State v. Rebo

168 Idaho 234

482 P.3d 569

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff/Respondent,

v.Jesse David REBO, Defendant/Appellant.

Docket No. 46451

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, November 2020 Term.

Opinion Filed: December 16, 2020

Amended Opinion Filed: March 23, 2021

Rehearing Denied: March 31, 2021

Eric D. Fredericksen, Idaho State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, attorney for Appellant. Jason Pintler argued.

Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, attorney for Respondent. Justin Porter argued.

BEVAN, Chief Justice

This is a case about the extent of a person's privacy and property rights in a residence from which he had been ordered to stay away. Jesse David Rebo shared a home with his wife in Coeur d'Alene for ten years. Due to a domestic assault conviction, Rebo had been ordered by a judge to not go within 300 feet of his wife or the family residence. Even so, about a week after the court issued the order, Rebo was seen near his wife, outside the home, by a police officer. The officer announced herself and Rebo retreated inside. The officer entered the home and arrested Rebo. Methamphetamine was ultimately found on Rebo's person when he was booked at the jail.

Rebo brought a motion to suppress that evidence, which the district court denied. The court ruled that Rebo lacked standing to challenge the officer's warrantless entry into his residence because society would not recognize Rebo's subjective expectation of privacy in the residence from which a valid no contact order prohibited Rebo from entering. Rebo appeals, arguing that his ownership interest in the home allowed him to exclude others, including the officer from the home. Rebo also argues no exigent circumstances existed to justify the officer's warrantless entry and the evidence discovered after the officer's unlawful entry should have been suppressed as "fruit of the poisonous tree." We affirm the district court.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 5, 2017, Rebo was arrested for a domestic assault against his wife, a misdemeanor under Idaho Code section 18-918(3)(a). The following day, Rebo appeared before the magistrate and pleaded guilty. The court then issued a no contact order against Rebo that listed his wife as the protected person. The no contact order provided:

THE COURT ... ORDERS THE DEFENDANT TO HAVE NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT CONTACT WITH THE PROTECTED PERSON(S), unless through an attorney. You may not harass, follow, contact, attempt to contact, communicate with (in any form or by any means including another person), or knowingly go or remain within 300 feet of the protected person's person, property, residence , workplace or school. ...

(Italics added; capitalization and underlining in original). The no contact order also explained: "IF THIS ORDER REQUIRES YOU TO LEAVE A RESIDENCE SHARED WITH THE PROTECTED PERSON(S), you must contact an appropriate law enforcement agency for an officer to accompany you while you remove any necessary personal belongings[.]" Rebo acknowledged he understood the terms of the no contact order and informed the court that he had acquired a separate residence.

About a week later, on February 14, 2017, Officer Emily Taylor with the Coeur d'Alene Police Department was completing a routine patrol when she decided to go check out the Rebo residence. Once there, she observed Rebo standing in the back of his truck that was parked behind the residence Rebo had shared with his wife. Officer Taylor, who was familiar with Rebo and his wife from the domestic assault incident, also observed Rebo's wife at the residence. Officer Taylor confirmed the no contact order was still in effect and then requested assistance from other units.

Officer Taylor initiated contact with Rebo by flashing her flashlight and stating "police." Rebo then ran into his residence. Officer Taylor pursued Rebo. Officer Taylor knocked on Rebo's front door when the door opened slightly and Officer Taylor announced herself before entering. Officer Taylor found Rebo inside and arrested him for violating the no contact order. Officer Taylor transported Rebo to the Kootenai County jail. During a search of Rebo performed at the jail, methamphetamine was found on his person.

Rebo was charged with possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), a felony under Idaho Code section 37-2732(c)(1), possession of major contraband within a correctional facility, a felony under Idaho Code section 18-2510(3), violation of the no contact order, a misdemeanor under Idaho Code section 18-920, and obstructing an officer, a misdemeanor in violation of Idaho Code section 18-705. Rebo moved the district court to suppress the methamphetamine, arguing Officer Taylor's warrantless entry into his residence violated the Fourth Amendment. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the district court expressed its concern about whether Rebo had standing to challenge the warrantless entry based on the existence of the no contact order. As a result, the district court continued the hearing to give the parties an opportunity to present more evidence and briefing on that issue. The hearing on the motion to suppress resumed after some delay.

