*1 speech far removed like when it sounds Iowa, Appellee, STATE being sought, dignity of the office
from the or chilled. suppressed is not has delivered the the Constitution While LUKINS, Tony Appellant. Gene just all with a few speech to
freedom of words, history purpose of simple No. 12-2221. pow- immense and words are
those iconic Supreme of Iowa. Court erful, long-standing solidified a and have country, including in this people May 2014. officials, officials. public to criticize public course, greater mean civil- this does not Of would not better
ity public discourse Moreover, democracy. no
serve Nevertheless, protective
absolute. in the speech line of free
constitutional is drawn at actual public
arena of officials arena, speech cannot
malice. Within defamation until
become actionable It was not in this
line has been crossed.
case.
IV. Conclusion. support the record failed to
We conclude actual malice. Ber-
sufficient evidence of prove meet burden to
trand failed to malice element of defamation.
the actual the oth-
Accordingly, we need not address appeal. judgment
er on issues raised the case dismissed.
must be reversed and OF THE
JUDGMENT DISTRICT REVERSED; DIS-
COURT CASE
MISSED. justices except
All concur APPEL and
MANSFIELD, JJ., part. who take no *2 flashing
turned on his cruiser’s Rohr- stop. The truck did not lights. highway, baugh pursued the truck onto *3 of more speeds where the truck reached point, hour. At one eighty per than miles pave- back onto the jerked the truck was Brinton, Bordwell R. Johnson of David into a ditch. After the veering ment after Johnson, Clarion, appellant. for & it travelled a short straightened, truck was Miller, General, Attorney J. Thomas stop. distance and came to a Attorney Assistant Pettinger, Jean C. truck and imme- Rohrbaugh went Schreurs, General, County Micah J. and been diately suspected the driver had Attorney, appellee. for drinking. He smelled alcohol and noticed ZAGER, Justice. bloody speech the driver had slurred and driver, Lukins, Tony The stated he chin. Tony operating Lukins was arrested for “had a few of beers at the bar.” a .207 registering while intoxicated. After County jail, on a test at the O’Brien breath by Rohrbaugh to being requested After to the Lukins made several statements tests, sobriety agreed field perform arresting indicating officer his desire to completing to do so. After three of the great the breath test. After a deal retake tests, sobriety Rohrbaugh asked four field discussion, the officer denied Lukins’s While get squad Lukins to into his car. trial, Prior to Lukins moved to request. removed items from off the Rohrbaugh arguing the breath-test result suppress seat, passenger front Lukins stumbled and was because he had road. fell down into the ditch beside the been denied his to an inde- car, got squad After Lukins into the Rohr- pendent chemical test. The district court baugh preliminary breath test. conducted motion, denied Lukins’s and after a bench confirming preliminary After breath testimony, trial on the minutes of it con- test indicated Lukins’s blood alcohol con- while intoxicat- operating victed Lukins limit, Rohrbaugh legal tent was above the ed, offense. Lukins and appealed, second him intoxicat- operating arrested while we to the court of transferred case county jail him transported ed and to the appeals. appeals The court of reversed his Primghar, in Iowa. conviction, holding the district court erred jail, Rohrbaugh At the read Lukins the denying suppress. in his motion to implied advisory consent review, sought State further which we Breathalyzer Lukins consent to a test. below, granted. For the reasons set forth Lukins, a cut on bleeding who was from we affirm the decision of the court of chin, Breathalyzer consented to the appeals judgment and reverse the The Datamaster result of district court. .207, legal test was over Rohrbaugh limit After informed Background of .08. I. Facts and Proceed- result, ings. following Lukins of this conver- jail’s security captured sation was 9, 2012, February Around 1:40 a.m. on cameras: Timothy wit- Rohrbaugh Chief of Police * stop a black truck run a I don’t mean to be an a* or pickup nessed LUKINS: re-check, Sutherland, sign following anything, get Iowa. After but can I distance, ... Rohrbaugh anything the truck a short ? * A really
ROHRBAUGH: what? LUKINS: That seems *ing f* * high. For four f* *ing beers that ... I’m way bleed- LUKINS: or, seems ... actually, sorry, I’m a six ing. ... pack, really that seems high. A rain check? ROHRBAUGH: know, A re-check. You with LUKINS: get LUKINS: Can I please, re-blow
this blood and that. Rohrbaugh? your ROHRBAUGH: You want blood ROHRBAUGH: It isn’t going to be checked? different. at to- (looking gesturing LUKINS *4 LUKINS: You don’t think so? machine): No, Breathalyzer ward the I re-check? get can ROHRBAUGH: No. (tapping
ROHRBAUGH the breath-test try LUKINS: Can we it?
machine): A re-check of this? ROHRBAUGH: No.
