 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bartlett8/14/2002
The State seeks discretionary review from a district court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress and from the court's supplemental suppression order. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
The State seeks discretionary review from a district court's grant of Richard Bartlett's motion to suppress and from the court's supplemental suppression order. The State contends the court erred in concluding the standard implied consent advisory governed by Iowa Code section 321J.8 (1999) for chemical testing requires an officer to inform a motorist of the terms of section 321J.6(2), which governs investigation and collection of body specimens. In the alternative, the State claims evidence of Bartlett's blood-alcohol content is admissible by virtue of the inevitable discovery doctrine. Bartlett argues that the State failed to meet its burden of proof that his consent to the chemical test of his blood was voluntary. We reverse and remand. Our resolution of this appeal makes it unnecessary to consider the applicability of the inevitable discovery doctrine.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.
The facts which give rise to this appeal are not in serious dispute. On August 29, 2000, Dubuque County Deputy Sheriff Harley Pothoff interviewed Richard Bartlett at a local hospital after Bartlett was involved in a single car accident. While receiving treatment for his injuries, Bartlett admitted to Deputy Pothoff that he had consumed a couple of glasses of peppermint schnapps. Defendant consented to a preliminary breath test which showed he had a blood alcohol level of .10 or more. Pothoff advised Bartlett he would be requesting a specimen for chemical testing. Bartlett requested to speak with an attorney, but was unsuccessful in contacting one by phone. He then stated he would take the test and talk to his attorney the next day. Deputy Pothoff read Bartlett an implied consent advisory which warned defendant that a refusal to submit to chemical testing would result in a revocation of driving privileges for two years. The deputy then handed Bartlett a form and requested a specimen of blood for chemical testing. Bartlett marked the consent box and signed the form.
A technician drew the blood. Bartlett was later charged with operating while intoxicated or drugged, second offense, in violation of section 321J.2(1) and (2) and failure to maintain control in violation of section 321.288.
Bartlett filed a motion to suppress the blood test results, claiming (1) the blood sample was obtained without a warrant and without his voluntary and uncoerced consent contrary to his constitutional rights, and (2) the blood sample was obtained in violation of section 321J.6(2). In response to the State's motion for a more specific statement as regards his allegation involving section 321J.6(2), Bartlett alleged that Deputy Pothoff was precluded from telling him that if he did not provide a blood sample his license would be revoked, and thus the sample was provided involuntarily and through coercion.
At the hearing on the suppression motion, Pothoff testified neither he nor the advisory form instructed Bartlett that he had the right to refuse a blood test and still not lose his license as long as he provided urine for testing. The court granted Bartlett's motion, concluding that Bartlett's consent to the blood test was obtained by the false threat of a license revocation, and therefore the State could not introduce the results of Bartlett's blood test at trial. The State sought discretionary review of that ruling from our supreme court. The State also filed a motion for enlarged findings before the district court, requesting that the court address the applicability of the inevitable discovery do
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|