Opinion
No. 5-664 / 04-1883
Filed September 28, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Richard G. Blane II, Judge.
Fidel Manriquez appeals following the district court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence that led to his conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled substance in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2003). AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Stephan Japuntich, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas Tauber, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Steve Bayens, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Fidel Manriquez appeals from the judgment and sentence entered by the district court following his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2003). He contends that the district court erred in overruling his motion to suppress the evidence discovered when a police officer searched his person. We affirm.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
In the evening of August 4, 2004, Des Moines police officers Joseph Frentres and Chad Nicolino noticed a pickup truck with a burned-out license plate light traveling south on Second Avenue. The officers activated the emergency lights on their patrol car and followed the truck. The truck did not pull over on Second Avenue; instead, it turned onto a side street and pulled into a parking lot behind a business. There were no streetlights in the area where the truck stopped.
Jose Jacovo, the driver of the truck, and Manriquez, the passenger, both exited the vehicle before the officers pulled their patrol car into the parking lot behind the truck. According to the officers, both Jacovo and Manriquez appeared to be nervous and acted suspiciously.
Jacovo made movements under the front seat and toward the hood of the vehicle while walking back and forth between the driver's side and the front of the vehicle. Once Manriquez exited the vehicle, "he just kept stepping away from it and kind of looking around".
Because Officer Frentres feared Manriquez was about to flee, he ordered him to place his hands on the truck. He then patted Manriquez down for weapons. During the patdown, he felt a bulge in the coin pocket of Manriquez's pants. The officer asked Manriquez what was in the pocket and was told it was jewelry. The officer did not believe the object he felt was jewelry, so he lifted Manriquez's shirt. He then observed a knotted plastic bag with the top torn off hanging out of the coin pocket. Based on his previous experience investigating drug related offenses, Officer Frentres believed the bag contained illegal drugs and confiscated it. The officers arrested Manriquez after a field test revealed the bag contained methamphetamine.
When asked for identification by Frentres, Manriquez told the officer his name was Julio Manriquez. The officers ran the name through their computer database and discovered the existence of two outstanding arrest warrants for Manriquez under the name he had provided. Manriquez eventually confirmed that he was the person wanted on the warrants, and the officers arrested him on the outstanding warrants.
Manriquez did not have a driver's license or picture identification. The defendant had used the name Julio Manriquez in the past.
The State filed a trial information charging Manriquez with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Manriquez filed a motion to suppress evidence, which the district court denied. Manriquez waived his right to jury trial and stipulated to a bench trial on the minutes of testimony for the lesser offense of possession of a controlled substance. The district court found him guilty of possession of methamphetamine and imposed sentence. Manriquez now appeals, contending that the district court erred in overruling his motion to suppress.
II. Scope of Review
Because Manriquez contends that his constitutional rights were violated by an illegal search and seizure, our review is de novo. State v. Lloyd, 701 N.W.2d 678, 680 (Iowa 2005). In reviewing Manriquez's claim de novo, we evaluate the totality of the circumstances as reflected in the record. State v. Seager, 571 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa 1997).
III. Discussion
In its ruling on the defendant's motion to suppress, the district court found that Officers Frentres and Nicolino properly stopped the truck and legitimately patted Manriquez down based on their reasonable concern for their safety. The court also found that the search of Manriquez's pocket and the seizure of the methamphetamine violated his constitutional rights. However, the court concluded that the methamphetamine recovered from Manriquez was not subject to exclusion because it would have inevitably been discovered in a search of Manriquez pursuant to his arrest on two outstanding warrants.
On appeal, Manriquez contends that the police officers who stopped Jacovo and Manriquez did not possess a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the search and seizure. He asserts that Officer Frentres only speculated without basis that he was about to flee the scene. Manriquez also argues that Officer Frentres exceeded the permissible scope of the search by lifting his shirt to view the contents of his coin pocket. In response, the State contends the suspicious behavior of the occupants of the truck justified a search and seizure. The State also argues that Officer Frentres possessed probable cause to suspect Manriquez's pocket contained illegal drugs before he lifted the shirt because he was familiar with how such substances are packaged and transported.
Upon review of the record, we find it unnecessary to resolve the parties' differences of opinion regarding the trial court's application of the Fourth Amendment to the facts of this case. We reach this conclusion because the district court's ruling on Manriquez's motion to suppress evidence is sustainable on another ground.
As we have mentioned, the trial court believed the search of Manriquez's pocket was not proper, but ultimately concluded the evidence seized from the defendant was admissible under the "inevitable discovery rule" even if the Fourth Amendment was violated. The inevitable discovery doctrine is based on "the premise that relevant, probative evidence gathered despite Fourth Amendment violations is not constitutionally excluded when the police would have inevitably discovered the same evidence acting properly." State v. Christianson, 627 N.W.2d 910, 912 (Iowa 2001). If the police would ultimately discover the evidence by lawful means, using the Fourth Amendment to exclude the evidence serves no legitimate purpose. State v. Seager, 571 N.W.2d 204, 211 (Iowa 1997). Because the practice of excluding evidence discovered pursuant to illegal searches and seizures is a means of deterring future police misconduct, the rationale for this practice falters if the defendant can exclude the evidence even if the police would have inevitably discovered it by lawful means. Christianson, 627 N.W.2d at 912.
On appeal, Manriquez does not challenge the district court's conclusion that the methamphetamine in his pocket would inevitably have been discovered in a search following his arrest on outstanding warrants. Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.14(1)( c) states: "Failure in the brief to state, to argue or to cite authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue." Because Manriquez failed to make an argument or cite authority challenging the applicability of the inevitable discovery doctrine to the facts in this case, we deem that he has waived any challenge to the district court's decision to deny his motion to suppress on the basis of this doctrine. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision to deny the defendant's motion to suppress. AFFIRMED.
Even if this issue had been preserved for our review, we would affirm. We believe the district court properly concluded that, even if a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, the bag recovered from the defendant was not subject to exclusion because it would have been inevitably discovered. In this case, Officer Frentres made a lawful request for identification from Manriquez, which led to his discovery of two valid warrants for the defendant's arrest. The officer testified that he always searches individuals after placing them under arrest. Therefore, the methamphetamine in Manriquez's coin pocket would have inevitably been discovered in a lawful search incident to his arrest on outstanding warrants.