State Of Iowa Vs. Scott Allen Hicks, 791 N.W.2d 89

Sparks stopped Hicks in an unmarked car after observing weaving and center-lane crossing; pacing showed speeds 34–36 in a 25 zone.
Hicks showed odor of beer, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech; two open beer cans found in the car.
Hicks failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and refused subsequent field sobriety tests, and was arrested.
During processing, Hicks sought to call a family member; Sparks told him he could call but Hicks would not be released until a breath test was passed.
Hicks argued the stop was unconstitutional and that his 804.20 right to call a family member was violated; district court denied suppression.
Court of Appeals affirmed; Supreme Court vacated that decision, reversed district court, and remanded with instructions for suppression remedy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion?	Hicks: stop lacked reasonable suspicion.	Sparks: pacing and observed weaving/support stop.	Stop permissible; reasonable suspicion established.
Did Hicks invoke his 804.20 right to call a family member?	Hicks invoked by requesting to call his mother.	Sparks did not improperly deny invocation; processing allowed.	Hicks invoked section 804.20.
Was Hicks afforded a reasonable opportunity to exercise 804.20 after invocation?	Officer failed to direct Hicks to a phone or facilitate the call.	Processing room actions met some opportunity, no affirmative action required.	No reasonable opportunity; officer failed to invoke affirmative steps.
Is the remedy for a 804.20 violation suppression of evidence appropriate?	Evidence after invocation should be suppressed.	No suppression needed beyond some statements.	Exclusionary remedy appropriate; breath test refusal and later video excluded.

State v. Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 1997) (standard for reasonable suspicion in investigatory stops)
State v. Bedwell, 417 N.W.2d 66 (Iowa 1987) (pacing and speed evidence supporting stop admissible)
Moorehead, 699 N.W.2d 667 (Iowa 2005) (invocation of 804.20 evaluated for sufficiency)
Bromeland v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 562 N.W.2d 624 (Iowa 1997) (reasonable opportunity to contact attorney requires affirmative action)
Garrity, 765 N.W.2d 592 (Iowa 2009) (limits on good-faith invocation discussions in 804.20 context)
Didonato v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 456 N.W.2d 367 (Iowa 1990) (supports officer’s duty when a request for a phone call is made)
Effler, 769 N.W.2d 880 (Iowa 2009) (invocation framework for 804.20 considerations)
Vietor, 261 N.W.2d 831 (Iowa 1993) (statutory context of 804.20 and communications rights)