• April 2008, Brost v. City of Boise, Boise City Zoo
   
• June 2008, Highlands Development Corporation v. City of Boise
  145 Idaho 958, 188 P.3d 900
   
• April 2007, State v. Robinson, 144 Idaho 469, 163 P.3d 1208 (2007)

April 2008
BROST V. CITY OF BOISE, BOISE CITY ZOO

In Brost v. the City of Boise, Boise City Zoo (the City), the City prevailed on its Motion for Summary Judgment after the plaintiff claimed his rights under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) had been violated. The plaintiff, Mr. Brost, claimed his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was a disability and that he had been terminated from his job because of this disability. Mr. Brost argued the city violated the ADA by failing to provide reasonable accommodations necessary to enable him to adequately perform his job.

The United States District Court, after reviewing Mr. Brost's claim held that his ADHD was not a disability as defined under the ADA because it did not prevent him from participating in the major life activity of work. The Court found the plaintiff's ADHD did not prevent him from working because his education, experience, and skill set qualified him to work in a broad class of jobs The Court further held that because Mr. Brost was not disabled he was not entitled to reasonable accommodations at work. The Court found that Mr. Brost could perform the essential functions of his job but failed to do so and the City was not obligated to provide Mr. Brost reasonable accommodations before terminating his employment. The Court found no evidence showing the City violated the ADA by terminating Mr. Brost.

While the City was not obligated to provide him with such accommodations, prior to his termination, it did provide Mr. Brost with a modified work schedule and duties tailored to assist him in performing his job. This victory demonstrates the City's employment practices strive to uphold the law and the rights of its employees while still holding them accountable for their actions. These policies and practices have been essential in finding and maintaining the qualified individuals who ensure the proper and efficient management of the City of Boise.

June 2008
HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CITY OF BOISE
145 Idaho 958, 188 P.3d 900

Highlands Development Corporation (Highlands) owned two parcels of land located in Ada County, but just beyond and adjacent to the boundary of City of Boise. Highlands approached the City to apply for annexation of the properties and asked the City to zone the land to permit twenty dwelling units per acre. The City annexed the property, but zoned the properties, allowing only one dwelling unit per acre. Highlands filed a timely petition for judicial review before the District Court, which denied the petition stating it did not have authority to vacate the City Council's decision. Highlands appealed the lower court's denial of judicial review to the Idaho Supreme Court. The Supreme Court analyzed the District Court's decision under three statutes: Idaho Code § 67-5273 known as the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act or IAPA, Idaho Code § 50-222, and the Local Land Use Planning Act, (LLUPA).

The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court decision, stating that IAPA only applied to state agency actions and not decisions made by cities and counties as they are considered local governing bodies. The Supreme Court reviewed the petition under Idaho Code § 50-222, which specifically grants courts authority to conduct judicial review of annexations and zoning decisions of local governing bodies and ruled that this statute also did not apply because the code was enacted after the commencement of Highlands' petition. The Supreme Court further held that, even if the statute applied, judicial review would not be proper because a petitioner must object to both annexation and zoning decisions and Highlands only objected to the zoning decision. Finally, the Supreme Court found that LLUPA only applied to the denial of permits authorizing development and not zoning or annexation decisions and therefore, LLUPA did not permit judicial review of the City Council's decision. In addition to the denial of the Highlands' appeal, the Court awarded the City attorney's fees because Highlands petitioned without reasonable basis in law or fact.

The Supreme Court's decision is significant because it clarifies the City Council's land use authority and the role of the courts in all City Council decisions. As Boise grows, the City Council will continue to be presented with numerous land use issues and this clarification in case law will aid the City Council to appropriately manage the area's growth.

April 2007
State v. Robinson, 144 Idaho 496, 163 P.3d 1208 (2007)

Boise Police responded to a tip about a suspected drunk driver early on the morning of December 18, 2007. Minutes after receiving the call, officers contacted the suspected drunk driver, Linda Beth Robinson, at her home in Boise. Robinson admitted that she was the driver of the reported vehicle and that she had been drinking alcohol before driving home. However, throughout her interactions with the officers, Robinson remained inside of her house with the door open and refused to exit the home or give officers consent to come inside and conduct field sobriety tests. When one officer announced that he was putting her under arrest, Robinson tried to shut the door, but the officers prevented this by entering the home and placing Robinson in custody. At trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress. The trial court granted the motion, finding that although exigent circumstances existed, the actions of the officers, in entering the home without a warrant, exceeded the scope of the exigency exception. The district court affirmed the trial court on appeal.

The Court of Appeals of Idaho reversed and remanded the case for trial, holding that the inevitable destruction of evidence that was occurring as Robinson's body metabolized the alcohol in her system created exigent circumstances that permitted the officers to break the threshold of the home to bring her into custody. The Court noted further that the actions of the officers were reasonable in light of the circumstances because the vital public interest in ensuring the enforcement of DUI laws outweighed the minimal invasion of Robinson's personal liberty when the officers merely pulled her out of the residence to arrest her. While the holding of this case was narrowly limited to its facts, it is an important victory for law enforcement agencies in Idaho. Many of our DUI cases begin with citizen reports of erratic driving, and this case firmly establishes that when a law enforcement officer has probable cause that an individual committed the offense of Driving Under the Influence, they may enter the individual's home without a warrant so long as their actions fall within this new exigency exception.