Opinion ID: 2584584
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was There Substantial and Competent Evidence Supporting the District Court's Findings of Fact Regarding the Search of the Geo?

Text: During the suppression hearing, Detective Pietrzak testified that before Pfisterer's arrest he walked up to the Geo to make sure nobody else was in it and that while standing on the street and looking through the open passenger door [3] he saw the marijuana on the floorboard. The district court based its findings upon this testimony. It found as follows: After the stop, Detective Pietrzak went up to the vehicle to make sure every one [sic] was out of it. This action was also reasonable since it would make no sense for the police to order all occupants out of a vehicle during a traffic stop, for officer safety reasons, without allowing them the ability to look in the vehicle to make sure everyone was actually out. Pietrzak then sees the marijuana on the floorboard in plain view, beneath where the defendant had been sitting. He then, informally and briefly, asked the defendant, who was not handcuffed and not under arrest, about the marijuana in the car and the defendant told him that it was his and when asked if there was any more he handed Pietrzak the baggy of marijuana out of his clothes. (Citation and footnote omitted.) Detective Pietrzak's testimony at the suppression hearing conflicted with his earlier testimony at the preliminary hearing. There he testified that he found the marijuana while he was searching the Geo after Pfisterer's arrest. Munoz contends: It is not possible to reconcile Detective Pietrzak's varying versions of events. Therefore, his testimony cannot constitute substantial, competent evidence to support the district court's finding that the marijuana was in plain view and was insufficient to overcome the state's burden of showing that the warrantless search was reasonable. When we review an order granting or denying a motion to suppress, we accept the trial court's factual findings, unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Fees, 140 Idaho 81, 84, 90 P.3d 306, 309 (2004). Findings of fact are not clearly erroneous if they are supported by substantial and competent evidence. Decisions regarding the credibility of witnesses, weight to be given to conflicting evidence, and factual inferences to be drawn are also within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Bishop, 146 Idaho 804, 810, 203 P.3d 1203, 1209 (2009). During the suppression hearing, Detective Pietrzak was not questioned about his preliminary hearing testimony, nor was he asked to explain his conflicting testimony. However, the district court was aware of the Detective's preliminary hearing testimony. The trial judge is in a far better position than we to weigh the demeanor, credibility and testimony of witnesses and the persuasiveness of all the evidence. Therefore, we do not weigh the evidence. Hudelson v. Delta Intl. Mach. Corp., 142 Idaho 244, 248, 127 P.3d 147, 151 (2005). The district court's findings are supported by substantial, competent evidence. [4] There is no legitimate expectation of privacy shielding that portion of the interior of an automobile which may be viewed from outside the vehicle by either inquisitive passersby or diligent police officers. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 740, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1542, 75 L.Ed.2d 502, 512-13 (1983) (plurality opinion). Viewing the interior of a motor vehicle while standing outside of it is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Id. Once the officers had probable cause to believe that the item on the floorboard of the Geo was marijuana, they could enter the Geo to seize it. Colorado v. Bannister, 449 U.S. 1, 4, 101 S.Ct. 42, 43-44, 66 L.Ed.2d 1, 4 (1980). Therefore, the district court did not err in upholding the search of the Geo.