LUKINS: Yeah. Rohrbaugh then transferred Lukins to a And ROHRBAUGH: what’s blood deputy county at the jail. Lukins asked different, gonna make it or ... ? deputy, just LUKINS: I don’t know. I’m ... get LUKINS: Can I re-breathalyzer bleeding I didn’t know I was test, by way? point-two-oh? For a * *ing you pulled f* bad until me over [referring to his blood-alcohol content]. my I looked at hand. call; That’s my DEPUTY: that’s up I ROHRBAUGH: don’t think we need to the officer. to do another check because I don’t No second test or independent chemical bleeding any- think the blood or the had performed. test was offered or thing your to do with breath. 5, On charged by March Lukins was Well, no, just I LUKINS: was ... I trial operating information with while in don’t know what really the heck to toxicated, offense, second under Iowa Code check, you to tell the truth. 321J.2(l)(a) 321J.2(1)(b) sections 1 After Rohrbaugh read Lukins advisories (b) (2011). 321J.2(l)(a), § See Iowa Code license, about the revocation of his driver’s trial, Prior to Lukins filed a motion to Lukins returned to the issue of the test: suppress results. Lukins re-blow, by LUKINS: Can I ask for a argued county jail his statements at the way? implicated right to obtain an indepen going ROHRBAUGH: It isn’t to be dent chemical test under Iowa Code sec Lukins, different. tion According 321J.11.2 once cases, however, judgment 1. Lukins received a deferred a number of we have re- intoxicated, offense, operating while first "statutory right independent ferred to a to an November 2005. See, Bloomer, e.g., test.” State v. 618 N.W.2d 550, (Iowa 2000); Wootten, 553 State v. 577 question permis- 2. some There is whether the 654, (Iowa 1998) (explaining N.W.2d phrasing of sive Iowa Code section 321J.I1 record was unclear about when the detainee "right" upon confers a detainees to have an independent “first knew of his independent chemical test. See Iowa Code 753, test”); Epperson, State v. (providing person 321J.11 have "[t]he (Iowa 1978) ("Regarding defendant’s an chemical ... adminis- claims, statutory he had a to have an person’s expense” (emphasis tered at the own test.”). party chemical Neither added)). We have never addressed this issue. review, which sought re The State further officers were right, implicated he granted. him his to obtain we advise quired to offi chemical insisted, so, was to do cers’ failure of Review. II. Standard of his a denial The district court denied Lukins’s Lukins was not Because interpreta based on its suppress motion to ob opportunity a reasonable provided tion of Iowa section 321J.11. We ar he tain an at law a review for correction of errors breath test should results of the gued the sup on a ruling district court’s motion resisted. The State suppressed. be press interpretation based on the stat the district court issued hearing, After a Madison, ute. State motion. The district ruling its on Lukins’s (Iowa 2010); Fischer, 707-08 recording video on the court found based 2010). could not reason- requests that Lukins’s requesting an inde- ably be construed as III. Discussion. The district court instead pendent test. *5 Lukins second
concluded Right the to an In- A. Invocation of Breathalyzer machine. Accord- using the dependent Test. Iowa Code section court, the district these statements ing to 321J.11, part, provides: in relevant to invoke Lukins’s statu- inadequate were breath, blood, person [whose tory right independent to an being examined to determine urine Therefore, court denied Lu- the district alcohol have concentration] blood Breathalyzer the suppress kins’s motion to independent an chemical test or tests results. person’s at the own ex- administered proceeded the matter On November in addition to administered at pense the minutes of testimo- to a bench trial on peace the direction of a officer. guilty found Lukins ny. The district court § Iowa 321J.11. Code intoxicated, of- operating while second sentenced Lu- fense. The district court case, In we address whether Lukins day. the kins same adequately invoked his to an chemical test. The State ruling on the mo- appealed Lukins According do to argues Lukins did not so. suppress, tion to and we transferred State, statements indicate he Lukins’s The court of appeals. case to the court of only using to take a second test sought reversed, in- holding Lukins had appeals machine, Breathalyzer opportunity an to chemical voked his statutorily which he was not entitled. Lu- reasoned