# State v. Julian

> Idaho Supreme Court · July 31, 1996 · 129 Idaho 133

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9852714

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian Kenneth JULIAN, Defendant-Respondent
- **Court:** Idaho Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 31, 1996
- **Citations:** 129 Idaho 133; 922 P.2d 1059; 1996 Ida. LEXIS 103
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Johnson
- **Judges:** Silak, Johnson, Walters, Lansing, Drescher, Tern
- **Cited by:** 72 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9852714

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that probable cause requires only a fair probability that the suspect committed a crime and does not demand evidence sufficient to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

## Opinion text

JOHNSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the result reached by the Court. In my view, it is not proper to validate an arrest after the fact for a crime that was not the basis for the arrest.
First, I read I.C. § 19-603(6) to allow a warrantless arrest for a domestic disturbance only “at the scene.” Even if it were ambiguous, however, this would require that it be strictly construed in the defendant’s favor. State v. Barnes, 124 Idaho 379, 380 , 859 P.2d 1387, 1388 (1993).
Second, I cannot accept that an appellate court may objectively review the facts, after the fact, to find probable cause for an arrest that was not made or even contemplated by the officers. I find Klingler v. United States, 409 F.2d 299 (8th Cir.1969) to be unpersuasive. In Klingler , the Eighth Circuit interpreted South Dakota arrest law. I would prefer to interpret Idaho arrest law without deferring to a federal court’s interpretation of another state’s law.
Third, the arrest of Julian for a crime of which he was not informed, clearly violates I.C. § 19-608.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9852714. Public record. Not legal advice.