Opinion
No. 6-079 / 05-0629
Filed April 12, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, Sherman Phipps, Judge.
The defendant appeals the district court's order denying his motion to suppress. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Greta Truman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kristin Guddall, Assistant Attorney General, and Timothy R. Kenyon, County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
Following his conviction for operating while intoxicated (second offense) in violation of Iowa Code sections 321J.2, 321J.2(2), and 321J.12(4) (2003), Michael McGuire appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress.
On the evening of July 22, Union County Sheriff's Deputy Brian Bolton received a call from Mark Sedlmayr, an off-duty enforcement officer for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Sedlmayr reported a red or maroon car was stopped on the side of a gravel road near his home. The driver and passenger were shirtless. While Sedlmayr relayed that the driver was male, Sedlmayr was unable to determine the gender of the passenger, whom his wife believed to be female. The passenger was vomiting out of the passenger side door. Deputy Bolton promptly located a vehicle matching the description given and initiated an investigatory stop. Upon approaching the vehicle, Deputy Bolton saw both occupants were nude and observed signs that the driver, McGuire, was under the influence, to which McGuire promptly admitted consuming alcohol before driving.
McGuire argues that the district court erred in finding the warrantless investigatory stop constitutional under the Iowa and federal constitutions. We review rulings on motions to suppress based on alleged Fourth Amendment violations de novo. State v. Bolsinger, 709 N.W.2d 560, 565 (Iowa 2006). The language of the Iowa Constitution and federal Fourth Amendment is substantially identical and similar in scope and effect. Because we find no basis to distinguish the protections afforded by the two under the facts of this case, our discussion of McGuire's claimed seizure violation applies equally under both constitutional provisions. See State v. McCoy, 692 N.W.2d 6, 15 (Iowa 2005).
Denying McGuire's motion to suppress, the district court relied in part upon the "community caretaking" function as a search-warrant exception in this case. The community caretaking function is applicable in cases where the police stop vehicles in the interest of public safety. State v. Tague, 676 N.W.2d 197, 204 (Iowa 2004) (citing State v. Mitchell, 498 N.W.2d 691, 693-94 (Iowa 1993)). We review a stop based on the community caretaker function on an objective standard: whether the facts available to the officer at the time of the stop would lead a reasonable person to believe that the action taken by the officer was appropriate. Id. Community caretaking cases require a three-step analysis: (1) was there a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; (2) if so, was the police conduct a bona fide community-caretaker activity; and (3) if so, did the public need and interest outweigh the intrusion upon the privacy of the citizen State v. Crawford, 659 N.W.2d 537, 543 (Iowa 2003). The State concedes that Deputy Bolton's stop was a seizure.
We agree with the district court's ruling that Deputy Bolton was engaged in a bona fide community caretaker activity when he stopped McGuire. In a remote location far from the closest medical facility, Deputy Bolton received information that the passenger of this vehicle was vomiting. As the district court noted, while vomiting may be indicative of a minor illness, it can also signify a variety of more serious problems, including excess alcohol consumption. Stopping to determine the well-being of the passenger was justified. On balance, the investigatory stop was brief and not intrusive enough to outweigh the public interest in assuring that the occupants were not in need of medical attention. To McGuire's detriment, Deputy Bolton was almost immediately able to discern additional specific and articulable facts that McGuire was intoxicated. See Crawford, 659 N.W.2d at 543-544 (holding that because the police officer, engaged in a community caretaker inquiry, had a right to be where he was when observing the defendant's suspected intoxicated condition, the incriminating evidence was admissible). We therefore affirm the district court's ruling denying McGuire's motion to suppress evidence gained from Deputy Bolton's investigatory stop.