State v. Bauler

1

State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Kyra Rose Bauler, Appellant.

No. 22-1232

Supreme Court of Iowa

June 28, 2024

Submitted November 15, 2023

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Jeffrey A Neary, Judge.

A defendant appeals the denial of her motion to suppress challenging the stop of her vehicle, the open-air dog sniff performed on her vehicle, and the search of her purse. Affirmed.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Melinda J. Nye (argued), Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joshua A. Duden (argued) Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Mansfield, J., announced the judgment of the court and delivered an opinion, in which Christensen, C.J., and Waterman, J., joined. McDonald, J., filed a special concurrence in which May, J., joined, and Oxley, J., joined as to parts I-II but not the judgment. Oxley, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which McDermott, J., joined as to parts II-VI. McDermott, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Mansfield, Justice.

I. Introduction.

We are called upon to decide whether the United States or the Iowa Constitution was violated when a K-9 handler and his trained canine momentarily made contact with the exterior of a vehicle while performing an open-air dog sniff. We conclude that ruff justice is inevitably going to be rough justice, and that the legality of a dog sniff does not turn on the fine point of whether the handler or the dog briefly touched the outside of the vehicle, so long as there was no entry into the private space inside the vehicle. As the United States Supreme Court has said, dog sniffs are "sui generis" because they reveal no protected information about the target of the sniff-only the presence or absence of contraband. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 409 (2005); United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707 (1983). Thus, details about how the dog is performing the sniff should not matter so long as the dog is in a place where police have a right to be. In fact, we should want the dog to do what it needs to do to assure the results of the sniff are as accurate as possible. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the motion to suppress and affirm the defendant's convictions and sentence.

II. Facts and Procedural History.

On a cold evening in January 2021, Plymouth County Deputy Sheriff Jaycee Vander Berg was on patrol when she noticed a car driving north on Highway 75 at approximately fifty-five miles per hour where the posted speed limit was sixty-five miles per hour. The car was proceeding slower than most vehicles in heavy traffic. Vander Berg followed the vehicle as it exited the highway and entered the parking lot of a gas station in Hinton. Vander Berg ran the plates on the vehicle. She learned that the car was registered to Kyra Bauler and that Bauler had a history of drug offenses.

Vander Berg continued to follow the vehicle as it left the gas station and kept going north on Highway 75. The posted speed limit was sixty-five miles per hour, but the car was now driving forty-five miles per hour. Traffic was still heavy, and Vander Berg observed that the car's low speed was creating traffic problems. She witnessed vehicles "trying to get around" the vehicle. Vander Berg described the situation as "kind of messy" and creating a "hazard." Vander Berg also saw the vehicle cross the centerline multiple times and ride along the fog line for some time.

At this point, Vander Berg intended to stop the vehicle, but she waited to see if the vehicle would take the upcoming exit because she believed that a stop off of the highway would be safer. The vehicle did take the next exit, and Vander Berg began to pull closer to the vehicle to make the stop. While this was going on, Vander Berg contacted Officer Bob Rohmiller of the Le Mars Police Department and asked him to bring his canine to the scene. Vander Berg believed that "drug related activity [was] taking place," and she wanted Rohmiller to conduct a dog sniff of the vehicle.

After contacting Rohmiller, Deputy Vander Berg stopped the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was indeed Bauler. Vander Berg approached the driver's side of the vehicle. Bauler asked why she was being stopped. Vander Berg informed Bauler that the reason for the stop was her crossing the center line three times, crossing the fog line once, and driving forty-five miles per hour in a sixty-five miles per hour zone. Vander Berg added, "[T]here's reason to believe that potentially you could be impaired in some sort of way." Vander Berg requested Bauler's driver's license and proof of insurance. Bauler handed Vander Berg her license but could not immediately produce proof of insurance, and Vander Berg asked Bauler to come with her to the front interior of her patrol car with the stack of papers she was ruffling through. Bauler complied with this request, and she brought her purse with her. Vander Berg noticed that Bauler was sweating and thought it was "odd" because the temperature was below freezing.

