Opinion
No. 5-958 / 05-0368
Filed February 15, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Grundy County, Todd A. Geer, Judge.
Defendant appeals from his conviction for operating while intoxicated, second offense. AFFIRMED.
Robert W. Thompson of Thompson Law Office, Reinbeck, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jean C. Pettinger, Assistant Attorney General, and Bradley J. Harris, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
Jack Miller Brandt appeals from his conviction for operating while intoxicated (OWI), second offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (2003 Supp.). We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On January 29, 2004, Brandt was operating a motor vehicle northbound on County Highway T-65 in Grundy County. Deputy Adam Heise was driving southbound on the same roadway at the same time. As Brandt and Deputy Heise approached each other from opposite directions, Brandt swerved across the center line into the deputy's lane of traffic. The deputy turned around and stopped Brandt's vehicle. Deputy Heise detected an odor of alcohol coming from Brandt, who admitted he had been drinking. Brandt failed or did not perform several field sobriety tests. Deputy Heise placed Brandt under arrest and transported him to the county law enforcement center, where a breath test was administered.
The State subsequently filed a trial information charging Brandt with OWI, second offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2. Brandt filed a motion to suppress, alleging the deputy did not have grounds to stop Brandt's vehicle and that Brandt's right under Iowa Code section 804.20 to consult with counsel was violated. At a hearing on the motion the State conceded there was a violation of section 804.20 warranting suppression of the breath test, but resisted Brandt's claim regarding the traffic stop. The district court suppressed the breath test based on the violation of section 804.20, but concluded the deputy had reasonable grounds to stop Brandt's vehicle.
Following a bench trial, the district court found Brandt guilty of OWI, second offense. The court denied Brandt's motion for new trial. Brandt was sentenced and subsequently filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, Brandt argues (1) the district court erred in admitting into evidence a videotape of the traffic stop after suppressing the breath test results and (2) his conviction is not supported by substantial evidence.
II. Standards of Review
Our review of the district court's interpretation of Iowa Code section 804.20 is for errors at law. State v. Moorehead, 699 N.W.2d 667, 671 (Iowa 2005). We will uphold the district court's ruling if the court properly applied the law and there is substantial evidence to support its findings. Id.
We review sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims for errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We review the trial court's findings in a jury-waived case as we would a jury verdict: we uphold a verdict if substantial evidence supports it. State v. Weaver, 608 N.W.2d 797, 803 (Iowa 2000). "Evidence is substantial if it would convince a rational fact finder that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Biddle, 652 N.W.2d 191, 197 (Iowa 2002). We consider all record evidence, not just the evidence supporting guilt, when making sufficiency-of-the-evidence determinations. State v. Quinn, 691 N.W.2d 403, 407 (Iowa 2005). Direct and circumstantial evidence are equally probative. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( p). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, "including legitimate inferences and presumptions that may fairly and reasonably be deduced from the record evidence." Biddle, 652 N.W.2d at 197.
III. Motion to Suppress
Brandt argues the district court should have suppressed the videotape of the traffic stop, along with statements made by Brandt, based on the violation of Iowa Code section 804.20. The State contends Brandt failed to preserve error on this issue for our review. We agree.
To preserve error, "issues must be presented to and passed upon by the district court before they can be raised and decided on appeal." State v. Manna, 534 N.W.2d 642, 644 (Iowa 1995); see also DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 62 (Iowa 2002). While Brandt sought the suppression of evidence associated with the traffic stop, he did so based on a claim the stop was illegal, not on the violation of section 804.20. At trial, Brandt's counsel stated that "based upon the law of this case at this time" he had no objection to the admission of the videotape of the traffic stop. Therefore, Brandt failed to preserve his claim that the violation of section 804.20 warranted suppression of the videotape.
Even if Brandt did preserve error, we conclude his argument is without merit. Brandt cites State v. Moorehead, 699 N.W.2d 667 (Iowa 2005), for the proposition that all evidence gathered should be suppressed when a violation of section 804.20 occurs. The supreme court's holding in Moorehead, however, is much narrower. The court held that the exclusionary rule bars the introduction of "evidence not relating to a breath test but likewise obtained after a violation of Iowa Code section 804.20." Id. at 674 (emphasis added). The evidence gathered during the traffic stop and captured on videotape in this case was obtained prior to the violation of section 804.20. Therefore, suppression of the videotape based on the subsequent violation of section 804.20 was not necessary.
IV. Sufficiency of the Evidence
A person is guilty of OWI if the person operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Iowa Code § 321J.2(1)(a). A person is "under the influence" when the consumption of alcohol results in one or more of the following: (1) the person's reason or mental ability has been affected, (2) the person's judgment is impaired, (3) the person's emotions are visibly excited, or (4) the person has, to any extent, lost control of bodily actions or motions. State v. Dominguez, 482 N.W.2d 390, 392 (Iowa 1992). The person's manner of driving is relevant to the question of intoxication. Id.; see also State v. Walker, 499 N.W.2d 323, 325 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993).
It is clear from the record that substantial evidence supports the district court's verdict in this case. Brandt swerved across the center line of the highway into the deputy's lane of traffic. When asked by the deputy to roll down his window, Brandt did not comply. Instead, he exited the vehicle and stumbled. When asked to produce certain documentation, Brandt seemed confused and took some time to comply. His speech was slow and deliberate. His breath smelled of alcohol, and he admitted to drinking. Brandt failed or refused to perform several field sobriety tests.
Brandt points to testimony from two witnesses following his vehicle on the night in question that they did not notice anything abnormal about Brandt's driving. However, the district court, as fact finder, resolved this conflict in testimony by finding the deputy's testimony more reliable. See State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 377 (Iowa 1998). Moreover, the existence of evidence which might support a different verdict does not negate the existence of substantial evidence sufficient to support the verdict in the case. State v. Frake, 450 N.W.2d 817, 818-19 (Iowa 1990).