 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Swartz8/11/2004
that person, without unnecessary delay after arrival at the place of detention, to call, consult, and see a member of the person's family or an attorney of the person's choice, or both.
Iowa Code § 804.20.
While Iowa Code section 804.20 requires officers to afford detained persons a reasonable opportunity to contact a family member or an attorney, it does not require officers to inform detainees of that right. Didonato v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 456 N.W.2d 367, 371 (Iowa 1990). However, when a request to make a phone call is made, the statutory purpose is not met if the officer stands mute and refuses the request. Id. If an arrested person asks to call a friend, the statute is implicated and the officer should advise for what purpose a phone call is permitted under the statute. Id. Any request to contact a family member or an attorney must be made in good faith. Bromeland v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 562 N.W.2d 624, 626 (Iowa 1997). We determine whether the request is made in good faith by objectively considering the statements and conduct of the arrestee and police officer, as well as the surrounding circumstances. Id.
In ruling on Swartz's motion to suppress, the district court stated:
The court had an opportunity to hear the videotape. The way the court heard it, the defendant's inquiry was if he called someone, could they pick up a car in order to avoid having the car towed. He did not make a request to make a phone call, in the court's opinion, he inquired whether or not he could get the car towed if he called someone.
As such I think it's analogous to the line of cases that deal with the issue of right to counsel, and the courts have held basically if someone says if I call an attorney, or words to that effect, is not a request for counsel; it['s] a request for information. I believe that the defendant in this case requested information, did not request a phone call, and as such the motion to suppress is overruled.
Based on what Deputy Spring and Swartz were talking about at the time Swartz made a statement regarding a phone call, it seems clear that Swartz was not requesting to call someone to discuss his situation. Instead, he was wondering if the deputy would allow someone to take his girlfriend home if he called someone to come and get her and her car. Swartz cannot separate what he said from the context of his conversation with Deputy Spring. See State v. Carter, 577 N.W.2d 855, 857 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998). The circumstances surrounding the defendant's conversation with the deputy, and the hypothetical nature of his question, suggest that Swartz was requesting information about what to do with his girlfriend rather than requesting to call a third party about his personal situation. We conclude that Swartz's statement to Deputy Spring did not implicate section 804.20. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Swartz's motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
|