State v. Murphy

19 Citing cases

  1. State v. Anderson

    163 Idaho 513 (Idaho Ct. App. 2015)

    Warrantless searches and seizures are considered unreasonable per se unless they come within one of the few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 1991, 114 L.Ed.2d 619, 634 (1991) ; State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 863, 934 P.2d 34, 36 (Ct.App.1997). Under the automobile exception, police may search an automobile when they have probable cause to believe that the automobile contains contraband or evidence of a crime.

  2. State v. Kent

    Docket No. 42761 (Idaho Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2015)

    The probable cause developed by the odor of marijuana did not limit the search to any specific area of Kent's vehicle, but instead gave the officer the right to search every part of the vehicle that may conceal marijuana. Ross, 456 U.S. at 825; State v. Anderson, 154 Idaho 703, 706-708, 302 P.3d 328, 331-333 (2012); State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 864, 934 P.2d 34, 37 (Ct. App. 1997); Gonzales, 117 Idaho at 520, 789 P.2d at 208. "The smell of marijuana alone can satisfy the probable cause requirement for a warrantless search."

  3. State v. Schmadeka

    136 Idaho 595 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 12 times
    Recognizing a distinction between the odor of burnt marijuana and raw marijuana, and holding that the odor of burnt marijuana establishes probable cause for a warrantless search of the vehicle's passenger compartment only

    The Fourth Amendment requires that all searches and seizures be reasonable. State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 863, 934 P.2d 34, 36 (Ct.App. 1997). Warrantless searches and seizures are considered unreasonable per se unless they come within one of the few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.

  4. State v. Kerley

    134 Idaho 870 (Idaho Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that the defendant's consent to the removal of an object from his pants pocket must be suppressed as the product of the officer's preceding unlawful frisk

    Where a ruling in a criminal case is correct, though based upon an incorrect reason, it still may be sustained upon an alternative theory. State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 863, 934 P.2d 34, 36 (Ct.App. 1997); State v. Pierce, 107 Idaho 96, 102, 685 P.2d 837, 843 (Ct.App. 1984). The alternative theory need not have been raised before the trial court.

  5. State v. Roller

    Docket No. 45903 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 16, 2019)

    The Fourth Amendment requires that all searches and seizures be reasonable. Warrantless searches and seizures are considered unreasonable per se unless they come within one of the few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580 (1991); State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 863, 934 P.2d 34, 36 (Ct.App.1997). The automobile exception is specifically established and well-delineated.

  6. State v. Daily

    164 Idaho 366 (Idaho Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 3 times
    Finding that an open-container violation justified the search of a vehicle glove box

    The officer's determination of probable cause must be based on objective facts which would be sufficient to convince a magistrate to issue a warrant under similar circumstances. Ross , 456 U.S. at 808, 102 S.Ct. 2157 ; State v. Murphy , 129 Idaho 861, 864, 934 P.2d 34, 37 (Ct. App. 1997). In Wyoming v. Houghton , 526 U.S. 295, 302, 119 S.Ct. 1297, 143 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999), the Supreme Court held that, when there is probable cause to search for contraband in an automobile, it is reasonable for officers to search the containers in the automobile without showing individualized probable cause for each container.

  7. State v. Lovely

    159 Idaho 675 (Idaho Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Warrantless searches and seizures are considered unreasonable per se unless they come within one of the few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 1991, 114 L.Ed.2d 619, 634 (1991) ; State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 863, 934 P.2d 34, 36 (Ct.App.1997). The automobile exception is specifically established and well-delineated.

  8. State v. Spies

    335 P.3d 609 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014)

    Neither test depends on the individual officer's subjective thoughts nor upon the bases previously offered by the state to justify the stop. Deen v. State, 131 Idaho 435, 436, 958 P.2d 592, 593 (1998) (reasonable suspicion); State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 863–64, 934 P.2d 34, 36–37 (Ct.App.1997) (probable cause). Thus, in determining whether a traffic stop constituted a lawful seizure, courts freely apply relevant law to the objective facts presented, unconstrained by law enforcement's reasoning.

  9. State v. Spies

    157 Idaho 269 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    Neither test depends on the individual officer's subjective thoughts nor upon the bases previously offered by the state to justify the stop. Deen v. State, 131 Idaho 435, 436, 958 P.2d 592, 593 (1998) (reasonable suspicion); State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 863–64, 934 P.2d 34, 36–37 (Ct.App.1997) (probable cause). Thus, in determining whether a traffic stop constituted a lawful seizure, courts freely apply relevant law to the objective facts presented, unconstrained by law enforcement's reasoning.

  10. State v. Rhall

    Docket No. 39950 (Idaho Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2013)

    Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983). If probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search. United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825 (1982); State v. Murphy, 129 Idaho 861, 864, 934 P.2d 34, 37 (Ct. App. 1997). The Idaho Supreme Court has held that an alert by a reliable, trained canine indicating the presence of drugs is sufficient to create probable cause for a search.