Court Opinion

ID: 9582898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:32:39.096425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:43.885605
License: Public Domain

McDEYITT, Justice,
specially concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the Court in this case, but caution that this case not be read to provide a subjective test for the reasonableness of the seizure by the police officer of the defendant God-win. This Court has established the standard to be used as follows:
In this regard the officer’s conduct must be judged against an “[ojbjective standard: would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or search ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken was appropriate?”
State v. Hobson, 95 Idaho 920, 523 P.2d 523 (1974), relying on Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
A “motorist assist” stop by a police officer, with no other factual predicate for inquiry, would not, in this writer’s opinion, justify a demand for identification of the driver or occupants of the vehicle involved.