from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott,
defendant appeals his convictions for eluding and operating
while intoxicated. AFFIRMED.
M. Young of Parrish Kruidenier Dunn Boles Gentry Brown &
Bergmann, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
Hall appeals his convictions for one count of eluding, in
violation of Iowa Code section 321.279(3) (2015), and one
count of operating while intoxicated, in violation of Iowa
Code section 321J.2(2)(a). Hall claims the district court
erred in denying his motion to suppress and in denying his
motion for judgment of acquittal. Specifically, Hall argues
law enforcement did not have a valid reason to stop his
vehicle and there was insufficient evidence to support his
convictions. We find there was probable cause to stop
Hall's vehicle and sufficient evidence to support his
convictions. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings
September 18, 2015, a law enforcement officer in Des Moines
noticed a gold sedan, driven by Hall, had a malfunctioning
brake light. The officer activated his emergency lights and
attempted to initiate a traffic stop, but Hall did not stop.
The officer continued to pursue Hall's vehicle and was
joined by a trooper from the Iowa State Patrol. During the
pursuit, the officer observed Hall commit several other
traffic violations, including failure to yield to an
emergency vehicle, eluding, speeding, and reckless driving.
Eventually, Hall stopped at a parking lot of the apartment
complex where he lived, and the officers took him into
October 13, the State charged Hall with one count of eluding,
one count of operating while intoxicated, and one count of
driving while barred, in violation of Iowa Code section
321.561. Hall filed a motion to suppress, claiming
the officer lacked either probable cause or reasonable
suspicion to stop his vehicle. Specifically, Hall stated the
brake light the officer claimed was malfunctioning was
functioning properly on the night of the pursuit. On January
21, 2016, the district court denied Hall's motion to
suppress. Following trial, the jury found Hall guilty on both
counts. Following the verdict, Hall renewed his prior motion
for judgment of acquittal, asserting there was insufficient
evidence to support the jury's verdicts. The court denied
the motion. Hall appeals.
Standard of Review
review of motions to suppress based on federal and state
constitutional grounds is de novo. State v. Lane,
726 N.W.2d 371, 377 (Iowa 2007). "This review requires
'an independent evaluation of the totality of the
circumstances as shown by the entire record.'"
Id. (quoting State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d
601, 606 (Iowa 2001)). Because the district court had the
opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses, we give
deference to its factual findings, but we are not bound by
review claims of insufficient evidence for errors at law.
State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 614-15 (Iowa
2012). "In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of
evidence supporting a guilty verdict, courts consider all of
the record evidence viewed 'in the light most favorable
to the State, including all reasonable inferences that may be
fairly drawn from the evidence.'" Id. at
615 (quoting State v. Keopasaeuth, 645 N.W.2d 637,
640 (Iowa 2002)).