Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Chesla A. Scott challenged the Idaho Department of Labor's service of three determination notices, claiming she did not receive them while temporarily working out-of-state. The Department mailed the notices to her last known address, and Scott missed the fourteen-day appeal period. When she attempted to appeal, the Department's Appeals Examiner dismissed her appeal as untimely. Scott argued that the Department's service by mail did not meet constitutional due process requirements.The Appeals Examiner conducted a hearing and concluded that Scott's appeal was untimely under Idaho Code section 72-1368(3) and (5). The Idaho Industrial Commission affirmed this decision, denying Scott's request for a new hearing and conducting a de novo review of the record. The Commission also concluded that Scott had not timely filed her appeal.Scott appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing that the Department's service by mail was constitutionally inadequate. The Court reviewed whether Scott exhausted her administrative remedies and preserved her constitutional challenge. The Court held that Scott had exhausted her administrative remedies and preserved her due process claim, allowing it to be reviewed.The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that the Department's mailing of the determination notices was reasonable under all the circumstances and did not violate due process. The Court found that the Department's method of service was reasonably calculated to provide notice, and Scott's failure to receive the notices was not due to any fault of the Department. The Court did not award attorney fees to either party but awarded costs to the Department. View "Scott v. Home Depot USA, Inc." on Justia Law

A mother and her fiancé filed a petition to terminate the biological father's parental rights and allow the fiancé to adopt the child. The mother did not serve the father with the petition, and he did not participate in the proceedings. The magistrate court terminated the father's parental rights and granted the adoption. The father later filed two motions to set aside the judgment, arguing that his due process rights were violated due to lack of notice. The magistrate court denied the second motion, citing res judicata. The district court reversed this decision, finding that the father's due process argument warranted consideration.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the father's Rule 60(b)(4) motion, which alleged a fundamental error violating his constitutional right to due process, was not barred by res judicata. The court applied the fundamental error doctrine, which allows for exceptions to procedural bars when a fundamental constitutional right is at stake. The court also rejected the mother's arguments that the father's motion was barred by the doctrines of claim splitting, invited error, appellate waiver, and the law of the case.The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to remand the case to the magistrate court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the father's Rule 60(b)(4) motion was timely and whether the termination and adoption judgment was void. The court also awarded the father partial attorney fees on appeal for defending against certain arguments made by the mother. View "Doe v. Doe" on Justia Law

Gerardo Raul Chavez was convicted of second-degree murder for the 2016 killing of Vason Widaman. While in custody for a probation violation, Chavez made incriminating statements to a cellmate, Manuel Acevedo, who was acting as a confidential informant. The State sought to introduce these recordings at trial. Chavez moved to suppress the statements, but the district court only partially granted the motion, suppressing a few statements. The jury acquitted Chavez of first-degree murder but convicted him of second-degree murder with a firearm enhancement. Chavez was sentenced to an indeterminate life sentence with a 42-year fixed term. Post-trial, Chavez's motions for a new trial and permission to contact jurors were denied.Chavez appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress, abused its discretion in sentencing, violated his constitutional rights by considering acquitted conduct at sentencing, and erred in denying his motion to contact jurors. The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case.The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. It held that the district court did not err in admitting Chavez's statements, as they were not deliberately elicited by Acevedo. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the 42-year fixed sentence, noting that it fell within statutory limits and was justified by the aggravating factors. The court further held that considering acquitted conduct at sentencing did not violate Chavez's constitutional rights. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to contact jurors, as Chavez failed to show good cause for suspecting juror misconduct. View "State v. Chavez" on Justia Law

Michael Anthony Pulizzi was convicted of felony possession of methamphetamine and destruction, alteration, or concealment of evidence. Pulizzi argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from warrantless searches and seizures of his trash, which he claimed violated his rights under the Idaho Constitution. He contended that the Twin Falls City waste collection ordinances created an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his trash.The District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of Idaho denied Pulizzi’s motion to suppress, finding that the waste collection ordinance did not create a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court concluded that the ordinance did not mandate participation in the city’s waste collection program and that the prohibition against collecting garbage for monetary gain did not apply to law enforcement officers. Pulizzi then pled guilty to the charges under a conditional plea agreement, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the waste collection ordinance did not create an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in Pulizzi’s trash. The court declined to reconsider its previous holdings in State v. Donato and State v. McCall, which aligned with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in California v. Greenwood, stating that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage left for collection in a public area. The court found that the ordinance’s purpose was to promote public health and safety, not to protect privacy interests in curbside garbage. Consequently, the court affirmed Pulizzi’s conviction. View "State v. Pulizzi" on Justia Law