that appeals test. The court hand, kins, state- on the other contends his right, once Lukins invoked the officers ments should have been con- him of were to inform by officers as a for an strued chemical test. Be- obtain an point so, independent chemical at which cause the officers had not done they have informed him of his stat- should Breathalyzer of the test should results ap- utory right The court of suppressed. have been argues for a new trial. test. He their failure to do so peals remanded Therefore, upon we chemical test raises this issue in this case. purposes appeal assume for of this that Iowa detainees. statutory Code section 321J. 11 does confer open of the Those cases left requires by standard Rohrbaugh. which to results obtained determine whether a detainee’s statements to law enforcement were ade- likens this case to those in which quate to invoke his or her rights under interpreted have Iowa we Code Iowa Code section 804.20. See State v. provides peace That offi- 804.20. statute Hicks, (Iowa 2010) (not- person cer must “arrested or permit ing the use of two frameworks to assess liberty of the ... person’s restrained invocation). adequacy of a detainee’s call, consult, and a member of the see Hicks, after his operating arrest for person’s family attorney per- or an intoxicated, while the detainee made re- choice, son’s or both.” Id. 804.20. Un- peated requests to make a telephone call case, like the statute before us in this we go so that he could home. Id. at 96. The have delineated under thoroughly police officer requests. denied the See id. section 804.20 a officer’s obli- statute, interpreting at 97. In we re- the detainee’s gation explain jected the unambiguous-request standard implicates when a detainee his or her requests used for counsel certain telephone to make a call and the standard Amendment, cases under the Fifth disap- used to determine whether a detainee has proving of its focus “on the grammatical adequately right. invoked that clarity request.” of the detainee’s See id. Department In Didonato v. Iowa (noting at 94-95 the scholarly debate the Transportation, operat after his arrest for unambiguous-request engen- standard intoxicated, ing while a detainee asked to dered). We held that it would be better *6 friend, call a but the officer denied liberally suspect’s “to construe a invocation opportunity telephone him the to make the right.” of this Id. at 95. We therefore 1990). 367, (Iowa call. 456 368 N.W.2d held statement that may reasonably be Despite affirming the detainee’s license invoking construed as the right detainee’s revocation, explained we that “when a re family to communicate with or counsel is quest phone to make a call is made” an adequate. Id. cannot the even “if request officer refuse to call a Id. at 371. distinguishes the is friend.” The State the line of cases friend, If suspect requests impli- the to call a under Iowa Code section 804.20 as counsel, implicated cating right “the statute is and the officer the fundamental to then a in purpose plainly implicated should advise for what which is case. phone permitted signaled call is under” Iowa The State is correct —we concerns Code section 804.20. Id. later reaffirmed that We about detainees’ access to counsel de- Garrity, this rule. 765 pended ability clearly See on their to (Iowa 2009) See, 592, the invoke their (holding grammatically right. N.W.2d v. peace e.g., (citing Effler, officer should have informed id. State 769 N.W.2d (Iowa 2009) J., suspect scope (Appel,- specially of the of individuals to whom placed suspect concurring) (noting commentary a call could be when re critical of quested unambiguous-request to call an individual outside of that standard be- scope). explained important have also the de it constitutional We cause “makes rights linguistic finery”)). tainee’s and officer’s statements and con turn on cases, duct, surrounding overriding though, as well as circum concern in those stances, objectively. are considered State was that the detainees lacked crucial Moorehead, (Iowa knowledge right v. 699 N.W.2d about their to communi- 2005). family lawyer, cate with a member or thus only the chemical test is available more difficult.
making invoking
submits to the officer’s
Didonato,
(holding
at
after the detainee
See
test
that the statute does not
requested
or
requests to call a
that when a detainee
on the
entitle the detainee
a second test
must inform the detainee
friend the officer
Breathalyzer machine.
