From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Chamberlain

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Aug 28, 2002
No. 2-430 / 01-1621 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2002)

Summary

holding defendant's failure to use turn signal justified a stop when officer's car was directly behind the defendant's vehicle and another car was in the vicinity

Summary of this case from State v. Schlichting

Opinion

No. 2-430 / 01-1621

Filed August 28, 2002

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Thomas Mott, Judge.

James Chamberlain appeals his judgment and sentence for operating while intoxicated (second offense), contending the vehicle stop that led to the charges was unconstitutional.

AFFIRMED.

Gerald Feuerhelm, Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Johnson, County Attorney and Michael Jacobsen, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.


A deputy sheriff stopped James Chamberlain's vehicle for failing to signal a right turn and, following the stop, determined Chamberlain was intoxicated. The State charged him with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (second offense). Iowa Code § 321J.2 (2001). Chamberlain moved to suppress the officer's evidence, contending the stop violated the constitutional prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures. U.S. Const. Amend. IV; Iowa Const. Art. I, § 8. The district court denied the motion and, on stipulated minutes of testimony, found Chamberlain guilty as charged. Chamberlain now reasserts that the vehicle stop was unconstitutional. On our de novo review, we disagree.

State officers must have "reasonable suspicion" to stop a vehicle for investigatory purposes. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 906 (1968); State v. Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Iowa 1997). A traffic violation may furnish such "reasonable suspicion". State v. Heminover, 619 N.W.2d 353, 362 (Iowa 2000).

Iowa Code section 321.314 requires a driver to signal before turning "in the event any other vehicle may be affected by such movement." Chamberlain did not signal his right turn, despite the fact that the deputy sheriff was directly behind his vehicle and another vehicle was in the vicinity. Contrast State v. Malloy, 453 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990) (holding defendant's turn did not affect other vehicle where police vehicle was about one and one-half blocks behind defendant's vehicle). Chamberlain's traffic violation furnished reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

State v. Chamberlain

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Aug 28, 2002
No. 2-430 / 01-1621 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2002)

holding defendant's failure to use turn signal justified a stop when officer's car was directly behind the defendant's vehicle and another car was in the vicinity

Summary of this case from State v. Schlichting
Case details for

State v. Chamberlain

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES BRIAN CHAMBERLAIN…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Aug 28, 2002

Citations

No. 2-430 / 01-1621 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2002)

Citing Cases

State v. Schlichting

First, the officer testified that he was 150 to 250 feet away from Schlichting's car when he failed to use…

State v. Kleppe

The holding in Malloy was also distinguished in State v. Chamberlain; the defendant there did not signal a…