Thomas Eugene Creech, sentenced to death in 1995, faced a failed execution attempt earlier this year due to the inability to establish reliable peripheral intravenous access. The execution team spent nearly an hour attempting to establish venous access in various parts of Creech’s body, but each attempt resulted in vein collapse, leading to the procedure being halted. Following this, Creech sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the district court and affirmed on appeal.While his post-conviction appeal was pending, Creech applied for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, arguing that any further attempt to carry out his death sentence would violate his constitutional rights. The district court summarily dismissed Creech’s application with prejudice. Creech appealed, contending that the State’s revised standard operating procedure and execution protocols constitute cruel and unusual punishment.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case. The court noted that the Idaho Department of Correction had modified its standard operating procedure for executions to allow a qualified physician to establish a central line if peripheral vein access is not attainable. Creech’s application for a writ of habeas corpus included three claims, but only Claim Two, which challenged the use of a central venous line as cruel and unusual punishment, was before the court on appeal.The court held that Creech failed to establish a prima facie challenge to the State’s method of execution. The court found that the use of a central line catheter is a common medical procedure and does not rise to the level of indecency or cruelty prohibited by the United States Constitution. Additionally, Creech failed to propose an alternative method of execution, as required to assert a “method of execution” challenge. The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s order of dismissal. View "Creech v. Randy Valley" on Justia Law

Thomas Eugene Creech, sentenced to death in 1995, faced a failed execution attempt in early 2024 due to the inability to establish reliable intravenous access. Following this, Creech filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that any further attempt to execute him would violate his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho dismissed Creech’s petition, construing his Eighth Amendment argument as a challenge to the method of execution, which it determined could not be litigated in a post-conviction action. The court suggested that Creech could pursue his Eighth Amendment challenge through other legal avenues, such as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The court also addressed the merits, finding that a second execution attempt did not violate the Fifth Amendment as it did not impose more punishment than authorized, nor did it violate the Eighth Amendment as the failed attempt did not involve intentional or malicious infliction of unnecessary pain.The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the district court’s dismissal. It held that Creech’s claims were properly raised under Idaho Code section 19-2719 but found no genuine issue of material fact warranting an evidentiary hearing. The court determined that the failed execution did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, as the psychological strain and pain experienced were inherent in any execution method. Additionally, the court ruled that a second execution attempt did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the initial attempt did not complete the punishment authorized by the legislature. Creech’s state constitutional claims were not considered as they were not adequately preserved for appeal. View "Creech v. State" on Justia Law

