State of Iowa v. Zachary Lynn Flippo
16-0721
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2017Background
- At 1:37 a.m. on Feb. 10, 2015, Waterloo Officer Bovy stopped a vehicle for a nonworking license-plate light; Flippo was a passenger.
- Officer checked records and learned Flippo had an outstanding warrant; the issuing jurisdiction would not come to Waterloo to execute it.
- Driver Mikayla Elliot‑Wach could not produce proof of insurance; after ordinary checks, Officer Bovy asked whether there was anything illegal in the car.
- Officer Bovy then had the occupants exit and walked his K‑9 around the vehicle; the dog alerted at ~1:55 a.m., and a subsequent search recovered marijuana.
- Flippo moved to suppress, arguing the officer unreasonably prolonged the stop to conduct the dog sniff; the district court denied the motion and convicted Flippo following a trial on minutes of evidence.
- The court of appeals reviewed de novo and reversed, holding the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop for the dog sniff and suppression was required; case remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether passenger Flippo was seized during the traffic stop | State: traffic stop lawful; passenger contact incidental and not a separate seizure | Flippo: passengers are seized during a vehicle stop and may challenge duration of detention | Court: passengers are seized during a vehicle stop; Flippo had standing to challenge detention |
| Whether officer could prolong the stop to conduct a K‑9 sniff without reasonable suspicion | State: dog sniff permitted as part of investigation; officer observed changed demeanor indicating suspicion | Flippo: dog sniff was unrelated to traffic mission and prolonged the stop without reasonable suspicion | Court: dog sniff is not part of traffic mission; officer lacked articulable reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop |
| Whether driver’s and routine inquiries justified the duration until the sniff | State: routine checks (license, insurance, warrants) justified detention time | Flippo: routine inquiries concluded before the dog sniff began; further detention required independent reasonable suspicion | Court: routine tasks were complete before the sniff; no additional reasonable suspicion justified prolongation |
| Whether evidence from the prolonged stop must be suppressed | State: evidence would be inevitable because of outstanding warrant (argument not raised below) | Flippo: evidence tainted by unlawful detention and must be excluded | Court: exclusionary rule applies; district court erred in denying suppression; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pals, 805 N.W.2d 767 (Iowa 2011) (de novo review of suppression rulings and totality-of-the-circumstances approach)
- State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601 (Iowa 2001) (credibility deference to trial court while conducting independent constitutional review)
- State v. Eis, 348 N.W.2d 224 (Iowa 1984) (passengers are seized when a stopped vehicle is detained)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (U.S. 2015) (dog sniff unrelated to traffic mission; cannot prolong stop without reasonable suspicion)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983) (valid traffic stop may become unlawful if prolonged beyond mission)
- In re Prop. Seized from Pardee, 872 N.W.2d 384 (Iowa 2015) (dog sniff permissible only if it does not prolong the stop absent reasonable suspicion)
- State v. McCoy, 692 N.W.2d 6 (Iowa 2005) (exclusionary rule and attenuation/primary-taint analysis)