Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A group of residents and an association challenged actions taken by the Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1 (CID) in Boise, Idaho. The dispute arose after the CID’s board adopted resolutions in 2021 authorizing payments to a developer for infrastructure projects—such as roadways, sidewalks, and stormwater facilities—and issued a general obligation bond to finance those payments. The residents objected to the projects, arguing they primarily benefited the developer, imposed higher property taxes on homeowners, and allegedly violated the Idaho Community Infrastructure District Act (CID Act) as well as state and federal constitutional provisions. Previously, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District reviewed the matter after the residents filed a petition challenging the board’s decisions. The district court ruled in favor of the CID and the developer, concluding most of the residents’ claims were either time-barred under the CID Act’s statute of limitations or had been waived because they were not preserved before the CID board. The court also found that the remaining claims failed on their merits, holding that the challenged projects qualified as “community infrastructure,” the stormwater facilities satisfied ownership requirements, and the CID was not the alter ego of the City of Boise. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s decision. The Supreme Court clarified that, given the lack of formal administrative proceedings under the CID Act, the preservation doctrine did not apply to bar the residents’ arguments. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court held that any challenge to the CID’s original formation and the 2010 bond election was time-barred. The court further held that the roadways and stormwater facilities qualified as community infrastructure, the CID’s actions did not violate constitutional requirements regarding taxation or lending of credit, and the CID was not the alter ego of the city. The Supreme Court awarded costs on appeal to the CID and the developer but denied attorney fees to all parties. View "Doyle v. The Harris Ranch Community Infrastructure District No. 1" on Justia Law

Several organizations and individuals petitioned to prevent the Idaho State Tax Commission from implementing a newly enacted parental choice tax credit. This tax credit, established in 2025, provides refundable credits to parents, guardians, and foster parents for certain private educational expenses, including private school tuition and related services, for dependent students not enrolled in public schools. The law caps total annual credits and includes prioritization based on income and previous participation. The petitioners, including advocacy groups, a school district, and parents, argued that the statute creates a separate, non-public education system funded by public resources, allegedly violating the Idaho Constitution’s mandate for a single, general, uniform, and thorough system of public schools. They also claimed the statute failed the “public purpose doctrine,” asserting it primarily benefits private rather than public interests.Before the Idaho Supreme Court, the petitioners sought a writ of prohibition, which would prevent the Tax Commission from carrying out the law. The respondents, including the State and the Idaho Legislature, contested the petitioners’ standing and the merits of the constitutional claims. The Supreme Court determined that the petitioners lacked traditional standing but, given the urgency and importance of the constitutional question and the absence of another suitable challenger, relaxed standing requirements to address the merits.The Supreme Court of Idaho denied the petition. It held that Article IX, section 1 of the Idaho Constitution does not restrict the legislature from enacting educational measures beyond the required public school system, so long as the public system remains intact and constitutionally sufficient. The Court also found that the tax credit serves a legitimate public purpose—supporting parental choice in education—even if private entities benefit. The petition was dismissed, and the Tax Commission was awarded attorney fees and costs. View "Committee to Protect and Preserve v. State" on Justia Law

A man was accused of surreptitiously recording his 13-year-old stepdaughter with his cellphone while she was undressing in the bathroom. His wife reported the incident to police, providing video evidence from a hidden camera that appeared to show him engaging in inappropriate conduct outside his stepdaughters’ bedrooms. Detectives confronted the man at his workplace, and after he indicated he wanted a lawyer, he handed over his cellphone when asked by police. The officers immediately informed him they were seizing the device but did not search it until obtaining a warrant the next day. Upon searching the phone, police found incriminating photos and videos, leading to a grand jury indictment on charges including video voyeurism and sexual exploitation of a child.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, reviewed the defendant’s motion to suppress the cellphone and its contents, arguing the seizure was a Fourth Amendment violation due to the lack of a warrant or valid exception. At a suppression hearing, the court heard testimony from the detective about his concern that evidence could be quickly deleted if the phone was not seized immediately. The district court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure because of the imminent risk that evidence would be destroyed.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. The Idaho Supreme Court held that the warrantless seizure of the cellphone was justified under the Fourth Amendment’s exigent circumstances exception due to the risk of imminent destruction of evidence. The court clarified that this exception applied based on the totality of the circumstances and did not create a per se rule for all cellphone cases. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. The court also found that any issues regarding parole conditions were moot due to their removal from the amended judgment. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

