State v. Smith, No. 18-0305

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtMcDONALD, Justice.
Citation926 N.W.2d 760
Parties STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Keegan Craig SMITH, Appellant.
Decision Date26 April 2019
Docket NumberNo. 18-0305

926 N.W.2d 760

STATE of Iowa, Appellee,
v.
Keegan Craig SMITH, Appellant.

No. 18-0305

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed April 26, 2019


Matthew T. Lindholm of Gourley, Rehkemper & Lindholm, P.L.C., West Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas Eichholz, County Attorney, and Justin Rogers, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

McDONALD, Justice.

Following a trial on the minutes of testimony, Keegan Smith was convicted of operating while intoxicated, first offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (2017). In this direct appeal, Smith contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence allegedly obtained in violation of his statutory right under Iowa Code section 321J.11. Specifically, Smith contends the district court erred in not suppressing the results of a chemical breath test when the officer administering the test allegedly violated Smith’s statutory right to obtain additional chemical testing.

Iowa Code section 321J.11 regulates the administration of chemical tests designed to determine blood alcohol concentration. As relevant here, that provision provides that a detainee or arrestee

may have an independent chemical test or tests administered at the person’s own expense in addition to any administered at the direction of a peace officer. The failure or inability of the person to obtain an independent chemical test or tests does not preclude the admission of evidence of the results of the test or tests administered at the direction of the peace officer. Upon the request of the person who is tested, the results of the test or tests administered at the direction of the peace officer shall be made available to the person.

Iowa Code § 321J.11. As apparent from the text, the statute creates a right for a detainee or arrestee to have an "independent chemical test or tests administered at the person’s own expense in addition" to any test administered at the direction of an officer. Id. ; see State v. McIver , 858 N.W.2d 699, 705 n.2 (Iowa 2015) ("[I]ndependent chemical testing may be done at the driver’s cost in addition and subsequent to the testing done at the direction of the peace officer."); State v. Bloomer , 618 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 2000) (discussing relevant law); State v. Mahoney , 515 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) ("The legislature’s clear intent, by its use of the words ‘in addition to,’ was that a defendant must submit to a state-administered chemical test before being allowed to demand an independent test."). The statute does not afford a detainee or an arrestee the right to take an independent chemical test prior to or in lieu of the peace officer’s test. See State v. Wootten , 577 N.W.2d 654, 655 (Iowa 1998) ("A defendant is not entitled to an independent test until after he has taken the test requested by the officer."); Mahoney , 515 N.W.2d at 50 ("[A]

926 N.W.2d 762

defendant must submit to a state-administered chemical test before being allowed to demand an independent test.").

A detainee or arrestee can invoke the statutory right by making "any statement that can be reasonably construed as a request for an independent chemical test." State v. Lukins , 846 N.W.2d 902, 912–13 (Iowa 2014). When a detainee or arrestee invokes the statutory right, "then the officer should inform the detainee of his or her right to an independent chemical test under Iowa Code section 321J.11." Id. at 909. If the statutory right is invoked and the officer fails to advise the detainee or arrestee of the right, then " ‘evidence of the results of the test or tests administered at the direction of the peace officer’ must be suppressed." Id. at 911 (quoting Iowa Code § 321J.11 ).

We turn now to the facts and circumstances of this case. The record reflects a police officer pulled Smith over in the early morning hours. Field sobriety tests indicated Smith was intoxicated. Smith consented to a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • State v. McGee, No. 19-1219
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 14, 2021
    ...of errors at law and the district court's findings of fact are binding if supported by substantial evidence. See State v. Smith , 926 N.W.2d 760, 762 (Iowa 2019). With respect to the constitutional grounds, our review is de novo. State v. Fogg , 936 N.W.2d 664, 667 (Iowa 2019).III. Legal An......
  • State v. Todd, No. 19-2001
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • July 21, 2021
    ...is not whether the evidence supports a different finding but whether the evidence supports the finding actually made." State v. Smith, 926 N.W.2d 760, 762 (Iowa 2019). Here, the First Judicial District Department of Correctional Services treatment services manager Mike Schreck testified wit......
  • Iowa v. Chambers, 20-1511
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • September 1, 2021
    ...right to an independent chemical test is properly invoked and the officer fails to advise the arrestee of the right. State v. Smith, 926 N.W.2d 760, 762 (Iowa 2019). We must decide whether Chambers invoked her right to an independent chemical test. We focus on two statements she made to Dep......
  • State v. Chambers, 20-1511
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • September 1, 2021
    ...right to an independent chemical test is properly invoked and the officer fails to advise the arrestee of the right. State v. Smith , 926 N.W.2d 760, 762 (Iowa 2019).We must decide whether Chambers invoked her right to an independent chemical test. We focus on two statements she made to Dep......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • State v. McGee, No. 19-1219
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 14, 2021
    ...of errors at law and the district court's findings of fact are binding if supported by substantial evidence. See State v. Smith , 926 N.W.2d 760, 762 (Iowa 2019). With respect to the constitutional grounds, our review is de novo. State v. Fogg , 936 N.W.2d 664, 667 (Iowa 2019).III. Legal An......
  • State v. Todd, No. 19-2001
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • July 21, 2021
    ...is not whether the evidence supports a different finding but whether the evidence supports the finding actually made." State v. Smith, 926 N.W.2d 760, 762 (Iowa 2019). Here, the First Judicial District Department of Correctional Services treatment services manager Mike Schreck testified wit......
  • Iowa v. Chambers, 20-1511
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • September 1, 2021
    ...right to an independent chemical test is properly invoked and the officer fails to advise the arrestee of the right. State v. Smith, 926 N.W.2d 760, 762 (Iowa 2019). We must decide whether Chambers invoked her right to an independent chemical test. We focus on two statements she made to Dep......
  • State v. Chambers, 20-1511
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • September 1, 2021
    ...right to an independent chemical test is properly invoked and the officer fails to advise the arrestee of the right. State v. Smith , 926 N.W.2d 760, 762 (Iowa 2019).We must decide whether Chambers invoked her right to an independent chemical test. We focus on two statements she made to Dep......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT