The officer arrested defendant for a completed misdemeanor of stealing a cell phone not occurring in his presence. The manager of the place where it happened wanted defendant arrested. The officer and the manager never informed defendant this was a citizen’s arrest under Idaho law, a required step. The search incident to the citizen’s arrest produced evidence for trial. Failing to comply with the citizen’s arrest statute, however, does not warrant suppression of evidence because the court does not find violation of the statute is a state or federal constitutional violation. The arrest would be valid at common law. State v. Sutterfield, 2021 Ida. LEXIS 62 (Apr. 8, 2021):
Here, it is undisputed that Sutterfield was arrested and searched by Officer Barghoorn without a warrant. The search, therefore, was presumptively unreasonable. See Blythe, 166 Idaho at _, 462 P.3d at 1180. However, because this was a citizen’s arrest that did not offend the Idaho Constitution, and not an arrest by a peace officer for a completed misdemeanor that occurred outside of the officer’s presence in violation of Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution, the search-incident-to-an-arrest exception applies. Lagasse, 135 Idaho at 640, 22 P.3d at 115. Consequently, Officer Barghoorn was not precluded from conducting a warrantless search of Sutterfield after placing him under citizen’s arrest. Moreover, the evidence obtained by Officer Barghoorn during the search incident to the citizen’s arrest is not subject to the exclusionary rule. We conclude, therefore, that the district court erred when it granted Sutterfield’s motion to suppress.