In this case, the State of Idaho removed five minor children from their parents' home following allegations of physical abuse. The children ranged in age from sixteen years to fourteen months. Law enforcement responded to a report of an altercation between the mother and the eldest child, during which the mother admitted to hitting the child with a plastic hanger. Other children reported frequent physical discipline, including being hit with belts and hands. The children were declared to be in imminent danger and were removed from the home.The Bannock County Prosecutor’s Office filed a petition under the Child Protective Act (CPA) to place the children in the custody of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW). The magistrate court held a shelter care hearing and found reasonable cause to believe the children were in danger, placing them in temporary custody of IDHW. The parents objected, arguing that the removal violated their constitutional rights and that the magistrate court’s findings were unsupported by substantial evidence.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the magistrate court’s adjudicatory decree. The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the initial removal because the parents failed to raise the issue in the lower court. The Court also found that the challenge to the shelter care order was moot because it was supplanted by the adjudicatory decree. The Court held that the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the older children to remain in the courtroom during the hearing and found that substantial and competent evidence supported the magistrate court’s decision to vest legal custody of the children in IDHW. The Court also declined to consider the parents' argument under the Idaho Parental Rights Act because it was raised for the first time on appeal. View "IDHW v. Doe" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the sale of surplus state property owned by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). The property, located at 3311 West State Street in Boise, was declared surplus after a flood rendered its largest building unusable. The Idaho Department of Administration (DOA) initiated a bidding process, and the petitioners, a group of business entities, submitted the highest bid. Despite negotiating a purchase and sale agreement, the DOA did not finalize the sale due to legislative actions that revoked its authority to dispose of the property and transferred control back to the ITD Board.The petitioners filed an original action in the Idaho Supreme Court seeking writs of prohibition and mandate. They argued that the legislative provisions revoking the DOA's authority were unconstitutional, violating the single-subject rule of the Idaho Constitution. They sought a declaratory judgment to invalidate these provisions and compel the DOA to complete the sale. The Idaho House of Representatives and its Speaker intervened, and the State Board of Examiners disclaimed further participation, having fulfilled its statutory duties.The Idaho Supreme Court held that the petitioners lacked standing to bring the action. The court found that while the petitioners demonstrated a distinct and palpable injury from the halted sale, they failed to show that a favorable decision would redress their injury. The court noted that the petitioners did not have a legally enforceable right to purchase the property, as the DOA had discretion in concluding the sale. Additionally, the court determined that the petitioners did not meet the criteria for relaxed standing, as other parties, such as the DOA and ITD, could potentially bring the constitutional claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for writs of prohibition and mandate. View "Hawkins Companies, LLC v. State" on Justia Law

Desiree Elaine Karst was a passenger in a car stopped by police in Kootenai County, Idaho. During the stop, a drug dog alerted to the presence of drugs, and Karst admitted to having drugs in the car. Additional drugs and paraphernalia were found on her at the jail. She was charged with multiple drug offenses and introducing contraband into a correctional facility. Karst moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the stop was impermissibly extended. The district court partially denied her motion, and Karst entered conditional guilty pleas, reserving her right to appeal. She was ordered to pay $569.50 in various court fees.Karst appealed the partial denial of her motion to suppress. The Idaho Supreme Court found the traffic stop was impermissibly extended, reversed the district court’s decision, and remanded the case. Subsequently, the prosecutor dismissed all charges against Karst. Karst then filed a motion to reimburse the fees she had paid, arguing that retaining her funds violated her due process rights. The district court denied her motion, citing a lack of jurisdiction and suggesting she sue each governmental entity that received the fees.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the district court had both personal and subject matter jurisdiction to consider Karst’s motion for reimbursement. The court found that the State, by initiating the criminal case, had submitted to the district court’s jurisdiction. The court also determined that requiring Karst to file multiple civil suits to recover the fees would impose more than minimal procedures, violating her due process rights. The court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing that Karst should be reimbursed if she proves she paid the fees and her conviction was invalidated. View "State v. Karst" on Justia Law

Benny Dean Campbell was detained by law enforcement while they were investigating a stolen motorcycle. During the detention, a police trooper discovered heroin and methamphetamine in Campbell's backpack. Campbell was charged with two felony counts for drug trafficking and possession of a controlled substance, and two misdemeanor counts for possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Campbell filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that by initially placing him in handcuffs, the trooper converted his detention into an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.The district court agreed that Campbell’s detention was a de facto arrest; however, the court also determined that the evidence was admissible under the attenuation doctrine. After the court denied his motion, Campbell entered into a conditional plea agreement that preserved his right to appeal the denied motion. On appeal, he asked the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho to reject the federal attenuation doctrine because Article I, section 17 of the Idaho Constitution affords him greater protections than the federal standard and is incompatible with Idaho’s more expansive exclusionary rule.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the order of the district court. The court agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the State failed to establish that the use of handcuffs on Campbell was a reasonable precaution for the trooper’s safety. However, the court concluded that while the seizure of Campbell was unreasonable, the inevitable discovery exception to the Fourth Amendment makes suppression improper. The court found that even if handcuffs had never been used, the evidence would have been inevitably discovered whether the trooper had followed either parallel path once the trooper walked into the convenience store. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s order denying Campbell’s suppression motion on the alternate theory of inevitable discovery. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law