 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Carlsen11/8/2000
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, James D. Coil, District Associate Judge (suppression) and Walter W. Rothschild, District Associate Judge (trial and sentencing).
Travis Carlsen appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, second offense, and leaving the scene of an accident.
AFFIRMED.
Travis Carlsen appeals his conviction, following a bench trial, for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, second offense, and leaving the scene of an accident. We find Travis Carlsen was not in custody at the time of the invocation of implied consent and, therefore, the trial court did not err in allowing his blood test results into evidence at the trial. We affirm.
Background facts.
In the early morning hours of November 21, 1998, Officer Kurt Schreiber responded to an accident call involving property damage caused by a vehicle. The vehicle was no longer present when the officer arrived. However, evidence of the color of the vehicle was left behind and a trail of oil led away from the scene. Officers discovered a damaged vehicle parked a few blocks away. The officers questioned two men present in the area and learned the vehicle owner had been taken to the hospital. Officer Schreiber made his way to the hospital and questioned Carlsen regarding how he had received his injuries. He noticed a strong odor of alcohol from Carlsen and observed his eyes to be watery and bloodshot. Carlsen responded that he was injured in a fight. When asked if he knew his vehicle had been involved in an accident, Carlson indicated he wished to speak to an attorney or his father before answering any further questions. Officer Schreiber then left the room while Carlsen received medical treatment for a severe laceration to his face. Officer Schreiber returned to Carlsen's room approximately one hour later. He again asked Carlsen how he had received his injuries and Carlsen repeated that he had been in a fight. Officer Schreiber then made reference to his belief that Carlsen may have been driving the vehicle involved in the accident. Carlsen reiterated his request to speak to an attorney. Officer Schreiber ceased all questioning. The officer then invoked implied consent to test Carlsen's blood alcohol level, reading him the advisory notice and asking for his consent. Carlsen looked to his roommate who indicated it was all right to go ahead, and then signed the consent form, crossing out the word "driver" prior to adding his signature.
Carlsen filed a motion to suppress, prior to the trial, in an attempt to exclude from evidence both his statements to the officer and the subsequent blood test results. The trial court found Carlsen had invoked his right to an attorney at his initial request to speak to an attorney and, therefore, sustained the suppression of Carlsen's statements, made after the first attorney request. The trial court, however, further found Carlsen was neither in custody nor under arrest for purposes of the implied consent. Further, it found the requests to speak with an attorney were made in response to the questioning regarding the accident and not the implied consent request. The trial court overruled the motion to suppress as to the results of the subsequent blood test.
Scope of review.
Our review of the interpretation of Iowa Code section 804.20 is on error. See State v. Frake, 450 N.W.2d 817, 818 (Iowa 1990). We will uphold the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress if there is substantial evidence to support the court's findings of fact. Id. Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach the same findings.
Page 1 2 3 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|