Court Opinion

ID: 9852714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:35:15.968892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:32.751733
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the result reached by the Court. In my view, it is not proper to validate an arrest after the fact for a crime that was not the basis for the arrest.
First, I read I.C. § 19-603(6) to allow a warrantless arrest for a domestic disturbance only “at the scene.” Even if it were ambiguous, however, this would require that it be strictly construed in the defendant’s favor. State v. Barnes, 124 Idaho 379, 380, 859 P.2d 1387, 1388 (1993).
Second, I cannot accept that an appellate court may objectively review the facts, after the fact, to find probable cause for an arrest that was not made or even contemplated by the officers. I find Klingler v. United States, 409 F.2d 299 (8th Cir.1969) to be unpersuasive. In Klingler, the Eighth Circuit interpreted South Dakota arrest law. I would prefer to interpret Idaho arrest law without deferring to a federal court’s interpretation of another state’s law.
Third, the arrest of Julian for a crime of which he was not informed, clearly violates I.C. § 19-608.