Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Rolling

Court of Appeal of Iowa

May 30, 2013

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RYAN DAVID ROLLING, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Peter B. Newell, District Associate Judge.

         A defendant appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicated, first offense.

          David R. Johnson of Brinton, Bordwell & Johnson, Clarion, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Elisabeth S. Reynoldson, Assistant Attorney General, and Dan Wiechmann, County Attorney, for appellee.

          Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.

          VOGEL, P.J.

         Ryan Rolling appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicated, first offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (2011).[1] He argues the district court erred in finding the police officer did not violate Rolling's rights under Iowa Code section 804.20. Because we find there is sufficient evidence to support the district court's finding the officer's actions were reasonable, we affirm the district court.

         I. Background Facts and Proceedings

         After failing three field sobriety tests and providing a preliminary breath sample above the legal limit, Rolling was brought to the police station at approximately 2:50 a.m. on October 8, 2011, after being arrested for driving while intoxicated. Officer Alan Brandt read Rolling his Miranda rights and the implied consent advisory. At approximately 2:56 Rolling requested to call "his attorney." After allowing the phone to ring, but receiving no answer or an answering machine so that a message could be left, Officer Brandt asked Rolling if he would like to try to contact a different attorney. Rolling refused. Rolling then requested to call Keith Koenen and identified Koenen as his stepfather.[2] Asking for both advice on whether to consent to the Data Master test and to help locate an attorney, Koenen replied he would attempt to locate an attorney for Rolling and call back. Approximately eleven minutes later, after a conversation between Officer Brandt and Rolling regarding license revocation, Rolling called Koenen again. This second phone call lasted approximately seven minutes. Officer Brandt told Koenen it was "time to wrap it up." At 3:31 a.m. Rolling signed the consent form to take a sample of his breath. After Officer Brandt started calibrating the Data Master machine Rolling asked if he could speak to his mother. Rolling testified he heard his mother speaking to someone in the station lobby. Officer Brandt responded, "Once we complete the test." Rolling agreed. Rolling provided a sample of his breath with the test results of .251 mg%BAC.

         Rolling was charged by trial information of operating while intoxicated second offense on October 18. He filed a motion to suppress on February 22, 2012, alleging his rights under Iowa Code section 804.20 were violated when he was not allowed "to call or consult with his mother prior to having to decide whether to consent or refuse chemical testing." The motion was denied by the district court.

         Rolling waived his right to a jury trial, and the case proceeded to a stipulated bench trial on the minutes of testimony. The district court found Rolling guilty of operating while intoxicated, first offense, and sentenced him to 365 days in jail with all but two days suspended. Rolling appeals.

         II. Standard of Review

         We review the district court's interpretation of Iowa Code section 804.20 for errors at law. State v. Walker, 804 N.W.2d 284, 289 (Iowa 2011). "We affirm the district court's suppression ruling when the court correctly applied the law and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.