author: BURDICK, Chief Justice.

text:
    IN RE: DECISION ON JOINT MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTION OF LAW TO the IDAHO SUPREME COURT (DKT. 31, 32, 45) and Order of Certification.
    Pocatello Hospital, LLC dba Portneuf Medical Center, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Corizon LLC, Defendant-Respondent.
    Docket No. 45187
    Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, December 2017 Term.
    Filed: January 17, 2018
    Racine, Olson, Nye. Budge & Bailey, Chtd., Pocatello, for appellant. Scott J. Smith argued.
    Elam & Burke, Boise, for respondent. John J. Burke argued.
   BURDICK, Chief Justice.

This case arrives at the Idaho Supreme Court as a certified question of law from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. The question certified is "[w]hether, for purposes of the dispute in this lawsuit, the terms 'state board of correction' as used in Idaho Code § 20-237B(1) and 'department of correction' as used in Idaho Code § 20-237B(2), include privatized correctional medical providers under contract with the Idaho Department of Correction." We answer the question certified in the negative.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

When addressing a certified question of law, this Court will consider "only those facts contained in the [certification] order." Kunz v. Utah Power & Light Co. , 117 Idaho 901, 902 n.1, 792 P.2d 926, 927 n.1 (1990) ; accord White v. Valley Cnty. , 156 Idaho 77, 78, 320 P.3d 1236, 1237 (2014) ; St. Luke's Magic Valley Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Luciani , 154 Idaho 37, 39, 293 P.3d 661, 663 (2013). Thus, the following facts to which the parties have stipulated "are drawn and recited verbatim from the U.S. District Court's certification order[.]" White , 156 Idaho at 78, 320 P.3d at 1237.

For a number of years, the Idaho Department of Correction [ ("IDOC" or "department of correction") ] has contracted with Corizon, LLC ("Corizon"), a private provider of prison healthcare services, to provide healthcare services to IDOC inmates in custody and to indemnify IDOC from any claims associated with those services. The current contract between IDOC and Corizon began January 1, 2014, and runs through December 31, 2018 (the "Contract").
The Contract resulted from a Request for Proposal ("RFP") issued by IDOC for healthcare contractors. The RFP included language that stated IDOC was pursuing a program that would allow the selected contractor to realize reduced costs for inmates hospitalized for over 24 hours. If implemented, the program was intended to apply Medicaid rates to those services provided during the hospital stay. Further, the per diem rate to be paid under the Contract would be required to change to a new per diem with Medicaid rates that the State would specify at that time.
As described in more detail below, IDOC and Corizon are in disagreement about how much is owed to Corizon as payment for services that fall under the hospitalization services. The parties identify these provisions of their Contract as relevant to their dispute:
1. IDOC agreed to pay a fixed rate per inmate per day;
2. In exchange for this fixed rate, Corizon agreed to provide comprehensive healthcare to inmates, to assume "full risk" of all comprehensive healthcare for inmates, and to "absorb" any and all associated costs;
3. IDOC will not consider amending the contract to increase IDOC's costs unless Corizon establishes among other things that: (1) the condition requiring amendment was not reasonably foreseeable at the time Corizon submitted its Proposal; and (2) Corizon has made all reasonable efforts to address the problem at no increased cost to IDOC;
4. Corizon agreed to provide healthcare services on-site at prisons to the greatest extent possible and to develop a network of local medical providers for necessary medical services not available on-site;
5. Corizon agreed to be responsible for payment of all medical claims from medical providers, to have contracts or written agreements with medical providers in place for both inpatient and outpatient services, and to negotiate payment rates with those medical providers;
6. Corizon agreed that its payments to medical providers would be made within 30 days of Corizon's receipt of an invoice from a medical provider; and
7. Corizon agreed to indemnify IDOC from any and all claims associated with the provision of healthcare services to inmates.
Corizon often contracted with local medical providers for discounted and/or reduced rates on healthcare services for inmates, including inmates at the Pocatello Women's Correctional Center ("PWCC"). One such contract for PWCC inmates was a "Hospital Services Agreement" ("HSA") between Corizon and a local hospital, Portneuf Medical Center ("PMC"). In that agreement, PMC was to provide hospitalization and other inpatient and outpatient-related services and supplies to inmates at Corizon's request. PMC agreed to a discounted rate for those healthcare services, with Corizon to pay those charges within 30 days from receipt. PMC was to submit all claims directly to Corizon and not seek payment from IDOC. Claims not timely paid accrued interest.
The HSA between Corizon and PMC began on January 1, 2011, prior to the January 1, 2014 effective date of the current contract between Corizon and IDOC. Corizon paid the full contract rate under the HSA to PMC for healthcare services provided from January 1, 2011, through June 30, 2014. The dispute in this case stems from the fact that the HSA rate is greater than the Medicaid reimbursement rate.
On March 18, 2014, Corizon sent a letter to IDOC which stated the following:
Corizon is requesting a formal contract amendment consistent with the program outlined in [Corizon's Request for Proposal] and within the scope of Idaho Code § 20-237B. Corizon will provide notification to hospitals that Corizon will pay for inpatient services rendered after July 1, 2014 at the Medicaid reimbursement rate ... [.]
This amendment will reduce the current per diem rate by $0.65 as outlined in [the Cost Proposal Form]. This item is per diem cost per offender per day as Per Diem 1 with Medicaid Rates based on 7100 inmates which includes Idaho Correctional Center (ICC).
This will reduce the per diem of $15.31 to $14.66 starting on July 1, 2014 ... [.]
IDOC accepted Corizon's proposal.
Corizon claims to have sent a letter to PMC in May of 2014, stating that as of July 1, 2014, any contract rate set out in the HSA would be superseded by the statutory reimbursement rate set forth in Idaho Code § 20-237B. PMC says it never received such a letter. Regardless, as of July 1, 2014, Corizon has paid PMC at the Medicaid reimbursement rate identified in the statute. PMC objected to the reduction in payment, contending that it should be paid at the higher contract rate set out in the HSA.
On September 29, 2015, Corizon gave written notice to PMC exercising its option to terminate the HSA without cause. Since January 1, 2016, there is no contractual agreement between Corizon and PMC as to payment for medical care rendered to prisoners. Prisoners have continued to receive medical care from PMC. However, since January 1, 2016, Corizon has paid PMC at the Idaho Medicaid reimbursement rate provided in I.C. § 20-237B. Corizon contends that this rate is required by the IDOC and state law, and that PMC must accept payment at this rate. PMC contends that payment amounts made by Corizon to PMC for medical care rendered to prisoners are not limited to the Idaho Medicaid reimbursement rate set out in § 20-237B.
....
As a result of this dispute, PMC sued Corizon. PMC raises four claims for relief: (1) a breach of the IDOC contract; (2) breach of implied contract; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) declaratory judgment. PMC seeks payment of the "usual and customary fees" for the healthcare services provided to PWCC inmates by PMC beginning on January 1, 2016, after the contract between PMC and Corizon was terminated.
The parties believe that their dispute turns upon the interpretation of Idaho law which has not been previously considered by the Idaho Supreme Court.

(internal citations omitted).

The parties filed a joint motion to certify a question of law to this Court on February 17, 2017, and framed the question as follows:

Is PMC required to accept an amount no greater than the reimbursement rate applicable based on the Idaho Medicaid reimbursement rate consistent with Idaho Code § 20-237B from Corizon as full and reasonable payment for medical treatment provided by PMC to Idaho Department of Correction inmates within Corizon's care, absent a binding contract?

On June 30, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted the parties' joint certification motion and reframed the question as "[w]hether, for purposes of the dispute in this lawsuit, the terms 'state board of correction' as used in Idaho Code § 20-237B(1) and 'department of correction' as used in Idaho Code § 20-237B(2), include privatized correctional medical providers under contract with the Idaho Department of Correction." On August 10, 2017, this Court accepted the certified question and designated PMC as Appellant and Corizon as Respondent. On November 16, 2017, this Court granted IDOC's application for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of Corizon.

II. CERTIFIED QUESTION OF LAW

1. Whether, for purposes of the dispute in this lawsuit, the terms "state board of correction" as used in Idaho Code § 20-237B(1) and "department of correction" as used in Idaho Code § 20-237B(2), include privatized correctional medical providers under contract with the Idaho Department of Correction.

III. ANALYSIS

Courts of the United States may certify a controlling question of law in a pending action to the Idaho Supreme Court where there is no controlling precedent in Idaho Supreme Court decisions and the determination would materially advance the orderly resolution of the litigation in the United States court. The Court's role "is limited to answering the certified question" when the question presented is narrow.

Doe v. Boy Scouts of Am. , 159 Idaho 103, 105, 356 P.3d 1049, 1051 (2015) (citations omitted).

Raised for this Court's interpretation is Idaho Code section 20-237B, which provides:

(1) The state board of correction shall pay to a provider of a medical service for any and all prisoners, committed to the custody of the department of correction, confined in a correctional facility, as defined in section 18-101A(1), Idaho Code, an amount no greater than the reimbursement rate applicable based on the Idaho medicaid reimbursement rate. This limitation applies to all medical care services provided outside the facility, including hospitalizations, professional services, durable and nondurable goods, prescription drugs and medications provided to any and all prisoners confined in a correctional facility, as defined in section 18-101A(1), Idaho Code. For required services that are not included in the Idaho medicaid reimbursement schedule, the state board of correction shall pay the reasonable value of such service.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, the term "provider of a medical service" shall include only companies, professional associations and other health care service entities whose services are billed directly to the department of correction. The term "provider of a medical service" shall exclude:
(a) Privatized correctional medical providers under contract with the department of correction to provide health care to prison inmates;
(b) Private prison companies;
(c) Out-of-state correctional facilities contracting with the department of correction to house prisoners;
(d) County jails; and
(e) Companies, professional associations and other health care service entities whose services are provided within the terms of agreements with privatized correctional medical providers under contract with the department of correction, private prison companies and county jails.

