 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bartlett8/14/2002
o a blood test would not result in license revocation when the officer would then be under a duty to request another test, and refusal to submit to that test would result in license revocation. Therefore, we reverse the trial court. The evidence of Bartlett's blood test results should not be suppressed.
I. VOLUNTARINESS OF BARTLETT'S CONSENT.
Bartlett contends that the State failed to meet its burden of proof that his consent was voluntary. He argues that he was falsely advised by Deputy Pothoff that a refusal to submit to providing a sample of blood for chemical testing would result in the revocation of his license, contrary to section 321J.6(2). He maintains that, because of this false representation, his consent cannot be considered voluntary and uncoerced. Error has been preserved on this claim. Venard v. Winter, 524 N.W.2d 163, 165 (Iowa 1994) (stating that a successful party need not cross-appeal to preserve error on a ground urged but ignored or rejected by the trial court).
When a person who has submitted to a chemical test later asserts that his submission was not voluntary, we evaluate the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the decision was freely made or coerced. State v. Knous, 313 N.W.2d 510, 512 (Iowa 1981). For a consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and uncoerced. State v. Gravenish, 511 N.W.2d 379, 381 (Iowa 1994). When coercion is alleged, the State must prove the absence of undue pressure or duress by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. Statements are voluntary if they are the product of essentially unconstrained choice, made by a defendant whose will was not overcome or whose capacity for self-determination was not crucially impaired. Id.
Deception by law officers will not, standing alone, render consent involuntary as a matter of law. Id. Proof of knowledge of the right to refuse is not a prerequisite to proving the decision to submit to the test was voluntary; it is only one relevant circumstance. Knous, 313 N.W.2d at 512. We consider the following additional factors: defendant's age and prior criminal history; whether he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol; whether he ably understood and responded to questions; his physical and emotional reaction to interrogation; and whether physical punishment was used or threatened. Gravenish, 511 N.W.2d at 381.
Bartlett's allegation of involuntariness relies on Deputy Pothoff's failure to advise him that his refusal to submit to the blood test would not result in license revocation. We have already determined that under the current statutory scheme such a statement is not required. In considering all the relevant factors, we determine that Bartlett's consent to submit to the blood test was voluntary and uncoerced.
IV. CONCLUSION.
We reverse the trial court's ruling excluding Bartlett's test results and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|