1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 47475

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CURTIS JAMES KANEASTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: March 25, 2021

Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. Benjamin J. Cluff, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance, vacated and case 

remanded. 

Nevin, Benjamin & McKay, LLP, Boise, for appellant. Dennis A. Benjamin 

argued. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jeffery D. Nye, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. Jeffery D. Nye argued. 

________________________________________________

LORELLO, Judge 

Curtis James Kaneaster appeals from his judgment of conviction for possession of a 

controlled substance. Kaneaster argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to 

suppress. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate Kaneaster’s judgment of conviction and 

remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

An officer observed Kaneaster driving a vehicle, “ran . . . Kaneaster’s information,” and 

discovered he had an outstanding arrest warrant. The officer initiated a traffic stop and learned 

that Kaneaster was on parole. After arresting Kaneaster based on the warrant, the officer 

searched the vehicle and found a glass pipe with methamphetamine residue. At the time of the 
2

search, Kaneaster had signed a supervision agreement consenting to searches by law 

enforcement and waiving his right against searches (the “parole waiver”). The State charged 

Kaneaster with possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1).

Kaneaster moved to suppress the evidence found as a result of the stop. Kaneaster 

advanced multiple arguments, including that he had standing to bring his motion. In response, 

the State asserted that Kaneaster lacked standing to contest the search of his vehicle because of 

his parole waiver. The State did not address Kaneaster’s remaining arguments. 

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, only two documents were entered into 

evidence--Kaneaster’s supervision agreement and his prior judgment of conviction for which he 

was on parole. Neither party presented testimony. The district court held that Kaneaster lacked 

standing to challenge the search of the vehicle because he consented to the search by virtue of 

the parole waiver. The district court, therefore, denied Kaneaster’s motion to suppress.

Kaneaster moved for reconsideration. At the subsequent hearing, two more documents 

were entered into evidence--the preliminary hearing transcript and the officer’s affidavit of 

probable cause. Kaneaster testified at the hearing, but his testimony largely consisted of legal 

arguments. In response to an objection by the State, the district court held that it would not 

consider the facts presented in Kaneaster’s testimony, but would consider the legal arguments.1 

The district court denied the motion for reconsideration.2 The case proceeded to trial and a jury 

found Kaneaster guilty of possession of a controlled substance. Kaneaster appeals.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Constitutional questions are questions of law over which we exercise free review. State 

v. Sherman, 156 Idaho 435, 438, 327 P.3d 993, 996 (Ct. App. 2014). But, the standard of review 

of a suppression motion is bifurcated. When a decision on a motion to suppress is challenged, 

we accept the trial court’s findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence, but we 

freely review the application of constitutional principles to the facts as found. State v. Atkinson, 

 

1 Kaneaster has not challenged this ruling. Consequently, we do not consider the facts 

asserted by Kaneaster in his testimony. 

2

For convenience, references to the motion to suppress include the motion for 

reconsideration unless the context indicates otherwise. 
3

128 Idaho 559, 561, 916 P.2d 1284, 1286 (Ct. App. 1996). At a suppression hearing, the power 

to assess the credibility of witnesses, resolve factual conflicts, weigh evidence, and draw factual 

inferences is vested in the trial court. State v. Valdez-Molina, 127 Idaho 102, 106, 897 P.2d 993, 

997 (1995); State v. Schevers, 132 Idaho 786, 789, 979 P.2d 659, 662 (Ct. App. 1999).

III.

ANALYSIS

Kaneaster argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress. 

Kaneaster asserts the district court erred in holding that he lacked standing to challenge the 

search of the vehicle. Kaneaster also asserts that the parole waiver does not render the search 

reasonable because there is no evidence the officer knew of the parole waiver at the time of the 

search.3 In the alternative, Kaneaster argues that the parole waiver is invalid because it is an 

unconstitutional delegation of authority from the Board of Correction to law enforcement, 

making the parole waiver invalid. Kaneaster asserts these errors are not harmless. The State 

responds that its standing argument to the district court should be interpreted as an argument that 

Kaneaster consented to the search as part of his parole waiver and, thus, the district court did not 

deny his motion based on a lack of standing, but based on the consent exception to the warrant 

requirement. The State also asserts that the parole waiver does not violate the nondelegation 

doctrine. 