"Because the question is one of law, this Court exercises free review." Harrigfeld v. Hancock , 140 Idaho 134, 136, 90 P.3d 884, 886 (2004). Statutory interpretation that turns on "[l]egislative definitions of terms included within a statute" presents a straight-forward analysis, as those definitions "control and dictate the meaning of those terms as used in the statute." State v. Yzaguirre , 144 Idaho 471, 477, 163 P.3d 1183, 1189 (2007). "Statutory definitions provided in one act do not apply 'for all purposes and in all contexts but generally only establish what they mean where they appear in that same act.' " Id. (quoting Maguire v. Yanke , 99 Idaho 829, 836, 590 P.2d 85, 92 (1978) ). If statutory interpretation involves more than just statutorily-defined terms,

[t]he statute is viewed as a whole, and the analysis begins with the language of the statute, which is given its plain, usual and ordinary meaning. In determining the ordinary meaning of the statute, effect must be given to all the words of the statute if possible, so that none will be void, superfluous, or redundant. However, if the language of the statute is capable of more than one reasonable construction it is ambiguous, and a statute that is ambiguous must be construed with legislative intent in mind, which is ascertained by examining not only the literal words of the statute, but the reasonableness of the proposed interpretations, the policy behind the statute, and its legislative history.

Taylor v. AIA Servs. Corp. , 151 Idaho 552, 561-62, 261 P.3d 829, 838-39 (2011) (quoting BHC Intermountain Hosp., Inc. v. Ada Cnty. , 150 Idaho 93, 95, 244 P.3d 237, 239 (2010) ).

The question certified here raises two primary inquiries. The first is whether the " 'state board of correction' as used in Idaho Code § 20-237B(1) ... include[s] privatized correctional medical care providers under contract with [IDOC]." As noted, section 20-237B(1) states that "[t]he state board of correction shall pay to a provider of a medical service ... an amount no greater than the reimbursement rate applicable based on the Idaho medicaid reimbursement rate." The "state board of correction" is mandated by article X, section 5 of the Idaho Constitution, which states:

The state legislature shall establish a nonpartisan board to be known as the state board of correction, and to consist of three members appointed by the governor, one member for two years, one member for four years, and one member for six years. After the appointment of the first board the term of each member appointed shall be six years. This board shall have the control, direction and management of the penitentiaries of the state, their employees and properties, and of adult felony probation and parole, with such compensation, powers, and duties as may be prescribed by law.

Under this constitutional command, the Legislature established the state board of correction and defined it by statute as

a nonpartisan board of three (3) members to be known as the state board of correction, referred to in this chapter as the board, appointed by the governor to exercise the duties imposed by law. The board shall be the constitutional board of correction prescribed by section 5, article X, of the constitution of the state of Idaho. Not more than two (2) members shall belong to the same political party. Any person appointed a member of the board shall hold office for six (6) years. Vacancies in the membership of the board shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointments are made.

I.C. § 20-201A(1). Neither article X, section 5 of the Idaho Constitution nor section 20-201A(1) say anything of privatized medical care providers under contract with IDOC. We thus conclude the "state board of correction" referenced in section 20-237B(1) does not include privatized medical care providers under contract with IDOC.

The second inquiry raised in the question certified is whether the " 'department of correction' as used in Idaho Code § 20-237B(2) ... include[s] privatized correctional medical care providers under contract with [IDOC]." As noted, section 20-237B(2) clarifies that "the term 'provider of a medical service' shall include only companies, professional associations and other health care service entities whose services are billed directly to the department of correction." The Legislature created the "department of correction" by statute, and it "consist[s] of [1] the board of correction and [2] the commission of pardons and parole. The department of correction shall, for the purposes of section 20, article IV, of the constitution of the state of Idaho, be an executive department of state government." I.C. § 20-201. The state board of correction, as noted previously, is "a nonpartisan board of three (3) members ... appointed by the governor to exercise the duties imposed by law." Id. § 20-201A(1) ; see also Idaho Const. art. X, § 5. And the commission of pardons and parole is "composed of seven (7) members" who "serve at the pleasure of the governor ...." I.C. § 20-210. In these statutory provisions, the Legislature said nothing of privatized medical care providers under contract with IDOC. Consequently, we conclude the "department of correction" referenced in section 20-237B(2) does not include privatized medical care providers under contract with IDOC.

Section 20-237B as a whole supports our conclusions. See Taylor , 151 Idaho at 561, 261 P.3d at 838 (explaining that, when engaging in statutory interpretation, the "statute is viewed as a whole" (quoting BHC Intermountain Hosp. , 150 Idaho at 95, 244 P.3d at 239 )). Section 20-237B specifically distinguishes governmental entities-like the "state board of correction" and "the department of correction"-from a "provider of a medical service." By distinguishing among these entities, the statute is clear in that it prohibits the "state board of correction" from paying more than the Idaho Medicaid reimbursement rate to a "provider of a medical service" whose services are "billed directly to the department of correction." I.C. § 20-237B(1) - (2). The ordinary meaning of "directly" is "without anything intervening." Black's Law Dictionary 460 (6th ed. 1990). Here, however, PMC's services are not billed directly to IDOC. To the contrary, the certification order provides that "PMC was to submit all claims directly to Corizon and not seek payment from IDOC." Nor does the state board of correction pay PMC for its services, but rather, the certification order provides that PMC seeks payment from Corizon. As stated in the certification order, Corizon is a "private provider of prison healthcare services[.]" While Corizon and IDOC, as amicus curiae , contend the fact that PMC's services are billed directly to Corizon is insignificant since Corizon just pays PMC on IDOC's behalf, we decline to render the plain and unambiguous statutory requirements superfluous. See, e.g. , Taylor , 151 Idaho at 561, 261 P.3d at 838 ("[E]ffect must be given to all the words of the statute if possible, so that none will be void, superfluous, or redundant." (quoting BHC Intermountain Hosp. , 150 Idaho at 95, 244 P.3d at 239 )).

Where, as here, the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, we must give effect to the Legislature's deliberate drafting decisions. For instance, in Safe Air for Everyone v. Idaho State Department of Agriculture , 145 Idaho 164, 165, 177 P.3d 378, 379 (2008), this Court addressed whether the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) violated the Idaho Open Meetings Act (IOMA) when some ISDA employees held a private meeting with representatives of various agencies and Indian tribes. The IOMA statute at issue stated "all meetings of a governing body of a public agency shall be open to the public." Id. (quoting I.C. § 67-2342(1) (2008) ). The issue, then, was whether the ISDA employees constituted a "governing body of a public agency." Id. This Court held that they did not, observing that "it is clear that the legislature distinguished between the 'governing body' and the 'employees' of an entity." Id. at 167, 177 P.3d at 381. Under IOMA, "the governing body is defined as members of a public agency, not employees of a public agency." Id. (citing I.C. § 67-2341(5) (2008) ). And unlike employees, a "governing body" under IOMA was required to have "the authority to make decisions for or recommendations to a public agency regarding any matter." Id. at 168, 177 P.3d at 382 (quoting I.C. § 67-2341(5) (2008) ). The ISDA employees lacked that authority, as any "decision they make can be countermanded by a supervisor, and their supervisor can likewise deny them permission to make recommendations." Id. Thus, the Legislature's deliberate drafting decision-requiring a "governing body" as opposed to mere employees-was dispositive. Id. ; accord Yzaguirre , 144 Idaho at 477-78, 163 P.3d at 1189-90 (2007) (concluding audio recording of county commissioners' meeting did not satisfy IOMA's requirement for written minutes since the Legislature had "clearly expressed its intent to require written minutes" by expressly stating IOMA required "written minutes").

Corizon's principal counter-argument is that it can "step into the shoes of [IDOC] under the law of agency." In support, Corizon cites to Idaho Code section 20-241A(1)(a) and asserts section 20-241A(1)(a) shows that IDOC "has the power to hire private contractors to provide for the care and subsistence of its prisoners" and "[s]uch a contractor acts solely as an agent of the State[.]" We reject Corizon's assertion. As Corizon conceded at oral argument, section 20-241A(1)(a) is irrelevant here. It is titled "[a]greements for confinement of inmates." I.C. § 20-241A(1)(a). It covers private entities "receiving physical custody for the purpose of incarceration" and provides that those entities "shall be considered as acting solely as an agent of this state." Id. Section 20-241A(1)(a) therefore does not address privatized entities who provide medical care to prisoners but do not house or retain physical custody over prisoners. In fact, Corizon's reliance on section 20-241A(1)(a) bolsters our conclusions above. Unlike section 20-241A(1)(a), section 20-237B contains no language addressing an agency relationship. This Court will not graft that language into section 20-237B. See, e.g. , Wright v. Ada Cnty. , 160 Idaho 491, 498, 376 P.3d 58, 65 (2016) ; Saint Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Gooding Cnty. , 159 Idaho 84, 89, 356 P.3d 377, 382 (2015) ; Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr. , 151 Idaho 889, 896, 265 P.3d 502, 509 (2011).

Given the plain, unambiguous terms of section 20-237B, we answer the question certified in the negative. We therefore need not reach the arguments concerning agency deference to IDOC's construction, if any, of section 20-237B in Corizon's favor, as it is settled that "[a]n agency construction will not be followed if it contradicts the clear expression of the legislature." Hamilton ex rel. Hamilton v. Reeder Flying Serv. , 135 Idaho 568, 572, 21 P.3d 890, 894 (2001) (citing Rim View Trout Co. v. Higginson , 121 Idaho 819, 824, 828 P.2d 848, 853 (1992) ).

IV. CONCLUSION

Question certified is answered in the negative.

Justices JONES, HORTON, BRODY and BEVAN concur.

      As footnoted in the certification order, "Defendant Pocatello Hospital, LLC, does business as Portneuf Medical Center."

      As footnoted in the certification order, "PMC alleges it [is] a third-party beneficiary of the IDOC Contract."

      As footnoted in the certification order, "[t]he difference in the 'usual and customary' fees and what Corizon has paid PMC was $373,007.04 as of June 27, 2016."

