State of Iowa v. Dale Dean Pettijohn Jr.
2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 78
| Iowa | 2017Background
- On Aug. 18, 2013 DNR Officer Wineland observed Dale Pettijohn piloting a rented pontoon in a no-wake zone with a passenger seated close to an unguarded propeller; Wineland stopped the boat for a safety violation under Iowa Code §462A.12(1).
- Wineland observed signs that raised suspicion of intoxication (bloodshot eyes, nervousness) and summoned conservation officers; Pettijohn was warned for negligent operation and moved to the dock.
- Conservation Officer Drish arrived, smelled alcohol, observed slurred speech and administered field sobriety tests; Pettijohn was arrested and taken to the station.
- At the station Pettijohn was read an implied-consent advisory, signed forms indicating consent, and submitted to a breath test showing BAC .194; he was charged with boating while intoxicated under Iowa Code §462A.14(1).
- Pettijohn moved to suppress the post-stop evidence and the breath-test result; the district court denied suppression, convicted after a bench trial, and Pettijohn appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.
- The Iowa Supreme Court held the boat stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion but held the warrantless breath test violated article I, §8 of the Iowa Constitution because Pettijohn’s consent was not voluntary and the search-incident-to-arrest exception did not categorically apply under the Iowa Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Pettijohn's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of the stop/seizure of the boat | Stop violated Fourth Amendment and Iowa Const. art. I, §8 | Stop justified (community caretaking or investigatory stop) | Officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion of a simple misdemeanor (Iowa §462A.12(1)); seizure constitutional |
| Warrantless breath test — federal Fourth Amendment | Birchfield/ McNeely leave doubt whether breath tests off water are permitted | Breath tests permitted as search incident to arrest (Birchfield) | Under U.S. Supreme Court framework (Birchfield) warrantless breath tests incident to lawful arrests for intoxicated operation are permitted |
| Warrantless breath test — Iowa Constitution (art. I, §8) | Implied consent + exigency or consent justify test under state law | Same as federal: search-incident-to-arrest or implied consent suffice | Under article I, §8 the SITA exception is narrower (Gaskins): natural dissipation of BAC does not justify categorical SITA; breath test not categorically permissible incident to arrest under Iowa Constitution |
| Validity/voluntariness of consent after implied-consent advisory | Statutory implied consent (and Pettijohn’s signed forms) meant he effectively consented | Statutory scheme and signed forms show consent | Consent was involuntary under the totality: Pettijohn intoxicated, was arrested and in custody, advisory was incomplete/misleading (failed to mention constitutional right to refuse and misstated/omitted criminal penalties), and civil penalties and suspension made the choice coercive; breath-test results suppressed under article I, §8 |
Key Cases Cited
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. _ (U.S. 2016) (Breath tests may be administered warrantlessly as searches incident to lawful arrest under the Fourth Amendment; blood tests may not)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (U.S. 2013) (Dissipation of BAC does not create a per se exigency; exigency must be assessed case-by-case)
- State v. Gaskins, 866 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2015) (Under Iowa Constitution the SITA exception must be narrowly construed and tethered to officer safety or prevention of evidence destruction)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (Voluntariness of consent evaluated under totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (Search incident to lawful arrest permits full search of the person)