State of Iowa v. Tony Gene Lukins
846 N.W.2d 902
Iowa2014Background
- Early morning stop: Officer Rohrbaugh pursued and stopped Tony Lukins after traffic violations and erratic driving; Lukins showed signs of intoxication and admitted drinking.
- Breath test at jail: Lukins consented to a Datamaster breath test that read .207 BAC; after seeing the result he repeatedly asked for a “re-check” or “re-blow.”
- Requests at booking: On video Lukins asked about a re-check and briefly discussed blood, but never clearly requested a blood or urine test; the arresting officer and a deputy denied or declined to arrange another test.
- Motion to suppress: Lukins moved to suppress the Datamaster result, arguing his requests should have been reasonably construed as invoking the statutory right to an independent chemical test under Iowa Code §321J.11, and officers therefore had to inform him of that right.
- Proceedings and rulings: District court denied suppression, finding Lukins sought only another breath test; the court of appeals reversed; the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.
- Supreme Court holding: The Court held Lukins’s requests, reasonably construed, invoked the statutory right to an independent chemical test; officers had to inform him of that right, and failure to do so required suppression of the officer-directed test and remand for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lukins) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lukins invoked a statutory right to an independent chemical test under Iowa Code §321J.11 | Lukins argued his repeated requests for a “re-check”/“re-blow” should be reasonably construed as a request for an independent chemical test, triggering an officer’s duty to inform him of that right | State contended Lukins asked only for a second breath test on the Datamaster (to which he had no statutory right) and therefore did not invoke §321J.11 | Court held statements that can be reasonably construed as requesting an independent test are adequate to invoke §321J.11; Lukins’s requests so qualified |
| Whether officers must inform detainees of independent-test options after an invocation | Lukins: once invoked, officers must explain the statutory right and opportunity to obtain an independent test | State: officers are not required to advise detainees of independent-test options absent a clear statutory trigger; no obligation when request is for a repeat breath test | Court held that although officers need not volunteer the information, once a detainee invokes the right (even ambiguously), the officer must inform the detainee of the independent-test option |
| Proper remedy for denial of independent-test opportunity | Lukins: suppression of the officer-administered test is required when the statutory right is denied | State: statute’s language (“failure or inability”) permits admission of officer tests even if independent test was denied; any error was harmless | Court held suppression of the law-enforcement-administered test is required when a detainee’s statutory right to an independent test is denied; remanded for new trial because the verdict’s basis was unclear |
| Harmless-error analysis given other evidence of intoxication | Lukins: suppression required and conviction cannot stand absent a clear alternative basis | State: other strong evidence (driving, odor, slurred speech, admission) makes error harmless | Court found record did not establish the district court’s factual basis for guilt (bench trial without findings), so prejudice is presumed and remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Didonato v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 456 N.W.2d 367 (Iowa 1990) (officer must honor request to make phone call and explain permissible scope)
- Garrity v. State, 765 N.W.2d 592 (Iowa 2009) (officer must clarify permitted recipients when detainee’s phone-call request implicates statutory limits)
- Hicks v. State, 791 N.W.2d 89 (Iowa 2010) (liberal, reasonableness standard for invoking statutory phone-call right)
- Wootten v. State, 577 N.W.2d 654 (Iowa 1998) (officer not required to advise detainee of independent test absent invocation)
- Bloomer v. State, 618 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2000) (independent-test entitlement arises only after submitting to officer-requested test)
- Ginsberg v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 508 N.W.2d 668 (Iowa 1993) (when detainee requests additional testing officers should explain availability after the requested test)
- Casper v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 506 N.W.2d 799 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) (discusses suppression question when independent-test request is denied)
- Welch v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 801 N.W.2d 590 (Iowa 2011) (clarifies implied-consent rules and the ‘one refusal’ principle)
- Moorehead v. State, 699 N.W.2d 667 (Iowa 2005) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings and evaluating harmless error)
- Smith v. State, 739 N.W.2d 289 (Iowa 2007) (when multiple bases for conviction exist, unclear verdicts require reversal)