      As footnoted in the certification order, "[t]he parties reached an agreement out of court and PMC dismissed its first cause of action seeking damages for services from July 1, 2014, to December 31, 2015, when the HSA was still in place."

      The parties did not object below, nor do they object here, to the district court's reframing of the certified question.

      Similarly, in its brief as amicus curiae , IDOC erroneously cites to Idaho Code sections 67-9202 and 67-9205. But these two code sections are irrelevant. Title 67, Chapter 92 of the Idaho Code is entitled the "State Procurement Act" and does not address the provision of medical care services to prisoners. Section 67-9202 does not assist IDOC. It declares as public policies of Idaho to (1) "engage in open, competitive acquisitions of property"; and (2) "maximize the value received by the state with attendant benefits to the citizens." I.C. § 67-9202. Neither does section 67-9205 assist IDOC. Section 67-9205 enumerates a litany of powers and duties of the "administrator." The "administrator" is defined as "the administrator of the division of purchasing as created by section 67-9204, Idaho Code." Id. § 67-9203(2). In turn, section 67-9204 creates "within the department of administration the division of purchasing." This matter does not involve the department of administration or the division of purchasing.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: STEGNER, Justice.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Samantha Nicole COOK, Defendant-Appellant.
    Docket No. 46432
    Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, February 2019 Term.
    Filed: July 10, 2019
    State Appellate Public Defender's Office, Boise, for appellant, Samantha Nicole Cook. Jenny Swinford argued.
    Idaho Attorney General's Office, Boise, for respondent, the State of Idaho. Ted Tollefson argued.
   STEGNER, Justice.

This appeal is brought by Samantha Cook (Cook) as a result of the denial of her motion to suppress evidence. Cook was pulled over by a police officer after the officer noticed her vehicle lacked both front and rear license plates. As the vehicles slowed to pull over, the officer noticed a piece of paper in the rear window of Cook's car. Upon approaching the pulled-over vehicle, the officer noticed that the piece of paper was a temporary registration permit, which was unreadable due to condensation from rain earlier in the evening. The officer then spoke with Cook, detected the smell of marijuana, searched her vehicle, located controlled substances, and arrested her.

Cook filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop on the grounds that the officer lacked probable cause to stop her vehicle. The district court denied Cook's motion. The district court found, based on State v. Kinch , 159 Idaho 96, 356 P.3d 389 (Ct. App. 2015), that reasonable suspicion existed that Cook had violated Idaho Code section 49-432(4), which requires a driver to display a permit "upon the windshield of each vehicle or in another prominent place where it may be readily legible." As a result, the district court found the seizure legal and the evidence obtained after the seizure properly obtained. The Court of Appeals affirmed. This Court granted Cook's petition for review.

On appeal, Cook argues, among other things, that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress because Idaho Code section 49-432(4) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to her conduct. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we conclude the statute is unconstitutionally vague. We reverse the district court's denial of Cook's motion to suppress; we vacate Cook's conviction and remand for further proceedings.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 29, 2016, shortly after midnight, a Kootenai County Sheriff's Deputy, Ryan Jacobson (Jacobson), was traveling westbound in his patrol vehicle on Highway 53 in rural Kootenai County. It had been raining that evening. As Jacobson drove past Cook, he noticed that her car lacked a front license plate. He did not see a temporary permit displayed as he passed the car. Once Jacobson passed Cook's vehicle, he looked in his rearview mirror and noticed that the vehicle also lacked a rear license plate. Jacobson then turned around in order to investigate Cook's vehicle.

While following Cook, Jacobson was unable to see either a rear license plate or a temporary permit. Jacobson also believed he witnessed Cook's vehicle drive over the right-hand fog line. Jacobson activated his emergency lights. As the vehicles pulled over and were nearly stopped, Jacobson observed a piece of paper displayed in the rear window of Cook's vehicle. It was difficult to see due to heavy condensation in Cook's rear window.

Once both vehicles were stopped, Jacobson walked towards Cook's vehicle and only then recognized that the piece of paper in the window was in fact a temporary registration permit. Despite being right next to the temporary permit, Jacobson still could not read the expiration date. Jacobson then contacted Cook, the sole occupant of the vehicle, in order to obtain information from her. Once he collected Cook's information, Jacobson walked back to his patrol vehicle but first stopped again at the rear window to examine the temporary permit more closely. Jacobson had to wipe the condensation off of the rear window in order to read the expiration date. Only then was Jacobson able to determine the piece of paper was a valid temporary permit.

Jacobson returned Cook's information to her but asked her to step out of the vehicle and speak with him. Cook obliged. At some point while speaking with Cook, Jacobson noticed that Cook was unusually nervous. More importantly, he had also detected the odor of marijuana. Upon questioning, Cook admitted that others had smoked marijuana in her vehicle earlier that evening. Jacobson then searched the car based on the odor and Cook's admission. He found both heroin and methamphetamine. Cook was arrested and more contraband was found on her person, including another controlled substance, Suboxone.

Cook filed a motion to suppress, arguing that Jacobson did not have reasonable suspicion to stop her car. The district court held a hearing on Cook's motion. Jacobson was the only witness. The district court later announced its oral decision denying the motion to suppress. The district court reasoned that Cook's temporary registration, although properly posted, was not readily legible as required by Idaho Code section 49-432(4) ; therefore, Jacobson had reasonable suspicion that Cook had violated the statute and any evidence stemming from the seizure was admissible.

After the district court's ruling, Cook filed a motion to reconsider. In that motion, Cook requested her previous argument-that Idaho Code section 49-432(4) was unconstitutionally vague-be addressed, as it had not been specifically addressed in the district court's prior oral pronouncement. A hearing was held at which the district court explicitly found the statute constitutional and denied Cook's motion.

Cook entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of heroin and paraphernalia; in exchange, the State dropped the other two charges, and Cook preserved her right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. The district court sentenced Cook to time served on the paraphernalia charge and entered an order withholding judgment with two years of supervised probation for the possession of heroin charge. Cook timely appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. This Court granted Cook's petition for review.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"When reviewing a case on petition for review from the Court of Appeals this Court gives due consideration to the decision reached by the Court of Appeals, but directly reviews the decision of the trial court." State v. Schmierer, 159 Idaho 768, 770, 367 P.3d 163, 165 (2016).

We review a district court's order granting a motion to suppress evidence using a bifurcated standard of review.
State v. Purdum, 147 Idaho 206, 207, 207 P.3d 182, 183 (2009). This Court accepts the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but may freely review the trial court's application of constitutional principles in light of those facts. Id.

State v. Wulff, 157 Idaho 416, 418, 337 P.3d 575, 577 (2014).

"Determinations of reasonable suspicion are reviewed de novo[,]" but "must be based on the totality of the circumstances ...." State v. Morgan, 154 Idaho 109, 111, 294 P.3d 1121, 1123 (2013) (citing State v. Munoz, 149 Idaho 121, 127, 233 P.3d 52, 58 (2010) ). This Court exercises free review over statutory interpretation issues because they are questions of law. State v. Owens, 158 Idaho 1, 3, 343 P.3d 30, 32 (2015) (citing State v. Dunlap, 155 Idaho 345, 361, 313 P.3d 1, 17 (2013) ). Likewise, claims that criminal statutes are unconstitutionally vague are reviewed de novo. State v. Larsen, 135 Idaho 754, 756, 24 P.3d 702, 704 (2001) ; State v. Cobb, 132 Idaho 195, 197, 969 P.2d 244, 246 (1998).

The void-for-vagueness doctrine is premised upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This doctrine requires that a statute defining criminal conduct be worded with sufficient clarity and definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and that the statute be worded in a manner that does not allow arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). Furthermore, as a matter of due process, no one may be required at the peril of loss of liberty to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. United States v. Smith, 795 F.2d 841, 847 n.4 (9th Cir.1986), citing Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453, 59 S.Ct. 618, 619, 83 L.Ed. 888, 890 (1939), Smith v. United States , cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1032, 107 S.Ct. 1964, 95 L.Ed.2d 535 (1987).

State v. Korsen, 138 Idaho 706, 711-12, 69 P.3d 126, 131-32 (2003), abrogated on other grounds by Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. 313, 133 S.Ct. 1069, 185 L.Ed.2d 124 (2013).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Idaho Code section 49-432(4) is unconstitutionally vague.

Cook argues that her motion to suppress should have been granted because Idaho Code section 49-432(4) is unconstitutionally vague when applied to her case. Whether a statute is unconstitutionally vague is a pure question of law and therefore reviewed de novo. See Larsen, 135 Idaho at 756, 24 P.3d at 704. A party claiming a statute is unconstitutional "must overcome a strong presumption of validity." Id. (quoting Olsen v. J.A. Freeman Co., 117 Idaho 706, 709, 791 P.2d 1285, 1288 (1990) ). Likewise, "[a]ppellate courts are obligated to seek an interpretation of a statute that upholds its constitutionality." Id. (citing State v. Newman, 108 Idaho 5, 13 n.12, 696 P.2d 856, 864 n.12 (1985) ). However, "[a] void for vagueness challenge is more favorably acknowledged and a more stringent vagueness test will be applied where a statute imposes a criminal penalty ...." Cobb, 132 Idaho at 198, 969 P.2d at 247 (citing Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489, 497, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) ).

"The void for vagueness doctrine is an aspect of due process requiring that the meaning of a criminal statute be determinable." Cobb, 132 Idaho at 197, 969 P.2d at 246 (citing Schwartzmiller v. Gardner, 752 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1984) ). "Due process requires that all 'be informed as to what the State commands or forbids' and that 'men of common intelligence' not be forced to guess at the meaning of the criminal law." Id. (quoting Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 574, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974) ); Korsen, 138 Idaho at 712, 69 P.3d at 132. "A statute is void for vagueness if it fails to give adequate notice to people of ordinary intelligence concerning the conduct it proscribes, or if it invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Cobb, 132 Idaho at 197, 969 P.2d at 246 (citations omitted). "A statute may be challenged as unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied to a defendant's conduct." Korsen, 138 Idaho at 712, 69 P.3d at 132. Cook only contends the statute is unconstitutional as applied. Vagueness "as applied" can be shown in two separate ways:

To succeed on an "as applied" vagueness challenge, a complainant must show that the statute, as applied to the defendant's conduct, failed to provide fair notice that the defendant's conduct was proscribed or failed to provide sufficient guidelines such that the police had unbridled discretion in determining whether to arrest him [or her].

