 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bartlett8/14/2002
ctrine and application of the exclusionary rule. The district court overruled the motion, concluding that the inevitable discovery rule was inapplicable under the facts of the case. It determined that the State did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Bartlett would have provided the urine sample. It found that his continuing consent was speculative, as was his ability to produce the sample. The State sought discretionary review from this supplemental ruling. Our supreme court granted both applications for discretionary review, and the two matters were consolidated.
II. IMPLIED CONSENT ADVISORY.
The State contends the standard implied consent advisory governed by section 321J.8 for chemical testing does not require an officer to inform a motorist of the terms of section 321J.6(2), which governs investigation and collection of body specimens. It argues that it must inform motorists of the consequences of refusal to submit to testing, not the provisions of section 321J.6(2). It asserts that section 321J.8 is clear and unambiguous and does not require an advisory of the officer's duties with respect to obtaining evidence of intoxication, by way of breath, blood, or urine.
Bartlett contends his consent to a blood test was involuntary due to the false verbal threat of a license revocation by Deputy Pothoff. He contends the threat of revocation of his license if he did not provide a blood sample is inconsistent with the language of section 321J.6(2) which states in part that "A refusal to submit to a chemical test of blood is not deemed a refusal to submit . . . ." He claims the remedy for this statutory violation should be the exclusion of the test results. Bartlett based his motion to suppress on both statutory and constitutional grounds.
A. Scope of review. Our review of this interpretation of Iowa Code sections 321J.6(2) and 321J.8 is on error. State v. McCoy, 603 N.W.2d 629, 630 (Iowa 1999).
B. Merits. Section 321J.6(2) provides as follows:
The peace officer shall determine which of the three substances, breath, blood, or urine, shall be tested. Refusal to submit to a chemical test of urine or breath is deemed a refusal to submit, and section 321J.9 applies. A refusal to submit to a chemical test of blood is not deemed a refusal to submit, but in that case, the peace officer shall then determine which one of the other two substances shall be tested and shall offer the test.
Section 321J.8 provides as follows:
A person who has been requested to submit to a chemical test shall be advised by a peace officer of the following:
1. If the person refuses to submit to the test, the person's driver's license or nonresident operating privilege will be revoked by the department as required by and for the applicable period specified under section 321J.9.
2. If the person submits to the test and the results indicate the presence of a controlled substance or other drug, or an alcohol concentration equal to or in excess of the level prohibited by section 321J.2 or 321J.2A, the person's driver's license or nonresident operating privilege will be revoked by the department as required by and for the applicable period specified under section 321J.12.
The issue presented in this case is how much of the contents of section 321J.6(2) must be conveyed to a person requested to submit to a chemical test, and this turns on our interpretation of section 321J.8. We try to find and give effect to the legislative intent in construing statutes. State v. Green, 470 N.W.2d 15, 18 (Iowa 1991). "If the statutory language is plain and the meaning is clear, we do not search for the legislative
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|