 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Pettitt11/9/2005
Bruce Pettitt appeals from his conviction and sentence for operating while intoxicated, first offense. AFFIRMED.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
Bruce Pettitt appeals from his conviction and sentence for operating while intoxicated, first offense. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On August 2, 2004, the Carroll Police Department received a phone call from a local resident about a suspected drunk driver. The witness stated she had observed a man urinating between two U-haul trucks parked at a car wash, and that the same man had then driven his vehicle to a nearby convenience store. The same witness reported that the man had exited the vehicle and stumbled on his way into the store. Two police officers who were near the store responded to the report. They parked their vehicle across the street from the convenience store and adjusted their patrol car's video recorder to record the man's departure from the store. After surveilling the store for approximately two minutes, the officers observed Pettitt, the owner of the nearby car wash, as he exited the store and entered the vehicle described by the witness in the earlier phone call. The video recording shows Pettitt's foot momentarily "caught" on the door frame as he entered the vehicle. Pettitt closed the car door and drove away.
The officers proceeded to (1) stop Pettitt's vehicle, (2) conduct field sobriety tests - all of which Pettitt failed, and (3) administer a preliminary breath test - which registered a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) well above the legal limit. On the basis of these tests, the officers invoked implied consent, and Pettitt's chemical test registered a BAC of .193.
A trial information charging Pettitt with operating while intoxicated, first offense, was filed by the State on August 27, 2004. In advance of trial, Pettitt filed a motion to suppress the evidence of his breath test, alleging the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle. Following oral argument on the motion, the district court concluded the State had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the officers possessed the "necessary reasonable suspicion of intoxication justifying the investigatory stop," based both on the officers' own observations of Pettitt's exit from the convenience store and the information conveyed by the witness. Following the denial of the motion to suppress, a bench trial was held on December 21, 2004, resulting in a verdict of guilty.
Pettitt appeals from his conviction and sentence, alleging the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the investigatory stop. Pettitt contends the officers did not possess reasonable suspicion at the time they decided to stop Pettitt, and thus all evidence flowing from the detention should have been excluded.
II. Scope and Standard of Review
We review challenges to the district court's denial of a motion to suppress de novo. State v. Heminover, 619 N.W.2d 353, 356 (Iowa 2000). "In doing so, we independently evaluate the totality of the circumstances shown in the record." State v. Seager, 571 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa 1997). We give deference to the district court's findings of fact and assessments of credibility, but we are not bound by those findings. State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Iowa 2001). Any evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights is inadmissible and should be suppressed regardless of its relevance and probative value. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 1691, 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081, 1090 (1961); State v. Schrier, 283 N.W.2d 338, 342 (Iowa 1979).
Page 1 2 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|