State v. Pals, No. 9-848/09-0064 (Iowa App. 2/10/2010), 9-848/09-0064.
| Decision Date | 10 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 9-848/09-0064.,9-848/09-0064. |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RANDALL LEE PALS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Worth County, Bryan H. McKinley (suppression), John S. Mackey (trial), and Colleen D. Weiland (sentencing), Judges.
Randall Pals appeals from his conviction and sentence for possession of marijuana. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Bradley M. Bender, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey H. Greve, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mansfield, JJ.
Randall Pals appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of 0.5 grams of marijuana, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2007), a serious misdemeanor. Pals contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the search of his vehicle. He further argues his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss the trial information based upon a speedy trial violation. Upon our review, we affirm Pals's conviction and sentence, but preserve his speedy trial arguments for possible postconviction relief proceedings.
This case began with the question, "Who let the dogs out?"1 On August 18, 2007, Worth County Deputy Sheriff Mark Wubben received a call that two dogs, a tan and brown Brittany spaniel and a chocolate-colored Labrador retriever, were running loose and "knocking stuff down" in the City of Joice, in violation of a city ordinance. Upon his arrival in Joice, Deputy Wubben saw the dogs running loose and noticed they had no tags or collars. Wubben talked to several people around town, and no one seemed to know to whom the dogs belonged.
As Wubben continued to walk around looking for the dogs, he noticed a white pickup with a red topper driving around "like he was looking for the dogs as well." Wubben recognized the truck as belonging to Pals. He observed the Brittany in the back of the truck, but did not see the Labrador. Wubben walked around town some more, finally got back in his patrol car and drove around, but did not see the dogs or Pals's truck again. He talked to some more people on Main Street and ran into a friend of Pals who confirmed the dogs were Pals's. Wubben was told the dogs had escaped from a fenced-in area behind a bar where Pals was playing pool. Wubben drove around town some more but could not find the dogs or Pals's truck. He then left town and headed towards Rice Lake.
On the highway, Wubben encountered Pals's truck going the other way. He had dispatch run the truck's license plate. When this confirmed that the truck belonged to Pals, Wubben turned around and followed the truck. As he closed in on the truck, he saw the Brittany again in the back of the topper but not the Labrador. Wubben stopped the truck because he wanted to talk to Pals about the dogs and advise him that the dogs needed tags and collars and that the City of Joice prohibited dogs running at large.
A DVD recording of the stop from the patrol car's dash camera, which was offered and received into evidence, shows what happened next. Wubben pulled over Pals's vehicle at 1:52 p.m. He then approached the driver's side of the truck on foot to speak with Pals. In the conversation that ensued, Pals acknowledged that the two dogs belonged to him. He said he had recovered both dogs and they were in the back of his truck. When Wubben specifically asked about the Labrador, Pals stated he had the dog and it was probably hiding in the kennel located in the topper. However, Wubben testified the kennel was not visible from the outside of the vehicle and he never actually saw the Labrador.
Wubben took Pals's driver's license and went back to his patrol car. Wubben then contacted his supervisor to get advice on whether he should ticket Pals for having animals at large. This took several minutes. Eventually, Wubben's supervisor came on the radio and responded that if Pals was polite, he should be given a verbal warning instead of a written citation for the dogs running at large.
At about 2:00 p.m., Wubben returned on foot to Pals's vehicle and asked Pals for his proof of insurance. Approximately three minutes elapsed as Pals looked unsuccessfully for his insurance card. At that point, Wubben asked Pals to step into the front of his patrol car. In a cordial way, he asked Pals if he could pat him down for weapons before he got into the car.
At approximately 2:05 p.m., Wubben and Pals entered the front of the patrol car. Once in the car, Wubben and Pals discussed where Pals currently resided and the need for Pals to change the address on his driver's license. For most of the next five minutes or so, the pair engaged in friendly chatter about where Pals worked, golf, the rainy weather, a washed-out golf tournament, and Pals's activities of that day and plans to go to a casino. Most of this friendly conversation was initiated by Pals. The need for rabies tags was also discussed. During that time, Wubben apparently prepared some kind of paperwork regarding the failure to have proof of insurance, while assuring Pals that he could call in his insurance information to the sheriff's office and avoid fifty dollars in court costs. At around 2:11 p.m., Wubben casually asked Pals if he could look in his vehicle, and Pals consented. Both got out of the patrol car and went to the truck.
At 2:12 p.m., Pals opened the driver's door for Wubben. Pals was asked to step in front of the truck, and he complied. After less than two minutes of searching the passenger compartment of the truck, Wubben said, "Oh man." Pals responded, "What have you got?" Wubben replied, "Green stuff." In a small box located on the floor, Wubben found a clear plastic bag with a green leafy substance and also a prescription pill bottle with small bits of green leafy substance in it. Another pill bottle with a small amount of green leafy substance was also found. In total, a half gram of marijuana was retrieved from the truck. Pals denied the marijuana was his and denied knowing it was in the truck. Pals then assisted Wubben's continuation of the search by opening the passenger door of the truck and pulling the seat forward. At the conclusion of the search, Pals was handcuffed, given his Miranda rights, and placed under arrest for possession of a controlled substance.
On September 4, 2007, the State filed a trial information charging Pals with possession of a controlled substance, i.e., marijuana, a serious misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5). On December 7, 2007, Pals filed a motion to suppress evidence claiming his consent to search the truck was not voluntarily made and that "Wubben lacked probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances to otherwise search the vehicle without a warrant." A hearing on the motion was held January 22, 2008. Deputy Wubben was the only witness to testify, and the DVD recording of the stop from the patrol car's dash camera was the only exhibit offered and received. The district court denied the motion to suppress, concluding Pals's constitutional rights were not violated by the stop and that his consent to the search was voluntary.
On November 3, 2008, Pals filed a waiver of jury trial and agreed to a trial on the minutes. On November 7, 2008, the district court filed its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and verdict finding Pals guilty of possession of a controlled substance (0.5 grams of marijuana) in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5). Pals was sentenced to forty-eight hours' confinement in jail with credit for time already served, fined $250 plus surcharges, and assessed fees and costs.
Pals appeals, contending the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. He argues: (1) the traffic stop was illegal; (2) his consent to search was not voluntarily made; and (3) even if voluntary, his consent to search was tainted by prior illegality. Further, he claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss based on the violation of Pals's one-year speedy trial rights.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees "[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. This is binding on the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. State v. Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d 121, 131 (Iowa 2006). Article I section 8 of the Iowa Constitution also protects this fundamental right. See State v. Reinier, 628 N.W.2d 460, 464 (Iowa 2001). "When constitutional rights are implicated, we review a court's ruling on a suppression motion de novo." State v. Bergmann, 633 N.W.2d 328, 332 (Iowa 2001). We will independently evaluate the totality of the circumstances as shown by the record and are not bound by the district court's findings. State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Iowa 2001). We do give deference to the district court's findings of fact because it had the opportunity to assess witness credibility. Id. Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police constitutes a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1772, 135 L. Ed. 2d 89, 95 (1996). Thus, the stop of a vehicle by police must not be "unreasonable under the circumstances." Id. 517 U.S. at 810, 116 S. Ct. at 1772, 135 L. Ed. 2d at 95. "Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable unless the State proves by a preponderance of the evidence that a recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies." State v. Howard, 509 N.W.2d 764, 766 (Iowa 1993) (citation omitted). Exceptions to the warrant requirement include searches based on consent, plain view, exigent...
To continue reading
Request your trial