 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Albrecht2/26/2003
The State seeks discretionary review of a district court ruling granting defendant's motion to suppress the results of an intoxilyzer test. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
The State seeks discretionary review of a district court ruling granting Timothy Christopher Albrecht's motion to suppress the results of an intoxilyzer test. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In the early morning hours of January 14, 2001, Iowa City Police Officer Gabriel Cook stopped a vehicle driven by Albrecht because it had an expired registration. While speaking to Albrecht, the officer detected a strong odor of alcohol and noticed that Albrecht's eyes were bloodshot and watery.
The officer administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus test, which resulted in a failing score of six, indicating a seventy-seven percent probability that Albrecht's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was above the legal limit of .10. Albrecht admitted to the officer that he had been drinking. Following Albrecht's admission, the officer administered a preliminary breath test (PBT) using an Alco-Sensor III, which gave a reading of .109.
Officer Cook testified that before administering the PBT, he asked Albrecht when he had his last drink but could not recall Albrecht's response. However, the officer also testified that if Albrecht had responded that he had been drinking within the last fifteen minutes, he-Officer Cook-would have observed Albrecht for fifteen minutes before administering the PBT.
Because of the weather, Albrecht was taken to the Iowa City Police Department where the officer administered additional sobriety tests. Following these tests, the officer invoked the implied-consent procedure of Iowa Code section 321J.6 (1999). The officer indicated on the implied consent form that he was basing his request on Albrecht's PBT. Albrecht submitted to an intoxilyzer test, which resulted in a BAC reading of .121. The officer then arrested Albrecht for operating while intoxicated.
Later, the State charged Albrecht with operating while intoxicated in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2. Albrecht moved to suppress the results of the intoxilyzer test. In his motion, Albrecht conceded there were reasonable grounds to believe he had been operating while intoxicated for purposes of Iowa Code section 321J.6. However, he contended the officer failed to administer the PBT in compliance with Iowa Code section 321J.5 and Iowa Administrative Code rule 661-7.5. Because there was no valid PBT, Albrecht contended, the requirement of Iowa Code section 321J.6(1)(d) was not met, and the officer therefore lacked grounds to invoke implied consent.
The district court agreed with Albrecht and granted his motion to suppress. We granted the State's application for discretionary review.
I. Iowa Code section 321J.2 makes it an offense to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or while having an alcohol concentration of .10 or more. Iowa Code § 321J.2(1).
Iowa Code section 321J.6, Iowa's implied consent law, provides authority for chemical testing of bodily substances from persons suspected of driving while intoxicated. That statute provides in relevant part:
1. A person who operates a motor vehicle in this state under circumstances which give reasonable grounds to believe that the person has been operating a motor vehicle in violation of section 321J.2 or 321J.2A is deemed to have given consent to the withdrawal of specimens of the person's blood, breath, or urine and to a chemical test or tests of the specimens for the purpose of determining the alcohol concentration or presence of a controlled substance or other dr
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|