In its ruling, the district court first addressed the propriety of Officer Taylor's warrantless entry into Rebo's home. The court found no exigent circumstances justified the officer's warrantless entry into Rebo's residence. Even so, the district court ultimately denied Rebo's motion to suppress—finding that Rebo lacked standing to pursue the motion. The district court explained:

A court order had been entered prohibiting [Rebo] from being at the residence occupied by his wife. She was there; he was there. The circumstances indicate that he was aware of the issuance of the no contact order that covered her residence.

In this case, Mr. Rebo fled into the house to escape the police officers. The police officers were there to enforce the very order prohibiting him from having contact with Ms. Rebo and going within 300 feet of her residence. I don't find that Mr. Rebo had an objective reasonable expectation of privacy in the house occupied by Ms. Rebo after that no contact order had been issued, and he had notice of that order. So I don't find that he has carried his burden to prove the existence of a legitimate expectation of privacy in the house where he was arrested and doesn't have standing to complain about the warrantless entry by the police officers.

After the district court denied his motion to suppress, Rebo entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance, as well as to violation of the no contact order and obstructing a police officer. The district court dismissed the major contraband charge. The district court entered judgment against Rebo for felony possession of a controlled substance on May 25, 2018. Rebo timely appealed.

II. ISSUE ON APPEAL

Whether the district court's denial of Rebo's motion to suppress was erroneous?

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"When this Court reviews a district court's order granting or denying a motion to suppress, the ‘standard of review is bifurcated.’ " State v. Gonzales , 165 Idaho 667, 671, 450 P.3d 315, 319 (2019) (quoting State v. Purdum , 147 Idaho 206, 207, 207 P.3d 182, 183 (2009) ). This Court defers to the trial court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous. State v. Samuel , 165 Idaho 746, 755, 452 P.3d 768, 777 (2019). "[F]ree review is exercised over a trial court's determination as to whether constitutional requirements have been satisfied in light of the facts found." Id.

IV. ANALYSIS

Even though the district court found that Officer Taylor violated the Fourth Amendment by entering Rebo's residence without a warrant, the court found Rebo lacked standing to challenge that violation, concluding that Rebo's subjective expectation of privacy in his residence was objectively unreasonable. Since Rebo had no right to be at the residence due to the no contact order, he held no privacy right that society was willing to recognize as legitimate in the place where he was seized.

On appeal, Rebo asserts that even if he lacked an objective expectation of privacy in the family home, his status as a co-owner of the residence gave him a property interest that he could assert irrespective of his subjective privacy rights. We disagree.

A. Rebo does not have standing to challenge the officer's warrantless entry into his residence because a court order prohibited Rebo from being within three hundred feet of that residence.

"The Fourth Amendment, and the personal rights which it secures, have a long history. At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion." Silverman v. United States , 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961). The Fourth Amendment guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ...." U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Fourth Amendment's purpose "is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials." Carpenter v. United States , ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2213, 201 L.Ed.2d 507 (2018). Historically, the Fourth Amendment was " ‘tied to common-law trespass’ and focused on whether the Government ‘obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area.’ " Id. (quoting United States v. Jones , 565 U.S. 400, 405, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012) ). Yet, Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has "evolved with the times." State v. Maxim , 165 Idaho 901, 905, 454 P.3d 543, 547 (2019). More recently, the Supreme Court has recognized that "property rights are not the sole measure of Fourth Amendment violations." Soldal v. Cook Cnty ., 506 U.S. 56, 64, 113 S.Ct. 538, 121 L.Ed.2d 450 (1992). In Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), the Court established that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not...