State v. Lamoreux

• Decision Date: 19 February 2016
• Docket Number: No. 14–0831.,14–0831.
• Citation: 875 N.W.2d 172
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Randall Lee LAMOREUX, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

875 N.W.2d 172

STATE of Iowa, Appellee,

v.Randall Lee LAMOREUX, Appellant.

No. 14–0831.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 19, 2016.

David A. Kuehner of Eggert, Erb, Mulcahy & Kuehner, P.L.L.C., Charles City, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Katie Fiala, Assistant Attorney General, David C. Solheim, County Attorney, for appellee.

MANSFIELD, Justice.

After being arrested, the defendant phoned an attorney and consulted with that attorney in a jail booking room. The room had visible audio and video monitoring. The attorney was aware of the audio and video systems and took no steps to disable them or request another room.

We are asked to decide whether Iowa Code section 804.20 (2013) provides relief to the defendant under these circumstances.

We conclude the defendant is not entitled to suppression of evidence obtained following this attorney-client meeting. For the reasons discussed herein, we find that neither the language of the statute nor this court's prior interpretations of section 804.20 support such an outcome. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals that reached a different result, and affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

At around 11:30 p.m. on May 24, 2013, the Hancock County Communications Center received a report from a woman that her ex-boyfriend Randall Lamoreux was following her vehicle on the main highway from Britt to Crystal Lake, had swerved several times, and had tried to run her off the road. She gave a description of Lamoreux's vehicle—a red Dodge Ram pickup. Dispatch reported this information to three sheriff's deputies at around 11:30 p.m., and they drove toward the location. Meanwhile, a call came in from another person who reported Lamoreux had been involved in a dispute at this person's house, after which Lamoreux climbed into his pickup truck, spun its wheels on the gravel, and left heading south on the main road between Britt and Crystal Lake.

Two of the deputies encountered Lamoreux's pickup on this road. Lamoreux proceeded at that point to turn down a side road. A third deputy was positioned on that road in his stopped patrol car. Lamoreux nearly hit the third deputy's patrol car as he unsuccessfully attempted to drive around it. One of the other deputies, Jason Pischke, reached Lamoreux's stopped pickup and pulled Lamoreux from its cab. Because of Lamoreux's known previous criminal history, Deputy Pischke viewed him as a safety risk requiring immediate removal from his vehicle and handcuffing.

Upon looking inside Lamoreux's vehicle, Deputy Pischke saw an open "tall boy" can of beer on the driver's side of the car. He picked it up and noted it was half full and cold to the touch. Due to the rainy conditions, Deputy Pischke took Lamoreux to his patrol car for further questioning. At that time, Deputy Pischke noticed a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from Lamoreux and that his speech was slurred and his eyes were red and watery. Deputy Pischke asked Lamoreux if he had been drinking, and Lamoreux responded that he had been drinking tall boy cans of beer before driving. Deputy Pischke administered a horizontal-gaze nystagmus test

, which indicated that Lamoreux was intoxicated. Because of Lamoreux's previous hip injury, Deputy Pischke did not ask him to perform further field sobriety tests. Lamoreux did furnish a preliminary breath sample, which showed a blood alcohol level greater than .08.

Just after midnight on May 25, Lamoreux was transported to the Hancock County law enforcement center and placed in the booking room. Deputy Pischke read Lamoreux his Miranda rights and informed him of his right to call a family member or attorney pursuant to Iowa Code section 804.20. Deputy Pischke remained with Lamoreux while he made a series of ten to fifteen calls to attorneys and family members. At 1:09 a.m., Lamoreux connected with Ted Hovda, a local attorney. Hovda arrived at the jail at 1:25 a.m. He went straight into the booking room to meet with Lamoreux, and the door was shut behind him.

For security reasons, the booking room is equipped with a camera and a microphone that record automatically.¹ The camera is linked into the network of cameras at the jail. Both items are visible to people sitting in the room. It is possible to turn off the microphone by flipping a switch. At the suppression hearing, Deputy Pischke testified,

Q. .... Have you observed Ted Hovda meet with potential clients or folks who are in trouble in the booking room before? A. Yes, Ted does a lot of work at our jail and the courthouse.

Q. Have you seen him activate or deactivate the recording system, the audio recording system? A..... Yes, I've seen him disable it.

