Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Conant
Citations: 153 P.3d 477; 143 Idaho 797; 2007 Ida. LEXIS 15Docket: 30305/33010
Court: Idaho Supreme Court; January 26, 2007; Idaho; State Supreme Court
The State of Idaho appeals a district court order that granted Scott Conant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during his arrest for failure to present identification under Idaho Code 23-943A, which applies to individuals on licensed premises selling alcohol. The district court ruled that Conant was not on such premises when asked for identification, rendering the arrest unlawful and the evidence (methamphetamine) inadmissible. The events occurred outside Cadillac Jack's nightclub (CJ's) in Moscow, where Officer Lawler, while conversing with another officer, encountered Conant and his friend, Feeley, who appeared intoxicated. Conant reacted to police presence with verbal hostility and ignored an officer's request to speak. After following Conant, Officer Lawler directed him outside and requested identification, which Conant refused. Upon arrest, a search revealed methamphetamine. During the suppression hearing, conflicting testimonies arose regarding the location of the initial encounter. Feeley claimed Conant was on a landing outside, while Officer Lawler insisted he was inside the bar. The district judge found Feeley's testimony more credible, concluding that Conant was on the landing, not on the licensed premises, thus lacking legal grounds for the arrest. The State's appeal was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals, leading to a petition for review by the Supreme Court of Idaho, which was granted. The review process emphasizes significant consideration of the Court of Appeals' views while directly assessing the trial court's decisions. The trial court holds the authority to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and resolve factual disputes during a suppression hearing, with its factual findings being upheld unless clearly erroneous. The district court granted Conant’s motion to suppress evidence, asserting he was not on licensed premises when approached by law enforcement. Conant contends that the landing area where he was confronted does not qualify as part of the 'premises' of CJ's nightclub under I.C. 23-902(13), which defines 'premises' broadly to include not only the building but also contiguous property used by a liquor licensee. The statute encompasses various adjoining areas, indicating no distinction between areas where alcohol is sold and other adjacent spaces. The term 'place' is used more restrictively in the context of specific rooms where liquor is sold, while 'premises' includes a wider area. The court concluded that the landing, adjacent to the bar entry and monitored by a bouncer, qualifies as licensed premises. Consequently, the officer had the authority under I.C. 23-943A to request Conant's identification. Conant's refusal to provide identification constituted a violation of the statute, granting the officer probable cause for arrest, as defined by I.C. 19-603(1). This probable cause allowed the officer to search Conant incident to the arrest, making the discovered drugs admissible and not subject to suppression. Conant was located on a landing adjacent to a bar owned by the same business when approached by police. This location qualifies as 'premises licensed to sell liquor by the drink,' obligating Conant to present identification upon request from a police officer. His refusal to provide identification constituted a violation of I.C. 23-943A, providing the officer with probable cause for arrest. Following his arrest, the officer was authorized to search Conant. Consequently, the district court's decision to grant Conant's motion to suppress evidence is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The ruling is supported by Chief Justice Schroeder and Justices Eismann, Burdick, and Jones. Notably, although Conant was taken outside before being asked for identification, this detail did not affect the legal analysis regarding the request for identification.