 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Riley8/16/2000
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Thomas A. Renda, District Associate Judge, and Artis Reis, Judge.
Jack Riley appeals his conviction and sentence for operating while intoxicated, third offense.
AFFIRMED.
Jack Riley appeals his conviction following a jury trial of operating while intoxicated, third offense. He contends the trial court: (1) erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress; and (2) abused its discretion in refusing to allow evidence regarding the arresting officer's credibility. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On April 25, 1999, Officer Evan Kooiker was driving east on Southeast Magazine Street in Ankeny. As he approached an intersection, he observed Riley's car pass in front of him traveling south on Southeast Delaware. The officer estimated Riley's vehicle was traveling fifty to fifty-five miles per hour in a thirty-five-mile-per-hour zone. Kooiker pursued the vehicle and came close enough to get a radar reading of fifty-eight miles per hour in a thirty-five-mile-per-hour zone. After stopping the vehicle, Kooiker determined Riley was driving while intoxicated.
On May 10, 1999, the State filed a trial information charging Riley with operating while intoxicated, third offense in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (1997) and driving while barred in violation of Iowa Code section 321.561. The State also alleged Riley was an habitual offender pursuant to Iowa Code section 902.8 based on prior felony convictions.
Riley filed a motion to suppress, contending the officer had no reasonable cause to make an investigatory stop. The motion was denied. At trial, Riley attempted to offer evidence which he contends would have challenged the credibility of the arresting officer. The district court refused to allow some of the offered testimony. A jury found Riley guilty of OWI and he stipulated he was an habitual offender by virtue of two prior convictions for OWI as a third offender.
On October 6, 1999, Riley entered a stipulation of guilt to the driving while barred charge and was sentenced on both charges that day. Riley appealed both convictions. The OWI and driving while barred cases were consolidated for appeal by the Iowa Supreme Court. Riley's appellate brief addresses only issues relevant to his OWI conviction.
II. Scope of Review.
In our de novo review of Fourth Amendment claims, we evaluate the totality of the circumstances. See State v. Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d 97, 99 (Iowa 1997). (citation omitted). Riley's challenge to the district court's evidentiary rulings is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Hubka, 480 N.W.2d 867, 868 (Iowa 1992).
III. Validity of Terry Stop.
Riley contends the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d at 100. Searches conducted without a warrant are per se unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies. Id. (citations omitted). One such exception, first recognized in Terry v. Ohio, allows an officer to stop an individual or vehicle for investigatory purposes based on a reasonable suspicion that a criminal act has occurred or is occurring. Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d at 100 (citing Terry 392 U.S. at 21-22, 88 S. Ct. at 1880, 20 L. Ed. 2d at 906).
In determining whether an officer had a reasonable suspicion sufficient to permit a Terry stop, we
Page 1 2 3 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|