SANDPOINT — The Idaho Court of Appeals is affirming the denial of motions to suppress and dismiss in a 2004 drunken-driving case against a Sagle man.

Dan Stanley Jacobson argued his constitutional right to due process was violated while being held at the Bonner County Jail and that the case against him should have been dismissed because there was a delay in the filing of a court transcript.

The appeals court, however, has rejected those arguments.

Jacobson, 57, was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence by Sandpoint Police in late 2004. He failed field sobriety tests and his breath-alcohol concentration was measured at 0.18, the arrest report said.

Jacobson moved to suppress the evidence by arguing that he was denied permission to immediately make a second phone call, which thwarted his ability to secure alternative evidentiary testing or other exculpatory evidence.

The motion was denied and Jacobson ultimately pleaded guilty in the case and was ordered to serve 16 hours in the sheriff’s labor program, court records indicate. The motion to dismiss on procedural grounds also was denied.

Jacobson’s appeals to overturn the rulings were denied in 1st District Court, prompting him to press the due process claims in the court of appeals.

Jacobson further argued that the jail’s policy of booking inmates into the facility in the order of their arrival was a due process violation because it prevented inmates from securing exculpatory evidence in a timely fashion. He maintained that inmates arrested for DUI should be moved to the front of the booking queue because of the urgency associated with tests concerning the metabolism of alcohol.

Appellate Judge David Gratton dismissed the defense arguments, according to a Dec. 21, 2010, opinion.

Gratton held that jailers were justified in escorting him back to his cell because Jacobson was argumentative with a bail bondsman in the prior phone call and jail staff, who are responsible for maintaining an orderly facility.

“In that context, balancing the competing interests, jail staff did not act in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner in placing Jacobson in the holding cell or violate his due process rights by doing so,” Gratton wrote.

Gratton further concluded that there were no unreasonable delays in Jacobson’s booking and that inmates who post bond are already given priority.

Chief Judge Karen Lansing and Judge John Melanson concurred.