Legal Opinion
State v. Roe
Idaho Court of Appeals
Decided March 2, 2004No. 29199PublishedCited by 52 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPerry, J.
The state appeals from the district court’s order granting Kyle Thomas Roe’s motion to suppress evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
I
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
In July 2002, an officer stopped a vehicle based on a violation of Idaho’s seatbelt law. Subsequently, Roe, a passenger in that vehicle, was charged with possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. I.C. § 37-2732(a)(l)(A). Prior to trial, Roe filed a motion to suppress. The district court held a hearing on the motion at which the parties stipulated to the facts as set forth *179in the police report. In the…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- United States v. CortezSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Delaware v. ProuseSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- New York v. BeltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Wyoming v. HoughtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- State v. GranthamIdaho Court of Appeals · 2008
- State v. WilliamsIdaho Court of Appeals · 2018
- State v. Chad Lee WilliamsIdaho Court of Appeals · 2016
- State v. Jose Perez-JungoIdaho Court of Appeals · 2014
- State v. IrwinIdaho Court of Appeals · 2006
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.