State of Iowa v. Steven Michael Becker
15-1840
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 23, 2016Background
- Early morning stop: Officer Bovy found a running car in a closed-business lot after observing a woman with a backpack run to it; Becker was the driver.
- Occupants gave inconsistent stories and could not identify the friend the woman claimed to be visiting.
- Records check revealed both occupants had prior narcotics arrests.
- Becker consented to a vehicle search; the female passenger refused consent to search her backpack.
- Officer Bovy deployed his trained narcotics dog to sniff the exterior and then the interior after alerts; a subsequent manual vehicle search yielded no drugs, but a search of Becker’s person uncovered methamphetamine.
- Becker moved to suppress; the district court denied the motion and convicted him; Becker appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Becker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dog sniff/search violated the Fourth Amendment | Dog sniff is not a search; Bovy had consent to search the vehicle and did not unreasonably prolong the encounter | There was no reason for the dog sniff and it was an unlawful intrusion | Court held the dog sniff was lawful; consent covered the search and sniff was not a search under the Fourth Amendment |
| Whether the dog sniff impermissibly prolonged the stop | The sniff was contemporaneous with the consented search and did not extend the stop | The dog sniff unreasonably prolonged detention (invoking Rodriguez/Pardee) | Court found no undue prolongation; facts differ from Rodriguez and Pardee — sniff occurred promptly after consent |
| Whether the canine alert established probable cause to search the vehicle | Canine alert provided probable cause; manual search was permissible | Alert alone insufficient or improperly obtained | Court held the dog alert established probable cause permitting a warrantless vehicle search under the probable-cause + exigent-circumstances framework |
| Whether searching Becker’s person after an unsuccessful vehicle search was lawful | Given probable cause from the alert and the absence of contraband in the vehicle, exigent circumstances and probable cause justified a search of occupants | Search of person was unwarranted and exceeded scope of consent | Court held probable cause plus exigent circumstances supported searching Becker’s person; search was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bergmann, 633 N.W.2d 328 (Iowa 2001) (dog sniff outside vehicle is not a Fourth Amendment search; consent to search can justify warrantless search)
- In re Pardee, 872 N.W.2d 384 (Iowa 2015) (officer improperly prolonged detention before a dog sniff; highlights limits on post-stop investigative measures)
- State v. Merrill, 538 N.W.2d 300 (Iowa 1995) (probable cause to search vehicle or person can arise from indicators like odor or furtive conduct)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (officer may not prolong a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff absent reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Kern, 831 N.W.2d 149 (Iowa 2013) (exigent-circumstances exception applies where there is a probability evidence will be concealed or destroyed, particularly in narcotics cases)