State v. Bishop
203 P.3d 1203, 146 Idaho 804, 2009 Ida. LEXIS 19 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An officer may conduct a pat-down frisk only if they have specific, articulable facts leading to an objective belief that the individual is 'armed and presently dangerous.' A citizen may peacefully resist an unlawful police action, and such peaceful resistance does not constitute obstruction of a public officer under Idaho Code § 18-705, rendering any subsequent arrest for obstruction unlawful and evidence found incident to that arrest inadmissible.
Facts:
- On May 26, 2005, Hagerman Police Chief Loren Miller received a phone call from City Superintendent Casey Kelley.
- Kelley informed Miller that two carnival workers reported that a man, later identified as Marvin Bishop, had attempted to sell them methamphetamine, and provided a detailed description of Bishop.
- Kelley located Bishop at a local market and called Chief Miller a second time to report Bishop’s precise location.
- Chief Miller arrived, identified Bishop as matching the description, and approached him, stating he needed to speak with him, to which Bishop responded and continued walking.
- Miller exited his patrol vehicle, told Bishop to stop to talk, and after Bishop asked what he wanted to discuss, Miller replied 'methamphetamine.'
- During their conversation, Miller observed Bishop's dilated pupils, bloodshot eyes, and a 'wild look in his eye,' concluding Bishop was likely under the influence; Bishop also appeared nervous and held a white grocery bag close to his chest.
- Miller informed Bishop he was going to conduct a frisk for weapons, but Bishop responded 'no' and initially complied after a warning of arrest, but then turned around and said 'no' again when Miller began the frisk.
- Miller then arrested Bishop for resisting and obstructing a police officer, and after Bishop struggled to avoid handcuffs, back-up arrived, and Miller completed the search, discovering a bag of methamphetamine in Bishop's pocket.
Procedural Posture:
- Marvin Bishop was arrested after a search revealed methamphetamine in his possession.
- Bishop was subsequently charged with possession of drug paraphernalia, resisting an officer, and felony and misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance.
- Bishop filed a motion to suppress the methamphetamine in the district court (trial court), arguing that Chief Miller was not justified in conducting the stop or the frisk.
- The district court denied Bishop’s motion, concluding that both the stop and the frisk were constitutional.
- Bishop pleaded guilty to the felony possession and resisting charges, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.
- Bishop appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress to the Idaho Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court), with Bishop as the appellant and the State as the appellee.
- The Idaho Court of Appeals concluded that the district court erred in denying the motion, finding Miller’s frisk unconstitutional, and accordingly vacated Bishop’s judgment of conviction and remanded the case.
- The State filed a petition for review with the Idaho Supreme Court (highest court), which was granted, with the State as the appellant and Bishop as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an officer have probable cause to arrest an individual for obstructing a public officer when the individual peacefully resists an unlawful pat-down frisk, thereby rendering evidence obtained from a search incident to that arrest admissible?
Opinions:
Majority - J. JONES, Justice
No, an officer does not have probable cause to arrest an individual for obstructing a public officer when the individual peacefully resists an unlawful pat-down frisk, and therefore, evidence obtained from a search incident to such an unlawful arrest must be suppressed. The Court first concluded that Chief Miller had reasonable suspicion to stop Bishop. Superintendent Kelley was a known citizen-informant, and the carnival workers, though unnamed initially, were readily identifiable. This multi-layered tip was presumptively reliable and sufficiently corroborated by Miller's observations of Bishop matching the description and location, thus justifying the initial investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court found Miller's frisk of Bishop to be unlawful. A pat-down frisk is a limited search for weapons, justified only when an officer has specific, articulable facts leading to an objective belief that the individual is 'armed and presently dangerous.' Miller's subjective feeling that Bishop 'could possibly' have a weapon was insufficient. Bishop's nervousness, possible drug influence, and general statements (e.g., 'Jesus loves Miller') did not objectively indicate a risk of danger. There were no observed bulges, threats, or furtive movements, nor was the area identified as high-crime. Without objective facts demonstrating a threat, the frisk was unconstitutional. Since the frisk was unlawful, Bishop’s arrest for resisting and obstructing a public officer under Idaho Code § 18-705 was also unlawful. The statute defines 'duty' as only those 'lawful and authorized acts of a public officer.' An individual has a right to peacefully obstruct or refuse to obey an officer's unlawful act without violating the statute, as long as no force or violence is used. Bishop's actions of turning around and saying 'no' constituted peaceful resistance to an unlawful frisk. His struggle during handcuffing occurred after Miller’s decision to arrest and was therefore irrelevant to the legality of the initial resistance to the frisk. Consequently, Miller lacked probable cause for the arrest, making the arrest itself unlawful. Because the arrest was unlawful, the methamphetamine discovered during the subsequent search incident to that arrest was 'fruit of the poisonous tree' and must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule. The district court's denial of the motion to suppress was reversed, Bishop's conviction vacated, and the case remanded.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the constitutional limits on police authority to conduct a 'Terry' frisk and a citizen's right to resist unlawful police actions in Idaho. By emphasizing the objective 'armed and dangerous' standard for frisks, it prevents officers from relying on mere hunches or subjective fears. Furthermore, the ruling reinforces the principle that an unlawful police act cannot serve as the basis for a lawful arrest for obstruction, providing a critical check on potential police overreach and ensuring that evidence obtained through such exploitation is suppressed.