A law enforcement officer stopped the defendant for traffic violations. During the stop, a certified drug detection dog conducted a sniff of the defendant’s vehicle and alerted near the driver’s door. Based on this alert, the officer searched the vehicle and discovered methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. The defendant was subsequently charged with drug possession offenses. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search was unconstitutional because the drug dog’s field alerts over the previous two weeks had resulted in the recovery of drugs only 43% of the time, suggesting the alert was not a sufficiently reliable indicator of the presence of drugs.The District Court of the Third Judicial District, Canyon County, reviewed the suppression motion. The court considered evidence of the dog’s training, certification, and performance in controlled environments, where the dog had demonstrated 100% accuracy. The district court found that the dog’s performance in controlled settings, along with the officer’s explanations for field alerts that did not yield drugs, established the dog’s reliability under the totality of the circumstances. The court denied the motion to suppress, concluding the dog’s alert provided probable cause for the search. The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed whether the district court properly denied the suppression motion. The Idaho Supreme Court held that under the United States Supreme Court decision in Florida v. Harris, proof of a drug dog’s reliability in controlled certification or training programs can provide sufficient reason to trust its alert. The Court concluded that the dog’s field performance alone does not undermine probable cause when the dog’s training and certification are uncontested and reliable, affirming the conviction. View "State v. Barritt" on Justia Law

Ridgeline Medical, LLC provided medical services to David Lyon and sought to recover $777 in unpaid charges. Ridgeline sent a final billing statement to Lyon at his provided address, but Lyon did not receive it and did not pay. Ridgeline retained a law firm to collect the debt, which sent demand letters to the same address, also not received by Lyon. Subsequently, Ridgeline initiated a lawsuit for breach of an implied-in-fact contract and reported Lyon’s debt to a consumer reporting agency. Lyon responded by alleging Ridgeline’s actions violated the Idaho Patient Act (IPA) and counterclaimed for statutory penalties under the Act, asserting noncompliance with its procedural requirements.The Magistrate Court for Bonneville County initially found some IPA provisions unconstitutional, severed them, and dismissed Ridgeline’s complaint for noncompliance with the remaining requirements. It denied Lyon’s claim for statutory penalties, finding that provision violated the Eighth Amendment as applied. The Idaho Attorney General intervened to defend the Act’s constitutionality. After further briefing and argument, the magistrate court vacated its prior decision, held the IPA constitutional in full, dismissed Ridgeline’s complaint again, and awarded statutory penalties to Lyon. On intermediate appeal, the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District affirmed the magistrate court’s amended decision.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the magistrate court’s decision independently, with due regard for the district court’s ruling. The Supreme Court held that the challenged IPA provisions regulate commercial speech and are subject to intermediate scrutiny, which they satisfy. The court found no violation of the First Amendment (speech or petition), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection or due process), or Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, upholding the IPA against Ridgeline’s constitutional challenges. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal. View "Ridgeline Medical, LLC v. Lyon" on Justia Law

A woman was convicted of possessing methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia after police discovered these items during a search of a residence she shared with another individual who was on probation. The search was initiated when a probation officer visited to verify the housemate's residence. The woman answered the door, attempted to refuse entry by shutting the door, but the officer entered regardless and proceeded to search the shared bedroom after both occupants indicated there might be contraband present. The officer found drugs and paraphernalia in the room, and both individuals were charged.Previously, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, denied the woman's motion to suppress the evidence, rejecting her argument that the search was unlawful under Georgia v. Randolph because she had expressly objected to the entry. The district court also admitted a police body camera video at trial, which included statements from her housemate that allegedly violated her Sixth Amendment confrontation rights under Bruton v. United States. The case proceeded to a joint jury trial, resulting in guilty verdicts for both defendants.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case. It held that the search was lawful because the probationer's waiver of Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of probation allowed officers to enter and search shared areas, even over the objection of a co-occupant. The Court declined to extend the Randolph rule to probation searches, reasoning that co-tenants of probationers have a reduced expectation of privacy. Regarding the confrontation issue, the Court found that admitting the body camera footage was error under Bruton, but determined the error was harmless due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt. The Court affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction. View "State v. Horn" on Justia Law

Police responded to a report of a disturbance at a man’s home, where they learned from his girlfriend that he was a convicted felon in possession of firearms. The man admitted that he knew about the firearms and had purchased two for his children. He led officers through his home, where they recovered three firearms and ammunition. The State charged him with three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.The case progressed through the Idaho courts, beginning with the magistrate court, where the man repeatedly stated he could not afford an attorney and wanted “effective assistance of counsel,” rather than representation. The magistrate court suggested he did not qualify for a public defender due to his employment, and the preliminary hearing proceeded with the defendant unrepresented, after which he was bound over to the district court. Throughout proceedings before the district court, the man continued to appear without counsel, filing many pro se motions. Eventually, after much confusion about his wishes, the district court appointed “shadow counsel” to assist him at trial, but continued to treat him as self-represented. The jury convicted him on all counts, and the district court denied his post-trial motions.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case after the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court held that the appointment of “shadow counsel” did not satisfy the Sixth Amendment right to counsel because the defendant, not an attorney, controlled and managed his defense. The Court further held that the record did not show the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, as required by law. As a result, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Knight" on Justia Law

