 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Voss v. Iowa Dept. of Transp., Motor Vehicle Div.1/18/2001
The issue is this case is whether Iowa Code section 321J.8 (1999) [FN1] requires that the implied consent advisory be reread before the administration of each chemical test when multiple tests are requested. The appellant, Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT), ruled that the advisory need not be given a second time when an additional test is administered. The district court's reversal of the agency's decision was affirmed on appeal by the Iowa Court of Appeals. This court granted further review. Upon our examination of the record and consideration of the arguments of the parties, we vacate the court of appeals' *210 decision, reverse the judgment of the district court, and remand for entry of an order affirming the agency decision.
FN1. Voss's offense occurred in late 1998. In the 1998 session of the Iowa General Assembly, several significant changes were made to chapter 321J. See 1998 Iowa Acts ch. 1138, §§ 10-23. These amendments went into effect prior to the commission of Voss's crime. See Iowa Code § 3.7 ("All Acts ... passed at regular sessions ... shall take effect on the first day of July following their passage...."). They were codified in the 1999 Iowa Code. Therefore, to simplify our citation of the relevant statutes, all references will be to the 1999 Code.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On October 31, 1998, an Iowa state trooper arrested the appellee, Ryan Voss, for operating while intoxicated. See Iowa Code § 321J.2 (defining offense of operating while intoxicated). The officer transported Voss to jail and, upon reaching the law enforcement center, made a written request for a breath test. See id. § 321J.6(1) (stating that person operating a motor vehicle under circumstances indicating a violation of section 321J.2 is deemed to have consented to a chemical test to determine alcohol or drug content). The trooper read the implied consent advisory to Voss at 1:21 a.m., and Voss then signed the written consent. A subsequent intoxilyzer test showed an alcohol level of .101.
Shortly after testing Voss's breath, the trooper was informed that during an inventory search of Voss's vehicle a marijuana pipe was discovered. Additionally, a search of Voss conducted upon his admission to jail yielded a plastic bag containing greenish-brown material that looked and smelled like marijuana, as well as several small butts or "roaches" from marijuana cigarettes. Believing that Voss may be under the influence of a drug other than alcohol, the trooper requested a urine specimen from Voss at 1:50 a.m. See id. § 321J.6(3) (requiring officer to request a blood or urine test if officer "has reasonable grounds to believe that the person was under the influence of a controlled substance, a drug other than alcohol, or a combination of alcohol and another drug ... even after another type of test has been administered"). The officer did not reread the implied consent advisory to Voss, but did answer Voss's questions regarding the requested test. Voss consented to the test, and later test results were positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
Upon receiving the positive test result, the DOT issued a notice revoking Voss's license for one year. See id. § 321J.12 (requiring one year revocation for chemical test showing presence of a controlled substance or other drug where person has had a previous revocation under chapter 321J). Voss contested the revocation, in part based on the fact that the advisory had not been reread to him prior to his consent to the urine test. The administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of Voss on this issue, and rescinded the department's revocation of Voss's driver's license. The DOT filed an internal appeal, resulting in a reversal of the ALJ's decision and a reinstatement of Voss's revocation.
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|