State v. Ferreira
133 Idaho 474, 988 P.2d 700 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution require only reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, for a police officer to administer field sobriety tests (FSTs) to a driver suspected of driving under the influence (DUI). FSTs are considered a reasonable and least intrusive investigative detention.
Facts:
- On August 31, 1997, at approximately 1:12 a.m., a Garden City police officer observed Carlo Ferreira driving his vehicle in excess of the posted 35 mph speed limit, visually estimated at 45 mph and radar-confirmed at 47 mph.
- The officer stopped Ferreira's vehicle, and Ferreira identified himself, producing registration and proof of insurance, but stated he did not have his driver's license with him.
- During the exchange, the officer detected an odor of alcohol and Ferreira admitted to having consumed two glasses of wine and a glass of cognac while dining.
- The officer then asked Ferreira to exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests, including the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, one-leg stand, and heel-toe walking test.
- Ferreira performed poorly on the FSTs, scoring six points on the HGN test, swaying and putting his foot down during the one-leg stand, and failing to maintain position, missing steps, raising his arms, and making an improper turn during the heel-toe test.
- Based on these observations, the officer determined that Ferreira was driving under the influence of alcohol and arrested him.
- After being transported to jail, Ferreira was read the blood alcohol investigation advisory form, but stated he did not understand his lack of right to consult with an attorney and requested to do so.
- The officer informed Ferreira that Idaho law did not grant him the right to speak with an attorney before submitting to the breath test, and Ferreira subsequently refused the breath test, citing a denial of his right to talk to his lawyer or due process.
- As a consequence of Ferreira's refusal, the officer seized his driver's license.
Procedural Posture:
- A Garden City police officer seized Carlo Ferreira's driver's license for refusing a breath test, as authorized by Idaho Code § 18-8002(4)(a).
- Ferreira requested a hearing before a magistrate pursuant to Idaho Code § 18-8002(4)(b) to show cause why his driver’s license should not have been suspended.
- The magistrate ruled that Ferreira had failed to satisfy his burden under the statute and ordered his license suspended.
- Ferreira appealed the magistrate's decision to the district court.
- The district court affirmed the magistrate’s order.
- Ferreira then appealed the district court’s decision to the Idaho Court of Appeals.
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 the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution require probable cause before a police officer may administer field sobriety tests to a driver suspected of driving under the influence?
Opinions:
Majority - Perry, Chief Judge
No, neither the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution nor Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution requires probable cause for the administration of field sobriety tests; rather, reasonable suspicion is sufficient. The court clarified that field sobriety tests (FSTs) constitute an 'investigative detention' similar to a 'Terry' stop, which requires only reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, not the higher standard of probable cause needed for an arrest. The court balanced the state's compelling interest in public safety and deterring drunk driving against the intrusion on an individual's privacy, finding the state's interest overwhelming and outweighing the intrusion. FSTs are deemed the 'least intrusive means reasonably available' to quickly confirm or dispel an officer's suspicion that a driver is operating a vehicle contrary to Idaho Code § 18-8004. Rejecting the minority view held by Oregon and Colorado, the court emphasized the dual purpose of FSTs: to both confirm and dispel suspicion. Furthermore, requiring probable cause for FSTs would effectively nullify the 'per se' alcohol concentration limit portion of Idaho's DUI statute, as FSTs are crucial for establishing probable cause in such cases. The court affirmed previous Idaho precedent establishing the reasonable suspicion standard for FSTs under the Fourth Amendment and explicitly adopted the same standard under the Idaho Constitution. In the instant case, the officer had reasonable suspicion based on Ferreira's speeding, the odor of alcohol, and his admission of consuming alcoholic beverages.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant as it firmly establishes and unifies the legal standard for administering field sobriety tests (FSTs) in Idaho under both federal and state constitutions as 'reasonable suspicion.' By classifying FSTs as an investigative detention rather than a de facto arrest, the court provides law enforcement with a critical tool for combating drunk driving without needing to meet the more stringent probable cause standard. This ruling reinforces the state's compelling interest in public safety and the prevention of alcohol-related traffic accidents, offering clear guidelines for officers to investigate potential DUI offenses. It also highlights how FSTs serve the dual purpose of both confirming and dispelling suspicion, thereby protecting drivers who are not impaired while still enabling enforcement against those who are. Future cases will continue to apply the reasonable suspicion test to determine the legality of FST administration, requiring officers to articulate specific facts supporting their suspicion.
