State of Iowa v. David Joseph Hellstern, 2014 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 101

Hellstern, arrested for OWI (first offense) after a night-time stop for erratic driving, requested privacy for attorney consultation during a jail teleconference but was told privacy was not allowed on the phone and was not informed that in-person, confidential conferences at the jail were permitted.
Officer Dyer remained within earshot during Hellstern’s 3:00 a.m. call to attorney Keller and did not disclose that confidential in-person jail consultations were available.
Hellstern sought to suppress the breath test results after the 0.194% BAC reading, arguing they violated Iowa Code 804.20 and his Sixth Amendment and Iowa Constitution rights, due to denied privacy for attorney contact.
The district court denied suppression and Hellstern was convicted of OWI, prompting the appeal that challenged the statutory and constitutional rights invoked.
The Court held that Hellstern’s request for privacy invoked a statutory right to a confidential in-person consultation, triggering the officer’s duty to inform that the attorney must come to the jail, and suppression of the test results was the remedy; the constitutional claim was not reached.
The majority reversed and remanded for a new trial; the concurrence urged adopting a broader rule requiring officers to advise arrested persons of the right to counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the officer violate 804.20 by not informing of in-person confidential counsel access?	Hellstern invoked privacy, triggering duty to disclose.	Statute does not require such disclosure.	Yes, disclosure required; suppression of test results.
Does Hellstern’s private phone request trigger in‑person confidential conference rights?	Requests for privacy should trigger rights under 804.20.	Phone privacy not covered; only in-person allowed.	Yes, statutorily triggered; officer must inform attorney must come to jail.
Should the remedy be suppression of breath-test results for 804.20 violation?	Suppression appropriate despite prejudice.	Remedy is suppression regardless of prejudice; no need for constitutional analysis.	Yes, suppression of chemical test results; remand for a new trial.
Is the constitutional claim necessary to decide after statutory resolution?	Constitutional right to confidential phone/teleconference.	No need to address constitutionality if statutory issue dispositive.	Not reached; statutory issue dispositive.

Didonato v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 456 N.W.2d 367 (Iowa 1990) (statutory right to phone calls; disclosure when request made)
Garrity v. State, 765 N.W.2d 592 (Iowa 2009) (officer must explain scope when detainee seeks phone call)
Hicks v. State, 791 N.W.2d 89 (Iowa 2010) (balance detainee rights with law-enforcement needs; disclose when needed)
Lukins v. State, 846 N.W.2d 902 (Iowa 2014) (imprecise requests invoke right to information about permissible calls)
Walker v. Iowa Dept. of Transportation, 804 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 2011) (section 804.20 balanced with implied-consent; remedy for nondisclosure is suppression)
State v. Vietor, 261 N.W.2d 828 (Iowa 1978) (limited statutory right to counsel before deciding on chemical test)
State v. Coburn, 315 N.W.2d 742 (Iowa 1982) (well-recognized privacy of attorney-client communications in jail)