Feb. 17—Second District Judge Mark Monson issued no rulings on two motions for a trial for attempted murder, but denied a motion for the defense to interview the alleged victim in the case.

Public defender Brennan Wright filed the motions for Robert J. LaPlante, of Clarkston, who is charged with the attempted murder of Loyal Otis Dickson Jr. in Lewiston. In a hearing Friday at Nez Perce County Courthouse that lasted about an hour, Wright argued for evidence and statements made when LaPlante was detained by Clarkston police to be suppressed.

Nez Perce County Chief Deputy Prosecutor April Smith presented two witnesses who testified under oath: Clarkston police’s Sgt. Brian Odenberg and Lewiston police detective Brian Erickson.

Odenberg and Erickson testified about a photo shared from surveillance video that allegedly showed the suspect vehicle. Erickson testified that the vehicle in the video had a dent on the driver’s side door and a crack in the left rear bumper, which matched marks on the white Chevy Impala stopped by Odenberg. Erickson and Odenberg testified about the driver wearing a wide-brimmed fedora-style hat with a Confederate flag on the band. LaPlante was allegedly wearing a similar hat.

Odenberg testified under oath that around 1:45 a.m. July 15 he was contacted by Lewiston police about a vehicle the department was looking for that had just crossed the Interstate Bridge into Clarkston. Odenberg located the white Chevy Impala at the Nom Nom gas station on Bridge Street in Clarkston.

When LaPlante exited the vehicle Odenberg told him he was not arrested but detained. Odenberg described the talk as a conversation, not an interrogation. Odenberg said that LaPlante agreed to go to the Clarkston Police Department.

Odenberg testified that LaPlante allegedly mentioned knives in his car and at his home that didn’t belong to him, which Odenberg said was odd, “especially since I didn’t ask him about knives or the car.” Smith asked if this was a spontaneous statement, and Odenberg said it was.

Erickson testified that there allegedly appeared to be a bloodstain in the vehicle, so it was impounded and a search warrant was requested. Erickson said that the vehicle wasn’t searched at that time and he only observed the alleged bloodstain from the open door of the vehicle.

Erickson testified they asked LaPlante about the clothes he was wearing at the Clarkston Police Department and he allegedly told them he had changed his shirt and shorts. LaPlante told Erickson he could give him what he’d been wearing.

Odenberg testified that LaPlante was taken to his home to get the clothing. Smith confirmed with Erickson that once they retrieved the clothing they left the house and LaPlante was released.

In cross-examination by Wright, he asked Odenberg if he’d observed any violations of Washington law committed at the vehicle in Clarkston, and Odenberg said no. Odenberg also confirmed that he’d stopped the vehicle at the request of Lewiston police.

Wright also asked Odenberg and Erickson if they had any reason to believe they were unwelcome in the home. Both said no and Odenberg said LaPlante was agreeable but acting “odd” and “very cautious.” Both Odenberg and Erickson described LaPlante as cooperative in their interactions with him.

Odenberg and Erickson confirmed there was no search warrant or arrest warrant for LaPlante or the vehicle.

Smith told Monson in court that her argument was in the brief that had been filed. In that brief she argues that the Clarkston Police Department had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and detain LaPlante based on information provided by the Lewiston Police Department. The exchange between LaPlante and Odenberg can be used because it wasn’t an interrogation and he wasn’t arrested. She also argued that LaPlante consented to talk with Lewiston police at the Clarkston Police Department after he was given Miranda warnings as well as consenting to officers entering his home and taking property, according to the motion.

“Based on the defendant’s consent being voluntarily given, the State requests the Court deny the defendant’s motion to suppress,” Smith wrote in the brief.

Wright argued before Monson that LaPlante was stopped and detained at the direction of a law enforcement agency in another state when no violation was committed in Washington. He said that the information provided to Clarkston police didn’t create reasonable suspicion because many vehicles have dents and cracks.

“I think this is essentially a novel issue,” Wright said after being asked whether an agency can direct a law enforcement agency in another state to detain someone based on reasonable suspicion. “I can’t find the clearest guidance on that question.”

Monson clarified with Wright that his argument was that Clarkston police can’t stop or detain someone without their independent reasonable suspicion.

“It seems to me that’s the heart of it,” Monson said.

Monson then questioned if the Lewiston Police Department’s reasonable suspicion in Idaho is transferrable to Washington. Wright noted that he found previous cases where reasonable suspicion crosses county lines, but not state lines like in this case. Monson asked Wright if he had found any legal precedence or rulings on that issue.

“I haven’t,” Wright said. “I wish there was because it would give me guidance.”

Wright argued that if the stop of the vehicle and detaining of LaPlante wasn’t allowed by the Fourth Amendment, he asked that the evidence and statements from those interactions be suppressed.

Monson told Smith and Wright that he would make a decision on the motion soon because the trial is scheduled for March 11.

Wright and Smith argued about a change of venue motion from LaPlante based on articles published in the Lewiston Tribune. Wright said LaPlante was concerned the articles would bias the jury. Smith argued that the motion is premature and the parties and the court will know if the jury is biased during jury selection.

Monson said the prosecution had an accurate interpretation of the law that the motion was premature. He took the motion under advisement and will see if a jury could be seated.

Wright also filed a motion for deposition asking to speak with the alleged victim. He said the defense team and an investigator had been requesting to interview Dickson to prepare their case. Wright acknowledged that Dickson has the right to refuse unless he is unavailable for trial or otherwise authorized by law, prompting the request before Monson.

Smith argued that the alleged victim’s right statute and the Idaho Constitution are clear that a victim can refuse to speak with defense, and if Monson granted the motion it would “completely destroy that provision” of the law.

Monson agreed and denied the motion. He said the provision was not only in the Idaho code but also in the Idaho Constitution, which “ties my hands.” He also said that the prosecution is planning to have Dickson testify, fulfilling that requirement of the law, and the defense has also subpoenaed Dickson to attend.

Brewster may be contacted at kbrewster@lmtribune.com or at (208) 848-2297.