Id. When analyzing vagueness, "[t]he words of a statute alleged to be unconstitutionally vague should not be evaluated in the abstract, but should be considered in reference to the particular conduct of the defendant challenging the statute." Larsen, 135 Idaho at 757, 24 P.3d at 705 (citing State v. Hansen, 125 Idaho 927, 877 P.2d 898 (1994) ; State v. Marek, 112 Idaho 860, 736 P.2d 1314 (1987) ). Those words "are given their commonly understood, everyday meanings, unless the legislature has provided a definition." Id. (citing State v. Richards, 127 Idaho 31, 38, 896 P.2d 357, 364 (Ct. App. 1995) ).

We begin our analysis with the statute itself. Idaho Code Section 49-432(4) reads, in its entirety:

(4) A temporary permit shall be in a form, and issued under rules adopted by the [Idaho Transportation] board, and shall be displayed at all times while the vehicle is being operated on the highways by posting the permit upon the windshield of each vehicle or in another prominent place, where it may be readily legible.

We hold that this statute is unconstitutionally vague because it failed to inform Cook what she needed to do in order to comply with the statute. This conclusion is driven by important differences between this statute and those regulating the display of license plates.

Idaho Code section 49-428(2) establishes the requirements necessary for displaying license plates. That statute requires license plates to "be in a place and position to be clearly visible, and shall be maintained free from foreign materials and in a condition to be clearly legible ...." Idaho Code section 49-432(4) does not provide similar specificity. All the temporary permit statute appears to require is that the permit be displayed in a location that renders it readily legible and that it be displayed in that location while the vehicle is being driven-the statute does not direct a motorist to keep the permit "clearly visible" or "maintained free from foreign materials." Instead, section 49-432(4) states that as long as the permit is posted where it "may be readily legible" and remains there while the vehicle is operated on a highway, then the motorist has complied with the statute. The legislature could have easily included language requiring the permit to be "clearly visible" or "free from foreign materials," which would apprise a motorist that if her window were to fog over she would be in violation of the statute. The legislature recognized that these factors would be important in the context of displaying license plates. However, it did not use language requiring the same for temporary permits.

Although section 49-432(4) provides that a posted permit must be readily legible where posted, it does not indicate a distance from which the permit must be readable. Contrast this to Idaho Code section 49-443(1), which statute makes clear that license plates "shall be of sufficient size to be plainly readable from a distance of seventy-five (75) feet during daylight." Again, section 49-432(4) does not contain the same specificity.

In addition, section 49-432(4) requires the Transportation Board to promulgate rules to establish the form of temporary permits. In our review of the Idaho Administrative Rules promulgated by the Board, we were unable to find a rule that the Board has enacted which creates a form for temporary permits. See, e.g., IDAPA 39.02.46, 39.03.81 (these Board rules govern temporary permits yet fail to establish any form for the temporary permit). Consequently, while the Board was obligated to create a form for the motoring public by promulgating a rule, it has not done so.

This Court has held that when an agency is tasked with the responsibility of providing adequate guidance to warn individuals that specific conduct would be subject to punishment, yet fails to do so, the underlying statute may be found unconstitutionally vague as applied to that specific conduct. H & V Eng'g, Inc. v. Idaho State Bd. of Prof'l Engineers & Land Surveyors, 113 Idaho 646, 650, 747 P.2d 55, 59 (1987). Accordingly, without clear guidance from the Board or the statute on whether the permit need only be readily legible at the time of posting or whether the permit had to be readable from some distance away, it is impossible for a person of ordinary intelligence to understand that she had not complied with the statute despite posting a valid permit where statutorily directed. Likewise, it was reasonable for Cook to understand she had complied with the statute when: she posted a valid permit that was issued to her, the permit was posted in her rear windshield and was visible and readable when posted, and the permit remained in that location while her vehicle was operated on the highway.

In addition, case law analyzing section 49-432(4) has not provided the clarity needed to apprise the motoring public of what is required in order to comply with the statute. In 2007, the Idaho Court of Appeals determined that when a temporary permit was displayed in accordance with section 49-432(4), it was presumed valid, and the mere existence of such a permit may not "serve as the basis for reasonable suspicion" to effectuate a traffic stop. State v. Salois, 144 Idaho 344, 348, 160 P.3d 1279, 1283 (Ct. App. 2007) (referencing section 49-432(3), now renumbered to subsection (4)). As a corollary, the Court of Appeals noted that reasonable suspicion may arise, and the presumption of validity overcome, when "the invalidity of the permit, such as by improper alteration, is obvious and discernable by the officer prior to stopping the vehicle." Id. Salois thus left the ordinary person with the same understanding that would be garnered through a reading of the statute: so long as a valid permit is posted in a vehicle where "readily legible" at the time of posting and remains posted in that location while the vehicle travels on a highway, compliance with the statute has been achieved. Indeed, in Salois, the Court of Appeals held a permit properly posted enjoys a presumption of validity, given no obvious and discernable errors. Accordingly, under Salois, Cook would have understood her conduct to be in compliance with section 49-432(4).

Some years later, in 2015, the Court of Appeals applied Salois in State v. Kinch, 159 Idaho 96, 101, 356 P.3d 389, 394 (Ct. App. 2015). In Kinch, an officer could not read the temporary permit while following the vehicle or after walking up to the window in which the permit was displayed. Id. at 97, 99, 356 P.3d at 391, 392. This was because the permit was "bent, somewhat crumpled, and obscured by a layer of condensation on the window ...." Id. Due to the officer's inability to read the permit, the court found that the presumption in Salois was overcome as the permit was not "readily legible" in its posted location and thus not displayed in accordance with 49-432(4). Id. at 101-02, 356 P.3d at 394-95. Necessarily, Kinch found, by applying Salois, that the invalidity of the permit was obvious and discernable prior to stopping the vehicle. See id.

In so holding, the court implicitly required temporary permits to be "readily legible" from some following distance, since an officer must be able to discern the obvious invalidity of the permit before initiating the traffic stop as per Salois . Id. at 101 n.8, 356 P.3d at 394 n.8 ("[T]he requirement in Salois that the officer must have reasonable suspicion that the temporary permit violates the law before initiating the traffic stop strongly suggests that the permit must be readily legible from the officer's vehicle, at least at some distance ...."). Despite recognizing this (and interpreting the context and plain language of section 49-432(4) to require a temporary permit to "be readily legible from the vantage point of another vehicle on the road"), the court went to great length to note that it was not resolving the issue of what distance a temporary permit must be readily legible from, because the permit at issue was not readily legible from the officer's vehicle or a close distance. Id. at 100-101, 101 n.7, 356 P.3d at 393-394, 394 n.7.

Regardless of the court's ostensible avoidance of this distance question, the application of Salois (and the court's statutory interpretation analysis) makes it clear that the court read section 49-432(4) to require the permit be readily legible from a following vehicle. As noted, a plain reading of the statute by the ordinary person does not apprise her of this requirement. Kinch has placed a more onerous burden on the ordinary motorist than the statute; thus, Kinch's interpretation of section 49-432(4) demonstrates that it is unconstitutionally vague as applied to Cook's case. In addition, Kinch does not overcome the statute's vagueness. At what distance does the permit need to be "readily legible"? It remains unclear both upon reading the statute and following Kinch. In order to avoid a vagueness challenge, the statute must provide sufficient clarity and definiteness that a person of ordinary intelligence can understand what behavior is required. Korsen, 138 Idaho at 711, 69 P.3d at 131. In addition, by not apprising the motoring public of the distance from which a permit must be legible, the law "invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Cobb, 132 Idaho at 197, 969 P.2d at 246. Neither this statute, nor our case law, afford that clarity. Even today, it is not possible to know how to comply with this statute.

Here, Cook placed a valid temporary permit in her rear windshield, where it was readily legible, and it was in that location while she drove upon the highway. Based on a fair reading of section 49-432(4) and Salois, this was all she needed to do to comply with the statute. Eventually, condensation formed on her rear windshield and the permit became unreadable. Under Kinch, this was enough to elevate her conduct, the same conduct which was compliant under the statute, to a violation. However, in order to reach this result, the Court of Appeals had to read into the statute words that were not used by the legislature in this context. The court seemingly infers the requirement that the permit be "clearly visible" and "free from foreign materials," even though the operative statute does not contain this language.

When all is said and done, the current wording of the statute undermined Cook's ability to discern what conduct was required so that she might properly conform her behavior to the law. Idaho Code section 49-432(4) does not apprise Cook that she must keep the permit "clearly visible" or "free from foreign materials." Nor does it provide guidance regarding the permit's visibility from a certain distance. Nor did the Board create a form temporary permit as directed by the legislature. Given all of this, we conclude section 49-432(4) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to Cook's conduct. Because section 49-432(4) did not provide Cook adequate notice of what was required, it did not provide Jacobson with legal cause to effectuate the traffic stop leading to discovery of contraband. Consequently, Cook's motion to suppress should have been granted. See Burton v. State, Dep't of Transp., 149 Idaho 746, 750, 240 P.3d 933, 937 (Ct. App. 2010). Because we reverse the denial of Cook's motion to suppress on these grounds, Cook's additional arguments need not be addressed.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, we reverse the district court's denial of Cook's motion to suppress; we vacate Cook's conviction and remand for further proceedings.

Chief Justice BURDICK, Justices BRODY, BEVAN and MOELLER concur.

