Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Bicknell

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided May 20, 2004No. 29085, 29087Published

1DissentJustice Burdick

I respectfully dissent. I believe this appeal was not timely perfected by the State and should be dismissed.

On August 15, 2002, the district court granted the motion to suppress evidence derived from the two search warrants issued in this case. On August 23, 2002, the prosecutor filed for permission to appeal pursuant to I.A.R. 12. A hearing on the motion was heard August 26. The defense objected saying this was the wrong rule to proceed under. The district court entered an order on September 11, 2002, granting the permissive appeal. The State filed a motion for permissive appeal with the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. AlanisIdaho Supreme Court · 1985
  2. State v. SchwarzIdaho Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Richardson v. Four Thousand Five Hundred Forty-three Dollars, United States CurrencyIdaho Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. State v. NelsonIdaho Court of Appeals · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API