 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Ahart5/31/2002
Defendant appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. AFFIRMED.
Robert Ahart was charged with driving while intoxicated. He filed a motion to suppress, alleging he was denied his right to counsel, and an amended motion to suppress, contending the police lacked justification to invoke implied consent. His motion was denied, and he sought reconsideration, arguing there was insufficient grounds for an investigatory stop. After the reconsideration request was denied, Ahart stipulated to a trial on the minutes and was convicted. On appeal Ahart argues the suppression motion should have been granted, focusing solely on whether there was justification for a police investigatory stop. His argument fails for two reasons.
First, the legality of the stop was neither presented to nor ruled upon by the district court at the time of the suppression hearing. As such, error is not preserved. State v. Gogg, 561 N.W.2d 360, 368 (Iowa 1997). Second, the extremely limited record does not present any issue as to whether the police had reasonable suspicion to justify a stop. It indicates only that Ahart voluntarily stopped his own vehicle in front of a residence before encountering police:
The Polk County officer, when he arrived, the car was parked. Mr. Ahart was walking to the front of the vehicle toward the curb. He stopped Mr. Ahart, asked him if he had just arrived, if he had just driven up, and Mr. Ahart's response was yes.
Nothing here demonstrates anything more than a consensual meeting between Ahart and police.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|