      At the suppression hearing, the State argued that Cook's crossing of the fog line established reasonable suspicion for Jacobson to stop Cook's vehicle. The district court, in reviewing the video, did not see Cook drive over the fog line. In addition, it found this alleged traffic violation was not enough to effectuate the seizure. The State has not challenged this finding on appeal. Consequently, this allegation cannot constitute a basis for Cook's seizure.

      This Court has announced, as a general principle, that the "void-for-vagueness doctrine ... requires that a statute defining criminal conduct be worded with sufficient clarity and definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited ...." Korsen, 138 Idaho at 711, 69 P.3d at 131 ; see also Larsen, 135 Idaho at 756, 24 P.3d at 704. After Korsen's clear delineation of "facial vagueness" and "vagueness as applied," the "ordinary people" standard might appear to be applicable only to a facial vagueness analysis; this is not so. We find the "ordinary people" standard remains a helpful tool in "as applied" analyses and will be utilized here. See Pines v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 158 Idaho 745, 756, 351 P.3d 1203, 1214 (2015).


author: BRODY, Justice.

text:
    Jun YU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY, Mark Roberts, individually and his official capacity as a faculty member of Idaho State University; Shannon Lynch, individually and in her official capacity as a faculty member of Idaho State University; Kandi Turley-Ames, individually and in her official capacity as a faculty member of Idaho State University; Cornelis J. Van Der Schyf, individually and in his official capacity as a faculty member of Idaho State University, and John/Jane Does I through X, whose true identities are presently unknown, Defendants-Respondents.
    Docket No. 46364
    Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, June 2019 Term.
    Opinion Filed: July 10, 2019
    Idaho Employment Law Solutions, Eagle, for appellant. Ronaldo A. Coulter argued.
    Kelly Law, PLLC, Garden City, for respondents. Michael E. Kelly argued.
   BRODY, Justice.

Jun Yu appeals the dismissal of his claims for alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and breach of contract. Idaho State University dismissed Yu from its doctoral program in clinical psychology in May 2013, with his final administrative appeal denied on October 2, 2013. While Yu originally filed his claims against ISU in the federal district court, he brought an identical state action nearly five years after his dismissal from the program once the federal court dismissed most of his claims. We affirm the district court's dismissal of Yu's claims because they were untimely.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Jun Yu is a citizen of the People's Republic of China who was completing his Ph.D. in clinical psychology at Idaho State University. He completed all the requisite coursework, wrote and defended his dissertation, but still had to complete a one-year clinical internship. After not matching any programs with the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers, Yu set up an alternative internship with the Cleveland Clinic Center for Autism in Ohio. However, he was dismissed from the Ohio internship early due to performance concerns and subsequently dismissed from Idaho State University's doctoral program on May 3, 2013. After exhausting his appeals with the university, Yu received a final letter on October 2, 2013, that denied his appeal and immediately made his dismissal effective.

On March 10, 2014, Yu filed a notice of tort claim against ISU pursuant to the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA), alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress and a violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Right Act. Eighteen months later he filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho alleging violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, deprivation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Yu later amended his complaint to include allegations of denial of procedural and substantive due process, promissory estoppel, and breach of contract, totaling 18 claims against ISU. No individual defendants were named in the notice of claim or in his federal action.

Yu later argued before the federal district court that he was prompted to amend his complaint because of expert reports issued after the litigation commenced. Three experts in psychology reviewed Yu's case and concluded that ISU violated ethical and accreditation standards. Yu received these expert reports between March 13, 2016, and March 23, 2016, several months into his litigation at the federal district court. Yu then amended his federal complaint against ISU on March 29, 2017.

ISU moved for summary judgment in the federal action and prevailed on 17 of the 18 claims because the Eleventh Amendment provided ISU with immunity from suit and Yu had not named any state officials in his complaint. Only the Title VI claim remains in federal district court. The other 17 claims were dismissed on January 26, 2018.

On February 21, 2018, within a month of the federal district court's dismissal, and almost four years after filing his notice of tort claim against ISU, Yu filed the complaint that is at issue in this case, naming six defendants: ISU; Mark W. Roberts, ISU's Director of Clinical Training in the Psychology Department; Shannon Lynch, ISU's Chair of the Department of Psychology; Kandi Turley-Ames, ISU's Dean of the College of Arts and Letters; Cornelius J. Van der Schyf, ISU's Dean of the Graduate School; and Arthur C. Vailas, President of ISU (collectively, Defendants). The individual defendants were sued in their official and individual capacities. Yu's complaint alleged the same 17 claims previously dismissed by the federal district court: a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim for denial of his procedural and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, promissory estoppel, and 13 claims asserting breach of contract.

On April 2, 2018, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case for Yu's failure to comply with the ITCA and applicable statutes of limitation, and failure to state a claim for relief. Yu opposed the motion. The district court held a hearing, and ultimately granted Defendants' motion for dismissal. The district court determined that Yu had failed to comply with the ITCA with respect to all individual defendants because the 2014 notice of claim was only filed against ISU. In addition, the district court ruled that the applicable statutes of limitations for both personal injury and implied contract claims barred Yu's action since the latest date the claims could have accrued was October 2, 2013, when Yu's administrative appeal challenging his dismissal from ISU was final. All of Yu's claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Yu timely appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and breach of contract claims. While Yu states in a footnote that he also appeals the dismissal of his tort claim against ISU, but not the individually named defendants, he presents no arguments in his briefing. Because we will not review a trial court's action where the briefs contain no arguments or citations to authority, Hurtado v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 153 Idaho 13, 17, 278 P.3d 415, 419 (2012), we will not review the dismissal of the tort claim.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In reviewing Defendants' motion to dismiss, the district court properly converted the motion to a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Idaho Rule of Procedure 12(d): "If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56." Consequently, when reviewing the district court's order granting a motion to dismiss, the standard of review we use is the same as that used in summary judgment. In re City of Shelley, 151 Idaho 289, 291, 255 P.3d 1175, 1177 (2011) ; Gibson v. Ada Cnty., 142 Idaho 746, 751, 133 P.3d 1211, 1216 (2006).

The standard of review on appeal from an order granting summary judgment is the same standard that is used by the district court in ruling on the motion. Baxter v. Craney, 135 Idaho 166, 170, 16 P.3d 263, 267 (2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. I.R.C.P. 56(c) ; McCann v. McCann, 138 Idaho 228, 232, 61 P.3d 585, 589 (2002).

Gibson, 142 Idaho at 751, 133 P.3d at 1216. This Court maintains free review over a statute's construction. Id. In addition, where there is no dispute over any issue of material fact, the time when a cause of action accrues is a question of law that this Court freely reviews. Molen v. Christian, 161 Idaho 577, 580, 388 P.3d 591, 594 (2017).

III. ANALYSIS

A. The district court did not dismiss Yu's federal and contract claims for failure to comply with the ITCA.

The first argument Yu raises on appeal is that the district court improperly dismissed all of his claims due to noncompliance with the ITCA when that statute does not apply to his federal 1983 claims or his breach of contract claims. He does not challenge the dismissal of the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim against the five individual defendants or the university, so that is not an issue before this Court. We do not reach the merits of Yu's argument because his reading of the district court's order is too broad. Fairly read, the district court's decision barred "all of the Plaintiff's claims subject to the Idaho Tort Claims Act as against the individually named Defendants for failure to comply with the mandatory notice requirements of that statute." (Emphasis added). The district court did not dismiss all of Yu's federal or contract claims for failure to comply with the ITCA. As discussed, infra , those claims were properly dismissed based on the applicable statutes of limitation.

B. The district court correctly held that Yu's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and breach of contract claims were barred by applicable statutes of limitation.

1. Yu's federal 1983 claims.

Yu asserts that the district court erred in dismissing his claims for alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. section 1983 as untimely. The district court determined that the last possible date of accrual of Yu's claims was October 2, 2013, when his last administrative appeal with the university was denied. Defendants concede this was the date of accrual for purposes of this appeal. Yu contends, however, that the date of accrual falls between March 13, 2016, and March 26, 2016, because that is the time period when he received expert opinions that laid the foundation of his due process and breach of contract claims. Thus, Yu argues the receipt of expert opinions gave him, for the first time, the requisite knowledge and awareness of his injury. We disagree with Yu's analysis.

Statutes of limitation play an important role in litigation. As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court:

Statutes of limitation, ... in their conclusive effects are designed to promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared. The theory is that even if one has a just claim it is unjust not to put the adversary on notice to defend within the period of limitation and that the right to be free of stale claims in time comes to prevail over the right to prosecute them.

Order of R.R. Telegraphers v. Ry. Express Agency, 321 U.S. 342, 348-49, 64 S.Ct. 582, 88 L.Ed. 788 (1944). See also Gabelli v. S.E.C., 568 U.S. 442, 448-49, 133 S.Ct. 1216, 185 L.Ed.2d 297 (2013).

In 42 U.S.C. section 1983 actions, courts generally apply the corresponding state-law statute of limitation for personal injury torts. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Cal. v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 123 n.5, 125 S.Ct. 1453, 161 L.Ed.2d 316 (2005) ; Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 280 n.6, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) ; Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 280, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985). This Court applies the two-year statute of limitation set forth in Idaho Code section 5-219(4) to section 1983 actions. McCabe v. Craven, 145 Idaho 954, 957, 188 P.3d 896, 899 (2008). Under this statute, an action to recover damages for personal injury must commence within two years of "the occurrence, act or omission complained of." I.C. § 5-219(4). Accordingly, Yu's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claims all fall under this two-year statute of limitation.

Although the length of the statute of limitation is governed by Idaho law, federal law governs the date on which a section 1983 cause of action accrues. McCabe, 145 Idaho at 957, 188 P.3d at 899. As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court, "accrual occurs when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action ... that is, when the plaintiff can file suit and obtain relief." Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007) (internal quotations and brackets omitted). "In other words, a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that forms the basis of his cause of action." Bradford v. Scherschligt, 803 F.3d 382, 387 (9th Cir. 2015).

Yu seems to be advocating for the discovery rule, an age-old doctrine where "accrual is delayed until the plaintiff has 'discovered' his cause of action."

