 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Stoppel7/3/2002
The State appeals the district court's suppression of chemical blood test results. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
The State appeals the district court's suppression of a chemical blood test. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
Gregory Stoppel was charged with homicide by vehicle, based upon an allegation he unintentionally caused the death of his wife, Kristy, by operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Stoppel moved to suppress chemical blood test results that indicated a blood alcohol level just under the legal limit. At the suppression hearing a deputy sheriff and a state trooper testified to a number of relevant facts.
The single-vehicle accident occurred late at night, on a dry, clear, largely straight but somewhat uneven roadway, with a narrow shoulder. Stoppel's truck had veered into a ditch, jumped a driveway, and run over a mail box. When Deputy Denise Jens arrived Stoppel was crying, stating he had killed his wife. Deputy Jens described Stoppel as "very emotional" and "weak in the knees." She stated he smelled of alcoholic beverages and that he admitted he had been drinking and heading home from a bar. She further stated his eyes were bloodshot, watery, and glassy. While she admitted this could have been due to the fact he had been crying, she noted his eyes remained glassy even after he stopped crying. Three open cans of beer were found in the truck after Stoppel was taken to the hospital, and the truck itself smelled of alcohol. Deputy Jens requested a state trooper be called to the hospital to invoke implied consent and obtain a specimen.
Trooper Jamey Dickson was contacted by dispatch and directed to obtain a blood specimen from the driver of a vehicle involved in a fatal accident. He was also informed the accident had involved alcohol. Trooper Dickson was at the hospital when Stoppel arrived, immobilized on a spine board and wearing a cervical collar. He stated Stoppel was highly emotional and crying, but that he calmed down after a few minutes. He also observed that Stoppel smelled of beer and that his eyes were bloodshot and watery. Like Deputy Jens, he admitted the state of Stoppel's eyes could have been due to the fact he had been crying.
Trooper Dickson observed Stoppel to be alert, understandable, polite, courteous, and capable of exercising good judgment. After giving Stoppel his Miranda warnings he administered a preliminary breath test (PBT). Trooper Dickson stated he could not recall the exact results of the PBT, but did recall that it indicated Stoppel was close to, but not over, the legal limit. Trooper Dickson then invoked implied consent, blood was drawn, and a blood alcohol level of .103 was returned, with a margin of error of .004ñ.
In determining the police did not have reasonable grounds to believe Stoppel was operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit and thus could not lawfully invoke implied consent, the district court stated there was "no credible evidence that the Defendant tested close to the legal limit." It found Trooper Dickson had "no information concerning Defendant's behavior which would lead him to believe the Defendant was intoxicated," as no field sobriety tests were administered and as Stoppel's crying accounted for his bloodshot eyes. Focusing on Trooper Dickson's observations as to Stoppel's alert and coherent nature, the court found these observations "dispel any belief that a reasonable person would have" that Defendant was operating while intoxicated. The State sought and was granted discretionary review.
Scope of Review.
Our review is for errors at law. Sta
Page 1 2 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|