 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Moorehead4/1/2005
s spontaneous. We agree to the extent that if the statement was spontaneous, the Vietor exclusionary rule should not apply. Cf. State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 608 (Iowa 2001) (under Miranda doctrine, statements made freely, voluntarily, and spontaneously are admissible); State v. Brown, 176 N.W.2d 180, 182 (Iowa 1970) (same). Because the district court did not decide whether Moorehead's statement was spontaneous, however, we decline to rule on this issue for the first time on appeal. See Sager v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 680 N.W.2d 8, 15 (Iowa 2004).
On remand, the district court shall decide whether the "I'm drunk as hell" statement was spontaneous. If the court finds it was spontaneous, the statement should be admitted into evidence because the exclusion of such statements is not implicated by a violation of Iowa Code section 804.20. If the court finds it was not spontaneous, the statement should be suppressed because it was obtained after "unnecessary delay"--in this case after a breath test was administered. Iowa Code § 804.20; see Vietor, 261 N.W.2d at 832 (unnecessary delay when defendant not afforded phone call by the time breath test was administered).
Moorehead also argues that with the statement suppressed there would be insufficient evidence to convict him. For obvious reasons, we need not address this claim.
VII. Conclusion
Law enforcement violated Moorehead's statutory right to talk with his mother. The district court erred in denying his motion to suppress his breath test result. We cannot say this error was harmless, and therefore we reverse and remand for a new trial.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED; CASE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
All justices concur except Carter and Ternus, JJ., who concur in part and dissent in part.
CARTER, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the decision to suppress the results of defendant's breath test based on our decision in State v. McAteer, 290 N.W.2d 924, 925 (Iowa 1980). I dissent from that portion of the opinion that extends the suppression remedy applied to chemical test results in McAteer and State v. Vietor, 261 N.W.2d 828, 832 (Iowa 1978), to matters of custodial interrogation. The constitutional protections afforded to persons in police custody provide an adequate safeguard against improper police interrogation. Consequently, the circumstances do not warrant the additional remedy that the court now derives from Iowa statutory law in the absence of a clear indication that the legislature intended that result.
Ternus, J., joins this concurrence in part and dissent in part.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|