Gabelli v. S.E.C., 568 U.S. 442, 449, 133 S.Ct. 1216, 185 L.Ed.2d 297 (2013) (internal quotations omitted). The discovery rule typically applies in cases of fraud, such as where deceptive conduct prevents a plaintiff from knowing he was defrauded. See, e.g., Gabelli v. S.E.C., 568 U.S. 442, 449, 133 S.Ct. 1216, 185 L.Ed.2d 297 (2013). Not only has Yu failed to allege or provide any evidence of fraud or concealment concerning his dismissal, Yu's reliance on the date of discovery is misplaced. The knowledge requirement for a section 1983 action falls on the date when there is knowledge of an injury by the claimant , not the date when a specific theory of relief is identified by counsel. For example, in the Ninth Circuit, a federal claim accrues at the time a plaintiff learns of his injury-when plaintiffs recognize harm and know the identity of the tortfeasor, even if additional harm arises later on. Doe, 7 v. Josephine Cnty., 697 F. App'x 567, 568 (9th Cir. 2017) ; Bradford, 803 F.3d at 387.

Contrary to well-established case law, Yu's argument rests on his claim accruing at the time he discovered additional legal theories , namely breaches of contract and violations of due process. It is clear from the record, however, that Yu was aware of his injury since at least October 2, 2013, when the graduate school dismissed him from ISU at the end of his appellate process. Because Yu filed his action in state court on February 21, 2018, roughly four years and six months after his dismissal from ISU, his federal claims are time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

2. Yu's breach of contract claims.

Yu next argues that he had a written contract with ISU based on documents like ISU's Governing Policies and Procedures, graduate catalogs, student and faculty handbooks, and the American Psychological Association Accreditation standards. He continues to argue that the date of accrual of his breach of contract claims falls between March 13, 2016, and March 26, 2016, because that is when he received expert opinions that laid the foundation for his breach of contract claims. The distinction between implied contracts and written contracts is important to Yu's claims because a five-year statute of limitations for written contracts would make Yu's breach of contract claims timely even under the October 2, 2013 accrual date. However, we agree with the district court's analysis that the cited documents, at best, give rise to a claim for breach of an implied contract with a four-year statute of limitations.

An action based upon an oral or implied contract must be brought within four years of the date of accrual, while an action based upon a written contract must be brought within 5 years. I.C. §§ 5-216 and 217. "The statute of limitations does not begin to run until a claim accrues upon the breach of the contract." Spence v. Howell, 126 Idaho 763, 770, 890 P.2d 714, 721 (1995).

It is well-settled that the "principal relationship between a college and its students is contractual." Wickstrom v. N. Idaho Coll., 111 Idaho 450, 452, 725 P.2d 155, 157 (1986) (citing Peretti v. State of Montana, 464 F.Supp. 784, 786 (D.Mont.1979), rev'd on other grounds, 661 F.2d 756 (9th Cir.1981) ). Because a formal contract is rarely prepared, "the general nature and terms of the agreement are usually implied, with specific terms to be found in the university bulletin and other publications; custom and usages can also become specific terms by implication." Id. (quoting Peretti, 464 F.Supp. at 786 ). Even where the contract's terms are within a university's published documents, Idaho courts have treated the contractual relationship between student and college as implied. See Wickstrom, 111 Idaho at 452, 725 P.2d at 157 (citing Peretti, 464 F.Supp. at 786 ) ("the general nature and terms of the agreement are usually implied, with specific terms to be found in the university bulletin and other publications ;") (emphasis added); George, 121 Idaho at 38, 822 P.2d at 557 ("based on the excerpts of the University's Faculty-Staff Handbook ... the University had an implied contractual obligation 'to fulfill its responsibilities in pursuit of the academic goals and objectives of all members of the university community,' ").

There is no evidence in the record that Yu had an express or formal written contract with ISU. Nor has he shown how the documents he relies upon established contractual intent by the parties. His argument for a written contract-and its corresponding five-year statute of limitations-is based on ISU's written and published documents and policies. While the documents are in writing, they do not constitute an express contract between the student and university. Instead, at best, those writings provide the terms of an implicit agreement. See Wickstrom, 111 Idaho at 452, 725 P.2d at 157 (quoting Peretti, 464 F.Supp. at 786 ); George, 121 Idaho at 38, 822 P.2d at 557. Accordingly, a four-year statute of limitations for implied contracts applies with the latest possible date of accrual on October 2, 2013; the date Yu's administrative appeals were exhausted. Because Yu filed his claims outside the requisite four-year period, the district court properly dismissed his breach of contract claims as time-barred.

C. Whether Defendants are entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

Defendants claim they are entitled to attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-121, which permits an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party where a case was "brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation." In this case, we award attorney fees against Yu because he unreasonably pursued his claims. It was clear that Yu's claims were untimely under the applicable statutes of limitation and Yu failed to cite to any law to the contrary or make a good faith argument for overturning existing case law.

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, we affirm the district court in dismissing all of Yu's claims with prejudice. We award attorney fees and costs to Defendants.

Chief Justice BURDICK, and Justices BEVAN, STEGNER and MOELLER concur.


text:
    ASPEN PARK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BONNEVILLE COUNTY, Defendant-Respondent.
    Docket No. 45679
    Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, June 2019 Term.
    Opinion Filed: July 10, 2019
    Hopkins, Roden, Crockett, Hansen & Hoopes, PLLC, Idaho Falls, for appellant. C. Timothy Hopkins argued.
    Nelson, Hall, Parry, Tucker, PLLC, Idaho Falls, for respondent. Weston S. Davis argued.
    Michael Kane & Associates, PLLC, Boise, for Idaho Association for Counties, amicus curiae.
    Brad M. Purdy, Boise, for Community Action Partnership Association of Idaho amicus curiae.
   BRODY, Justice.

This case involves the denial of a property tax exemption. Aspen Park, Inc., a nonprofit organization, sought a property tax exemption from Bonneville County for its low-income apartments. The County's Board of Equalization denied an exemption because some of the apartments were leased to tenants with incomes above 60 percent of the county's median income level, a requirement set forth in Idaho Code section 63-602GG(3)(c). Aspen Park appealed to the Idaho Board of Tax Appeals, arguing that the statute allowed vacant apartments to be leased to higher-income earners. After the Board of Tax Appeals denied tax exempt status, Aspen Park filed a petition for judicial review with the district court. The district court granted Bonneville County summary judgment after deciding that to be eligible for a tax exemption under Idaho Code section 63-602GG, every apartment must be rented to low-income individuals or remain vacant. Aspen Park timely appealed. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Aspen Park, Inc., an Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, owns and operates Aspen Park Apartments located in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The apartments consist of 72 units that are meant to be rented to individuals and families whose income is 60 percent or lower than the median income level for Bonneville County.

In 2016, Aspen Park applied for a property tax exemption from Bonneville County under Idaho Code section 63-602GG. Aspen Park's assessed land value was $206,890 and the improvement value was $1,261,020. The Bonneville County Board of Equalization denied Aspen Park's application on multiple grounds, including not meeting the low-income housing property tax exemption requirements found in Idaho Code section 63-602GG. Aspen Park appealed to the Idaho Board of Tax Appeals. The Board affirmed the Board of Equalization's decision denying a property tax exemption. Aspen Park appealed to the district court seeking judicial review of the Idaho Board of Tax Appeals's decision. The district court granted summary judgment to Bonneville County and dismissed the petition for judicial review. Aspen Park timely appealed to this Court.

The primary issue with Aspen Park's low-income property-tax-exemption application was the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-602GG. The statute requires that "all" of the housing units owned by a nonprofit be "dedicated" to providing housing to people who meet certain low-income guidelines. In 2016, Aspen Park rented 13 apartments out of its 72 units to individuals or families who did not qualify for low-income status because their incomes exceeded 60 percent of the County's median income level. I.C. § 63-602GG(3)(c). Bonneville County maintained that the statute required that all apartments needed to be rented to low-income occupants or remain vacant. Aspen Park argued that it "dedicated" all of its units to low-income tenants, but instead of allowing apartments to remain vacant, it rented them to non-qualifying tenants while leaving a certain number of apartments vacant for low-income applicants who might apply. The Bonneville County Board of Equalization, the Idaho Board of Tax Appeals, and the district court all interpreted Idaho Code section 63-602GG as requiring that every apartment be rented to low-income tenants or remain vacant. We agree.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"The interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which this Court exercises free review." City of Idaho Falls v. H-K Contractors, Inc., 163 Idaho 579, 581, 416 P.3d 951, 953 (2018).

Our objective when interpreting a statute is "to derive the intent of the legislative body that adopted the act." Id. (quoting State v. Schulz, 151 Idaho 863, 866, 264 P.3d 970, 973 (2011) ). Statutory interpretation begins with the statute's plain language. State v. Dunlap, 155 Idaho 345, 361, 313 P.3d 1, 17 (2013). This Court considers the statute as a whole, and gives words their plain, usual, and ordinary meanings. Id. When the statute's language is unambiguous, the legislature's clearly expressed intent must be given effect, and we do not need to go beyond the statute's plain language to consider other rules of statutory construction. Id. at 361-62, 313 P.3d at 17-18.

State v. Owens , 158 Idaho 1, 3, 343 P.3d 30, 32 (2015).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Idaho Code section 63-603GG(3)(c) requires every unit in Aspen Park's apartment complex be rented to low-income tenants or remain vacant.

This case centers around the meaning of the word "dedicated" as used in Idaho Code section 63-602GG(3)(c). Summary judgment was granted for Bonneville County because the district court interpreted the word "dedicated" to mean that every rental in Aspen Park Apartments must be rented to low-income individuals or families in order for the tax exemption to apply. We agree with the district court.