In the patrol car, Bauler said she didn't have the proof of insurance with her in the vehicle but did have insurance coverage. Vander Berg said she would issue a citation for failure to provide proof of insurance that could be cured by providing proof of insurance. After Vander Berg had called in Bauler's driver's license, and while she was still writing up the citation and the warning for the lane violations, Rohmiller arrived at the scene with his canine. This was less than ten minutes into the stop.

Rohmiller also noted Bauler's appearance in the patrol car. He observed that Bauler's eyes were bloodshot, her eyelids were droopy, and she was easily agitated. Rohmiller and Vander Berg asked Bauler for permission to search her vehicle. Bauler refused. Rohmiller directed the dog to conduct an open-air sniff around the exterior of Bauler's car. Rohmiller led the dog around Bauler's car at least twice. During the open-air sniff, Rohmiller's hand touched the car's exterior on several occasions to direct and "detail" the canine where to sniff. The dog's paws touched the car's exterior several times. While Bauler was seated in the patrol car with Vander Berg, she saw the dog's paws touching the car and complained. Vander Berg responded that she had worked with that dog, and it "doesn't have his claws out or nothing." Bauler acknowledged that but said, "It's a dog."

There is no evidence that the dog's paws in any way damaged Bauler's vehicle. At no point during the open-air sniff did either Rohmiller or the dog enter Bauler's vehicle.

The dog alerted to the presence of drugs on the passenger side of Bauler's car. At this point, Vander Berg converted the traffic stop into a drug investigation. The peace officers searched Bauler's vehicle and her purse. They found a methamphetamine pipe, a makeup container with white crystalline residue, a small vial with powdery residue, and two small, taped packages. With Bauler's consent, the officers searched the packages and found a scale with white powder residue consistent with methamphetamine. Vander Berg placed Bauler under arrest and transported her to the Plymouth County Jail. During the booking process, jail personnel discovered Bauler had concealed on her body two clear plastic baggies holding 6.89 grams of methamphetamine.

The State charged Bauler in two separate criminal cases. In the first case, she was charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI), first offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2(2)(a) (2021). In the second case, she was charged with possession with intent to deliver more than five grams of methamphetamine, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(b)(7); introduction of contraband into a correctional facility, in violation of Iowa Code section 719.7(3)(a); and possession of a controlled substance, third offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5).

Bauler moved to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. Both constitutions protect persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; Iowa Const. art. I, § 8. In the OWI case, Bauler argued Vander Berg did not have legal cause to initiate a traffic stop. In the drug case, Bauler reiterated her argument regarding the legality of the traffic stop. She also argued that the open-air sniff around the exterior of her vehicle was an unconstitutional search because Rohmiller and the dog touched the exterior of her vehicle without having a search warrant. The district court denied the motions to suppress.

The State and Bauler then agreed that the State would dismiss the charge of possession with intent to deliver and hold a trial on the minutes for the remaining charges. Following a trial on the minutes, the district court found Bauler guilty on the three remaining counts. Bauler timely filed this appeal. We retained the appeal.

III. Standard of Review.

"We review the district court's denial of a motion to suppress based on deprivation of a constitutional right de novo." State v. Arrieta, 998 N.W.2d 617, 620 (Iowa 2023). We independently evaluate the entire record and consider the totality of the circumstances. Id. We defer to the findings of fact made by the district court, "but we are not bound by them." Id.

IV. Legal Analysis.

On appeal, Bauler raises three search-and-seizure arguments. First, she challenges Deputy Vander Berg's traffic stop of her vehicle. Second, she challenges the dog sniff performed by Officer Rohmiller's canine. Third, she challenges the search of her purse.

A. The Traffic Stop of the Vehicle.

We first address the constitutionality of the traffic stop. The "[t]emporary detention of individuals during the...