911 N.W.2d 450
Iowa Ct. App.2017Background
- On August 12, 2016 Ankeny officer Jake Cusack stopped Hunter Frescoln, observed signs of intoxication, and Frescoln admitted drinking two beers.
- Frescoln performed field sobriety tests, refused a preliminary breath test, and was transported to Pleasant Hill PD.
- Officer Cusack obtained a search warrant to seize Frescoln’s blood; chemical testing showed a BAC of .093.
- The State charged Frescoln with OWI (third offense); Frescoln moved to suppress the blood-test results under Iowa Code chapter 321J and the Iowa Constitution.
- The district court denied suppression; Frescoln waived jury trial, was convicted of OWI (second offense), and appeals the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Frescoln) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers may obtain blood by warrant instead of invoking implied consent | Warrant is permissible; chapter 321J does not preclude use of a warrant | Chapter 321J is the exclusive procedure for obtaining evidentiary chemical samples; warrant cannot replace implied consent | Court held implied consent is not exclusive; officers may obtain a warrant consistent with constitutional requirements |
| Whether the warrant-authorized seizure allowed chemical testing of the blood sample | Testing is within the scope because sample was sought for OWI investigation | Warrant merely authorized seizure, not testing; testing exceeded warrant scope | Court held warrant, read commonsensically, authorized testing of the blood sample |
| Whether a warrantless search or using a warrant after not invoking implied consent violates Higgins | State: Higgins is distinguishable because implied-consent procedures were not invoked and no refusal occurred | Frescoln: Higgins bars obtaining a warrant after declining or bypassing implied-consent procedures | Court distinguished Higgins (which barred obtaining a warrant after a refusal) and found no violation here because Frescoln was not presented implied-consent procedures nor did he refuse |
| Whether the warrant was unconstitutionally general (lack of particularity) | Warrant described specimens (blood/urine/breath) and stated relevance to OWI; commonsense reading satisfies particularity | Warrant failed to specify testing or sufficiently particularized purpose | Court held the warrant was sufficiently particular in purpose and description; testing did not render it general |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lamoreux, 875 N.W.2d 172 (Iowa 2016) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
- State v. Moriarty, 566 N.W.2d 866 (Iowa 1997) (warrantless searches presumed unreasonable)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (preference for warrant procedure when practicable)
- State v. Oakley, 469 N.W.2d 681 (Iowa 1991) (chapter 321J does not preempt general search-warrant authority)
- State v. Demaray, 704 N.W.2d 60 (Iowa 2005) (chapter 321J does not limit introduction of other competent evidence of intoxication)
- State v. Higgins, 294 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa 1980) (officer may not obtain a warrant "outside the statute" after a suspect refuses an implied-consent test)
- State v. Thomas, 540 N.W.2d 658 (Iowa 1995) (warrant particularity requirement)
- State v. Angel, 893 N.W.2d 904 (Iowa 2017) (commonsense construction of warrant language)