review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P.
Strausser, District Associate Judge.
Davis seeks further review of a court of appeals decision
affirming his conviction for operating while intoxicated,
second offense, and upholding a district court ruling denying
his motion to suppress. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND
JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.
A. Simmons, Bettendorf, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
deputy responded to a motor vehicle accident in the midst of
a snowstorm. One of the drivers smelled of an alcoholic
beverage, he failed a horizontal-gaze nystagmus test, and his
wife admitted they had been drinking. Because of the bad
weather conditions, the deputy decided to transport him to a
protected location-the sally port of the nearby law
enforcement center-for the completion of field sobriety
testing. The driver requested the opportunity to talk to his
wife before leaving the scene, but the deputy denied the
request and informed the driver he could talk to her after
the field sobriety testing. The driver later failed two field
sobriety tests at the sally port. He was arrested, moved to
the jail's intake room, and given the opportunity to call
his wife and attorney. After speaking with his attorney, the
driver submitted to a chemical breath test which revealed a
blood alcohol concentration of .128. The driver was
subsequently charged with and convicted of operating while
intoxicated, second offense.
asked to decide whether the driver's rights under Iowa
Code section 804.20 were violated when the deputy denied his
request to call his wife until after field sobriety testing
occurred at the sally port. We conclude they were not because
the sally port was a location for testing, not a "place
of detention" within the meaning of Iowa Code section
804.20. Accordingly, we affirm the driver's conviction
and sentence and the decision of the court of appeals.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
February 25, 2015, at 10:38 p.m., Muscatine County
Sheriff's Deputy Edward Cardenas responded to a report of
a motor vehicle collision. Weather and road conditions at the
time were poor: snow was actively falling, visibility was
reduced, and the roads were slippery and one hundred percent
snow-covered. Two or three inches of snow were already on the
ground. When Deputy Cardenas arrived, several officers and
emergency personnel were already on the scene. Deputy
Cardenas was assigned to handle the accident report and
Cardenas contacted the Davises, whose vehicle had been
involved in the collision. They were sitting in the back of
their Toyota Tundra which was off of the road in a ditch.
Deputy Cardenas detected the slight odor of ingested alcohol
emanating from inside the vehicle. While emergency medical
technicians (EMTs) took Mr. Davis into an ambulance for
evaluation, Deputy Cardenas spoke with Davis's wife.
Davis's wife told Deputy Cardenas that they had been
returning home from supper, that Davis had been driving, and
that they both had previously consumed alcohol.
Cardenas then spoke with Davis individually after the EMTs
had completed their assessment. Deputy Cardenas detected the
odor of alcohol wafting directly from Davis's person.
Davis admitted he had had three rum and colas. Deputy
Cardenas also observed that Davis had bloodshot and watery
eyes. Deputy Cardenas conducted a horizontal-gaze nystagmus
test on Davis and found six out of six possible signs of
Cardenas told Davis he suspected him of being under the
influence of alcohol and wanted to conduct further field
sobriety testing. Deputy Cardenas explained to Davis that
because of the weather conditions, he would have to transport
him to the Muscatine County Jail to perform the field
sobriety testing in a controlled environment. Davis said
something to his wife about calling his attorney while he
continued to cooperate with Deputy Cardenas.
approximately 10:57 p.m., Deputy Cardenas escorted Davis to
his patrol car where he seated him in the rear without
handcuffs. Deputy Cardenas also read the Miranda
rights to Davis out of an abundance of caution. While Davis
was in the squad car but before they embarked, Davis asked
Deputy Cardenas if he could talk to his wife before leaving
the scene. Deputy Cardenas replied, "Once we are done
you can. Not right now."
Cardenas then went up to Davis's wife and informed her
that he was transporting Davis to the sally port (i.e.,
garage) at the jail to perform field sobriety testing. Deputy
Cardenas also retrieved Davis's cell phone from her so
Davis could use it later. While Deputy Cardenas and Davis
were en route, Deputy Cardenas explained to Davis,
I have your cell phone, it's in my pocket, and I will
give that to you as soon as we get down to the jail. And
basically what we are using the jail for is we are using it
for their garage, so we can be outside this weather so I can
do a couple more tests on you, give you an opportunity to
complete those tests, and we can go from there, okay? And if
we determine that we don't need to go further, then I can
bring you back to your residence.
approximately 11:14 p.m., Deputy Cardenas and Davis arrived
at the sally port. Davis performed two field sobriety tests
for Deputy Cardenas. Based on the results of these tests, at
approximately 11:23 p.m., Deputy Cardenas placed Davis under
arrest for operating while intoxicated and took Davis to the
jail's intake room. At 11:25 p.m., Deputy Cardenas
advised Davis he was allowed to place a phone call to anyone
first called his wife and asked her to call his attorney.
Deputy Cardenas inquired of Davis if he wished to place any
further calls. Davis then contacted his attorney, Greg
Johnston, at approximately 11:32 p.m. After speaking to
Johnston, Davis declined to answer any further questions or
sign any documents until Johnston had appeared.
point, Deputy Cardenas read Davis the implied-consent
advisory and formally requested Davis to provide a breath
sample for chemical testing. Deputy Cardenas, however,
allowed Davis to wait to make a decision on whether or not to
refuse chemical testing until he had a chance to speak
personally with Johnston. Upon arrival, Johnston engaged in
discussion with Davis, within view but out of earshot of
Cardenas. After consulting with his attorney, Davis submitted
to a chemical breath test, which indicated a blood alcohol
concentration of .128.
March 30, 2015, Davis was charged by trial information with
operating while intoxicated, second offense. See
Iowa Code § 321J.2(1) (2015). Davis filed a motion to
suppress evidence gathered from both the field sobriety tests
and the chemical breath test, alleging the evidence had been
obtained in violation of his statutory right to communicate
with counsel or a family member under Iowa Code section
a hearing, the district court held the field sobriety tests
performed at the jail's sally port should be suppressed
because Davis was denied the opportunity to contact his wife
after being detained for field sobriety testing. The district
court found Davis had been "restrained of his
liberty" within the meaning of Iowa Code section 804.20.
The district court also found the jail's sally port was a
"place of detention" within the meaning of section
804.20. However, the district court held the results of
Davis's chemical breath test should not be suppressed
because Davis had an opportunity to consult with both his
wife and his attorney before submitting to that test. The
The State's misconduct by violating Iowa Code section
804.20 ended when the defendant was allowed to consult with
his wife by phone and his attorney in person. From that point
forward there was no violation of Iowa Code Section ...