State of Iowa Vs. Justin Joseph Hutton
2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 23
| Iowa | 2011Background
- Hutton was arrested for OWI (noncommercial vehicle) after police found him in a parked Ford Bronco and he admitted drinking; a preliminary breath test indicated intoxication and a station breath test showed BAC .205.
- Hutton held a CDL but had been driving a noncommercial vehicle prior to arrest; he submitted to a second breath test after implied-consent advisement.
- The district court suppressed the breath-test results, finding the advisory misleading and violating Iowa Code section 321J.8 and due process.
- The State sought discretionary review; the court of appeals reversed the suppression and remanded.
- The Iowa Supreme Court held the breath-test results should not have been suppressed and remanded for further proceedings.
- Statutory history: changes to 321J.8 and 321.208 over time created debates about CDL revocation for failing tests and the advisory language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the advisory misstates CDL consequences for failing a test. | Hutton argues the advisory misstated law under 321J.8(1)(c)(2). | State contends the advisory did not misstate the law and any overinclusion was harmless. | No suppression; advisory overstated but did not violate 321J.8. |
| Whether the advisory's overinclusion violated due process. | Hutton relies on Massengale to argue a due-process violation from misleading content. | State argues there was a reasonable fit and the purpose of informing decision-making was served. | No due-process violation; there was a reasonable fit. |
| Whether 321.208(2)(a) authorized CDL revocation for failing a test in a noncommercial context. | Hutton contends the statute did not authorize revocation for failure when not operating a commercial vehicle. | State argues revocation for failure is a permissible consequence and reflects inartful drafting. | Statute did not authorize revocation for failing; advisory overstated, but not unconstitutional. |
| Whether the advisory rendered consent involuntary. | Hutton claims misleading advisory coerced consent. | State asserts excess information did not coerce and did not undermine voluntariness. | Consent not involuntary; excess language did not induce submission. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massengale v. State, 745 N.W.2d 499 (Iowa 2008) (due-process considerations for CDL advisories; rational-fit analysis applied)
- Voss v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 621 N.W.2d 208 (Iowa 2001) (purpose of advisory as information to make a reasoned decision)
- Bernhard v. State, 657 N.W.2d 473 (Iowa 2003) (consent under implied-consent law; why not grounds for suppression when advisory incomplete but information adequate)
- Massengale (Iowa), 745 N.W.2d 499 (Iowa 2008) (see above; repeat for emphasis)
- Spencer v. Iowa, 737 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 2007) (ambiguous statutory language standard; looking at overall statutory structure)
- Hubka v. State, 480 N.W.2d 867 (Iowa 1992) (distinguishes ‘under the influence’ vs. BAC limits for OWI)