State v. Vogel, 95-840
Citation | 548 N.W.2d 584 |
Decision Date | 22 May 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 95-840,95-840 |
Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Michael John VOGEL, Appellant. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Brent D. Rosenberg of the Rosenberg Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary Tabor, Assistant Attorney General, and J. Patrick White, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and CARTER, LAVORATO, NEUMAN, and ANDREASEN, JJ.
Michael Vogel appeals, arguing that his conviction for operating while intoxicated (OWI), third offense, following the administrative revocation of his driver's license for refusing to submit to chemical testing violates the Double Jeopardy Clause's prohibition against multiple punishments. We affirm.
Because Vogel raises a constitutional claim, this court's review is de novo. State v. Funke, 531 N.W.2d 124, 126 (Iowa 1995).
Police went to Vogel's residence in response to a domestic abuse call. There, officers detected the smell of alcoholic beverages about Vogel's person. When Vogel attempted to drive away from the residence, officers stopped him. Vogel was arrested for OWI. He refused to submit to chemical testing and was, therefore, served with notice of a 540-day license revocation. Vogel did not challenge this administrative revocation.
Vogel was charged with third-offense OWI, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (1993). Almost seven months later and just prior to trial, Vogel moved to dismiss the prosecution. He contended the earlier administrative revocation constituted punishment for double jeopardy purposes and, consequently, this prosecution was barred. The State resisted on both timeliness, see Iowa R.Crim.P. 10(2)(a), 10(4) ( ), and substantive grounds. The district court denied the motion to dismiss on the merits. Vogel was convicted as charged and now appeals. 1
No person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...." U.S. Const. amend. V. The protections against double jeopardy are enforceable against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 2062, 23 L.Ed.2d 707, 716 (1969). The Double Jeopardy Clause is violated when multiple punishments occur for the same offense. 2 North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076, 23 L.Ed.2d 656, 664-65 (1969); State v. Butler, 505 N.W.2d 806, 807 (Iowa 1993). Vogel maintains he has been unconstitutionally twice punished.
Iowa Code section 321J.9 provides in part:
If a person refuses to submit to chemical testing, ... the department, upon the receipt of the peace officer's certification ... that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been operating a motor vehicle in violation of section 321J.2, ... shall revoke the person's motor vehicle license ... for a period of ... five hundred forty days if the person has one or more previous revocations within the previous six years....
Vogel argues that the section 321J.9 revocation is punishment for double jeopardy purposes and, since he has already thereby been punished, this subsequent OWI prosecution is barred. In State v. Kocher, 542 N.W.2d 556 (Iowa 1996), this court held that an administrative license revocation under Iowa Code section 321J.12 ( ) does not constitute punishment for double jeopardy purposes. We now consider whether an administrative license revocation for failure to submit to chemical testing under Iowa Code section 321J.9 requires a different result.
Citing United States v. Halper, Vogel argues that if a civil sanction is not "solely" remedial, double jeopardy analysis is triggered. See Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 448-49, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 1902, 104 L.Ed.2d 487, 502 (1989). We rejected an identical argument in Kocher, 542 N.W.2d at 558. There, we noted that the actual holding in Halper was:
"We therefore hold that under the Double Jeopardy Clause a defendant who has already been punished in a criminal prosecution may not be subjected to an additional civil sanction to the extent that the second sanction may not fairly be characterized as remedial, but only as a deterrent or retribution."
Id. (quoting Halper, 490 U.S. at 448, 109 S.Ct. at 1902, 104 L.Ed.2d at 502). Thus, if the section 321J.9 revocation may fairly be characterized as remedial, double jeopardy principles do not preclude a subsequent OWI prosecution.
" '[T]he purpose of the Implied Consent Law is to reduce the holocaust on our highways part of which is due to the driver who imbibes too freely of intoxicating liquor.' " Kocher, 542 N.W.2d at 558 ( ). This court has consistently reaffirmed this remedial purpose. See Shriver v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 430 N.W.2d 921, 924 (Iowa 1988) ( )(emphasis added); Downing v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 415 N.W.2d 625, 628 (Iowa 1987) ( ); Veach v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 374 N.W.2d 248, 250 (Iowa 1985) () (emphasis added); Taylor v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 260 N.W.2d 521, 523 (Iowa 1977) () (emphasis added); Krueger v. Fulton, 169 N.W.2d 875, 878 (Iowa 1969) () (emphasis added).
Vogel argues that any remedial purpose of the administrative revocation is belied by the following: (1) the statute provides a twenty-day delay between arrest and revocation; (2) a restricted license can be obtained; and (3) those whose licenses are revoked simply drive without a license. He also points out that if revocation has not already occurred, a criminal conviction will result in license revocation. We do not believe these arguments compel a different result than our traditional analysis.
It is true the implied consent provisions allow for a twenty-day delay between notice and revocation, see Iowa Code §§ 321J.9, .12, and for the issuance of a temporary restricted license, see id. §§ 321J.9, .12, .20. However, these provisions are merely a matter of legislative grace because driving is a privilege granted by the state, not a constitutional right. See Gottschalk v. Sueppel, 258 Iowa 1173, 1181, 140 N.W.2d 866, 870-71 (1966). No due process rights under the United States Constitution are violated even if a driver has no driving privileges following a summary license revocation. Downing, 415 N.W.2d at 628 n. 3 (citing Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 110, 114-15, 97 S.Ct. 1723, 1726, 1728-29, 52 L.Ed.2d 172, 178, 181 (1977)).
The main purpose of chapter 321J is to promote public safety by removing dangerous drivers from the highways. Shriver, 430 N.W.2d at 924 (citing McFee v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 400 N.W.2d 578, 580 (Iowa 1987)). The section 321J.9 revocation promotes that remedial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Childs
...dangerous drivers from the highways." Bearinger v. Iowa Dep't of Transp. , 844 N.W.2d 104, 107 (Iowa 2014) (quoting State v. Vogel , 548 N.W.2d 584, 587 (Iowa 1996) ). We have never found that a purpose of the statute was to stigmatize marijuana use or impose penalties on marijuana users be......
-
Welch v. Iowa Dep't of Transp.
...license revocation under section 321J.9 as remedial, promoting the overarching remedial purpose of chapter 321J itself. State v. Vogel, 548 N.W.2d 584, 586–87 (Iowa 1996); see also State v. Murray, 539 N.W.2d 368, 369 (Iowa 1995) (OWI statutes are remedial in nature). In order to best effec......
-
State v. Iowa Dist. Court for Scott Cnty.
...of chapter 321J is to promote public safety by removing dangerous drivers from the highways." Id. at 107 (quoting State v. Vogel , 548 N.W.2d 584, 587 (Iowa 1996) ); see also Iowa Code § 321J.23(2) ("The general assembly finds and declares ... [p]rompt intervention is needed to protect soci......
-
State v. Iowa Dist. Court for Scott Cnty., 15-1255
...purpose of chapter 321J is to promote public safety by removing dangerous drivers from the highways." Id. at 107 (quoting State v. Vogel, 548 N.W.2d 584, 587 (Iowa 1996)); see also Iowa Code § 321J.23(2) ("The general assembly finds and declares . . . [p]rompt intervention is needed to prot......