Court Opinion

ID: 9782175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 18:04:34.125533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:50.953394
License: Public Domain

Judge Pro Tern STICKLEN
concurring in the result.
I concur in the result, but write separately because I do not agree with the analysis adopted by the majority. The state’s argument is that the search in question was done for officer safety reasons. I agree that this argument is unsupported by the record, and that the decision of the district judge granting the motion to suppress should be affirmed on that basis. The analysis adopted by the Court is an alternative basis for affirming suggested by the defendant. I believe that adoption of this position is unnecessary; and that, even if it were necessary, it is overly restrictive. On the facts presented, I would hold that the majority approach to the case is governed by State v. Parkinson, 135 Idaho 357, 17 P.3d 301 (Ct.App.2000) and State v. Silva, 134 Idaho 848, 11 P.3d 44 (Ct.App.2000), because the traffic stop was not unreasonably prolonged by the use of a drug dog that was with the officer at the time of the stop. The result reached by the majority places a law enforcement officer in the position of trying to predict how long is too long for a traffic stop down to the second, and/or of foregoing what would otherwise be a lawful use of a drug dog if only a single officer is present. In my opinion, so long as *565the traffic stop is justified and is not unreasonably prolonged, it does not matter that there is no reasonable suspicion of drug activity or that the focus of the officers includes drugs. That is exactly what happened in Parkinson. For these reasons, I concur in the result only.