State v. Orr

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50636

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 30, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ARLYN V. ORR, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Lemhi County. Hon. Stevan H. Thompson, District Judge.

Order denying motion to suppress and judgment of conviction for felony driving
under the influence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

HUSKEY, Judge
Arlyn V. Orr appeals from his judgment of conviction for felony driving under the
influence. Orr argues the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the officer
did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop. Orr argues the Idaho Transportation
Department’s (ITD) Notice of Emergency Extensions (Notice) for vehicle registrations during the
COVID-19 pandemic rendered his expired vehicle registration valid. The Notice did not extend
Orr’s expired registration, so the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop. Orr’s
judgment of conviction is affirmed.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 8, 2020, an officer stopped Orr for having an expired vehicle registration. Orr’s
registration expired in February of 2019. Orr was ultimately arrested and charged with felony

1
driving under the influence (DUI), Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005(9), resisting and obstructing,
I.C. § 18-705, possession of an open container of alcohol in a motor vehicle, I.C § 23-505, and a
persistent violator enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. Orr filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained
as a result of the stop, arguing that the officer who conducted the traffic stop lacked reasonable
suspicion because ITD’s Notice applied to his expired registration. After a hearing, the district
court issued its written decision denying Orr’s motion to suppress. The district court held that the
officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop because the Notice did not extend Orr’s
expired registration. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Orr entered a conditional guilty plea to felony
DUI, reserving the right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress. The State dismissed the
persistent violator enhancement and agreed to conditionally dismiss the remaining misdemeanor
charges depending on the outcome of this appeal. Orr appeals.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The determination of the meaning of an administrative rule and its application is a matter
of law over which this Court exercises free review. Woodburn v. Manco Prods., Inc., 137 Idaho
502, 504, 50 P.3d 997, 999 (2002).
III.
ANALYSIS
Orr argues the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress because the officer
did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop. Orr asserts that his expired registration
was extended pursuant to ITD’s Notice, which he argues extended all expired and expiring vehicle
registrations through June 2020. The State argues that the Notice applied only to vehicle
registrations that expired between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020, and as a result, the grace
period provided by the Notice did not apply to Orr’s registration, which expired more than a year
before the extension was issued.
The Notice was issued on March 17, 2020, and provided, in pertinent part: “Effective
immediately, the Idaho Transportation Department has also extended all Vehicle Registrations and
Temporary Handicap Placards that are expired or will expire between March 1, 2020, and May 31,
2020, to be valid until June 30, 2020.” Orr argues that the Notice extended every registration that
was expired prior to March 1, 2020, based on the language “that are expired,” which appeared in

2
the Notice. Further, Orr argues the Notice intended to make a distinction based on the status of
the registration during the emergency period provided by the Notice.
Interpretation of an administrative rule begins with the literal language of the rule. Grace
at Twin Falls, LLC v. Jeppesen, 171 Idaho 287, 292, 519 P.3d 1227, 1232 (2022).
Provisions should not be read in isolation, but must be interpreted in the context of
the entire document. The rule should be considered as a whole, and words should
be given their plain, usual, and ordinary meanings. It should be noted that the Court
must give effect to all the words and provisions of the rule so that none will be void,
superfluous, or redundant. When the rule’s language is unambiguous . . . the Court
need not consider rules of statutory construction.
Id. Orr’s argument that the plain language of the Notice extended his year-old expired registration
is unpersuasive. The language regarding registrations “that are expired” applies to those
registrations that expired between March 1 (the date in the Notice) and March 17 (the date the
Notice was issued). The language “will expire” applies to those vehicle registrations that would
expire between March 17 and May 31. Thus, reading the phrase “that are expired” in context, the
Notice provides those registrations that expired between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020, will
be valid until June 30, 2020. The Notice does not provide an exemption for vehicle registrations
that expired prior to March 1, 2020. Because Orr’s registration expired in February 2019, almost
a year prior to the dates listed in the Notice, he was not covered by the Notice.
Orr further argues that not including those registrations that expired prior to March 1, 2020,
the beginning of the grace period, would render the language “that are expired” superfluous. We
disagree. In the Notice, the words “that are expired” apply to those registrations that expired after
March 1, 2020, but before the Notice was issued on March 17, 2020. The language was not
superfluous, but instead, designated a category of expired registrations defined by date.
Orr asserts that by including all expired registrations at the time the Notice was published,
it furthered the purpose of the Notice because late renewing registrants were also prevented from
visiting the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) offices. Here, the purpose of the Notice was not
to eliminate the method by which owners could register their vehicles. Rather, the Notice was
intended to issue emergency extensions to certain vehicle registrations to “reduce crowds and
protect against the spread of the coronavirus.” Further, the Notice stated: “If you need to visit a
DMV, please contact your local DMV office prior to travel to ensure they are open for business.”
Thus, the Notice did not prevent Orr from visiting or renewing his vehicle registration. It merely

3
provided a grace period for extending those registrations that fell within the timeframe designated
in the Notice.
Finally, Orr argues that, although the Notice recommended “anyone with an expired
credential covered in this notice carry a copy of this notice,” that recommendation did not mean
the officer could lawfully stop drivers for displaying expired registration stickers during the
emergency period.” We disagree. An expired registration constitutes grounds for an officer to
effectuate a traffic stop on the driver. See State v. Horton, 164 Idaho 649, 653, 434 P.3d 824, 828
(Ct. App. 2018) (holding officer had reasonable suspicion for traffic stop based on expired
registration). The recommendation in the Notice provided the driver with a reason to explain why
the otherwise expired registration was still valid but had no effect on whether the officer had
reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop.
Orr’s registration expired in February 2019, well before the timeframe provided by ITD’s
Notice. The district court did not err in concluding the Notice did not apply to vehicle registrations
that expired before March 1, 2020. Orr’s expired registration provided reasonable suspicion for
the officer to conduct a traffic stop. The district court did not err in denying Orr’s motion to
suppress.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The district court did not err in denying Orr’s motion to suppress because the officer had
reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop based on Orr’s expired registration, which was not
covered by the grace period established by ITD’s Notice. Therefore, Orr’s judgment of conviction
is affirmed.
Judge LORELLO and Judge TRIBE, CONCUR.

4