State v. Parker

── State v. Parker ── Court: Idaho Court of Appeals Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52310 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: April 20, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED TYRIS XAVIER PARKER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Nancy A. Baskin, District Judge. Judgment of conviction; affirmed; order denying motion to suppress, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kale G. Gans, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ HUSKEY, Judge Tyris Xavier Parker appeals from his judgment of conviction for felony possession of a controlled substance. Parker argues that mindful of contrary authority, the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress because the officer’s testimony about the drug dog’s pre- alert behavior did not provide objective evidence the dog detected the presence of drugs. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Parker’s judgment of conviction and the district court’s denial of Parker’s motion to suppress. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Officer Gifford stopped a vehicle driven by Parker for failing to use a turn signal. Parker moved from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat, opened the door, and placed his hands under the dashboard out of Officer Gifford’s sight. Officer Gifford instructed Parker to place his hands on the dashboard, but Parker did not comply. Concerned with what Parker was reaching for under 1 the dashboard, Officer Gifford drew his firearm and ordered Parker to place his hands on his head. Officer Gifford requested assistance and one of the responding officers, Officer Gibson, arrived with his drug dog. Once the additional officers arrived, Parker was removed from his vehicle, placed in handcuffs, and instructed to sit on the curb. Officer Gifford explained to Parker the reason for the stop and why the officer drew his firearm. Officer Gifford then returned to his patrol car to write a citation. While Officer Gifford was speaking with Parker and writing the citation, Officer Gibson had his drug dog conduct an open-air sniff of the vehicle’s exterior. During the open-air sniff, the dog signaled a general alert, which indicated to Officer Gibson the dog detected drugs in the vehicle. While continuing the open-air sniff, the dog made physical contact with the vehicle prior to giving its final alert. Based on the alert, the officers searched Parker’s vehicle and found controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. Parker was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, fentanyl, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c), misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, marijuana, I.C. § 37- 2732(c), and possession of drug paraphernalia, I.C. § 37-2734A. Parker filed a motion to suppress the evidence found during the search of his vehicle, arguing the duration of the stop was unlawfully extended and the dog’s sniff was unreliable and a trespass. The district court denied Parker’s motion to suppress finding the duration of the stop was not unlawfully extended and there wa