State v. Roe

1

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID JAMES ROE, Defendant-Appellant

No. 22-1764

Court of Appeals of Iowa

November 8, 2023

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin McKeever, Judge.

The defendant challenges the denial of his motion to suppress following his conviction for operating while intoxicated second offense. AFFIRMED.

Colin Murphy of Gourley Rehkemper Lindholm, P.L.C., West Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.

GREER Presiding Judge.

David Roe challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence following his conviction for operating while intoxicated (OWI), second offense. On appeal, Roe argues there was not probable cause of his impairment to support the search warrant for a sample of his blood. Excluding the evidence that Roe's passenger had a drug pipe in her pocket, we find that there was a substantial basis to determine probable cause existed based on the circumstances of the motorcycle crash, the statements and observations of an eyewitness and persons responding to the scene, and Roe's previous OWI conviction, so we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings.

On June 21, 2020, around 7:19 p.m., Roe drove off the road and crashed his motorcycle while driving in rural Johnson County. Based upon the dynamics of the accident, it appeared Roe lost control of the motorcycle while negotiating a curve in the road. As determined by a deputy accident reconstructionist, although Roe attempted to brake, he likely was traveling at a high rate of speed and was unable to navigate the turn while remaining on the road. Skid marks pointed straight ahead rather than starting to curve with the turn in the road. In the area of the skid, the pavement was clear and dry. After leaving the roadway, Roe and his passenger fell off the motorcycle in the crash and were seriously injured. The passenger was paralyzed as a result of the crash. A driver who was behind Roe at the time called 911. Firefighters, Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs), and Johnson County Sheriff's Deputies responded to the scene.

Johnson County Sheriff's Deputy Kyle Campbell was one of the deputies who responded to the scene; after speaking with the firefighters, EMTs, and other deputies, he applied for a search warrant for a sample of Roe's blood, urine, and/or breath. In the warrant application, Deputy Campbell wrote that he sought a specimen of Roe's blood, urine, and/or breath because "Officers have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation under Iowa Code § 321J.2 has occurred and this evidence is relevant to a criminal investigation into a violation of Iowa Code § 321J.2." The warrant application also contained a statement that a driver in a vehicle behind Roe saw him lose control of his motorcycle and drive off the road. The witness alerted officers that she watched Roe crash into the ditch, even though the road was paved and dry that evening, although she thought he may have hit gravel. The deputies found no loose gravel near where the skid marks were found. In addition, Deputy Campbell wrote that Roe "told fire fighters he had one alcoholic drink." Because of the serious injuries from the accident, "deputies on scene did not talk with [Roe] before he was taken to [University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC)]. According to fire personnel on scene, he admitted to drinking. [EMTs] also stated he had watery eyes ...." Deputy Campbell checked the box next to "Judgment impaired" as another ground supporting his warrant application as well as "drug paraphernalia observed at the scene" and an explanation that the "injured passenger had drug equipment in her pocket . . .," in particular a "one hitter." Finally, Deputy Campbell noted Roe's previous OWI conviction at the end of the warrant application.

A Johnson County magistrate issued the search warrant, and Deputy Campbell obtained a sample of Roe's blood through a nurse at UIHC. The blood sample tested positive for methamphetamine. The State charged Roe via trial information in September 2021 with serious injury by vehicle, a class "D" felony, in violation of Iowa Code section 707.6A(4) (2020), and OWI, second offense, an aggravated misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2(2)(b).

Roe pled not guilty and moved to suppress any evidence of the blood test, arguing that the warrant application was unsupported by probable cause and did not assure the reliability of the named witness and the EMTs and firefighters. The State resisted, and, following an unreported hearing in December 2021, the district court denied the motion. In its June 2022 ruling, the district court explained that there was a substantial basis for finding probable cause because there was no clear external cause of the motorcycle accident, drug paraphernalia was recovered from the scene, Roe admitted to drinking, and Roe had watery eyes.

Roe moved to reconsider or enlarge the ruling, which the State resisted, and the district court overruled. In this motion, Roe argued that the EMTs and firefighters that observed Roe were confidential informants and were not determined to be credible. Roe waived his right to a jury trial and stipulated to a trial on the minutes of testimony. As part of the agreement to stipulate, the State dismissed the serious-injury-by-vehicle charge. Following a trial on the minutes in August 2022, the district court found Roe guilty of OWI, second offense. The district court sentenced Roe to 365 days in jail with all but ninety of those days suspended. Roe now appeals.

II. Standard of Review.

We review constitutional issues, such as this challenge to the validity of the search warrant, de novo. State v. Bracy, 971 N.W.2d 563, 567 (Iowa 2022). "A search warrant must be supported by probable cause." State v. Baker, 925 N.W.2d 602, 613 (Iowa 2019) (citing Iowa Const. art. I, § 8); see also U.S. Const. amend. IV. "The test for probable cause is 'whether a person of reasonable prudence would believe a crime was committed on the premises to be searched or evidence of a crime could be located there.'" Baker, 925 N.W.2d at 613 (quoting State v. Gogg, 561 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Iowa 1997)).

III. Analysis.

Arguing the evidence presented to the magistrate only showed Roe lost control of his motorcycle, Roe maintains there was not probable cause to support issuing a search warrant. Specifically, Roe reduces his challenge to the suppression ruling on these points: (1) no officer presented any objective observations of impairment to the issuing judge; (2) the credibility of the informant and EMTs and firefighters on scene was not established and (3) the drug pipe found on the passenger could not support probable cause of Roe's impairment.

When examining challenges to probable cause to support a warrant, we "do not make an independent determination of probable cause." State v. McNeal, 867 N.W.2d 91, 99 (Iowa 2015). Instead, we merely determine "whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed." Id. (quoting Gogg, 561 N.W.2d at 363). We review the information as it was presented to the judge and "do not strictly scrutinize the sufficiency of the underlying affidavit." Bracy, 971 N.W.2d at 567 (quoting McNeal, 867 N.W.2d at 99). In this analysis, we look only to "that information, reduced to writing, which was actually presented to the [magistrate judge] at the time the application for warrant was made." McNeal, 867 N.W.2d at 100 (citation omitted). "[W]e draw all reasonable inferences to support the judge's finding of probable cause and give great deference to the judge's finding"-"[c]lose cases are decided in favor of upholding the validity of the warrant." Id. (first alteration in original) (quoting Gogg, 561 N.W.2d at 364); accord State v. Wenzel, 987 N.W.2d 473, 482 (Iowa Ct. App. 2022) ("Our preference is to uphold warrants and construe them in a commonsense manner so that we resolve doubtful cases in favor of their validity.").

On Roe's challenge to the magistrate's reliance on the drug pipe found on the passenger, not Roe's person, we agree that that observation, standing alone, does not establish a substantial basis to find probable cause that Roe was impaired while driving. "A search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to the person." State v. Stevens 970 N.W.2d 598, 605 (Iowa 2002) (quoting Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 (1999)). In addition, "[t]his requirement cannot be undercut or avoided by simply pointing to the fact that coincidentally there exists probable cause to search or seize another or to search the premises where the person may happen to be." Gogg, 561 N.W.2d at 368 (quoting Ybarra, 444 U.S. at 91). But while the drug pipe in the passenger's pocket does not lend support for probable cause that Roe was operating while intoxicated, excluding this evidence from consideration is not fatal to the warrant as Roe's other...