See State
call
telephone
for which a
purposes
2000)
Bloomer,
550, 553
Iowa
section 804.20
permitted).
is
Code
(explaining a detainee is entitled
an
officer to inform
require
peace
does not
after the detainee “has
test
of his or her
to make
the detainee
test”).
to a
Under
submitted
Hicks, 791
at 94.
telephone call.
circumstances,
be unex-
these
it would not
Garrity,
In
we observed nevertheless that
pected
attempts
that the detainee’s oral
he or she has a
may
a detainee
be aware
legally
or her
are
inaccu-
invoke his
call; however,
telephone
to make a
similarity
rate. The
of circumstances be-
may
that a stat-
the detainee
be unaware
knowledge
tween the detainee’s
of his or
may
whom
a call
be
ute limits to
such
statutory right
telephone
call and his
at 597. For that
made. See 765 N.W.2d
statutory right
or her
reason,
suggests calling
if the detainee
chemical test indicate the standard
in-
scope
of individuals
someone outside
voking
be similar as well.
should
statute,
peace
offi-
authorized
cer,
statutory scope,
knows the
must
who
Holding
may
statements that
be
clarify
scope
to the detainee the
of individ-
construed,
invoking
as
the de
call
be
telephone
uals to whom
statutory right
tainee’s
made under
Iowa
section 804.20.
Code
adequate
promotes
chemical test
con
also
id.;
Hicks,
See
see also
breath test.
Id.
the detainee’s
Applying the standard set forth
refusal,
not a
we instructed
request was
above,
implicated
Lukins
his statutory
“requested
that when he
that his blood or
chemical test. At
breath,
urine be
to his
tested
addition
conversation,
the outset of the
explained
should have
peace
officer
asked,
get
I
...
a re-check
?” In
“[C]an
that,
after the
breath test had
fact,
during
on several occasions
his con
completed,
been
would be
[the detainee]
Rohrbaugh,
versation with
Lukins asked
able to have other substances tested.” Id.
Clearly
for a “re-check” or a “re-blow.”
here; however,
Ginsberg
control
does not
these entreaties do
closely
track with
context,
it
in this
as in the
shows
language
of Iowa Code section 321J.11.
804.20,
context of Iowa
section
we
Code
But this
requests
scenario is similar to the
officers
disapproved
imped-
have
by the detainees in Didonato and Garrity.
ing
rights granted by
detainees’ access to
cases,
In both those
request
detainees
legislature.
to make telephone
ed
calls to individuals to
those considerations
in whom Iowa
With
804.20 did not
mind,
calls,
why
we see no reason
a detainee
authorize
and we held their state
string together
implicated
Garrity,
should be
a ments
that statute.
precise
mirroring
(holding
formulation of words
were relating to the the admission of evidence sec- implicated Code When Lukins taken at the direction of a law enforce test 321J.11, should have in- Rohrbaugh tion officer....”); § ment Mont.Code Ann. 61- he was entitled to an formed Lukins that 8-405(2) (Westlaw through the current at “own ex- chemical test independent Sess.) (“The inability 2013 failure or Breathalyzer to” the test. pense addition ... independent obtain an test does not § Rohr- 321J.11. Because Iowa Code admissibility in evidence of preclude so, he violated Lukins’s baugh did not do given peace test at the direction of an chemical statutory right to officer.”); Ohio Rev. Ann. test. 4511.19(D)(3) (West, Westlaw current Remedy. question remains B. 1 94 Gen. through Files 130th Rohrbaugh Breathalyzer test whether (2013-2014)) (“The failure or ina Assemb. suppressed must be because conducted bility to obtain an chemical test additional statutory right was denied his ... preclude shall not the admission of Iowa Code relating evidence to the chemical test or provides 321J.11 failure “[t]he tests taken at the of a law enforce inability person of the to obtain an or officer.”). important, ment More courts chemical test or tests does statutory interpreting language similar to the admission of evidence of preclude suppression ours have held of the officer’s adminis- the results of the test tests remedy is the minimum at the direction of the officer.” tered when the detainee is denied his or her opinion appeals suggest- An of our court of statutory right to an denying ed that detainee’s See, Killen, e.g., Lockard v. Town of independent chemical test was not a “fail- 679, (Ala.Crim.App.1990) 565 So.2d 682 “inability ure” or to obtain” the so the (rejecting reading a literal of the words prevent suppression statute would not un- inability” holding “failure or results of like Casper der circumstances these. See law enforcement test must be 799, Dep’t Transp., v. Iowa State, 87, suppressed); Ward v. 758 P.2d fact, Ct.App.1993). the court (Alaska 1988) (concluding when “the reasoned, appeals officer’s police deprive a defendant of his or her suppressed have to lest the test would be statutory right to an independent blood test be test, the of the breath results defendant’s id.; meaningless. See see also rendered excluded”); State, test must be Unruh (Habhab, J., specially id. at 803 concur- (Fla.1996) 242, (concluding 669 So.2d (“Nothing prevent ignoring ring) would remedy was the suppression appropriate Afterward, request.”). leaving while indepen when a detainee was denied an open question suppression, test); dent 352 Mont. Schauf Casper’s reasoning. court cast doubt on (2009) (explaining 216 P.3d “the Wootten, (noting See at 655-56 proper result is of the results *9 case,” Casper “was a license revocation not test”); Koenig of the law enforcement v. case). a criminal 333, Dep’t Transp., N.D. 810 N.W.2d of (N.D.2012) (“If Several states have statutes with lan- 336 an individual is denied See, nearly e.g., guage statutory right independent identical to ours. an this [to 28.35.033(e) (West, test], § Alaska Stat. Ann. or chemical results of tests blood through Reg. 2014 at the direction of law en- Westlaw current 2d administered
911
suppressed
profit
be
or
the
“would allow the
to
from
forcement
their
dismissed.”);
own misconduct in preventing
State v. Hil
an arrestee
charges may be
test”).
