This is an appeal by the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) from a district court order that directed the DOT to rescind its revocation of plaintiff Scott Brownsberger’s driver’s license. The question is whether Iowa Code section 321 J.13(4) (1989), which requires reinstatement under certain circumstances, effectively operates as a statutory exclusionary rule. We conclude that it does and, therefore, affirm the district court.
On January 15, 1989, Scott Brownsber-ger was arrested in Atlantic, Iowa, for operating his vehicle while intoxicated (OWI). Upon his arrest, Brownsberger agreed in writing to furnish a breath sample for alcohol analysis. Because of his alleged failure to produce enough breath to trigger the recording device on the machine, however, Brownsberger was deemed to have refused the test. See Iowa Code § 321J.9. The DOT revoked Brownsber-ger’s privilege to drive for 240 days. See id.
Meanwhile, in the parallel criminal prosecution for OWI, Brownsberger moved to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of his arrest. In his motion he alleged that “[t]here existed no reasonable grounds to justify the police stopping Defendant’s vehicle.” Following hearing, the district court sustained Brownsberger’s motion without explanation and the criminal case was ultimately dismissed.
Armed with a favorable ruling on his motion to suppress, Brownsberger petitioned the DOT to reopen his license revocation proceedings and rescind its earlier order. Brownsberger cited Iowa Code section
A person whose motor vehicle license or operating privilege has been or is being revoked under section 321J.9 or 321J.12 may reopen a department hearing on the revocation if the person submits ... a petition stating that a criminal action on a charge of a violation of section 321J.2 filed as a result of the same circumstances which resulted in the revocation has resulted in a decision in which the court has held that the peace officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of section 321J.2 had occurred to support a request for or to administer a chemical test.... Such a decision by the court is binding on the department and the department shall rescind the revocation.
Iowa Code § 321J.13(4).
The DOT resisted Brownsberger’s petition, and following hearing, the hearing officer ruled that, because the district court gave no reason for sustaining the motion to suppress, Brownsberger could not benefit from section 321J.13(4). Brownsberger then petitioned the district court for judicial review of the agency’s action. The district court held that implicit in the suppression ruling was the court’s finding that no reasonable grounds existed to stop the vehicle. Therefore, the court held, the order suppressing all evidence obtained from the unconstitutional stop was binding on the DOT under section 321J.13(4). The court reversed the DOT’S refusal to reinstate Brownsberger’s license, and the DOT now appeals that decision.
The DOT contends on appeal that the district court’s interpretation of section
The DOT bases its argument on prior judicial decisions which considered criminal OWI prosecutions and DOT license revocations as separate and distinct proceedings. In
Severson v. Sueppel,
for example, this court held that acquittal of the crime of
*451
OWI did not preclude the DOT from revoking the motorist’s privilege to drive.
The weakness in the DOT’s position is that it disregards the impact of section 321J.13(4) on the relationship traditionally existing between the criminal and administrative proceedings. As a result, the decisions cited shed little light on the case before us. The decisions in Sueppel and Westendorf, for example, turned on facts predating the enactment of section 321J.13(4). The plaintiff in Morgan, urging improprieties in the administration of a breath test, asserted no claim that parallel criminal proceedings resulted in suppression of evidence.
In the only reported decision in which this court has considered section 321J.13(4), we found that, because no criminal adjudication had occurred, the administrative reopening provision of section 321J.13(4) had not been triggered.
Manders v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp.,
The question left unresolved in
Manders
is now squarely before us. At the outset we note that our task is to interpret section 321J.13(4) in a way that will advance rather than defeat its legislative purpose.
Iowa Fed’n of Labor v. Iowa Dep’t of Job Servs.,
Given this clear expression of legislative purpose, the DOT argues alternatively that, even if the statute operates under some circumstances as an exclusionary rule, the court’s failure to make findings in accordance with the statutory language expands the reach of the statute without authority. It is true that a more precise ruling by the trial court might have aided our resolution of the controversy. Nevertheless, we concur with the court’s ruling on judicial review that the suppression order excluded all evidence obtained from the stop including “any request for chemical testing or any chemical test results.” Such a finding fits within the evident legislative purpose of section 321J.13(4) and, by the statute’s terms, is binding upon the DOT. The court correctly reversed the DOT’s refusal to rescind Brownsberger’s license revocation and must be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.