Taxes are certain in the State of Idaho and exemptions must be expressly set forth in a statute to apply. I.C. § 63-601. Because of the ubiquitous nature of taxation, this Court strictly and narrowly construes tax-exemption statutes against the taxpayer. Ada Cnty. Assessor v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise, 123 Idaho 425, 428, 849 P.2d 98, 101 (1993). Our presumption against exemptions is due to the fact that "[t]ax exemptions exist as a matter of legislative grace, epitomizing the antithesis of traditional democratic notions of fairness, equality, and uniformity." Id. at 429, 849 P.2d at 102. Thus, we do not presume exemptions, but rather construe statutes according to the "strict but reasonable" rules of statutory construction, with ambiguities being given their narrowest possible reasonable construction. Id.

The statute at issue in this case, Idaho Code section 63-602GG, authorizes a property tax exemption for low-income housing owned by non-profit organizations. One of the qualifications that must be met to qualify for the tax exemption is that all of the rentals in a complex must be "dedicated" to low income housing except for the manager's unit:

Except for a manager's unit, all of the housing units in the low-income housing property are dedicated to low-income housing in the following manner: Fifty-five percent (55%) of the units shall be rented to those earning sixty percent (60%) or less of the median income for the county in which the housing is located; twenty percent (20%) of the units shall be rented to those earning fifty percent (50%) or less of the median income of the county in which the housing is located; and twenty-five percent (25%) of the units shall be rented to those earning thirty percent (30%) or less of the median income for the county in which the housing is located.

I.C. § 63-602GG(3)(c).

It is undisputed that Aspen Park usually has vacancies after all low-income earners have applied to rent its apartments, so instead of allowing these units to stand vacant, the company rents them to higher-income earners while leaving a few vacancies in the chance a low-income earner applies. Aspen Park does not dispute that approximately 13 of its rentals in the year 2016 were rented to occupants with an income higher than 60 percent of the county median income, but it argues that the term "dedicated" as found in Idaho Code section 63-602GG(3)(c) allows such a practice to occur when the rentals would otherwise stand vacant. To bolster this argument, Aspen Park quotes the definition of "dedicated" as: "devoted to a cause, ideal, or purpose." MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY , https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dedicated (last visited June 11, 2019). Aspen Park contends that all of its apartments are "devoted to renting its units to qualified, low-income persons to every extent possible," and therefore are in conformity with the statute. Additionally, if the 13 higher-income tenants were ignored, Aspen Park would be in conformity with the statute.

While Aspen Park's practice of renting vacant apartments to higher-income tenants may be practical in that it avoids economic waste, and perhaps even good public policy because it encourages income diversity in dwelling accommodations, the practice does not conform to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-602GG(3)(c). The statute makes it clear that all of the housing units of a property except the manager's unit must be dedicated to low-income tenants. Renting units to those who exceed the established income levels is not allowed. While the word "dedicate" has multiple meanings, within the context of a statute concerning real property, its meaning is plain: "to set apart for a definite use." Dedicate, MERRIAM WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY (10th ed. 1995). The statute apportions an entire property into three distinct income levels, providing instruction as to how each category "shall" be rented. It is not a mere coincidence that the total of these three categories-55 percent, 20 percent, and 25 percent - equals 100 percent. Thus, the legislature intended for "all" the housing units to be filled by individuals that met the income criteria set forth in Idaho Code section 63-602GG(3)(c), not simply the apartments that could be filled. A plain reading of the statute only leads to one conclusion: all of a property's housing units must be rented-except for the manager's unit-according to the three distinct income classes created by the statute. Therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Bonneville County. Because our decision affirms the judgment of the district court, we will not address the other arguments raised by Bonneville County to support the district court's judgment.

B. Bonneville County is not entitled to attorney fees.

Bonneville County argues that it is entitled to an award of attorney fees under Idaho Code sections 12-117 and 12-121. Section 12-117 permits an award to a prevailing party in an action between a person and state agency or political subdivision if the court "finds that the nonprevailing party acted without a reasonable basis in fact or law." I.C. § 12-117(1). Likewise, Idaho Code section 12-121 permits the court to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party where "the case was brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation." Aspen Park did not bring a frivolous, unreasonable, or unfounded appeal. Nor did it act without a reasonable basis in fact or law. The statute at issue has never been interpreted by this Court and its use of the word "dedicated" rather than "rented" created a genuine issue. While Aspen Park did not prevail on appeal, the interest at stake in this case is important, and Aspen Park had a reasonable basis upon which to challenge the interpretation of the exemption. As such, we decline to award attorney fees.

IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the decision of the district court and decline to award attorney fees. Costs are awarded to Bonneville County.

Chief Justice BURDICK, and Justices BEVAN, STEGNER, and MOELLER concur.


text:
    STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Shawn Jerri COATS, Defendant-Appellant.
    Docket No. 46488
    Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, February 2019 Term.
    Opinion Filed: July 10, 2019
    Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Jenevieve C. Swinford argued.
    Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.
   BRODY, Justice.

The malicious ingenuity of thieves is boundless. While the Legislature regularly passes new criminal laws in an effort to keep up with new scams in the electronic age, the question presented in this case is whether the State's good, old-fashioned charge of "theft" fits the thief's conduct. Shawn Coats, the defendant, was charged with eight different offenses after he took an elderly man's debit card and deposited fraudulent checks into the man's credit union account to create funds for a multi-day shopping spree at Walmart.

After a jury trial, he was convicted of seven of the offenses, including grand theft of retail goods and fraudulent use of a financial transaction card.

On appeal, Coats contends that the jury did not have substantial evidence to convict him of grand theft of retail goods from an owner because Walmart was paid in full for the goods, and Morgan, the man from whom he obtained the debit card, never owned the purchases. Alternatively, he argues that he was subjected to double jeopardy upon being convicted for both grand theft and fraudulent use of a financial transaction card, because fraudulent use is a lesser included offense of grand theft. We hold that there was not substantial evidence for the conviction of grand theft. While Idaho's theft statute is broad and covers many misdeeds, there must be a careful analysis of what was stolen and from whom before a charging decision is made and the jury is instructed. Because this case will be remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate Coats's conviction on Count 5, we do not reach the merits of Coats's double jeopardy argument.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Shawn Coats learned of Theodore Morgan's financial difficulties while visiting his residence one evening. Offering to help, Coats accompanied Morgan to an ATM late that night and gave Morgan a falsified check for $955 to deposit into his credit union account. Coats stood behind Morgan's shoulder while the check was deposited into the ATM. While they were there, Coats told Morgan that he needed $500 in cash and gave him another falsified check in the amount of $950 to deposit. Coats signed the checks with the name of another account holder and designated the funds as a "loan" to Morgan on the memo line. With around $2,000 in his once empty credit union account, Morgan withdrew $500 and gave it to Coats.

Following the ATM transactions, Coats asked Morgan if he could borrow his vehicle for a quick trip across town. Morgan reluctantly agreed and soon retired to bed. However, instead of merely going across town, Coats, armed with the knowledge of Morgan's PIN, took Morgan's debit card and used it to insert more false checks into the credit union account and made multiple purchases over a period of two days at Walmart, totaling approximately $5,000. After a few days of Coats's fraudulent spending spree, Morgan's credit union recognized the fraudulent activity and shut down the account.

After an investigation, the State arrested and charged Coats with eight offenses:

Count 1: Grand theft ( I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), -2407(1)(b)(3), -2409) for wrongfully taking a financial transaction card from Theodore Morgan on or between June 28, 2015, and July 2, 2015;
Count 2: Grand theft ( I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), -2407(b)(1), -2409) for wrongfully taking over $1,000 in cash from Theodore Morgan on or between June 29, 2015, and July 1, 2015;
Count 3: Forgery ( I.C. § 18-3601 ) for a check on Kent Stevens's account payable to Ted Morgan in the amount of $975.00 to Mountain American Credit Union on June 29, 2015;
Count 4: Forgery ( I.C. § 18-3601 ) for a check on Kent Stevens's account payable to Ted Morgan in the amount of $990.00 to Mountain American Credit Union on June 29, 2015;
Count 5: Grand theft ( I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), -2407(b)(9), -2409) for wrongfully taking retail goods or services with an aggregate value over $50, stolen during three or more incidents, in a criminal episode up to three days, from the owner Theodore Morgan and/or Walmart, on or between June 29, 2015, and June 30, 2015;
Count 6: Forgery ( I.C. § 18-3601 ) for a check on Linda Glass's account payable to Ted Morgan in the amount of $995.00 to Mountain American Credit Union on June 29, 2015;
Count 7: Criminal possession of a financial transaction card ( I.C. §§ 18-3125(4), -3128) for knowingly obtaining goods and/or property from Walmart by using a fraudulently obtained financial transaction card on or between June 29, 2015, and June 30, 2015; and Count 8: Criminal possession of a financial transaction card ( I.C. §§ 18-3125(4), -3128) for knowingly obtaining goods and/or property from Fred Meyer by using a fraudulently obtained financial transaction card on June 30, 2015.

A three-day jury trial ensued. Kara Donaldson, a fraud investigator with Mountain America Credit Union, testified about her investigation into the forged checks and unauthorized purchases. She explained that Coats's activities caused Morgan's account to become overdrawn and a large negative balance resulted. The credit union allowed Morgan to apply for a "workout loan" to pay off the full negative balance in his checking account.

The jury found Coats guilty of all charges except Count 8. He was also found to be a persistent violator. Coats was sentenced to fifteen years, with five years fixed, for each of the seven counts, to be served concurrently.

Coats appealed his conviction and argued that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed grand theft of retail goods, and that he was subjected to double jeopardy by being charged with both fraudulent use of a financial transaction card and grand theft. The Idaho Court of Appeals held that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to find all the elements of grand theft of retail goods outlined in Count 5 beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Coats, 2018 WL 3966522, at *3 (Idaho Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2018) The Court of Appeals remanded the case with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal for Count 5. Id. This Court granted the State's petition for review.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"While this Court gives serious consideration to the views of the Court of Appeals when considering a case on review from that court, this Court reviews the district court's decisions directly." Estrada v. State, 143 Idaho 558, 561, 149 P.3d 833, 836 (2006). "This Court will not overturn a judgment of conviction, entered upon a jury verdict, where there is substantial evidence upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Smith, 161 Idaho 782, 790, 391 P.3d 1252, 1260 (2017) (quoting State v. Sheahan , 139 Idaho 267, 285, 77 P.3d 956, 974 (2003) ). "Evidence is substantial if a reasonable trier of fact would accept it and rely upon it in determining whether a disputed point of fact has been proven." Id. (quoting State v. Eliasen, 158 Idaho 542, 546, 348 P.3d 157, 161 (2015) ).

