State v. MitchellState v. Mitchell
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Andreasen
In this case we must decide if an initial stop of the defendant’s vehicle is a violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure when the peace officer’s reason for stopping the vehicle was not based upon a suspicion of criminal activity but was for a vehicle equipmеnt violation. The district court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the initial stop. The defendant appealed aftеr he was convicted in a trial to the court on stipulated evidence. We affirm.
I. Background.
Steven E. Mitchell was operating a motor vehicle on August 3, 1991, at approximately 11 p.m. An Iowa state patrol trooper observed the vehicle near Highways 58 and 20 and noted that one of the rear taillights was out. The trooper stopped the vеhicle to issue a repair or “fix-it” ticket. There is no evidence the articulated safety concern was a pretext for a warrantless search.
The trooрer requested Mitchell’s driver’s license and registration and asked him if he was aware his taillight was out. At this point the trooper noticed Mitchell smelled of alcohol. He asked Mitchell to accompany him back to the patrol car. Once inside the patrol car, a strong odor of alcohol was evident. When asked if he had bеen drinking, Mitchell stated he had consumed three drinks. After failing several field sobriety tests, Mitchell was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI).
See
Mitchell filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained by the trooper as a result of the stop. He claimed the stop was unauthorized because the trooper lacked reasonable cause. At the suppression hearing the trooper testified the solе reason for the stop was the burned-out taillight. He acknowledged that no criminal violation was involved, but rather a safety issue.
See
Mitchell waived his right to jury trial and agreed to have this case decided by the district court upon the minutes of testimony and stipulated exhibits. The case was tried to Judge Walter W. Rоthschild. He found Mitchell guilty as charged and filed written findings and conclusions. The defendant waived time for sentencing and the court entered a judgment of conviction. The issue as tо whether the court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence was preserved.
II. Suppression of Evidence.
The Fourth Amendment protects persons from unreasonable searches аnd seizures.
When a peace officer observes a traffic offense, however minor, the officer has probable cause to stop the driver of the vehicle. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111, 98 S.Ct. 330, 333, 54 L.Ed.2d 331, 337 (1977); United States v. Cum-mins, 920 F.2d 498, 500 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 428, 116 L.Ed.2d 448 (1991). A peace оfficer may also stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has reasonable cause to believe a crime may havе occurred or criminal activity is afoot. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1884-85, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 911 (1968); State v. Rosenstiel, 473 N.W.2d 59, 61 (Iowa 1991). In determining if an investigatory stop of a motor vehicle is constitutionally permissible, we consider whether the articulаted facts warrant intrusion on an individual’s Fourth Amendment right and whether the scope of the intrusion is reasonably related to the circumstances that justified the intrusion. State v. Cooley, 229 N.W.2d 755, 760 (Iowa 1975). In making an assessment of the facts, we apply an objective standard: “would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search ‘warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief’ that the action taken was appropriate?” Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22, 88 S.Ct. at 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d at 906.
Here, Mitchell urges that the stopping of his vehicle was illegal because at the time his vehicle was stopped there were no facts or conduct that would allow the trooper to conclude that criminal activity was afoot. He correctly recognized Iowa Code
We believе the Iowa State Patrol is charged with public safety duties that extend beyond crime detection and investigation.
Police officers frequently “engage in what, for want of a better term, may be described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 2528, 37 L.Ed.2d 706, 714-15 (1973). We have recognized peace officers may act reasonably for the purpose of giving aid to a person in distress and finding information bearing upon the cause of that distress. State v. Kersh, 313 N.W.2d 566, 569 (Iowa 1981) (officer justified in opening vehicle doоr to check condition of unresponsive occupant slumped behind the wheel). The State has a valid interest in the safety of its citizens on its roads and highways. Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for the trooper to stop the Mitchell vehicle for highway safety purposes.
Our holding is consistent with that of other states that have faced a similar question. In State v. Pinkham, 565 A.2d 318 (Me.1989), a police officer pulled a motorist over “merely for safety reasons” arising out of an improper lane change. The stoр ultimately culminated in the motorist’s arrest for OWI. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine held safety reasons alone could justify a stop. The court observed that nothing in the Fourth Amendment requires that “specific and articulable facts” relate to suspected criminal activity. The court noted that to decide otherwise would “overlook thе police officer’s legitimate role as a public servant to assist those in distress and to maintain and foster public safety.” Id. at 319. Likewise, in State v. Harrison, 111 Ariz. 508, 509, 533 P.2d 1143, 1144 (1975), the Arizona Supreme Court held stopping а vehicle whose tire was “bouncing” was an appropriate exercise of a police officer’s public safety duties consistent with the State’s valid interest in the safety of its highways. And, in State v. Oxley, 127 N.H. 407, 503 A.2d 756, 759 (1985), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held an officer was justified in stopping a vehicle to ensure that inadequately secured furniture did not fall from the back оf the vehicle onto the public highway and endanger other drivers. See State v. Maynard, 114 N.H. 525, 323 A.2d 580 (1974) (upholding stop in which officer believed driver was ill).
Here, the trooper had a legitimate public safety responsibility, arising from the burned-out taillight, to stop Mitchell even though no violation of the law had occurred. When evidence is discovered in the course of perfоrming legitimate community caretaking or public safety functions, the exclusionary rule is simply not applicable. See State v. Garrow, 480 N.W.2d 256, 259 (Iowa 1992) (primary purpose of exclusionary rule is to dеter unlawful police conduct). Accordingly, the district court was correct in denying Mitchell’s motion to suppress, and his conviction is hereby affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
.
Every motor vehicle and every vehicle which is being drawn at the end of a train of vehicles shall be equipped with a lighted rear lamp or lamps, exhibiting a red light plainly visible from a distance of five hundred feеt to the rear. All lamps and lighting equipment originally manufactured on a motor vehicle shall be kept in working condition or shall be replaced with equivalent equipment.