from
ditch,
435,
376,
obtaining such a
do not
584 P.2d
377
We
Or.App.
(1978)
legislature
believe the
intended
grant
to
(holding
by
a denial
law enforce
a right
permitting
detainees
while
officers
opportunity
ment of a reasonable
to obtain
deny
to
the
without
evidentiary
independent
an
test is neither a “failure”
consequence.
“inability”
nor an
to do so and therefore
evidence);
Blaine v.
suppressing
City of
addition,
remedy
is con
Suess,
722,
789,
612 P.2d
Wash.2d
remedy
sistent with the
ordered when the
(1980)
trial could not rem
(concluding new
statutory right
detainee’s
under Iowa Code
law enforcement’s denial of
edy
suspect’s
section 804.20 is denied.
that stat
Under
requested independent
and therefore
ute,
the
suppression of
results of the test
dismissal).
remanding for
by
obtained
law enforcement is
remedy
the
when a detainee’s
to
a
fa-
make
tele
weight
persuasive authority
The
of
phone call is violated. See State v. McA
to
interpreting
require
vors
our statute
teer,
1980)
924,
(Iowa
(af
suppression
of the test directed
law
firming a district court’s
enforcement when law enforcement denies
breath test results when a detainee was
an
statutory right
a detainee his or her
to
member);
her
call
family
denied
According
Vietor,
v.
State
authorities,
statutory
these
the
terms “fail-
1978) (holding
when a detainee’s
“inability”
contemplate
ure” and
do not
lawyer
call a
is denied “evidence of his
denying
statutory
officer’s
a detainee’s
refusal
to take a chemical test shall be
to an
chemical test. See
trial”).
inadmissible at a later criminal
Durkee,
584 So.2d
1082-83
State
reasons,
For all these
we hold “evidence of
(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991)
(concluding the
the results of the test or
adminis
tests
statutory terms should not be understood
tered
at the direction of the
officer”
encompass
the law enforcement official’s
suppressed
must be
when a detainee’s
Unruh,
wrongdoing); accord
669 So.2d at
statutory right
test un
legislature,
245. We do not believe the
section 321J.11
denied.
der
is
using
statutory
terms “failure or ina-
Accordingly,
Iowa Code
321J.11.
bility,”
require
intended to
admission
by denying
district court erred
Lukins’s
test in cases
officer’s
where
suppress
Breathalyzer
motion to
re
statutory
officer denied the detainee
by Rohrbaugh.
sults obtained
right granted by
legislature.
C. Harmless Error.
State
suppress
There are also other reasons to
sup
it was harmless error not to
contends
Not
results
Breathalyzer results.
“In
press Lukins’s
Breathaly-
law enforcement’s
suppressing
error,
is
cases of nonconstitutional
reversal
deny
zer results would
officers to
permit
appears
complaining par
if it
impunity
with
a detainee’s
for an
miscarriage
justice
has
ty
suffered
recog-
chemical test. As was
affected.”
injuriously
have been
in Casper,
suppressing
nized
the re-
Moorehead,
Prejudice
ly of
had slurred
after a bench trial on the minutes of testi
bar, though Lukins
drinking at a
mitted
mony,
ordinarily
which
means “we have a
beers. He also fell
just
he drank
six
said
exposition
written
of the fact finder’s rea
the road while
into the ditch beside
down
Moorehead,
soning
the verdict.”
Rohrbaugh to remove items
waiting for
Nevertheless,
at
the district
seat of the
N.W.2d
673.
passenger
from the
State,
oper
of
According
finding
guilty
car.
to the
court’s order
Lukins
squad
intoxicated,
offense,
affirm
evidence is sufficient to
Lukins’s
ating
second
is
while
conviction,
of
despite
admission
explained
fact
have
findings.
devoid of
We
where,
here,
results.
stipulates
that
as
a defendant
to a bench trial on the minutes of testimo
argument
the State’s
problem
with
must,
ny,
other
among
the district court
First,
charged
was
is twofold.
Lukins
“
things,
specially
‘find the facts
and on
vehicle either
operating
with
motor
record,’ separately state its
of
conclusion[s]
an alcoholic
under the influence of
“[w]hile
law,
render an
verdict as
appropriate
beverage
drug
or other
or combination of
required by Iowa Rule of
Proce
Criminal
substances,”
such
Iowa
[2.17(2)
Sayre,
dure
State v.
321J.2(l)(a.),
§
].”
having
an alco-
“[w]hile
(Iowa 1997)
more,”
(citing
Iowa
of .08 or
id.
hol concentration
321J.2(1)(6).
16(2) (now
P.
P.
The district court’s ver- R.Crim.
R.Crim.
2.17(2))).
dict, however,
fact,
findings
did not indicate under which
these
of
Without
provision
guilty.
it determined Lukins was
way
determining
we have no
what facts
multiple
We have held that when there are
find
upon
the district court relied
Lu-
erroneous,
guilt,
for
bases
one which
guilty
kins
while intoxicated.
operating
if
jury’s
we must reverse
verdict does
Moorehead,
(review
erating while
on the
he
intoxicated
basis
obligation
An officer is under no
to in-
was under
the influence of alcohol or
statutory
form detainee of his or her
drugs,
had
been convicted
jury,
remand would be
because
Wootten,
the verdict did not reveal its basis. See
(“A
Smith,
con-
DECISION COURT AFFIRMED; JUDGMENT OF PEALS The district court reviewed the booking AND DISTRICT COURT REVERSED and, applying video the same test as to- REMANDED. CASE day’s majority, correctly determined Lukins never invoked his indepen- justices except All concur testing: dent WATERMAN, J„ CADY, C.J., and Defendant’s inquires statements MANSFIELD, J., who dissent. cannot be construed as a re- WATERMAN, (dissenting). Justice quest for an respectfully major- I dissent because the A booking recording review of the in its erroneously of a ity requires suppression entirety shows that it was the Defen- valid breath test that showed perfectly dant’s desire to have a second chance to Lukins’s blood alcohol level was more than provide sample a breath on the Data- legal one-half limit. two and times jail facility. master machine at the Nei- remedy a majority does so to violation ther 321J.11 Iowa Code section nor that did not occur. Lukins never asked statutory provision grants other a De- test; rather, for an fendant a to a second on law merely requested Breathaly- he a second enforcement’s Datamaster machine. majority acknowledges, zer test. As the fact, conversation, during part one repeat no Lukins had the officer asked Defendant whether he the breath test. requesting was a blood and the responded negative Defendant in the question
To the extent Lukins’s initial “no, I stating get can a re-check.” While (“Can re-check, ambiguous get was I the Defendant did ask for a “re-check” chief, anything?”), Rohrbaugh, occasions, or a on multiple “re-blow” clarified by specifical- what Lukins wanted quantity requests of those does not him, ly your want asking ‘You blood answered, “No, change their nature or the officer’s checked?” Lukins can I The court construes each as a get Rohrbaugh tapped a re-check?” duties. said, test on the Data- “A second Datamaster re- thereby implicating master Section responded, check of this?” Lukins ‘Yeah.” They discussing sup- continued Lukins’s re- 321J.11. This conclusion is further
ported by lawyer family the Defendant’s or member. See id. at 290 804.20). officer left jailer, arresting (discussing purpose once the has of section We scene, re-[B]reathaly- I aget of “can have never previously equated the disclo- by way.” zer test requirements separate sure under these statutes. I would not start now. Cases I would affirm the district court. under inapposite section 804.20 are be- today, any request After to retake the cause that helps protect statute a detain- require breath test will disclosure of the ee’s constitutional to counsel and options chemical test privilege against self-incrimination. See blood or urine under section 321J.11 contrast, By id. at 294-95. section 321J.11 (2011). a new require This is disclosure implicate does not either of those constitu- ment, precedent applying at odds with our but, rather, merely tional provides a that statute. have construed We section narrowly, concluding 321J.11 a detainee test: a right only has successfully completes the detainee after The person may have an independent requested by the test an officer. See chemical test or