State drops challenge of illegal search ruling

SANDPOINT — The state is dropping its appeal of a district judge’s ruling that state and local narcotics agents conducted illegal pre-dawn searches in order to take down a marijuana grower.

A deputy attorney general is withdrawing an appeal of Judge Steve Verby’s ruling that the agents’ clandestine operations at Christian William Klenk’s property were unconstitutional, according to records filed by the Idaho Supreme Court.

Klenk, 43, was charged with trafficking after his property in Wrenco was raided in August 2006. Deputies discovered a dozen or so marijuana plants in an outdoor garden and Klenk allegedly admitted to growing and selling the drug to help finance the construction of his home, court records said.

The search followed a series of incursions onto the remote parcel to verify the presence of the plants and conceal a surveillance video camera, which captured footage of Klenk tending the pot plants.

But Klenk’s defense counsel, Sandpoint attorney Fred Palmer, moved to suppress evidence gathered during the raid and his client’s alleged admissions. Palmer argued the warrantless intrusions onto the property violated Klenk’s constitutional right to privacy. The breach also tainted Klenk’s alleged confession, Palmer said in the motion.

The legal arguments in the motion addressed the curtilage — the area immediately around a home in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy — at Klenk’s residence.

Palmer asserted that curtilage has a broader scope in the state Constitution than it does in its federal counterpart because of Idaho’s predominately rural nature.

“Idaho citizens, especially those in rural areas, should not have to convert areas around their home into the modern equivalent of medieval fortresses to prevent uninvited entry by law enforcement,” Palmer said in his motion.

The fact that law enforcement is within a curtilage does not necessary result in an unconstitutional intrusion because there is an implied invitation to the public to use normal routes to access a home. However, Verby pointed to a state high court ruling which held that dead-of-night intrusions are not conduct expected of reasonably respectful citizens.

Verby’s order granting the suppression motion also noted that agents gave “inaccurate” and “misleading” statements concerning how they learned of the growing operation and what time of night the searches were actually conducted.

“The covert, camouflaged nighttime searches within the curtilage are a violation of Constitutional rights. The actions employed by law enforcement are undesirable and should be discouraged,” Verby wrote. “Covert, nighttime searches without a warrant endanger law enforcement, potential criminal defendants, and the public. By suppressing the evidence that is illegally obtained through covert methods, similar conduct will be deterred.”

Although the state’s case has been stripped of critical evidence, the charge against Klenk is still pending.