State v. Torres
| Decision Date | 25 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-1549 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANTOS RENE TORRES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Brendan Greiner (suppression motion) and Kevin Parker (bench trial) District Associate Judges.
Santos Rene Torres appeals the suppression ruling and his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, second offense, an aggravated misdemeanor. Affirmed.
Benjamin Bergmann of Parrish Kruidenier Dunn Boles Gribble Gentry Brown & Bergmann L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ.
Santos Rene Torres was drinking beer at a local restaurant when he received an upsetting phone call from his wife. She was under arrest for child endangerment. Hearing that unwelcome news, Torres drove home, where he encountered law enforcement in his yard. They would not let him talk to his wife, who was being held in a patrol car. They followed him into his house, where a child protective worker was interviewing the children. The worker asked if he was under the influence. The officers eventually arrested Torres for operating while intoxicated (OWI). He moved to suppress evidence obtained during the encounter, alleging he faced an illegal seizure and custodial interrogation. After the district court denied the suppression motion, he agreed to a trial on the minutes of testimony. The court found him guilty of second-offense OWI.
In this appeal, he challenges the suppression ruling and sufficiency of evidence to prove he was intoxicated. Because the officers did not violate Torres's constitutional rights, we affirm the suppression ruling. And because the State offered substantial evidence of his intoxication, we affirm his conviction.
Carlisle police were dispatched to Torres's residence after a passersby noticed a six-year-old boy "hanging out of a second story window" with a broken screen. Officer Zach Buehrer arrested the mother, who was caring for three children. The mother called the children's grandmother and their father, Torres. Police called the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS). The grandmother arrived first. Then child protective worker Kate Roy.
Torres arrived in his truck about fifteen minutes later. Officer Buehrer told him where to park so he would not block traffic. The officer testified that he "had initial thoughts when [Torres] first got there" that he might be under the influence. But the officer said that he was not investigating Torres for OWI after "briefly" talking to him. After he left his truck, Torres walked toward the house. Officer Buehrer testified that Torres was agitated and uncooperative. So the officer followed him from the lawn to the patrol car where his wife was in custody and then back to the lawn. The officer told Torres when he could talk to his wife. The officer also touched Torres's shoulder, saying: "Let's go."[1] Officer Buehrer then trailed Torres into the residence. The officer was neither invited in nor told to stay out. Once inside, Buehrer patted Torres down for weapons and when Torres used the bathroom, the officer waited right outside the door.
Meanwhile in the house, child protective worker Roy interviewed the three children-ages nine, six, and four. About five minutes after arriving, Torres interacted with Roy in the kitchen. During this interaction, Roy noticed that he was blinking slowly, his eyes were bloodshot, and he was leaning forward. She asked if he was "under the influence of anything." As she recalled, Torres did not respond. But Deputy Derek Konrad-who was inside to "assist" with the children- testified that he heard Torres deny that he had been drinking.
He sought to exclude "any and all fruits" of that seizure and statements obtained during that custodial interrogation.
The district court denied the suppression motion.[3] Because the officers entered the house without a warrant, the court analyzed two exceptions: exigent circumstances and the community caretaking exception. The court found:
[U]nder these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the officers to remain near the defendant; the defendant was suspected of being intoxicated, responded to a child endangerment investigation, and most importantly, was visibly agitated at the prospect of his children being removed. In fact, the officers would have been derelict in their duty to leave the defendant unattended in this situation.
The court also ruled that Torres did not face custodial interrogation. The court later convicted Torres of OWI, second offense, following a trial on the minutes of testimony. Torres now appeals.
We review Torres's suppression challenge de novo. State v. Fogg, 936 N.W.2d 664, 667 (Iowa 2019). We evaluate the situation facing these peace officers "in light of its unique circumstances." Id.
We review his sufficiency claim for legal error. State v. Leckington, 713 N.W.2d 208, 213-14 (Iowa 2006). We will uphold the district court's finding of guilt if there is substantial evidence in the record to support the conviction. State v. McPhillips, 580 N.W.2d 748, 752 (Iowa 1998). Substantial evidence means a rational factfinder would be convinced of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 752-53. In deciding whether the evidence is substantial, we view the record in the light most favorable to the State and make all reasonable inferences that may fairly be drawn from its proof. Id.
U.S. Const. amend. IV. Our state constitution has a similar provision. See Iowa Const. art. I, § 8. Torres does not argue for a distinct analysis under the Iowa Constitution. So we will discuss only the Fourth Amendment. See State v. Stevens, 970 N.W.2d 598, 602 (Iowa 2022) ( ).
Torres limits his argument to the question of seizure.[4] A person is "seized" under the Fourth Amendment only if, in considering the totality of circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553 (1980). Torres bears the burden to show a seizure occurred. See Fogg, 936 N.W.2d at 668. To carry that burden, Torres contends a reasonable person in his position would have believed he was not free to leave "long before the DHS worker noticed he was intoxicated." He then contends his seizure was unreasonable because officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe he was under the influence until after Roy spoke to him inside the house.
The State's position on seizure is less clear. At the suppression hearing, the prosecutor insisted "a seizure of the defendant had not occurred." But on appeal, the State does not engage on the seizure question. Instead, the State argues exigent circumstances justified the officers' actions and no evidence was subject to suppression.
In addressing the seizure issue, we first observe that Torres's encounter with police was atypical. It was not an investigatory stop. Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S 1, 32 (1968). In fact, the officers did not initiate the contact. Rather, Torres voluntarily showed up at the scene of a crime involving his child. When he arrived, law enforcement and the DHS were still investigating the child-endangerment offense; police held the mother in custody at the scene. Under those circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the police to exert control over Torres's interaction with his arrested wife. See Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 258 (2007) (); Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 607 (7th Cir. 2012) (); see also City of Seattle v. Abercrombie, 945 P.2d 1132, 1135 (Wash.Ct.App. 1997) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial