State v. Madison
| Decision Date | 23 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-1130.,08-1130. |
| Citation | 785 N.W.2d 706 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Jennifer Anne MADISON, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Aaron D. Hamrock of McCarthy & Hamrock, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget A. Chambers and Karen Doland (until her withdrawal), Assistant Attorneys General, Wayne M. Reisetter, County Attorney, and Sarah C. Pettinger, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
In this appeal, we consider whether a computer screen satisfies the "written request" requirement of Iowa Code section 321J.6(1) (2007). We affirm the decision of the district court.
On August 2, 2007, an automobile driven by Jennifer Anne Madison was stopped by a West Des Moines police officer. The officer's encounter with Madison led him to believe she had been driving while intoxicated. As a result, the officer placed her under arrest and transported her to the West Des Moines police station.
At the police station, the officer read Madison the implied-consent advisory and requested a breath sample. He allowed Madison a phone call. The officer proceeded to read Madison the implied-consent advisory and orally requested a specimen of Madison's breath. He utilized the electronic "Request and Notice" form on the Traffic and Criminal Software (TraCS) on his computer. Using a stylus, Madison marked "Refuse" and then signed her name in a pop-up window on the touch screen monitor. The portion of the form entitled "Request for Specimen" was visible to Madison on the computer screen, but Madison did not view the screen. The officer testified he did not affirmatively direct her attention to the screen, and Madison did not ask to read the screen.
Madison was charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI), first offense, under Iowa Code section 321J.2. Madison filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained during her arrest, including evidence that she had refused a breath test because text on a computer screen does not meet the statutory requirement that the request be "in writing." Madison also claimed the textual form did not meet the statutory requirement because she was not given an opportunity to read the computer screen, personally and in its entirety. The district court denied Madison's motion and, following a bench trial, entered a judgment convicting Madison of OWI, first offense.
We granted Madison's request for appeal.
We review the district court's decision to deny a motion to suppress basedon interpretation of a statute for correction of errors at law. State v. McCoy, 603 N.W.2d 629, 630 (Iowa 1999). Madison argues the standard of review should be de novo because her appeal involves a violation of constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. A driver's consent under Iowa's implied-consent procedure is analyzed using the "voluntary consent" exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. S...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
L.F. Noll Inc. v. Eviglo
... ... L.F. Noll sent original notice to the Iowa Secretary of State and attempted to serve notice of the filing by certified mail to Eviglo and Ndim. The notice addressed to Eviglo was sent to the Florence Boulevard ... Standard of Review. The district court's interpretation of a statute is reviewed for correction of errors at law. State v. Madison, 785 N.W.2d 706, 70708 (Iowa 2010).III. Discussion of Statutory Claim.A. Introduction. The statutory claim in this case focuses on the language of ... ...
-
State v. Lukins
... ... The district court denied Lukins's motion to suppress based on its interpretation of Iowa Code section 321J.11. We review for correction of errors at law a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress based on the interpretation of a statute. State v. Madison, 785 N.W.2d 706, 707–08 (Iowa 2010); State v. Fischer, 785 N.W.2d 697, 699 (Iowa 2010). III. Discussion. A. Invocation of the Right to an Independent Test. Iowa Code section 321J.11, in relevant part, provides: The person [whose breath, blood, or urine is being ... ...
- State v. Fischer
-
State v. Abbey
... ... Abbey now appeals his conviction.II. Standard of Review.We review the district court's decision to deny a motion to suppress based on interpretation of a statute for correction of errors at law. State v. Madison, 785 N.W.2d 706, 70708 (Iowa 2010). This case involves the statutory interpretation of section 321 J.6, and we review the district court's decision for the correction of errors of law. See State v. Thompson, 815 N.W.2d 55, 57 (Iowa Ct.App.2012).III. Merits.Abbey contends the district court erred by ... ...