State of Idaho v. Lukus Mikael Thornton

── State of Idaho v. Lukus Mikael Thornton ── Court: Idaho Court of Appeals Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52022 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: May 6, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) LUKUS MIKAEL THORNTON, OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner County. Hon. Susie D. Jensen, District Judge. Judgment of conviction, vacated; order denying motion to suppress, reversed and case remanded. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Neil Paterson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ HUSKEY, Judge Lukus Mikael Thornton appeals from his judgment of conviction for delivery of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of a firearm. Thornton argues the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress because the deputy impermissibly exceeded the scope of consent to a weapons frisk when the deputy began investigating the second object in Thornton’s pocket absent reasonable suspicion that the small, cylindrical object was a weapon or contraband. We hold the district court erred in denying Thornton’s motion to suppress because the deputy exceeded the scope of Thornton’s consent to a frisk for weapons. The district court’s order denying Thornton’s motion to suppress is reversed, Thornton’s judgment of conviction is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Deputy Swan stopped Thornton after observing Thornton holding his cell phone to his ear while driving and crossing over the yellow center line. Thornton provided Deputy Swan with his 1 driver’s license and vehicle registration but was unable to find the proof of insurance for the vehicle he was driving. While Thornton looked for the proof of insurance on his cell phone, Deputy Swan asked Thornton if there was anything wrong with his driver’s license and if Thornton had ever been in trouble before. Thornton responded that there was nothing wrong with his license but that he had been in prison for possession of a stolen vehicle and possession of methamphetamine. Deputy Swan asked Thornton if there was “anything” or any firearms in the vehicle; Thornton responded no to both. After a few minutes of Thornton scrolling on his phone, Deputy Swan asked Thornton to get out of his vehicle and stand at the front of the deputy’s patrol vehicle so the deputy could run Thornton’s license information. Deputy Swan indicated Thornton could continue to look for his proof of insurance on his phone while at the patrol vehicle. Once Thornton was at the front of the patrol vehicle, Deputy Swan asked Thornton if he had any knives on him and if the deputy could perform a pat-down search. Thornton responded, “No problem.” While performing the pat-down, Deputy Swan felt some items in Thornton’s right pants pocket. Deputy Swan asked Thornton what was in his pocket; Thornton responded “lighter” and pulled out a lighter. Deputy Swan asked Thornton w