 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Moorehead7/28/2004
The defendant appeals from his conviction, following a bench trial, of operating while intoxicated, first offense. AFFIRMED.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
On April 20, 2003, at about 12:30 a.m., Deputy Matthew Klunder of the Cerro Gordo County Sheriff's Office stopped Joshua Moorehead for speeding. Deputy Klunder stated Moorehead had an odor of alcohol and his speech was slurred. He observed that Moorehead's eyes were not bloodshot, but were glazed. Moorehead at first denied having anything to drink, but later admitted to having one beer.
Deputy Klunder was unable to obtain a valid preliminary breath test due to an equipment malfunction. Moorehead failed the field sobriety tests which were administered. Deputy Klunder then stopped field sobriety tests and placed Moorehead under arrest for operating while intoxicated, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (2003).
Deputy Klunder asked Moorehead if someone could pick up his car, because Moorehead needed to come to the sheriff's office for an additional test. Moorehead, who was then eighteen years old, stated he was driving his mother's car, and that his parents could come to get it. Moorehead then asked, "Would it be possible for me to talk to my mom when you call her?" Klunder replied, "Not right now," explaining that he had to call the dispatcher, who would call Moorehead's mother. Klunder then stated they would have to wait at the scene until Moorehead's parents showed up anyway.
At the scene, Moorehead's mother asked Deputy Klunder if she could talk to Moorehead. Deputy Klunder stated he had to take Moorehead down to the station and someone would call the parents when Moorehead was released. Through the window of the patrol car Moorehead's mother managed to tell Moorehead he was grounded, but Moorehead was unable to speak to his mother. Moorehead's parents then returned to their home.
At the station, Deputy Klunder read Moorehead his Miranda rights and the implied consent form. Moorehead asked Deputy Klunder for advice as to what he should do, and Klunder replied it was Moorehead's decision. Moorehead decided to take the breath test, which resulted in a reading of.182. The dispatcher called Moorehead's parents after he was released from jail at about 3:00 a.m.
Moorehead filed a motion to suppress the results of his breath test. He asserted his request to contact a family member was not honored, which violated section 804.20. The district court determined that the statute was not violated because Moorehead did not make a second request to call an attorney or family member once he reached the place of detention.
Moorehead waived his right to a jury trial, and the case proceeded to a trial on the minutes of testimony before the district court. The court found Moorehead guilty of operating while intoxicated, first offense. Moorehead was sentenced to serve two days in the county jail. He now appeals.
II. Standard of Review
Our review of a claim brought pursuant to section 804.20 is for the correction of errors at law. State v. Krebs, 562 N.W.2d 423, 425 (Iowa 1997). We will affirm the district court's ruling on a motion to suppress if there is substantial evidence supporting the court's findings of fact. Id. Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach the same findings. Id.
III. Section 804.20
A.
Moorehead contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. He claims he made a valid request to speak to his mother and, because this request was not honored, the results of his breath test should not have been considered by th
Page 1 2 3 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|