III. ANALYSIS

The State charged Coats with stealing retail goods or services from Walmart or Morgan pursuant to Idaho Code section 18-2403(1). Section 18-2403(1) provides: "A person steals property and commits theft when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself ... he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from the owner thereof." I.C. § 18-2403(1). An owner is "any person who has a right to possession thereof superior to that of the taker, obtainer or withholder" of property. I.C. § 18-2402(6). Grand theft occurs when the value of the property taken exceeds one thousand dollars. I.C. § 18-2407(1)(b)(1). Property means anything of value, including money. I.C. § 18-2402(8).

Count 5 of the Information filed against Coats alleged:

That the Defendant, SHAWN TERRI COATS, on or about the 29th day of June, 2015, in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, did wrongfully obtain retail goods or other services with an aggregate value over $50, stolen three or more incidents of theft, which was stolen as part of a criminal episode over a period of up to three days from the owner, Theodore Morgan and/or Walmart, with the intent to appropriate to himself certain property of another.

The jury was instructed that to find Coats guilty of grand theft, the State had to prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. On or between June 29, 2015 and June 30, 2015;
2. in the state of Idaho;
3. the defendant; Shawn Jerri Coats, wrongfully obtained property described as: retail goods or services;
4. from an owner;
5. with the intent to deprive the owner of the property or to appropriate the property; and
6. the property was taken during three or more incidents; and
a. the aggregate value of the property is over $50.00; and
b. the property was stolen during a series of unlawful acts committed over a period of up to three days.

The parties do not dispute the underlying sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial that established Coats used Morgan's debit card to make unauthorized purchases at Walmart. What is in contention is whether Coats stole retail goods from an owner. Coats argues that he did not "wrongfully obtain" retail goods from Walmart because he paid for them in full (albeit with stolen money), and he did not steal retail goods from Morgan because Morgan never owned the retail goods purchased from Walmart. The State responds that when Coats purchased retail goods from Walmart with Morgan's money, Morgan had a superior claim to those goods, making him the owner of them. Thus, when Coats failed to relinquish the retail goods to Morgan, he effectively committed theft. We hold that Coats did not commit grand theft of retail goods or services from Walmart or Morgan.

So what did Coats do? Coats deposited fraudulent checks into Morgan's deficient bank account. The credit union thereby credited funds to Morgan on the assumption that the checks were legitimate. Coats then took Morgan's debit card, armed with the pin number, and made several purchases at Walmart. The record shows that Walmart was paid with funds from the debit card, and retail goods were sold to Coats in good faith. Coats stood face-to-face with a cashier in Walmart, inserted a debit card into a card reader, entered a pin number, completed the transaction, and was given retail goods. This whole ordeal was no different-in the grand theft sense-than if Coats had stolen cash from Morgan and purchased retail goods from Walmart using the legal tender.

Under section 18-2403 (1), a person has committed theft when he wrongfully obtains property from an owner. I.C. § 18-2403(1). Under the statute there is a link between wrongful conduct and an owner of property. In this case, it is clear from the record that Walmart was paid in full for the retail goods that Coats bought with Morgan's debit card. While Coats' use of the debit card was certainly wrongful, it was not wrongful in relation to an owner, as set out in the Information and the jury instruction.

Before analyzing the ownership issue it is important to understand the sinister nuances of thievery and acquisition of title to stolen goods. It is an elementary and age-old principle that a thief does not acquire title to stolen property or stolen money. Gissel v. State, 111 Idaho 725, 731, 727 P.2d 1153, 1159 (1986). However, when a thief uses stolen money to make a purchase of goods, and the seller of the goods accepts the money in good faith, the seller acquires title to the money. See 38 A.L.R. 3d 1354 (1971) (emphasis added); see also 53A Am. Jur. 2d Money § 22. "In general, only bad faith on the part of a third person receiving stolen money, or the failure on the third person's part to give a valuable consideration for it, will defeat the third person's title to the money as against the true owner." 53A Am. Jur. 2d Money § 23. The common rationale for this pragmatic rule is the need for money to pass freely in commercial transactions, without the fear that legal tender may somehow be tainted with some unknown wrongdoing. See City of Portland v. Berry, 86 Or. App. 376, 380, 739 P.2d 1041, 1044 (1987). The off-putting aspect of this rule is that the thief acquires superior title to purchased goods, making him owner of the goods bought with stolen money.

While it may seem strange that a thief who makes purchases with stolen money acquires title to whatever property he purchases, and the good faith seller (i.e., Walmart) has title to the stolen funds, the original owner is not left without a remedy. In such a situation, a constructive trust arises in the property that was purchased with the true owner's money.

Snider v. Arnold, 153 Idaho 641, 643, 289 P.3d 43, 46 (2012). "Imposition of a constructive trust is an equitable remedy and does not require that the holder of legal title intend to create a trust interest in another." Id. at 643-44, 289 P.3d at 45-46. The imposition of a constructive trust is not automatic; it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 644, 289 P.3d at 46 (referencing Hettinga v. Sybrandy, 126 Idaho 467, 469, 886 P.2d 772, 774 (1994) ). "Until a court grants the victim ... a constructive trust remedy ... the victim merely has a right to seek such a remedy." United States v. Brimberry, 779 F.2d 1339, 1348 (8th Cir. 1985) ; see also In re Newpower, 233 F.3d 922, 930-31 (6th Cir. 2000) ; U.S. S.E.C. v. Universal Exp., Inc., 2008 WL 1944803, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2008). We are not holding that a constructive trust arose as a matter of law over the retail goods Coats purchased from Walmart. The remedy of a constructive trust is only presented as an illustration of a possible remedy that may be sought when property is acquired from a good-faith seller using stolen funds.

In the present case, the complaint alleged that Coats wrongfully obtained retail goods or services from an owner, specified as being Morgan and/or Walmart. The jury instructions did not include the specification of who an owner was, but still required that the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Coats wrongfully obtained retail goods or services from an owner. As explained above, Coats did not wrongfully obtain retail goods or services from Walmart; Walmart was a good faith seller that provided retail goods or services to Coats after receiving funds through a debit card transaction. Therefore, the only other "owner" of retail goods or services that could have been meant in the jury instructions was Morgan.

However, Morgan did not have superior title to the retail goods Coats purchased with the debit card. Morgan did not authorize the purchases Coats made at Walmart, nor was the money his own. The money had been credited to his account by his credit union. The credit union did not possess superior title to the funds once transferred to Walmart in a good-faith transaction, and therefore the credit union could not be construed as an "owner" of the retail goods purchased by Coats. Even if the stolen funds were Morgan's, Morgan would have only possessed the right to seek a constructive trust on the goods that Coats had purchased from Walmart using his funds. Therefore, it is immaterial whether Morgan or the credit union had funds stolen from them, the jury instructions required the jury to determine whether the State proved retail goods or services were wrongfully obtained from an owner. This simply did not occur in this case.

A comparable situation was presented to the Alabama Supreme Court regarding land purchased with stolen money. Costell v. First Nat. Bank of Mobile, 274 Ala. 606, 150 So.2d 683 (1963). A "miserly old lady who distrusted banks" died, but had hidden gold coins throughout her house during her lifetime. Id. at 607, 150 So.2d 683. A legal secretary secreted some of the coins and purchased two parcels of land. Id. The estate of the deceased argued that a resulting trust in the parcels of land occurred, but the Supreme Court held that the lower court properly found a constructive trust resulted. Id. It explained that the legal secretary could not have acquired title to the stolen gold coins, but she could acquire title to the property purchased with the stolen gold coins. Id. at 609, 150 So.2d 683. "It is a general rule in most jurisdictions that if the funds of one person are wrongfully used by another in the purchase of real estate in his own name ... a constructive trust in the property purchased ... will arise in favor of the one whose money was wrongfully used." Id. As explained above, a constructive trust is an equitable remedy that must be pursued-it does not endow the victim with a greater current possessory interest in the property than the thief.

However, the actual funds used in the electronic funds transfer belonged to the credit union. This is evidenced by Morgan's account being overdrawn after Coat's shopping spree, resulting in a large negative balance on the account. When Walmart was paid for the retail goods during the POS (point-of-sale) transaction, the credit union had previously "credited" Morgan's account. The funds did not actually exist in Morgan's account-the credit union required him to pay the full negative balance with a "workout loan." Thus, if the State desired to charge Coats for grand theft relating to the purchases made at Walmart with a debit card, it had to properly allege Coats wrongfully obtained money from the credit union that credited Morgan's account with funds for the POS transaction. Yet, the State charged Coats with wrongfully obtaining retail goods from an owner-there was not sufficient evidence presented for a jury to convict Coats of this specific crime.

In this case, Coats did not steal retail goods or services from Walmart because they were paid with legal tender, and he did not steal retail goods or services from Morgan because Morgan did not have a greater possessory interest in the retail goods or services. Thus, there is not substantial evidence supporting the jury's verdict finding Coats guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of wrongfully obtaining retail goods or services from an owner. The judgment of conviction for Count 5 - Grand Theft, is vacated and the case is remanded with instructions to the district court to dismiss the charge. Because the judgment of conviction on Count 5 is vacated and the charge will be dismissed, we need not address the double jeopardy issue. The conviction on Count 7 stands.

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the judgment of conviction for Count 5 is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to the district court to dismiss Count 5. The conviction on Count 7 stands.

Chief Justice BURDICK, and Justices BEVAN, STEGNER, and MOELLER concur.