State of Iowa v. Randall Lee Lamoreux, 875 N.W.2d 172

Background

Late-night stop for suspected OWI; officers found an open beer can, smelled alcohol, and preliminary breath test > .08; defendant transported to jail and Mirandized.
At booking, defendant made multiple calls; he reached attorney Ted Hovda, who arrived and met defendant in the booking room at ~1:25 a.m.
The booking room had visible video and audio surveillance; the microphone could be turned off via a visible switch; Hovda knew of the system and had disabled it on prior occasions but did not do so this time or request another room.
After the in-person consultation (with monitoring active), defendant consented to chemical breath testing; result .136; charged with third-offense OWI; moved to suppress the Datamaster result arguing violation of Iowa Code § 804.20.
District court denied suppression; court of appeals reversed, finding the statute required private, unmonitored consultation once counsel was physically present; Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 804.20 was violated by an attorney–client consultation in a visibly monitored booking room when neither lawyer nor client requested recordings be stopped	State: No violation because counsel was "permitted" to consult privately and made no request to disable monitoring; thus rights were honored	Lamoreux: Presence of active audio/video precluded a confidential, private consultation required by § 804.20 regardless of a request	Court held no violation: statute requires that private consultation be permitted, not automatically provided; attorney knew of monitoring and chose not to request privacy
Whether § 804.20 is self-executing to require unmonitored rooms absent an attorney or client request	State: § 804.20 requires only that such consultations be permitted; it is not self-executing	Lamoreux: Once attorney arrived, statute required a private, unmonitored meeting without need for a specific request	Court held statute is not self-executing; prior precedent requires honoring requests but does not mandate automatic provision
Whether surreptitious recording or failure to inform can affect § 804.20 rights	State: No surreptitious recording here; attorney was aware and had opportunity to request privacy	Lamoreux: Recording itself undermines confidentiality even if known	Court held known recording with opportunity to disable does not equal surreptitious monitoring and does not violate § 804.20 absent a request or individualized security justification
Whether an individualized safety/security showing is required to monitor an attorney–client consultation	State: Monitoring may be appropriate for security; absent special showing, monitoring may remain active until disabled	Lamoreux: Monitoring inherently impairs privacy and requires cessation when counsel arrives	Court held Walker requires that if an attorney requests privacy, recordings be turned off unless state shows individualized safety/security risk; but absent a request, no such requirement exists

Key Cases Cited

State v. Walker, 804 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 2011) (attorney-requested private, barrier-free room and disabling of recordings must be honored unless individualized safety/security risk shown)
State v. Tubbs, 690 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa 2005) (§ 804.20 satisfied by permitting calls; statute does not force calls)
State v. Meissner, 315 N.W.2d 738 (Iowa 1982) (officer need not volunteer statutory right but must honor requests)
State v. Garrity, 765 N.W.2d 592 (Iowa 2009) (once arrestee asks to call, officer must clarify who may be called under the statute)
State v. Hellstern, 856 N.W.2d 355 (Iowa 2014) (request for privacy during a phone call can trigger officer’s duty to inform arrestee of right to in-person confidential consultation)
State v. Lyon, 862 N.W.2d 391 (Iowa 2015) (officers need not advise arrestee why to seek counsel; they need only honor right to communicate)
State v. Hicks, 791 N.W.2d 89 (Iowa 2010) (denying a reasonable opportunity to call violated § 804.20)
Didonato v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 456 N.W.2d 367 (Iowa 1990) (statutory purpose not met if officer stands mute when arrestee requests a call)
State v. Sherwood, 800 A.2d 463 (Vt. 2002) (surreptitious taping of attorney–client consultation violated privacy rights)