Iowa OWI 2nd Offense, and the Ignition Interlock

Under Iowa law, people with OWI 1st offense test failures over 0.10, or test refusals must get an ignition interlock (“blow & go”) device installed on any vehicles they wish to drive or own, if they want to get a work or school permit.

With a first offense, a driver is always eligible for their work or school permit prior to being eligible for a full reinstatement of their license.

Staying Smart While Tailgating

The Hawkeye Football season opener is this weekend. And unfortunately that often means and increase in local alcohol-related arrests.

Although it is illegal to have any open container of alcohol in public, the local law enforcement agencies traditionally grant some leniency for tailgating parties near Kinnick Stadium on game day.

There are no set terms of when they could or could not charge an individual with an open container violation, but they generally will not enforce this law in the public parking areas located within a few blocks of Kinnick. Also, officers have traditionally been lenient on the open container law for people walking on the streets and sidewalks between these areas. The pile of empty (or half-empty) beer cans in the wastebaskets surrounding the stadium are a testament to this.

OWI / DUI Offenses in Cedar County, Iowa

Cedar County, Iowa contains the county seat of Tipton, and also a stretch of Interstate 80 to the east of Iowa City and to the west of the Quad Cities.

In Cedar County, many of the references made elsewhere on this blog regarding OWI prosecution still hold true. For example, the mandatory minimums still must be enforced and the same standards of guilt exist. However, there are a few differences that must be noted from my other posts.

Kirkwood OWI Weekend Program Rules

Here is a list of the rules provided by Kirkwood Community College, regarding the 48-hour OWI Weekend Treatment Program. Hopefully you will find this helpful when planning to attend the program:

“Kirkwood OWI Weekend Program Information

Registration:
You must contact Kirkwood Community College at (319) 398-4971 to register for a class. They have classes scheduled each month, so finding a class should not be a problem. However, they recommend registering early, as classes tend to fill up quickly. NO walk-ins are allowed.

The Class:

1. Check-in starts at 4:30p.m. at the Heartland Inn in Coralville. You should arrive no later than 5:30p.m. to get through the process. Anyone that arrives after 6p.m. is denied entrance.
2. Luggage will be searched and a breathalyzer test administered. Anyone testing above a .00 will be denied entrance. It is not advisable to consume alcohol on the day you check in or consume a large amount the night before.

Sealing Juvenile Delinquency Records

Iowa Statute §232.150 specifically sets out the requirements and the process for how and when juvenile court records may be sealed.

First, there must be a court hearing. This can be requested by the person who was the subject of a juvenile action, or it can be set by the court’s own motion. After the hearing, the court must order the official juvenile court records in that case sealed, if all of the following requirements are met:

1. The person is at least 18 years old, and two years have passed since the last official action in that person’s juvenile case;

2. The person has not been subsequently convicted of a felony, aggravated or serious misdemeanor, or adjudicated a delinquent child;

3. The person was not placed on youthful offender status, transferred to district court and sentenced after the person’s 18th birthday for the offense that caused the person to be placed on youthful offender status.

Governor Culver Raises Court Fees

Governor Culver claims that the bill he signed on May 27, 2009, did not raise taxes – but as a result of that bill you can definitely expect to pay more if you are headed to court.

Iowa Court of Appeals on Investigatory OWI Stop

How much information do police need to make a valid investigatory stop?

A recent Iowa Court of Appeals case discussed this question in resolving whether an anonymous, corroborated, tip was enough information for an officer to stop someone alleged to be intoxicated and about to drive.

The defendant, Guy Christoffersen, was charged with his second OWI after he backed into a police cruiser at 2:00 in the afternoon in the parking lot of a Subway restaurant. The police officer that stopped Christoffersen had received an anonymous tip that there was a possible intoxicated driver in a Subway parking lot about to get in a blue GMC pickup truck. The officer was only 6 blocks away at the time and arrived at that Subway in approximately 30 seconds. He saw someone getting into the driver’s seat of a blue GMC truck and pulled in behind the vehicle, in a way that would prevent the truck from being able to exit the parking lot. Just after the officer parked behind his truck, Christoffersen put it in reverse and rammed into the cruiser.

Iowa Supreme Court Further Defines "Seizure"

To activiate the protections of the Fourth Amendment, it matters whether you’ve been “seized” by the police. So when exactly does a “seizure” occur?

Other entries on this blog have discussed the important distinction of when a person is “seized” by the police, and a recent Iowa Supreme Court case, State v. Wilkes, sheds a little more light on the issue. The reason this distinction is important is because the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from “unreasonable searches and seizures” – a clause that is aimed at protecting the “privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary intrusion by government officials.” (See State v. Brecunier, Iowa Supreme Court.) If no “seizure” occurred, the protection the Fourth Amendment provides does not come into play, and a defendant’s attempts to exclude evidence obtained in violation of this provision will fail.

Wilkes involved a defendant charged with driving while intoxicated. He was spotted by police while parked at a quarry shortly after midnight, in a truck with its lights on and engine running. The police officers pulled into the quarry “to make sure everything was okay with the driver.” They did not activate the emergency lights or siren on the patrol car, and pulled about ten or fifteen feet behind the defendant’s truck. Although the quarry had only one entrance, the patrol car did not block that entrance.

New Iowa OWI/DUI Ruling on Phone Calls

In State v. Garrity, an Iowa Supreme Court case released last week, the Court clarified the duties of police officers when a defendant requests to make a phone call. Iowa law requires police officers who have someone in custody to allow that person to call, consult or see a member of the person’s family, or an attorney, or both. (Iowa Code §804.20.) In Garrity, the Court further explained that when a person in custody asks to call someone other than a family member or their attorney, police officers must advise the person of the purpose of the phone call – that is, they must tell suspects who it is they are allowed to call and why. If the police don’t give such advice, the appropriate remedy is the exclusionary rule, which extends to the exclusion of breath tests, breath test refusals, and non-spontaneous statements made after too long of a delay in allowing the person to consult with an attorney or family member.

Impeaching One's Own Witness – Iowa Law

Formerly, a party never had the right to impeach, or question the credibility of, their own witnesses. The theory was that a person vouches for a witness she calls and is bound by what they say on the stand. However, after State v. Trost, a 1976 Iowa Supreme Court case, that is no longer the rule. Now the credibility of any witness may be attacked by any party, including the one who brings them to the stand.

However, the right of the Government to impeach a witness they call to the stand is not without limits. The Government can certainly impeach their own witness, including with evidence of a prior statement the witness made, which is inconsistent with what they say on the witness stand – even if that statement directly inculpates the defendant. However, the Government may NOT bring such a statement in under the guise of impeachment, when it is really trying to get in otherwise inadmissible evidence.