from the Iowa District Court for Poweshiek County, Rose Anne
Mefford, District Associate Judge (motion to suppress), and
Lucy J. Gamon, Judge (trial).
appeals his convictions and sentence for carrying weapons,
operating while intoxicated, and possession of marijuana.
G. Rehkemper of Gourley, Rehkemper & Lindholm P.L.C.,
West Des Moines, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Tyler J. Buller, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Gamble, S.J. [*]
Hayer appeals his convictions and sentence for the crimes of
carrying weapons, operating while intoxicated, and possession
of marijuana. He argues the district court's incorrect
interpretation of Iowa's implied consent statute resulted
in the inappropriate denial of his motion to suppress. Also,
he asserts none of the jury's guilty verdicts were
supported by sufficient evidence. We find the district court
correctly interpreted and applied Iowa law and substantial
evidence supports the jury's findings.
Background Facts and Proceedings
February 9, 2017, Deputy Matthew Maschmann was on routine
patrol when he observed a vehicle in the middle of a gravel
road with the driver's door ajar and an individual, later
identified as Hayer, standing next to the vehicle. As the
deputy approached, the individual returned to his vehicle and
began driving in the opposite direction of the deputy. After
running the license plate number and discovering the
registration was expired, the deputy stopped the vehicle.
deputy approached the driver in the vehicle and detected an
odor of "raw marijuana." He questioned the driver,
Hayer, about the odor, and Hayer admitted he "had just
smoked a little bit on the gravel road prior to [Deputy
Maschmann] stopping him." Hayer stated he smoked
"one hit" from a "one hitter." The deputy
asked, "Do you feel the effects of [the
marijuana]?" Hayer responded, "I mean, not-like, a
little bit." Hayer also informed the deputy he had a
concealed weapons permit, a loaded pistol in his pocket, and
other firearms properly stored in his vehicle.
consented to a search of his vehicle, during which the deputy
found rolling papers but no marijuana. Hayer was placed under
arrest for carrying weapons and was transported to the county
jail. At the jail, Hayer consented to and fully cooperated in
field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test. Despite
having displayed some clues of impairment, Deputy Maschmann
determined Hayer passed the tests. However, based on
Hayer's admission to having smoked some marijuana and the
deputy's detection of the odor, the deputy then invoked
implied consent and requested a urine sample. The urine
tested positive for marijuana metabolites with a threshold
level of sixty nanograms per milliliter.
was charged with carrying weapons, an aggravated misdemeanor,
in violation of Iowa Code section 724.4(1) (2017); operating
while intoxicated, first offense, a serious misdemeanor, in
violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2; and possession of
marijuana, a serious misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code
section 124.401(5). Hayer filed a motion to suppress arguing
Deputy Maschmann illegally invoked implied consent and,
therefore, Hayer's positive urine test result should be
suppressed. The district court denied the motion after a
hearing, held on June 15, 2017. Hayer renewed his motion on
November 1, and it was again denied. A jury trial was held on
November 14, and the jury returned a guilty verdict on each
of the counts. Hayer received the following sentence: two
days in jail, suspended, and one-year probation, as well as a
fine of $315 for the carrying weapons conviction; two days in
jail and a fine of $1250 for the operating while intoxicated
conviction; and two days in jail, suspended, and
one-year probation, as well as a fine of $315 for the
Standard of Review
review rulings on questions of statutory interpretation for
correction of errors at law." State v. Childs,
898 N.W.2d 177, 181 (Iowa 2017) (quoting State v. Iowa
Dist. Ct., 889 N.W.2d 467, 470 (Iowa 2017)).
Additionally, "[w]e review sufficiency-of-the-evidence
claims for correction of errors at law. We uphold a verdict
if substantial evidence supports it." State v.
Quinn, 691 N.W.2d 403, 407 (Iowa 2005) (internal
citations omitted). "Evidence is substantial if it would
convince a rational fact finder that the defendant is guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Biddle,
652 N.W.2d 191, 197 (Iowa 2002). "We review the evidence
in the light most ...