 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Seaton4/28/2004
Breshears had reasonable grounds to believe Seaton was intoxicated.
Breshears then conducted field sobriety tests on Seaton. Seaton failed all of the field sobriety tests. Seaton contends the field sobriety tests were not properly performed. However, Seaton did not raise this issue in his motion to suppress. Accordingly, we cannot decide the validity of his claim on appeal. See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (holding issues must be raised and decided by the district court before they will be decided on appeal).
Breshears administered a preliminary breath test to Seaton, which registered a blood alcohol level above the legal limit. Seaton contends the preliminary breath testing device was not properly maintained or calibrated. He cites Trooper Breshears's testimony that the testing device was not calibrated on a monthly basis if the last day of the month fell on a day Breshears was not working. However, we conclude Breshears substantially complied with the applicable statutes and administrative rules regulating the use of preliminary breath tests. See State v. Bird, 663 N.W.2d 860, 862 (Iowa 2003).
We conclude the evidence is sufficient to support Seaton's arrest. Seaton's preliminary breath test results, his performance on the field sobriety tests, and Trooper Breshears's observations of Seaton all support a conclusion Seaton was operating while intoxicated. Implied consent was properly invoked pursuant to Iowa Code section 321J.6(a). Accordingly, the district court properly denied Seaton's motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
|