Court Opinion

ID: 9624796
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:17:51.953333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:28.371394
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
dissenting.
Although I dissented in State v. Lang when this Court far too readily succumbed to the opportunity to fall in line with the federal high court’s Illinois v. Gates phi*1136losophy, thus narrowing the protections which Idaho people had always theretofore enjoyed,1 nevertheless it commanded a majority of this Court’s membership, and I could join in applying it in a proper case. This is not a proper case.
What is wrong here is the absence of probable cause, properly predicated, for issuance of a search warrant. As I understand it, the majority are forgiving in that regard, and feel that the police did the best they could, i.e., “What else could they do to make out a proper case?” The answer is that they could have done that which they usually do, namely equip one of their people with some cash, approach the house occupants and attempt a buy — whether or not they bugged the buyer. If successful, the requirement for probable cause would have resulted. If not successful on day one, or day two, the chances of winning out were good — as past cases and past convictions have well established.
In one recent case the authorities went so far as to place $140,000 of public monies in the hands of a suspect, a suspect who they would keep under surveillance as he took that money to California to make a buy at their request.
I deem it asinine to excuse the failure to establish probable cause in the circumstances here portrayed. Conceded that entry with the warrant established that the informant had his facts straight, but in cases which will come hereafter such may not always be so. Result: an unlawful intrusion.
A small point to mention, but my understanding here is that the informant was informing in order to merit a reward, and that, known or unknown, he was well enough identified or identifiable, perhaps it was by number, that he will now be able to collect. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if, besides the reward, one of his .concerns was to eliminate competition in the drug dealing? And if not, and truly we are seeing here a display of good citizenry properly motivated, why can he not trust the authorities with his identity?
FROM THE ORAL ARGUMENT:
COUNSEL: I would basically say that using the standard of totality of the circumstances that there was not a substantial basis delineated by facts that were presented to the magistrate on which the magistrate could find the probable cause necessary. I realize that’s circular, if you’ll give me a little time I will be happy to write a decision.
JUSTICE HUNTLEY: In what regard were these circumstances defective.
COUNSEL: I would state that it was defective in that there was no information that was given by the informant was corroborated by the police officers that would be indicative of drug activity. There are a number of alternatives available nowadays to our law enforcement officers through the surveillance, through the pen registers, through a number of other methods to ascertain whether or not they have sufficient probable cause, and in this particular case I think that no effort was made whatsoever to pursue any of those.
JUSTICE HUNTLEY: Thank you.
CHIEF JUSTICE SHEPARD: What could the officer, or any officer, have done further than what they did here, you mentioned a pen register, of course a telephone was not involved as I understand, what could the investigating officer have done short of breaking in the house or presenting any credentials as a vacuum cleaner salesman or something to get into that house? What else could, do you suggest, the investigating officer should have done as a practical matter?
COUNSEL: As a practical matter, I would suggest what Judge Doolittle referred to in his closing remarks at the suppression hearing. He stated that he was familiar with the officer, if I might *1137step away for just a moment, stated “I suspect that officer Creech at this time must have been awfully busy and did not take some of the time to do some of the things that I have observed that he has done in the past.” I would suggest that
CHIEF JUSTICE SHEPARD: But Doolittle didn’t delineate anything ...
COUNSEL: Yes. I would suggest very specifically, obviously not breaking into the house or any of those other alternatives, but a very simple surveillance which would not have taken much manpower given the amount of enforcement that the task force had involved. The simple surveillance could have determined whether or not in fact, cars were coming and going which would have been indicative of drug trafficking. Would have, ah, the identity of those cars through the registration could have advised the court whether or not individuals driving those cars were persons known to be involved in drug trafficking. That is a very simple matter to pursue, but none of that was taken. No steps were taken in that direction in this particular case.

. Illinois v. Gates was not necessarily offensive. As pointed out in my opinion, Idaho had for a long time in essence applied the totality doctrine. My concern was the willingness with which my colleagues hitched Idaho constitutional law to the federal wagon.