A. Nondelegation Doctrine

We first address Kaneaster’s argument that his parole waiver is invalid because it violates 

the nondelegation doctrine. According to Kaneaster, the parole waiver allows law enforcement 

“to control, direct and manage parolees,” which is a power constitutionally entrusted to the 

Board of Correction.4 The State responds that the nondelegation doctrine does not apply because 

 

3 Kaneaster also preemptively argues that the State failed to preserve arguments regarding 

other potential justifications for the search and that, even if they had been raised before the 

district court, the State failed to prove them. We do not address these other potential 

justifications because they did not form the basis for the district court’s order denying 

Kaneaster’s motion to suppress, and the State does not assert them on appeal.

4 Kaneaster’s nondelegation argument was not presented to the district court until he

testified at the hearing on his motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to suppress. Because 

the district court denied the motion to reconsider, reaffirming its previous conclusion that 
4

the Board of Correction is part of the executive branch and law enforcement is “not part of the 

legislative or judicial” branch. In the alternative, the State argues that the nondelegation doctrine 

does not apply because the parole waiver does not delegate any decision-making authority from 

the Board of Correction to law enforcement. Because we agree with the State’s second 

argument, we do not address the State’s categorical argument that the nondelegation doctrine 

does not apply to transfers of decision-making authority from the Board of Correction to law 

enforcement. 

The Idaho Constitution divides state governmental power “into three distinct 

departments, the legislative, executive and judicial.” IDAHO CONST. art. II, § 1. The 

nondelegation doctrine stems from the prohibition in the next clause, which provides that “no 

person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of 

these departments shall exercise any powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as 

in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.” Id. While this prohibition typically applies 

in the context of delegated legislative authority, the nondelegation doctrine also applies to other 

branches of government, prohibiting them from delegating constitutionally entrusted 

decision-making authority to another branch. State v. Armstrong, 158 Idaho 364, 369, 347 P.3d 

1025, 1030 (Ct. App. 2015). As Kaneaster correctly notes, the Idaho Constitution gives the 

Board of Correction “the control, direction and management . . . of adult felony probation and 

parole.” IDAHO CONST. art. X, § 5. The legislature, following the constitutional directive to 

enumerate the associated duties, id., has charged the Board of Correction with the duty to 

supervise parolees, I.C. § 20-219(1)(b)-(c).

According to Kaneaster, the parole waiver “purports to allow law enforcement agents to 

control, direct[,] and manage parolees through the power to search them without knowledge or 

permission of an agent of [the Idaho Department of Correction].” We disagree with Kaneaster’s 

interpretation. Kaneaster’s parole waiver reads as follows:

I consent to the search of my person, residence, vehicle, personal property, and 

other real property or structures owned or leased by me, or for which I am the 

 

Kaneaster consented to the search by virtue of his Fourth Amendment waiver, the district court 

did not address the nondelegation issue. 
5

controlling authority conducted by any agent of [the Idaho Department of 

Correction] or a law enforcement officer. I hereby waive my rights under the 

Fourth Amendment and the Idaho [C]onstitution concerning searches.

Kaneaster’s parole waiver allows law enforcement to conduct general searches. As we noted in 

Armstrong, “[p]erforming a search is not equivalent to engaging in ‘the control, direction and 

management’ of parole and parolees.” Armstrong, 158 Idaho at 369, 347 P.3d at 1030. 

