State of Iowa v. Carrie McIver, 2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 6

Early morning: officer observed pickup stopped in closed-business parking lot; driver left by driving over grass, down sidewalk, and over curb, then weaved within lane—officer initiated traffic stop.
Driver Carrie McIver displayed slurred speech, failed field sobriety tests, and refused further preliminary breath tests; arrested for improper use of lanes and transported to jail.
At the jail, deputy requested a breath test under Iowa’s implied-consent statute; McIver refused breath testing and requested blood testing because of prescription medications; deputy declined to administer blood absent submission to breath test; no test given. Three prescription bottles found in her purse.
McIver was charged with OWI (first offense), moved to suppress (claiming invalid stop and implied-consent violation), trial court denied suppression, and she was convicted on minutes of testimony; she appealed.
The Supreme Court of Iowa reviewed de novo (constitutional issues) and for errors at law (statutory interpretation).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of the traffic stop	McIver: stop lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause; officer’s observations insufficient	State: driving conduct (parking in closed lot, leaving over grass/sidewalk/curb, weaving) supported suspicion of impairment	Stop was valid; totality of circumstances gave reasonable suspicion of intoxicated driving
Scope of Iowa Code § 321J.6(3) (implied-consent when drugs suspected)	McIver: subsection 3 requires officer to offer a blood or urine test when officer has reasonable grounds to suspect controlled substances or non-alcohol drugs	State: subsection 3 requires driver to submit to blood/urine if officer requests it, but does not mandate the officer to offer those tests	Court: statute ambiguous but legislative history shows subsection 3 requires drivers to submit to blood/urine testing when drugs suspected; it does not impose an affirmative duty on officer to offer blood/urine in every circumstance—here officer was not required to offer blood/urine and denial of suppression was proper

Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (traffic stops require reasonable suspicion or probable cause)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (reasonable-suspicion analysis uses the totality of the circumstances)
State v. Tague, 676 N.W.2d 197 (Iowa 2004) (distinguishes probable cause for arrest from reasonable suspicion for stop)
State v. Pals, 805 N.W.2d 767 (Iowa 2011) (state constitutional analysis approach)
Shellady v. Sellers, 208 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 1973) (erratic driving supports investigative stop)
State v. Bloomer, 618 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2000) (peace officer determines type of chemical test under implied-consent statute)
State v. Overbay, 810 N.W.2d 871 (Iowa 2012) (implied-consent law aims to protect public safety and eliminate intoxicated driving)
Bankson v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 444 N.W.2d 515 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989) (permitting urine testing following a below-limit breath test when officer suspects drugs)