State of Iowa v. Carson Michael Walker
2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 78
| Iowa | 2011Background
- Walker was arrested for OWI after officers observed dangerous driving and he failed field sobriety tests while showing signs of intoxication.
- At the police station, Walker’s attorney Rothman sought an in-person private conference, but was limited to a glass-partitioned booth with videotaped surveillance.
- Rothman and Walker met across the partition for about 15 minutes using an intercom; Rothman could not smell breath or perform certain tests due to the barrier.
- Walker took a Datamaster breath test at 5:02 a.m. resulting in a BAC of .186%, well over the limit.
- The district court suppressed the breath-test results as a violation of Iowa Code section 804.20; the court of appeals reversed, and the State sought discretionary review.
- The Iowa Supreme Court held that restricting the private attorney conference and videotaped surveillance violated section 804.20 and ordered suppression of the breath-test results.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the glass partition violated 804.20 confidentiality | Walker | Walker | Yes; partition with video surveillance violated 804.20 |
| Whether videotaped surveillance alone violates privacy despite lack of audio | Walker | State | Yes; video surveillance without audio infringed privacy |
| What remedy governs 804.20 violations for breath-test evidence | Walker | State | Suppression of breath-test results; prejudice irrelevant |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vietor, 261 N.W.2d 828 (Iowa 1978) (purpose of 804.20; right to counsel before testing)
- State v. Tubbs, 690 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa 2005) (right to call attorney before testing; pragmatic balancing)
- State v. Garrity, 765 N.W.2d 592 (Iowa 2009) (phone calls must not materially interfere with testing)
- State v. Moorehead, 699 N.W.2d 667 (Iowa 2005) (prejudice usually presumed for 804.20 violations; exclusionary remedy)
- State v. Coburn, 315 N.W.2d 742 (Iowa 1982) (distinguishes Sixth Amendment context; not controlling here)
- Wemark v. State, 602 N.W.2d 810 (Iowa 1999) (attorney visits; role of counsel as officer of the court)
- Welch v. Iowa Dept. of Transportation, 801 N.W.2d 590 (Iowa 2011) (primary objective of implied-consent; voluntary testing)
- Parsons v. People, 15 P.3d 799 (Colo. App. 2000) (privacy of attorney-client visit room; partition considerations)
- Case v. Andrews, 603 P.2d 623 (Kan. 1979) (video monitoring of attorney visits; Sixth Amendment context)
- People v. Dehmer, 931 P.2d 460 (Colo. App. 1996) (surveillance without audio violates private consultation right)
- State v. Garrity, 765 N.W.2d 592 (Iowa 2009) (see above (duplicate entry for emphasis))