Kaneaster asserts his case is distinguishable from Armstrong because that case involved a 

search conducted by law enforcement pursuant to a parole officer’s request, which we held did 

not violate the nondelegation doctrine. See id. at 370, 347 P.3d at 1031. Kaneaster argues that 

his parole waiver “should be construed to be limited to those searches by law enforcement 

officers which are done with the knowledge and approval of an agent of the [Idaho Department 

of Correction].” Armstrong does not require such a result. The parolee in Armstrong agreed to 

searches “by any agent of Field and Community Services,” an entity now known as the Bureau 

of Probation and Parole. Id. at 366 & n.1, 347 P.3d at 1027 & n.1. Accordingly, we addressed 

whether law enforcement acted as an agent of the parole officer. Here, Kaneaster consented to 

searches by law enforcement in addition to searches conducted by agents of the Idaho 

Department of Correction. Given the disjunctive nature of Kaneaster’s parole waiver, there is no 

need to conduct the agency analysis we performed in Armstrong because, unlike the defendant in 

Armstrong, Kaneaster expressly consented to searches conducted by law enforcement. 

Kaneaster has failed to show that the nondelegation doctrine invalidates his parole waiver. 

B. Standing 

On appeal, Kaneaster argues the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress 

because he did not lack standing to challenge the warrantless vehicle search. In response, the 

State argues the district court did not err by denying Kaneaster’s motion to suppress because he

consented to the search of his vehicle. In reply, Kaneaster contends the State did not preserve 

this argument for appeal because the State’s only argument before the district court was that he

lacked standing to challenge the search based on the parole waiver, not that the consent 

exception to the warrant requirement justified the warrantless search. The State responds that, 

although characterized as a challenge to Kaneaster’s standing, its argument to the district court 

was that Kaneaster consented to the search as part of his Fourth Amendment waiver. Thus, the 
6

State contends that its argument on appeal regarding the consent exception is preserved. We 

hold that the applicability of the consent exception is preserved for appeal. 

As an initial matter, we reiterate that there is a distinction between standing and consent. 

As recently explained by the Idaho Supreme Court: “Standing in the Fourth Amendment context 

is used as shorthand for the question of whether the defendant personally has a reasonable 

expectation of privacy in the place searched.” State v. Maxim, 165 Idaho 901, 906, 454 P.3d 

543, 548 (2019). Fourth Amendment standing, therefore, focuses on whether a defendant’s 

Fourth Amendment rights were implicated. Id.; see also Byrd v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 

___, 138 S. Ct. 1518, 1530 (2018) (explaining that “standing in Fourth Amendment cases can be 

a useful shorthand for capturing the idea that a person must have a cognizable Fourth 

Amendment interest in the place searched before seeking relief for an unconstitutional search”). 

Issues regarding standing generally arise where the place or item searched is owned by someone 

other than the defendant. See Maxim, 165 Idaho at 906, 454 P.3d at 548. Consent, on the other 

hand, applies where the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights are implicated but the question is 

whether the defendant consented to the challenged conduct. See id. at 907, 454 P.3d at 549. 

In response to Kaneaster’s motion to suppress, the State argued that Kaneaster’s motion 

failed because he “waived his constitutional rights concerning searches.” The State also noted 

that, “as part of his parole agreement, [Kaneaster] consented to searches by law enforcement 

officers.” The State asserted that Kaneaster’s consent meant he lacked standing to challenge the 

search. Similarly, at the hearing on Kaneaster’s motion to suppress, the district held that, based 

on the parole waiver, Kaneaster “consented to the search and so . . . [he] does not have standing 

to challenge the search of the vehicle.” Finally, at the hearing on the motion for reconsideration, 

the district court did not mention the word “standing,” but remarked:

[T]he officer did have the right to search the vehicle in which you were located. 

That’s [Armstrong, 158 Idaho 364, 347 P.3d 1025,] where you have waived your 

Fourth Amendment rights. That waiver is valid . . . .

