 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Moorehead7/28/2004
est is made in good faith is determined by an objective consideration of the statements and conduct of the arrestee and peace officer, as well as the surrounding circumstances. Id.
The district court found Moorehead requested to speak to his mother at the scene, but concluded this request was not valid because it was not made at the place of detention. We determine substantial evidence supports a finding that Moorehead requested to speak to his mother. We determine Moorehead's request was sufficiently clear to implicate section 804.20. Because Moorehead's request to speak to a family member was not honored, the results of his breath test should have been suppressed.
IV. Harmless Error
The State contends that any possible violation of section 804.20 was harmless because there was overwhelming evidence Moorehead was driving while impaired by alcohol. We agree. The evidence indicates Moorehead was speeding and failed to stop when initially pursued by the deputy. He swerved over the center line twice. Upon approaching Moorehead, the deputy detected an odor of alcohol, slurred speech, and glazed eyes. Moorehead failed all field sobriety tests and admitted at the station, "I'm drunk as hell." We conclude there was sufficient evidence to support Moorehead's conviction even without the results of the chemical test. Therefore, Moorehead has failed to demonstrate prejudice from the district court's ruling, and we find no reversible error. State v. Runyan, 599 N.W.2d 474, 479 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
|