Lasting repercussions

Following an Idaho Supreme Court ruling in June, law enforcement personnel and county prosecutors across the state have had to tweak the way they approach incidents involving misdemeanor level crimes.

Shoshone County prosecuting attorney Keisha Oxendine explained to the News-Press in a recent interview that the decision in State vs. Clarke has lasting repercussions in not just that case.

“The impact of Clarke has been felt all over the state as soon as it was decided,” she said.

The State vs. Clarke case stemmed from an incident where a female reported a battery to law enforcement in which an unknown male subject (Peter O’Donald Clarke) grabbed her butt at a public beach. The victim told Clarke that she was not interested, yet he allegedly continued his advances.

Through cellphone contact, law enforcement later identified Clarke as the male involved. They made contact with him and upon that contact, Clarke admitted that he grabbed her, but maintained that it was consensual.

Believing they had probable cause, Clarke was arrested for battery. After he was in custody, Clarke was found with drug paraphernalia and some felony level drugs.

Facing both misdemeanor and felony charges, Clarke would go on to file a motion to suppress the evidence to the initial charge he was arrested for, claiming that it was unconstitutional.

The idea behind this was if the initial charge that got him arrested is dismissed, then all other charges would have to be dropped as well (as the felony crimes were only discovered after his arrest).

Clarke initially lost at the District Court level, but then went on to win when the case made it to the Idaho Supreme Court.

The reason for their decision has now set a precedent that, according to Oxendine, has made it harder for her and law enforcement to take action in certain situations.

“The basic premise of the holding in that case is that the Idaho Constitution does not allow an officer to arrest for a misdemeanor that does not occur in their presence,” she said.

“For example, say law enforcement gets called to a domestic violence (incident), they come out to the house and there isn’t any substantial injury (great bodily harm), but they have evidence to support that a domestic battery did happened. Even if they (the victim) called 911 as it was occurring, law enforcement shows up 10-15 minutes later and the battery has ended, but there’s evidence of a battery (no arrest can be made). In the past before State vs. Clarke, law enforcement with probable cause could arrest without a warrant for that misdemeanor.”

In this situation, officers may be forced to only “cite and release” the suspect, which not only keeps that person with the victim, but also makes it more difficult for the victim to get a protection order (if they wish to get one).

Domestic battery is just one of many misdemeanor crimes that this decision has influenced.

In just the short time that it has been law, Shoshone County Sheriff Mike Gunderson has seen the Clarke decision affecting how his deputies do their job.

In an interview with the News-Press, Gunderson recalled a recent DUI incident in which an intoxicated driver got into a crash in Kootenai County, then got into another in Smelterville during the same day. Unfortunately for law enforcement, no one (including the responding deputy) saw the driver be in control of the vehicle at the time of the crash. Because of this, the driver was cited for the misdemeanor crime and released.

“We’re encouraging our people to stay status quo, they just can’t make that arrest,” he said.

On the court side of things, Oxendine states that her office has (and will mostly likely continue) to see an increase in requests for charges or warrants by officers and deputies so that action can be taken in these situations.

“What that means is that it takes it more time to get through the system,” she said.

Local defense attorneys are even starting to challenge/appeal older or pending cases in which a similar situation to State vs. Clarke occurred — where a suspect was arrested on a misdemeanor crime that did not occur in the presence of law enforcement.

“I had a defense attorney approach me yesterday and advised me that he intends to challenge two cases we have pending right now on the basis of Clarke,” Oxendine said. “What this requires us to do is to start going back through all of our pending cases and seeing if the decision impairs our ability to try that case.”

While the wheels are turning to address the ruling by state prosecutors and law enforcement agencies, a literal change or amendment to the Idaho Constitution would be needed and this can take some time.

Oxendine admits that the decision may, in theory, have good intentions of protecting the people — but hopes that exceptions can be made for certain situations (such as the ones discussed) in the future.

“At its very basic level, Clarke is guided by upholding the rights of citizens in the Idaho Constitution, which is a good thing … What comes now is we need to balance the rights of those individuals with the rights of those who are being victimized by crime.”