. . . the Agreement of Supervision that you signed indicated that you 

consent to the search of your person, residence, vehicle, personal property, and 

other real property or structures that are owned or leased by you . . . and 

conducted by any agent of [the Idaho Department of Correction] or a law 

enforcement officer. 
7

Notably, the Armstrong case cited by the district court did not address standing. Instead, 

Armstrong noted that “Fourth Amendment waivers [in supervision agreements] . . . operate as 

consents to search.” Armstrong, 158 Idaho at 370, 347 P.3d at 1031. Thus, although framed as a 

question of standing, given the focus on consent by both the State and the district court, the 

State’s argument raised the applicability of the consent exception and the district court found that 

the State had satisfied this exception. See Maxim, 165 Idaho at 906, 454 P.3d at 548 (noting that 

State’s standing arguments were “better construed” as invoking the consent exception).5 

C. Consent Exception

Having concluded that the State’s argument regarding the applicability of the consent 

exception was preserved, we turn to the merits of whether the district court correctly concluded 

that the exception applies to the search conducted in this case. The Fourth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Warrantless searches 

are presumed to be unreasonable and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment. State v. 

Weaver, 127 Idaho 288, 290, 900 P.2d 196, 198 (1995). The State may overcome this 

presumption by demonstrating that a warrantless search either fell within a well-recognized

exception to the warrant requirement or was otherwise reasonable under the circumstances. Id. 

Consent is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, including when the consent stems 

from a Fourth Amendment waiver contained in a probation or parole agreement. Armstrong, 158 

Idaho at 370, 347 P.3d at 1031. However, for a Fourth Amendment waiver to render a search 

reasonable, law enforcement must be aware of the waiver at the time of the search. Maxim, 165 

Idaho at 908, 454 P.3d at 550. 

 

5

If the State’s objection below had been based on actual standing, as Kaneaster contends, 

such an objection would have placed his Fourth Amendment interest in the vehicle that was 

searched squarely at issue. A defendant has the burden to show Fourth Amendment standing. 

See Byrd, ___ U.S. at ___, 138 S. Ct. at 1530; Maxim, 165 Idaho at 905, 454 P.3d at 547. 

Kaneaster asserted in his motion to suppress that he had standing because he “was the driver of 

the vehicle seized.” This assertion is insufficient for purposes of establishing Fourth 

Amendment standing. See State v. Hanson, 142 Idaho 711, 718, 132 P.3d 468, 475 (Ct. App. 

2006) (explaining that when a search concerns a vehicle, the mere fact that an individual is 

driving the vehicle is insufficient to confer standing). However, we need not resolve whether 

Kaneaster had actual standing because the State has not raised the issue on appeal, nor was it 

decided by the district court. 
8

At appellate oral argument, Kaneaster conceded that he consented to the search by virtue 

of his parole waiver, but maintained the State had nonetheless failed to prove the consent 

exception because the State failed to prove the officer knew of the parole waiver at the time of 

the search. The State responds that Kaneaster failed to preserve his argument regarding the 

officer’s knowledge and that, in any event, the record shows the parties agreed that the officer 

knew of the parole waiver at the time of the search. Because Kaneaster did not present this 

argument in the district court, we hold that he failed to preserve his argument for appeal.

As Kaneaster correctly notes, the State bore the burden to show the officer knew of the 

parole waiver at the time of the search. See Maxim, 165 Idaho at 907, 454 P.3d at 549. This 

burden on the State, however, does not relieve Kaneaster of the obligation to preserve arguments 

for appeal. See Armstrong, 158 Idaho at 367-68 & n.3, 347 P.3d at 1028-29 & n.3. Appellate 

court review is limited to the evidence, theories, and arguments that were presented in the district 

court. State v. Garcia-Rodriguez, 162 Idaho 271, 275, 396 P.3d 700, 704 (2017). This holds 

true even when the burden shifts to the State to show an exception to the warrant requirement. 

Armstrong, 158 Idaho at 368 n.3, 347 P.3d at 1029 n.3. Even then, a defendant must comply 

with “the requirements of preserving arguments for appeal, especially when the [S]tate asserted a 

prima facie case that an exception to the warrant requirement applied.”

6

 Id. 

