State of Idaho v. Jim Ray Clarke

── State of Idaho v. Jim Ray Clarke ── Court: Idaho Court of Appeals Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52498 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: May 20, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED JIM RAY CLARKE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, District Judge. Judgment of conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine or amphetamine and misdemeanor driving under the influence, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Stacey M. Donohue, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Neil Paterson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ MELANSON, Judge Pro Tem Jim Ray Clarke appeals from his judgment of conviction for trafficking in methamphetamine or amphetamine and misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI). We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A law enforcement officer was on patrol when he observed Clarke speeding. The officer initiated a traffic stop and Clarke admitted he was driving too fast. The officer noticed that Clarke’s lips were “somewhat whitened,” his eyes were glassy and red, his pupils were constricted, and at times his fingers were fidgety. After Clarke provided the officer with Clarke’s license and registration, the officer asked Clarke to exit the vehicle. Clarke consented to a pat-down search 1 and no weapons were found. The officer then requested that Clarke wait near the patrol vehicle’s front bumper. While reviewing Clarke’s information, the officer requested a drug dog. Before issuing a written warning for speeding, the officer asked Clarke to sit in the patrol vehicle’s front passenger seat. In the patrol vehicle, the officer asked Clarke about the cause of the symptoms the officer observed and whether Clarke had used drugs recently or in the past. Clarke admitted he used methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl that morning. The officer completed the written warning and told Clarke he was being detained for an investigation. After being informed of his Miranda1 rights, Clarke also admitted there was fentanyl in his vehicle and gave the officer permission to retrieve it. Soon thereafter, the canine unit officer arrived with a drug dog and performed a drug-detection sniff. The drug dog alerted on the vehicle and the officers found methamphetamine, fentanyl, heroin, and marijuana. Clarke was arrested and subjected to field sobriety tests and a drug detection evaluation at the jail. Clarke was charged with trafficking in methamphetamine or amphetamine, trafficking in heroin, possession of marijuana, possession of a controlled substance (fentanyl), possession of drug paraphernalia, and DUI. Clarke filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop.2 Following a hearing on the motion, the district court denied Clarke’s motion to suppress. Clarke subsequently entered conditional guilty pleas to trafficking in methamphetamine or amphetamine (I.C. § 37-2732B(a)(4)) and misdemeanor DUI (I.C. § 18-8004), specifically reserving his right to appea