 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Rial2/11/2004
Rial appeals the conviction for operating while intoxicated (second offense). AFFIRMED.
A Black Hawk County deputy sheriff sergeant stopped a vehicle driven by Mark Rial after Rial abruptly turned into the officer's path. The officer observed that Rial smelled of alcohol, slurred his speech, and had a "confused look on his face." He ordered Rial out of the car and administered three field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test (PBT). Rial failed the field sobriety tests; the PBT result was.203. The deputy arrested Rial. Based on the PBT result and the arrest, he invoked the implied consent procedures of Iowa Code chapter 321J, which allow "chemical testing of bodily substances from persons suspected of driving while intoxicated." State v. Lindeman, 555 N.W.2d 693, 695 (Iowa 1996).
The State charged Rial with operating while intoxicated (second offense). Iowa Code § 321J.2 (2001). Rial filed motions in limine and motions to suppress the test results. The district court denied the motions and a jury found Rial guilty of operating while intoxicated.
Following imposition of judgment and sentence, Rial appealed. He challenges the grounds used to invoke the implied consent law. He also contends the district court should have suppressed the field sobriety test results.
I. Grounds for Invoking Implied Consent
Rial first takes issue with the officer's reliance on two of the seven enumerated conditions for invoking the implied consent law: 1) arrest and 2) PBT. See Iowa Code § 321J.6(1)(a), (d). In deciding whether an officer has met the requirements of Iowa Code section 321J.6, we apply a substantial compliance standard. State v. Palmer, 554 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 1996).
A. Arrest
An arrest must be "based on an objective and reliable assessment of intoxication made by one deemed competent under section 321J.1(7)." Id. at 867.
The deputy based his decision to arrest Rial on 1) his erratic driving, 2) slurred speech, 3) the smell of alcohol coming from him, 4) his behavior, 5) the PBT result, and 6) the failed field sobriety tests. Rial's challenge to the arrest focuses on the PBT result and the failed field sobriety tests. He maintains that the officer deviated from prescribed practice in administering these tests, rendering the arrest unlawful. See Iowa Code § 321J.6(1)(a) (requiring peace officer to "lawfully" place person under arrest). We conclude that, even if the tests were unreliable, the first four grounds cited by the officer furnish independent bases for upholding the arrest and invoking the implied consent procedures. See Bruno v. Iowa Dep't Transp., 603 N.W.2d 596, 599 (Iowa 1999).
B. PBT
Rial argues that a preliminary breath calibration log maintained by the State violated administrative standards, precluding the officer from relying on the PBT result as an independent basis for invoking implied consent procedures. See Iowa Code § 321J.6(1)(d). We need not address this issue, as Iowa Code section 321J.6(1) requires the existence of only one of the seven enumerated conditions and we have already concluded that the State established the first enumerated condition (arrest).
II. Suppression of Field Sobriety Test Results
Rial contends the field sobriety tests were inadmissible at trial because the deputy sergeant "did not have sufficient knowledge regarding the administration and scoring of the three standardized field sobriety tests" and "did not properly apply the reasoning and methodology supporting the reliability of those tests." He concedes, however, that the officer met the qualification standards set forth in Iowa Code section 321J.1(8)(e
Page 1 2 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|