Sheryl Robertson was arrested in Custer County, Idaho, for felony possession of methamphetamine and ultimately pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court sentenced her to a ten-year term, retained jurisdiction for one year, and later placed her on probation with additional requirements after she admitted to multiple probation violations. These requirements included completing 100 hours of community service and successfully participating in a treatment court program. Robertson entered the Bonneville County Wood Court but encountered issues with the program and requested transfer to a different treatment court. The State subsequently moved to terminate her participation in Wood Court and revoke her probation, alleging further rule violations.Robertson waived her right to a termination hearing in Wood Court using forms that referenced only the treatment court termination, not probation revocation. The district court proceeded directly to disposition on the alleged probation violation, reasoning that Robertson’s waiver in Wood Court extended to her right to a probation-revocation hearing. Robertson was sentenced to a modified term of incarceration, and she appealed. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, finding that the procedures under the Idaho Rules for Treatment Courts (I.R.T.C.) were followed and provided the required due process, but declined to address whether Robertson had received the process required by the Fourteenth Amendment as articulated in Morrissey v. Brewer.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and held that Robertson’s waiver of her right to a probation-revocation hearing was not knowing and intelligent, as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The forms she signed did not clearly communicate that waiving the Wood Court termination hearing also constituted a waiver of the right to a probation-revocation hearing. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order revoking probation and imposing a modified sentence, and remanded the case for a probation-revocation hearing. View "State v. Robertson" on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who was convicted of first degree murder with a deadly weapon enhancement and resisting and obstructing an officer after his uncle was found fatally stabbed in the home they shared. The defendant was located by police shortly after the incident, with injuries and physical evidence linking him to the crime. During jury selection, the only Black juror in the venire was removed by the prosecution using a peremptory strike, prompting the defendant, who is also Black, to raise a Batson challenge alleging racial discrimination. The trial court denied the challenge, finding the State’s reasons for the strike—juror distraction due to personal circumstances and apparent disengagement—were race-neutral and not pretextual. The jury ultimately found the defendant guilty, and he was sentenced to 40 years to life.The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant had not established a prima facie case of discriminatory intent under Batson v. Kentucky. The defendant then sought review by the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his Batson challenge, limiting cross-examination about alternate perpetrators, and restricting his closing argument. He also invoked the doctrine of cumulative error.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho clarified that, under Hernandez v. New York, once the prosecution offers a race-neutral explanation and the trial court rules on discriminatory intent, the initial prima facie showing under Batson is moot. The court found no clear error in the trial court’s acceptance of the State’s race-neutral reasons for the peremptory strike. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination or closing argument, and found no cumulative error. The judgment of conviction was affirmed. View "State v. Buck" on Justia Law

Wil and Deborah Hansen, acting as grandparents and legal guardians of their grandchild J.L., paid tuition for J.L. to attend full-day kindergarten in Boise School District No. 1 during the 2017–2018 school year. The Hansens paid $2,250 for the second half of the kindergarten day, which they alleged violated the Idaho Constitution’s guarantee of free public education and constituted a taking of property without due process. In 2023, they filed a proposed class action seeking reimbursement and a declaration that the School District’s tuition policy was unconstitutional. The Hansens attempted to assert claims both in their own right and on behalf of J.L., arguing that J.L. was entitled to statutory tolling for minors under Idaho law.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, dismissed the Hansens’ federal takings and state inverse condemnation claims as time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitation. The court found that only the Hansens, not J.L., had standing to pursue the claims, and that the two-year and four-year statutes of limitation for the federal and state claims, respectively, had expired. The court denied the Hansens’ motion for reconsideration, and the Hansens appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court held that J.L. lacked standing to assert a Fifth Amendment takings claim because he did not personally pay the tuition or suffer a deprivation of property, and there was no allegation that he was denied educational opportunities. The Court further held that the Hansens’ Fifth Amendment claim was time-barred under Idaho’s two-year statute of limitation for such claims, and the minority tolling statute did not apply. The School District was awarded costs on appeal. View "Hansen v. Boise School Dist #1" on Justia Law