin Falls ordinance; and (2) the district court was precluded from taking judicial notice of a municipal ordinance. Because Neimeyer raised her argument concerning judicial notice for the first time on appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Idaho v. Neimeyer" on Justia Law

The State appealed a district court decision to grant defendant David Pool’s motion to suppress the results of a warrantless blood draw on the grounds that it was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2016, a police officer came upon the scene of an automobile accident involving two vehicles, one of which was driven by Pool. Pool had failed to negotiate a turn and his vehicle was hit by oncoming traffic. He was not wearing a seatbelt and his airbag deployed in the crash. As a result, he sustained a head injury and was unconscious when the officer arrived at the scene. Pool’s son, a passenger in the vehicle, informed the officer that Pool had not been staying in his traffic lane prior to the crash. He also asserted that the doctors who had prescribed medication to Pool never told him that he could not drive while taking his medications. When Pool regained consciousness, the officer questioned him and noted that he appeared “very lethargic” and “had a presentation similar to a drunk driver . . . slurred speech and thick tongue and obviously disoriented.” Pool told the officer that he believed he had taken his prescription medications that day. Shortly thereafter, a large “baggy” containing seven bottles of prescription medication was recovered from Pool’s vehicle. The officer recognized several of the medications and suspected that they had caused Pool to be impaired. Around that time, Pool and his son were taken to the hospital. The officer followed to question Pool further. At the hospital, the officer ruled out alcohol as a cause of Pool’s impairment based upon the results of a horizontal gaze nystagmus test. The officer did not conduct other field sobriety tests, as he believed Pool’s medical condition rendered it improper for him to do so. Instead, he obtained a blood sample to be used for evidentiary testing. The issue this appeal presented for the Idaho Supreme Court's review centered on the officer’s justification for obtaining the blood sample without a warrant. The State maintained that pursuant to Idaho’s implied consent law, I.C. 18-8002(1), the search was reasonable and the district court erred in requiring proof of exigency. The Supreme Court concurred and reversed the district court. View "Idaho v. Pool" on Justia Law