Description:

Dubuque, Iowa criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with OWI first offense.

Iowa has an implied consent statute governing law enforcement's ability to request and collect bodily specimens in investigating suspected offenses for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI). The Iowa Code provides that "[a] person who operates a motor vehicle in this state . . . is deemed to have given consent to the withdrawal of specimens of the person's blood, breath, or urine and to a chemical test or tests of the specimens for the purpose of determining the alcohol concentration or presence of a controlled substance or other drugs." Iowa Code § 321J.6(1) (2022). The Code further provides that "[t]he withdrawal of the body substances and the test or tests shall be administered at the written request of a peace officer" and that "[a] person who has been requested to submit to a chemical test shall be advised" of the consequences associated with refusing or submitting to the chemical test. Id. §§ 321J.6(1), .8(1). The question presented in this OWI case is whether a peace officer can bypass these statutory provisions and request a motorist provide a bodily specimen for a chemical breath test without a written request and without advising the motorist of the consequences associated with refusing or submitting to the request for a chemical breath test.


The district court granted Flynn's motion to suppress evidence. The district court reasoned that the "legislature used the word shall" in the relevant statutes. The district court was "not inclined to engage in some sort of strained mental gymnastics to interpret the word in a different way." In the district court's view, "[i]t would be odd for the legislature to spell out a very detailed scheme for obtaining consent if there was no requirement that officers follow it." The district court concluded that "[w]hen reasonable grounds exist, a request for consent to a chemical test must comply with the requirements of [sections] 321J.6 and 321J.8." To hold otherwise would effectively eviscerate the statute, the district court reasoned.

State v. Flynn, 23-1448 (Iowa Nov 15, 2024)

Outcome: The district court granted Flynn's motion to suppress evidence. The district court reasoned that the "legislature used the word shall" in the relevant statutes. The district court was "not inclined to engage in some sort of strained mental gymnastics to interpret the word in a different way." In the district court's view, "[i]t would be odd for the legislature to spell out a very detailed scheme for obtaining consent if there was no requirement that officers follow it." The district court concluded that "[w]hen reasonable grounds exist, a request for consent to a chemical test must comply with the requirements of [sections] 321J.6 and 321J.8." To hold otherwise would effectively eviscerate the statute, the district court reasoned.

Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: