2 N.W.3d 821
Iowa2024Background
- The case concerns whether Iowa law enforcement can use a search warrant to obtain a breath specimen for chemical testing in an OWI (Operating While Intoxicated) investigation instead of following the statutory implied consent procedures.
- Deputy McCrea stopped Colby Laub on suspicion of OWI, did not invoke the implied consent procedure, and instead obtained a search warrant to secure a breath sample, which tested over the legal limit.
- Laub moved to suppress the evidence, arguing Deputy McCrea was required to follow the implied consent statute, which allows suspects the right to refuse testing (with administrative consequences), instead of proceeding by search warrant.
- The district court agreed with Laub, holding that implied consent was the exclusive means for obtaining chemical tests, that search warrants could not be used for bodily specimens, and that the procedure used violated Laub’s constitutional rights.
- The State sought discretionary review; the Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court’s suppression ruling and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether implied consent is the exclusive procedure for obtaining chemical tests in OWI cases | Statute requires officers to use implied consent and offers right to refuse | Statute does not prevent use of search warrants; implied consent is just one tool | Implied consent is not exclusive—search warrants may be used if implied consent is not invoked |
| Whether Iowa Code chapter 808 authorizes search warrants for bodily specimens | Chapter 808 is limited to persons, places, property—not bodily samples | Property includes bodily specimens; warrants can be issued for such evidence | Chapter 808 authorizes search warrants for bodily specimens |
| Whether use of a warrant instead of implied consent violated equal protection | Selective use of warrants deprives similarly situated persons of statutory rights | Scheme treats all motorists equally; discretion does not amount to discrimination | No equal protection violation—statute and discretion are constitutional |
| Whether use of a warrant instead of implied consent violated due process | Refusal to follow implied consent deprives suspects of statutory and constitutional rights | Warrant process provides more, not less, process/safeguards than implied consent | No due process violation—statutory process is not constitutionally required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Oakley, 469 N.W.2d 681 (Iowa 1991) (Implied consent statute does not preclude use of search warrants in OWI cases)
- State v. Demaray, 704 N.W.2d 60 (Iowa 2005) (Statutory implied consent procedure is not exclusive; other lawful means to obtain chemical evidence are permissible)
- State v. Frescoln, 911 N.W.2d 450 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017) (Statutory implied consent law is not the only lawful method for obtaining chemical testing in OWI investigations)
- State v. Hitchens, 294 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa 1980) (Statutory right of refusal applies only when implied consent procedures are invoked)