tests administered at Bloomer, State v. person’s expense own in addition to (Iowa 2000). Bloomer, the defendant any administered at the direction of a asked for a consenting urine test without peace officer. inability The or failure to the breath test. He Id. had no person obtain an of taking to the urine test without the breath chemical test or preclude tests does not plainly Id. We stated officers are the admission evidence the results required to advise a detainee of the the test or tests administered at the option under section 321J.11 to an inde the peace direction of officer. pendent presented test when with such added). Iowa Code 321J.11 (emphasis (“The request. Id. officer ... was not legislature The thereby specified that the information.”). convey breath test results remain admissible not- here, Similarly, all Lukins did was ask to withstanding the “failure inability of the retake the breath which he was not person to obtain an independent chemical Bloomer, entitled to retake. Under test.” Id. majority The overrides that deny officer could improper Lukins’s re command from our elected branches quest without further disclosing what oth suppressing Lukins’s breath test results. testing options er were available to him. Suppression is the remedy under Bloomer, majority departs giv from 804.20, not here. ing expansive section 321J.11 an interpre by requiring tation additional disclosures. Today’s decision uncertainty. creates decisis, I would adhere to stare rather If, hindsight, what Lukins said is effectively than overruling Bloomer. See enough trigger a new advisory consent Walker, testing options, about any number of sce- (Iowa 2011) (“Stare decisis is a valuable question narios when detainees test results legal doctrine which stability lends to the could lead to of otherwise val- (internal law....” quotation marks omit id breath tests. We have emphasized ted)). need for clear rules when citizens suspect-
The majority relies on our ap- decisions ed of driving drunk are detained for test- 804.20, plying Iowa Code section ing the stat- under statutory implied Iowa’s consent ute governing a detainee’s procedures: to call a advantage primary objective rule has the that the bright-line implied [A] guidance clear to law enforce- consent statute is the removal of providing dan Clarity gerous as to what the personnel. ment and intoxicated drivers from requires generally good thing. *13 is roadways law Iowa’s in safeguard order to See, It is beneficial when the law especially the traveling public. e.g., Severson police interactions between the governs 1169, 1174, Sueppel, v. 260 Iowa (Iowa 1967) (“It citizens. Law enforcement officials N.W.2d is obvi many quick have to make decisions as to purpose ous the Implied of the Consent requires what the law where the stakes Law is to reduce the on our holocaust high, involving public safety are on one highways part of which is due to the ledger and individual side driver who freely imbibes too of intoxi clear, on the other. A teachable rule is cating liquor.”); Dep’t Shriver of high priority. approach, flexible [A] Transp., 430 N.W.2d contrast, likely 1988) by is to lead to uncer- (reiterating primary pur that the in tainty particular cases. pose chapter “promote behind 321J is to public safety by removing dangerous Dep’t Transp., v. Iowa Welch of highways”). drivers from the (Iowa 2011). 590, 601 Welch, initially In who re- Id. at I interpret require- motorist 594. would changed fused his ments of section 321J.11 to further mind eleven minutes later and asked to goal public safety. of take the test. Id. at 592-98. The legislature has in specified great refused. Id. at 593. Our court affirmed detail the disclosures officers are the revocation of his license. Id. at 602. required to make to suspected motorists of unanimously “a We held motorist’s driving. drunk See Iowa Code 321J.8 to take the chemical test need not be (implied-consent advisory). Officers are previously honored after he or she has voluntarily welcome to disclose additional following implied refused that test a valid motorists, information to but it is not our advisory.” consent Id. We noted “Iowa’s so, place as a court to them to do require existing, clearcut ‘one refusal’ rule reduces pain on evi- compelling the time and cost burdens on law enforce- dence of intoxication. applied ment.” Id. at 601. The rule as reasons, join For these I am unable today’s majority’s opinion anything but majority. Rather, predict case-by-case clearcut. I adjudication particular over whether com- CADY, C.J., MANSFIELD, J„ join ments detainees intoxicated constitute this dissent. independent testing. uncertainty, resulting sup-
This and the
pression of otherwise valid breath test re-
sults, purpose chap- will undermine the safety. public
ter 321J — construing provisions chap- various 321J, continuously
ter we have affirmed