Court Opinion

ID: 9542476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:34:48.910298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:02.709312
License: Public Domain

Judge SCHWARTZMAN
concurring.
I fully concur in the opinion of this Court, but write to emphasize several points:
1. Although a person’s home may be his/ her “castle,” that still does not entitle the *35occupant to “sanctuary” in the medieval context, i.e., the castle is not impervious to the execution of an arrest warrant. As long as the police officer is possessed with a valid arrest warrant, not otherwise circumscribed to any “public place” (see State v. Hall, 132 Idaho 751, 979 P.2d 624 (1999)), and has probable cause to believe that the defendant is present in his own residence at the time of the attempted service, a reasonable entry can be made to effectuate an arrest.
If the warrantless entry in State v. Manthei, 130 Idaho 237, 939 P.2d 556 (1997)— where the officer pursued Manthei into the residence when he attempted to retreat therein, after the officer developed reasonable suspicion at the threshold that defendant possessed drug paraphernalia, a misdemeanor offense, and asked him to step outside for investigative (detention) purposes- — can be upheld; then perforce, the same type of entry to effectuate an arrest under a warrant can and should be constitutionally upheld.
2. This opinion, however, should not be read as giving government agents carte blanche, based upon an outstanding warrant for some innocuous offense, such as possession of an overdue library book or unlicensed dog, to forcibly push their way in, make a protective sweep, and rummage around for evidence of other crimes when an arrest can easily be effectuated at the threshold. (See Albrektsen and Peterson, both cited in the lead opinion.). To that extent the sanctity of the home must be protected.
In this case the officer acted most reasonably, and should be commended, for returning to a magistrate to obtain a warrant to complete his further search and seizure.