State v. Crawford
Decision Date | 02 April 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 02-0105.,02-0105. |
Citation | 659 N.W.2d 537 |
Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Kenny Dean CRAWFORD, Appellant. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Eric D. Tindal of Nidey, Peterson, Erdahl & Tindal, P.L.C., Williamsburg, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel L. Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, and Barbara A. Edmondson, County Attorney, for appellee.
Kenny Dean Crawford appeals following his conviction and sentence for operating while intoxicated, second offense. He contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Crawford's specific complaint is that the court erred by finding that an otherwise unconstitutional stop was constitutional by applying the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment. Finding no error, we affirm.
In the early morning hours of April 1, 2001, City of Washington Police Officer Chad Ellis received a call from the dispatcher at the Washington County Law Center. The dispatcher informed the officer that a Patricia Quintanilla had called from her apartment at 1302 North Second Street in Washington, Iowa. According to the dispatcher, Quintanilla was complaining that a male subject in her apartment "had taken some pills, woken up, was becoming physically aggressive towards [her] and was yelling and shouting." Quintanilla identified the male subject as David Butterbaugh. She also told the dispatcher that Butterbaugh did not know where he was and that he wanted a police officer to come and take him home. Officer Ellis knew Butterbaugh but did not know Quintanilla.
En route to Quintanilla's apartment, Officer Ellis received a second call from the dispatcher informing him that Quintanilla had again called and said that David Butterbaugh had just left in a dark Ford flatbed truck.
As Officer Ellis was heading to Quintanilla's apartment, he noticed a vehicle that matched the description of the truck. The officer followed the truck and eventually activated his overhead lights. The truck proceeded for a block and a half and then pulled off to the side of the road. At the time of the stop, it was close to 5:00 a.m. and there was very little traffic on the road.
As Officer Ellis approached the truck, he did not recognize the driver. He did recognize Butterbaugh, who was sitting in the passenger seat. The driver identified himself to the officer as Kenny Crawford.
The officer told Crawford about the report and that he wanted to talk to Butterbaugh to make sure "everything was okay." At this point Crawford left the vehicle, contrary to the officer's command to remain seated. Crawford went back to the officer's patrol car and the officer followed him. When the two were back at the patrol car, the officer smelled an odor of alcohol, at which point the officer began investigating Crawford for operating while intoxicated. During that investigation, Crawford admitted he had been drinking and submitted to a preliminary breath test that registered over the legal limit. Crawford, however, refused to perform any further sobriety tests.
The State charged Crawford with operating while intoxicated, second offense. Crawford moved to suppress "any of defendant's statements or products of the search of defendant or of defendant's vehicle." Crawford alleged the search was in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the officer did not have "a specific and articulable [suspicion] to support a reasonable belief that criminal activity may have occurred." The district court denied the motion.
The district court agreed with Crawford that Officer Ellis did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that a crime had occurred when the officer stopped the truck. However, the court concluded that the officer was engaged in a legitimate community caretaking function when he stopped the truck, which the court concluded was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
At the bench trial of the operating-while-intoxicated charge, the district court received into evidence a booking tape and a deposition of Officer Ellis. In addition, the parties stipulated that the court could consider the minutes of testimony in reaching its decision. The court found Crawford guilty and sentenced him to thirty days in the county jail.
Crawford contends the district court erred by finding that an otherwise unconstitutional stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment was constitutional by applying a community-caretaking-function exception.
Because Crawford raises a constitutional challenge, our review is de novo. State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Iowa 2001). In our review we "`make an independent evaluation of the totality of the circumstances as shown by the entire record.'" Id. (citation omitted). We consider both the evidence presented during the suppression hearing and that introduced at trial. State v. Breuer, 577 N.W.2d 41, 44 (Iowa 1998). We give "deference to the district court's fact findings due to its opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by those findings." Turner, 630 N.W.2d at 606.
A. Applicable law. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...." U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Fourth Amendment, which is made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, gives citizens broad protection against warrantless searches and seizures. State v. Brecunier, 564 N.W.2d 365, 367 (Iowa 1997). "The purpose of this protection is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary intrusion by government officials." Id.
Subject to a few carefully drawn exceptions, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable. State v. Carlson, 548 N.W.2d 138, 140 (Iowa 1996). Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible unless the state proves by a preponderance of the evidence that a recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies. Id.
One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement is that formulated in Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 2528, 37 L.Ed.2d 706, 714-15 (1973). In that case, the Court held that a search of the trunk of a disabled car was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment even though done without a warrant. Id. at 446-48, 93 S.Ct. at 2530-31, 37 L.Ed.2d at 717-19. In reaching that conclusion, the Court explained that local police officers, unlike federal officers, frequently "engage in what, for want of a better term, may be described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute." Id. at 441, 93 S.Ct. at 2528, 37 L.Ed.2d at 714-15. In addition, the Court explained "[t]he fact that the protection of the public might, in the abstract, have been accomplished by `less intrusive' means does not, by itself, render the search unreasonable." Id. at 447, 93 S.Ct. at 2531, 37 L.Ed.2d at 718.
One writer has asserted that the community caretaking exception encompasses three separate doctrines: (1) the emergency aid doctrine, (2) the automobile impoundment/inventory doctrine, and (3) the "public servant" exception noted in Cady. Mary E. Naumann, The Community Caretaker Doctrine: Yet Another Fourth Amendment Exception, 26 Am. J.Crim. L. 325, 330-41 (1999) [hereinafter "Naumann"].
Id. at 333-34. See also State v. Mireles, 133 Idaho 690, 991 P.2d 878, 880 (Ct.App. 1999)
().
We have applied the community caretaking exception in several cases. See., e.g., State v. Moore, 609 N.W.2d 502, 503-04 (Iowa 2000)
( ); State v. Carlson, 548 N.W.2d 138, 142-43 (Iowa 1996) ( ); State v. Mitchell, 498 N.W.2d 691, 693-94 (Iowa 1993) ( ).
In State v. Kersh, this court held that an officer was justified in opening a car door to check the condition of the defendant, who was slumped behind the wheel. 313 N.W.2d 566, 568-69 (Iowa 1981). Before arriving on the scene, the officer had received a report of a possibly intoxicated subject who had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Wright
...the intrusion upon the privacy of the citizen." State v. Coffman , 914 N.W.2d 240, 245 (Iowa 2018) (quoting State v. Crawford , 659 N.W.2d 537, 543 (Iowa 2003) ). We have previously discussed the United States Supreme Court case of Cady v. Dombrowski , 413 U.S. 433, 93 S. Ct. 2523, 37 L.Ed.......
-
Commonwealth v. Livingstone
...warrant requirements which may be invoked to validate as reasonable a warrantless seizure of an automobile."); State v. Crawford , 659 N.W.2d 537, 543 (Iowa 2003) ("Implicit in any community caretaking case is the fact that there has been a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment......
-
State v. Coffman
...842 (Iowa 2008) (Fourth Amendment); State v. Tague , 676 N.W.2d 197, 204–06 (Iowa 2004) ( article I, section 8 ); State v. Crawford , 659 N.W.2d 537, 541–44 (Iowa 2003) (Fourth Amendment); State v. Moore , 609 N.W.2d 502, 503–04 (Iowa 2000) (en banc) (Fourth Amendment); State v. Carls......
-
State v. Deneui
...emergency exception, but recognized that such was rooted in the community caretaking function of law enforcement); State v. Crawford, 659 N.W.2d 537 (Iowa 2003) (although the case involved a vehicle, court recognized search of home as part of an officer's community caretaking duty under the......