State of Idaho v. Carol Lynn Penagos

── State of Idaho v. Carol Lynn Penagos ── Court: Idaho Court of Appeals Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52179 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: May 13, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED CAROL LYNN PENAGOS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Blaine County. Hon. Ned C. Williamson, District Judge. Judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Neil Paterson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ TRIBE, Chief Judge Carol Lynn Penagos appeals from her judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Penagos was a passenger in a vehicle her husband was driving when an officer stopped the vehicle with the purpose of arresting Penagos’ husband for a prior criminal incident involving drug trafficking. During the stop, officers observed drug paraphernalia in the vehicle’s ashtray. Based on this discovery, Penagos was detained. Following the stop, the vehicle was towed and impounded. The vehicle was searched, including a search of Penagos’ personal belongings inside the vehicle. Multiple illegal substances were found during the search of Penagos’ personal belongings. 1  The State charged Penagos with two counts of felony possession of a controlled substance and one count of misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. Penagos filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the illegal substances on various grounds. Neither party called witnesses at the motion to suppress hearing.1 The district court denied the motion, concluding the search was reasonable under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Penagos pled guilty to one count of felony possession of a controlled substance (Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1)), and the remaining charges were dismissed. Penagos appeals. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review of a suppression motion is bifurcated. Generally, when a decision on a motion to suppress is challenged, we accept the trial court’s findings of fact that are supported by substantial evidence, but we freely review the application of constitutional principles to the facts as found. State v. Atkinson, 128 Idaho 559, 561, 916 P.2d 1284, 1286 (Ct. App. 1996). However, because this Court is presented with the same evidence that was before the district court, this Court’s role on appeal is to “freely review the evidence and weigh the evidence in the same manner as the trial court would do.” State v. Andersen, 164 Idaho 309, 312, 429 P.3d 850, 853 (2018). III. ANALYSIS Penagos argues the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress, asserting that the search of the vehicle was not justified under the automobile exception. Penagos further asserts that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art