Seeking to show preservation, Kaneaster notes he argued to the district court that the 

search of the vehicle was a warrantless search and that the State must show an exception to the 

warrant requirement. However, these arguments are too general to have raised the specific issue 

of whether the officer knew of the parole waiver prior to the search. As we noted in Armstrong, 

“[e]ven when a defendant mentions the general basis for a motion to suppress, his or her 

arguments on appeal are limited by what was argued to the trial court.” Armstrong, 158 Idaho at

368, 347 P.3d at 1029.

 

6 Kaneaster asserts that Armstrong can be distinguished on the basis that, unlike 

Armstrong, the State in Kaneaster’s case did not assert a prima facie case for the consent 

exception, specifically regarding the officer’s knowledge of Kaneaster’s parole waiver. 

Kaneaster misinterprets Armstrong. We did not condition a defendant’s preservation obligation 

on the State presenting a prima facie case but, instead, noted the increased force of the 

preservation rationale when the State had made such a showing. Armstrong, 158 Idaho at 368

n.3, 347 P.3d at 1029 n.3.
9

Next, Kaneaster notes he argued to the district court that the officer was not an agent of 

probation and parole because the officer did not have authorization from probation and parole to 

perform the search based on Kaneaster’s parole waiver. This also failed to raise an issue 

regarding the officer’s knowledge of the parole waiver--a lack of authorization to search is not 

equivalent to lack of knowledge of a parole waiver.

Finally, Kaneaster asserts that, under recent Idaho Supreme Court case law, he preserved 

his argument on appeal because his argument does not present “a change in his position [before 

the district court] that the warrantless search was not justified by the consent exception to the 

warrant requirement.” The Idaho Supreme Court has allowed arguments on appeal to evolve 

from those asserted before a trial court, provided the issue and the party’s position remain 

consistent. Ada Cty. Highway Dist. v. Brooke View, Inc., 162 Idaho 138, 142 n.2, 395 P.3d 357, 

361 n.2 (2017). Here, however, Kaneaster never raised an argument regarding the officer’s 

knowledge of the parole waiver. In short, there was no argument raised below from which 

Kaneaster’s argument on appeal could evolve. Thus, contrary to Kaneaster’s assertions, his case 

is not distinguishable from other Idaho Supreme Court cases where a party failed to raise 

arguments before the trial court. See State v. Gonzalez, 165 Idaho 95, 99, 439 P.3d 1267, 1271 

(2019); Garcia-Rodriguez, 162 Idaho at 275, 396 P.3d at 704. Despite Kaneaster’s attempts on 

appeal to suggest that his general arguments in the district court included the knowledge issue or 

that his arguments on appeal are a mere refinement of the arguments raised in the district court, 

he failed to preserve his appellate argument that the officer lacked knowledge of Kaneaster’s 

parole waiver at the time of the search.7

Although the normal course would be to affirm the district court’s order denying 

Kaneaster’s motion to suppress, this case presents an exception. When the parties argued 

Kaneaster’s motion to suppress, Maxim had not yet been decided. As such, the parties were not 

on notice that the officer’s knowledge of the parole waiver comprised part of the consent 

exception. Consequently, we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings 

including to resolve, in the first instance, whether the officer had knowledge of Kaneaster’s 

parole wavier at the time of the search of the vehicle. 

 

7 Given this conclusion, we do not address the State’s argument that the record shows the 

parties agreed that the officer knew of Kaneaster’s parole waiver at the time of the search.
10

IV.

CONCLUSION

Kaneaster has failed to show that the nondelegation doctrine invalidates his parole 

waiver. The State’s argument to the district court that Kaneaster’s parole waiver authorized the 

search of the vehicle he was driving, although framed as a standing argument, preserved the 

consent exception to the warrant requirement. Although Kaneaster failed to preserve his 

argument that the officer did not know of the parole waiver at the time of the search, because 

Maxim was not decided at the time the consent exception was litigated before the district court, 

we remand to the district court for further proceedings including to resolve this issue in the first 

instance. Consequently, we vacate Kaneaster’s judgment of conviction for possession of a 

controlled substance and remand for further proceedings.

Judge GRATTON and Judge BRAILSFORD, CONCUR.