Schmoldt v. Stokes, 61719
| Decision Date | 21 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 61719,61719 |
| Citation | 275 N.W.2d 209 |
| Parties | John Wayne SCHMOLDT, Appellee, v. Allen E. STOKES, Director, Department of Transportation, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen. and Stuart D. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Robert C. Nelson, of Ruffin, Nelson, Fassler, Mitchell & Kimm, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by REYNOLDSON, C. J., and LeGRAND, UHLENHOPP, HARRIS and ALLBEE, JJ.
This appeal involves the suspension of the driver's license of John Wayne Schmoldt for refusal to submit to a chemical test for intoxication.
On March 26, 1977, Cedar Rapids police officers Noonan and Serbousek arrested Schmoldt for driving while intoxicated. Cedar Rapids participates in the Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP), which involves special training of certain peace officers. Officer Kraft, a Cedar Rapids policeman, was a member of the ASAP Unit. As a part of that program, officers who arrest a person for driving while intoxicated call in an ASAP officer to process the charge.
Officers Noonan and Serbousek accordingly called in Officer Kraft. From the circumstances given him, Officer Kraft had reasonable grounds to believe that Schmoldt was driving while intoxicated. He therefore arrested Schmoldt and requested a sample of Schmoldt's breath. Schmoldt refused. The Department of Transportation thereafter suspended Schmoldt's driver's license under the implied consent law, chapter 321B, Code 1977.
Schmoldt appealed the suspension to district court, which reversed the suspension order. The court held that only the original arresting officers could lawfully request Schmoldt to take the test. The director of the department appealed to this court.
The only question on appeal is whether the original arresting officer or officers must request a test or whether a subsequent otherwise-qualified officer may also do so after arresting the individual. Section 321B.3 of the Code provides so far as pertinent:
The withdrawal of such body substances, and the test or tests thereof, shall be administered at the written request of A peace officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway of this state while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, and only after The peace officer has placed such person under arrest for the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. (Italics added.)
Essentially Schmoldt makes a three-step contention: when an original apprehending officer arrests an accused for the offense, the State's arresting power is fully spent and a subsequent attempted re-arrest is an empty formality; therefore the second officer cannot validly arrest the driver; hence the second officer cannot lawfully demand a test.
Normally the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hitchens, 63969
...and if fairly possible a construction resulting in unreasonableness as well as absurd consequences will be avoided." Schmoldt v. Stokes, 275 N.W.2d 209, 210 (Iowa 1979), quoting Krueger v. Fulton, 169 N.W.2d 875, 877-78 (Iowa After examining the reasoning in the case law of other jurisdicti......
-
State v. Schlemme, 64668
...question the qualifications of either state trooper to request the test. Further, he does not question our holding in Schmoldt v. Stokes, 275 N.W.2d 209, 210 (Iowa 1979), that an original arresting officer need not make the request for the test; a subsequent qualified officer may make a val......
- Mason City Production Credit Ass'n v. Van Duzer
-
State v. O'Malley, 98-667
...employ a liberal construction which will best serve the statute's purpose rather than one which will defeat it. See Schmoldt v. Stokes, 275 N.W.2d 209, 210 (Iowa 1979). The two statutes at issue are sections 321J.2(3) and 321J.4(3)(a). Section 321J.2(3) 1 provides in pertinent For the purpo......