from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, Patrick R.
Grady (motion to suppress), Andrew B. Chappel (trial), and
Mitchell E. Turner (sentencing), Judges.
appeals his conviction for driving while his license was
revoked, claiming the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress.
Brandon Brown and Gina Messamer of Parrish, Kruidenier, Dunn,
Boles, Gribble, Gentry, Brown & Bergmann, L.L.P., Des
Moines, and Peter Riley of Tom Riley Law Firm, P.L.C., Cedar
Rapids, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, David S. Gorham, Special
Assistant Attorney General, and Robin G. Formaker, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
case, although procedurally different from Rilea v. Iowa
Department of Transportation, __ N.W.2d__ (Iowa 2018),
presents many of the same issues. A motorist was stopped in
August 2016 by an Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT)
Motor Vehicle Enforcement (MVE) officer for speeding in a
construction zone. The MVE officer then determined that the
motorist's driver's license had been revoked pursuant
to Iowa Code chapter 321J. He arrested the motorist and took
him to jail. The motorist was charged with, and later
convicted of, driving while revoked in violation of Iowa Code
appeal presents the question of whether the motorist's
motion to suppress evidence resulting from the stop should
have been granted. Echoing the arguments in Rilea,
the motorist maintains that the district court erred in
finding the IDOT MVE officer had authority to stop and arrest
him. He contends that IDOT MVE officers lacked authority in
August 2016 to engage in general traffic enforcement under
Iowa Code chapter 321. He also contends that the stop and
arrest cannot be sustained as a citizen's arrest under
conclude the motorist's legal position is correct and,
therefore, reverse the denial of the motion to suppress and
vacate the conviction and sentence. In reaching this
conclusion, we rely mostly on today's decision in
Rilea, although we pause to consider a number of
arguments raised only in this case.
Facts and Procedural History.
August 18, 2016, Ryan Glade, a MVE officer with the IDOT, was
on patrol in Iowa County. He saw a black BMW traveling
eastbound on I-80 at what appeared to be in excess of the
posted speed limit of fifty-five miles per hour for a
construction zone. Officer Glade used a LIDAR (laser
scanning) unit to detect the vehicle's actual speed of
seventy-two miles per hour.
Glade pulled over the vehicle. The defendant, Jeremy Werner,
was the driver and sole occupant of the vehicle. Werner
admitted that he did not have a driver's license. Officer
Glade ran a license check, which indicated that Werner's
driving privileges had been revoked. Officer Glade gave
Werner a citation for speeding. Officer Glade also arrested
Werner and transported him to the Iowa County Jail in
Marengo. That day, Officer Glade filed a complaint charging
Werner with driving while revoked, a serious misdemeanor.
See Iowa Code § 321J.21(1). A trial information
was filed on August 30.
December 20, Werner filed a motion to suppress, asserting
that Officer Glade was not authorized to make the traffic
stop of his vehicle. Following a hearing, the district court
denied the motion to suppress on April 27, 2017, for two
reasons. First, the court explained that Officer Glade was a
peace officer within the meaning of Iowa Code sections
321.1(50) and 801.4(11). The court noted that Iowa Code
section 321.492 authorizes a peace officer "to stop a
vehicle to require exhibition of the driver's license of
the driver" and "to serve a summons or memorandum
of traffic violation." See id. §
321.492(1). Second, the court concluded that "even if
[Officer] Glade did not have the authority as an IDOT officer
to stop Werner's vehicle, his conduct still resulted in a
valid citizen's arrest." See id. §
the parties agreed to a trial on the minutes of testimony,
and Werner was convicted of driving while under revocation.
On July 17, Werner was sentenced to serve two days in jail
and to pay a $1000 fine plus surcharges.
appealed his conviction and sentence, claiming that his
motion to suppress should have been ...