Q. What does Ted do to disable it? A. You just walk in the booking room and you can turn the switch on the microphone off.

Q. Does he need to ask you to do that? A. No, he does not.

Q. He can do that all on his own? A. Yes.

Q. On this night, did he request specifically to you to meet with his client in private? A. He did not.

Q. But was it your understanding that he was there to meet with Mr. Lamoreux? A. Yes.

Q. And did he turn off the audio recording when you went into the booking room? A. He did not.

Q. But he could have? A. Yes.

Q. Was he given an opportunity to meet face-to-face with Mr. Lamoreux? A. In our booking room, yes.

....

Q. Was there anybody else in the room? A. There was not.

....

Q. How big is the microphone that's located in the booking room? A. It's probably 12 to 14 inches maybe in size.

....

Q. Would it have been visible to [Lamoreux]? A. Yes.

Q. Where is the on/off switch located? A. On the top of the device.

Q. Is the video camera also visible to people sitting in the room? A. Yes, it is.

Q. Did Mr. Lamoreux ever request that he be allowed to meet somewhere other than the booking room? A. He did not.

Q. Did Mr. Hovda? A. He did not.

Following this meeting with Hovda, Lamoreux was given the implied consent advisory and agreed to undergo chemical testing of his breath. Lamoreux provided a breath sample at 1:42 a.m., which showed an alcohol concentration of. 136.

On June 5, Lamoreux was charged by trial information with operating while intoxicated (OWI) third offense, a class "D" felony. See Iowa Code § 321J.2(2)(c). He filed a motion to suppress the Datamaster result, alleging among other things a failure to honor his rights under Iowa Code section 804.20. Following an evidentiary hearing at which Deputy Pischke testified, the district court denied Lamoreux's motion. The court explained in its ruling:

[State v. Walker, 804 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 2011),] specifically states that law enforcement should honor attorney requests ... for private, barrier-free meeting rooms. The Court notes that upon request ... video and audio recordings should be turned off during consultation. No such requests were made by either Defendant Lamoreux or his counsel during this consultation. Mr. Ted Hovda, Lamoreux's attorney at arrest, was well familiar with the jail facility and had been there on numerous occasions. In the past, Mr. Hovda had shut off the audio recording device in the meeting room when he felt it necessary. The microphone was not hidden. The video camera was in plain sight.

In addition, law enforcement was aware of a violent criminal history for this Defendant, despite the fact that this Defendant had behaved appropriately following this stop before the Court under this cause. Law enforcement was aware of Defendant's previous criminal history, including assaults, alcohol issues, and the fact that Defendant had [previously] been in prison for assaultive behavior.

The State does not seek to use either audio or video recordings of this consultation against the Defendant, nor would that be allowed.

For these reasons, Defendant's Motion to Suppress relating to violations of section 804.20 is denied.

Lamoreux's case proceeded to trial. On February 27, 2014, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The court entered judgment on the verdict and imposed a five-year indeterminate sentence. Lamoreux appealed, arguing the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, reasoning,

[I]n the absence of any individualized showing of a safety or security risk, once Lamoreux invoked his right to consult with an attorney, and his attorney was there in person, the State was required to provide Lamoreux the opportunity to "see and consult confidentially," "alone and in private." Iowa Code § 804.20. He was not required to make a specific request not to be subject to audio or video recording.

The State filed an application for further review, which we granted.

II. Standard of Review.

We review a district court's interpretation of Iowa Code section 804.20 for errors at law. State v. Robinson, 859 N.W.2d 464, 467 (Iowa 2015). We will affirm the district court's ruling on a motion to suppress if "the court correctly applied the law and substantial evidence supports the court's fact-finding." Walker, 804 N.W.2d at 289.

III. Analysis.

We must determine whether Lamoreux's section 804.20 rights were violated through the presence of an active audio and video system in the room where Lamoreux met to consult with his attorney when neither he nor the attorney requested the system be turned off or asked for a different room. Iowa Code section 804.20 provides:

Any peace officer or other person having custody of any person arrested or restrained of the person's liberty for any reason whatever, shall permit that person, without unnecessary delay after arrival at the place of detention, to call, consult, and see a member of the person's family or an attorney of the person's choice, or both. Such person shall be permitted to make a reasonable number of telephone calls as may be required to secure an attorney. If a call is made, it shall be made in the presence of the person having custody of the one arrested or restrained. If such person is

...