State v. Allen, No. 7-602/06-1770 (Iowa App. 10/12/2007)
| Decision Date | 12 October 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 7-602/06-1770,7-602/06-1770 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT ARTHUR ALLEN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, James D. Coil, District Associate Judge.
Robert Allen appeals following his convictions of assault on a peace officer causing bodily injury, interference with official acts causing bodily injury, assault on a peace officer, and possession of marijuana.
AFFIRMED.
Andrew Howie of Hudson, Mallaney & Shindler, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Michelle Wagner, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Baker, JJ.
Robert Allen appeals from his convictions for possession of marijuana, assault on a peace officer, assault on a peace officer causing bodily injury, and interference with official acts causing bodily injury. Allen asserts on appeal that the district court erred in not granting his motion to suppress and in not instructing the jury on self defense. Because we agree with the district court that the search of Allen and his backpack were incident to a lawful arrest and there was not substantial evidence to instruct the jury on self defense, we affirm.
On July 2, 2006, police officers were called to the Three Kings bar as the result of a fight. After the officers secured the outside premises, a bar employee requested that the officers assess the damage that occurred inside the bar. Once inside, an officer heard a man at the back of the bar, yelling loudly and using vulgar language. The officer went to investigate and discovered it was Allen who was yelling obscenities and requested that he quiet down. In spite of this request, Allen, who had the odor of alcohol on his breath and was slurring his speech, continued to act in a loud and disruptive manner. The officer decided to place Allen under arrest for public intoxication. Allen resisted the officer's attempts to handcuff him by refusing to place his arms behind his back. After two requests for Allen to relax his arms and allow the officer to handcuff him, the officer warned Allen that he would use pepper spay on him if he did not comply with his request. Allen did not comply and the officer sprayed Allen's face. Allen was then handcuffed and removed from the bar. Outside the bar, Allen continued to resist arrest by trying to pull away from the officer and reach into his pockets. Seeing that Allen was still struggling, another officer came to assist in subduing and searching Allen. During the struggle, Allen attempted to spit on an officer and bit another officer's finger. Allen was then sprayed with pepper spray a second time, which ultimately enabled the officers to gain control over Allen. Officers searched Allen and found three folding knives and a marijuana pipe in his pocket and then searched Allen's backpack, finding a second marijuana pipe and an unopened can of beer, among other items.
Allen was charged with public intoxication in violation of Iowa Code sections 123.46 and 123.91 (2005), assault on a peace officer in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1 and 708.3A, assault on a peace officer causing bodily injury in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1 and 708.3A, interference with official acts causing bodily injury in violation of Iowa Code section 719.1, and possession of a controlled substance in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5). Allen pled not guilty. Prior to trial, Allen filed a notice of self defense and a motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the search of his person and backpack. The motion to suppress was denied and the case went to trial. At trial, the court declined Allen's request to instruct the jury on self defense. The jury returned a not guilty verdict on the charge of public intoxication, but returned guilty verdicts on all the remaining charges, from which Allen appeals.
Allen first argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress, which alleged Fourth Amendment violations. We review constitutional claims de novo. State v. McGrane, 733 N.W.2d 671, 675 (Iowa 2007). This review requires us to "`make an independent evaluation of the totality of the circumstances as shown by the entire record.'" State v. Simmons, 714 N.W.2d 264, 271 (Iowa 2006) (quoting State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Iowa 2001)). In a review of the district court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we consider both the evidence presented during the suppression hearing and the evidence introduced at trial. State v. Andrews, 705 N.W.2d 493, 496 (Iowa 2005) (citations omitted). We give deference to the factual findings of the district court due to its opportunity to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, but we are not bound by such findings. McGrane, 733 N.W.2d at 675-76 (citing Turner, 630 N.W.2d at 606).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution assures "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV; See State v. Carter, 696 N.W.2d 31, 37 (Iowa 2005) (). The Iowa Constitution also guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable seizures and searches shall not be violated." Iowa Const. art. I, § 8. Allen has not argued and we have not discovered a basis to distinguish between the federal and state constitution; therefore, our analysis applies equally to the protections afforded to citizens under both constitutions. See State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 553 (Iowa 2006) (citing Simmons, 714 N.W.2d at 271). A warrantless search is per se unreasonable, unless the search falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. McGrane, 733 N.W.2d at 676 (citing State v. Kubit, 627 N.W.2d 914, 918 (Iowa 2001)). "Exceptions recognized by this court are searches based on consent, plain view, probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances, searches incident to arrest, and those based on the emergency aid exception." State v. Lewis, 675 N.W.2d 516, 522 (Iowa 2004) (citations omitted). The State has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a recognized exception to the warrant requirement is applicable. State v. Cline, 617 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Iowa 2000). We use an objective standard to assess an officer's conduct. State v. Freeman, 705 N.W.2d 293, 297 (Iowa 2005).
First, Allen argues his arrest was not valid because it was without a warrant and not supported by probable cause. "A lawful arrest is, of course, a predicate for a lawful search incident to the arrest." State v. Ceron, 573 N.W.2d 587, 589 (Iowa 1997) (citing State v. King, 191 N.W.2d 650, 654 (Iowa 1971)). Iowa Code section 804.7(3) authorizes an officer to make an arrest without a warrant if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an indictable public offense has been committed and the person arrested committed it. The reasonable ground standard is the equal to the probable cause standard. Freemen, 705 N.W.2d at 289. Therefore, a warrantless arrest must be supported by probable cause in order to be valid. Ceron, 573 N.W.2d at 592. Probable cause exists when the totality of the circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge would lead a person of reasonable prudence to believe that a crime has been or is being committed and the person arrested committed the crime. Freeman, 705 N.W.2d at 298.
In this case, Allen was arrested for public intoxication. Iowa Code § 123.46(2). Officers were investigating an unrelated fight between patrons in a bar that was open to the public. While standing at the front of the bar, an officer heard someone yelling vulgarities from the back of the bar. As the officer approached Allen, other patrons warned Allen to quiet down because police officers were in the building. The arresting officer testified that he could smell alcohol on Allen's breath, Allen was slurring his words, and wearing sunglasses in dim lighting, which concealed his eyes. Allen was standing by a pitcher of beer that was half empty with one glass next to it and admitted to the officer that he had been drinking. After the officer requested that Allen quiet down, Allen continued to yell obscenities and act in a disruptive manner. All of these factors taken together could lead an officer to conclude that Allen was intoxicated in a public place. See State v. Harris, 490 N.W.2d 561, 563 (Iowa 1992) (). The arresting officer testified that he also arrested Allen on a charge of disorderly conduct and the district court found there was probable cause for an arrest on either the public intoxication or the disorderly conduct charge. We agree with the district court that there was probable cause for the arrest of Allen. Because his arrest was lawful, the search of his person was permitted as a search incident to arrest. Ceron, 573 N.W.2d at 589.
Allen next argues that the search of his backpack exceeded the scope of the search allowed under the search incident to arrest exception. If there is probable cause to arrest a person, then a lawful search may be conducted of the person and the area within the person's immediate control. New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460, 101 S....
To continue reading
Request your trial