State v. Day, 94-574
| Decision Date | 22 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-574,94-574 |
| Citation | 528 N.W.2d 100 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Laurie Ann DAY, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Shari Barron, Asst. State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., Martha E. Boesen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Patrick C. Jackson, County Atty., and Matthew T. Shupe and Scott Brown, Asst. County Attys., for appellee.
Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and NEUMAN, SNELL, ANDREASEN, and TERNUS, JJ.
This appeal involves a challenge to a roadblock. Laurie A. Day was charged and convicted of operating while intoxicated (OWI), in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (1993). Day was arrested on June 26, 1993, after she was stopped at a roadblock on Highway 34 on the outskirts of Burlington at approximately 5:00 a.m. She asserts the true purpose of the roadblock was to apprehend drunk drivers, a purpose she contends is not statutorily permissible. We affirm.
After being charged with OWI, Day filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the roadblock, asserting the roadblock was an unconstitutional seizure, see U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Iowa Const. art. I, § 8, and a violation of Iowa Code section 321K.1. At the suppression hearing the parties stipulated that the only reason Day's vehicle was stopped was because of the roadblock; there was no other probable cause to stop the vehicle. The only other evidence presented at the hearing was the testimony of Robert Porter, a sergeant in the Iowa State Patrol, who testified as to the purpose of the roadblock and the procedures employed. The trial court found the roadblock met constitutional and statutory requirements and denied the motion to suppress.
Day waived her right to a jury trial. The case was tried to the court upon the stipulation of the parties that the minutes of testimony would be received without objection and the case submitted without further evidence. The minutes disclosed Day was driving a vehicle that was stopped at the roadblock. The officer who approached her vehicle smelled alcohol and observed her eyes were bloodshot and glassy. She indicated that she had been drinking in Illinois. After failing several field sobriety tests she was placed under arrest for OWI. Later she took a breath test which revealed a blood alcohol level of .265.
The court found Day guilty as charged. On appeal she asserts the evidence shows the roadblock was conducted in violation of Iowa Code section 321K.1.
Although Day raised a constitutional issue in her motion to suppress, only the statutory issue is raised on appeal. As a result our review is to correct errors at law, not de novo. State v. Sullins, 509 N.W.2d 483, 485 (Iowa 1993).
Section 321K.1 permits law enforcement agencies to conduct roadblocks under certain circumstances. It provides:
1. The law enforcement agencies of this state may conduct emergency vehicle roadblocks in response to immediate threats to the health, safety, and welfare of the public; and otherwise may conduct routine vehicle roadblocks only as provided in this section. Routine vehicle roadblocks may be conducted to enforce compliance with the law regarding any of the following:
a. The licensing of operators of motor vehicles.
b. The registration of motor vehicles.
c. The safety equipment required on motor vehicles.
d. The provisions of chapters 481A [wildlife conservation] and 483A [fishing and hunting licenses, contraband and guns].
2. Any routine vehicle roadblock conducted under this section shall meet the following requirements:
a. The location of the roadblock, the time during which the roadblock will be conducted, and the procedure to be used while conducting the roadblock, shall be determined by policymaking administrative officers of the law enforcement agency.
b. The roadblock location shall be selected for its safety and visibility to oncoming motorists, and adequate advance warning signs, illuminated at night or under conditions of poor visibility, shall be erected to provide timely information to approaching motorists of the roadblock and its nature.
c. There shall be uniformed officers and marked official vehicles of the law enforcement agency or agencies involved, in sufficient quantity and visibility to demonstrate the official nature of the roadblock.
d. The selection of motor vehicles to be stopped shall not be arbitrary.
e. The roadblock shall be conducted to assure the safety of and to minimize the inconvenience of the motorists involved.
Iowa Code § 321K.1.
Subsection 321K.1(2) includes the requirements we held necessary for a roadblock to be constitutional in State v. Hilleshiem, 291 N.W.2d 314, 318 (Iowa 1980). The Iowa Court of Appeals applied the Hilleshiem criteria and determined that a roadblock to check for intoxicated drivers is not unconstitutional. State v. Riley, 377 N.W.2d 242, 244 (Iowa App.1985). The Iowa legislature enacted section 321K.1 in 1986. At the time section 321K.1 was enacted the United States Supreme Court had not decided the constitutionality of a roadblock designed to catch drunk drivers. The Supreme Court has since upheld the constitutionality of such a roadblock stop. Michigan Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 455, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 2488, 110 L.Ed.2d 412, 423 (1990). As a result, Day concedes that roadblocks to apprehend drunk drivers are constitutional.
Day's argument on appeal is that the purpose of the roadblock was to detect and arrest drunk drivers, a purpose not authorized by section 321K.1(1). Day also argues the State failed to establish it had complied with the statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Angel
...based on statutory requirements for corrections of errors at law. State v. Davis , 679 N.W.2d 651, 656 (Iowa 2004) ; State v. Day , 528 N.W.2d 100, 102 (Iowa 1995).III. Analysis. The question we have to answer is one of statutory interpretation: Did the warrant comply with Iowa Code section......
-
State v. Huisman, 94-1655
...even though officers may also have believed a search incident to the arrest might reveal evidence of illegal drug use); State v. Day, 528 N.W.2d 100, 103 (Iowa 1995) (roadblock not illegal simply because officers discovered criminal violations besides those listed in statute as permissible ......
-
State v. Beckett
...statutory sufficiency of the warrant and not its constitutional validity. Our review is for correction of errors at law. State v. Day, 528 N.W.2d 100, 102 (Iowa 1995). III. Issuance of the Because there is a preference for warrants, we resolve doubtful cases in favor of their validity. Stat......
-
State v. Loyd
...Johnson, 513 N.W.2d 717, 719 (Iowa 1994). III. Statutory Challenge. Loyd was arrested at the same roadblock challenged in State v. Day, 528 N.W.2d 100, 101 (Iowa 1995). In Day we addressed the identical statutory challenge to the roadblock that Loyd now asserts, and we determined as a matte......