Opinion
No. 14–1817.
05-11-2016
STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Aaron Lu CHRISP, Defendant–Appellant.
Thomas J. O'Flaherty of O'Flaherty Law Firm, Bettendorf, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Thomas J. O'Flaherty of O'Flaherty Law Firm, Bettendorf, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary A. Triick, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by DANILSON, C.J., and VOGEL and POTTERFIELD, JJ.
VOGEL, Judge.
Following his conviction for operating while intoxicated, second offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2(2)(b) (2013), Aaron Chrisp appeals, asserting the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We review his constitutional claim de novo. State v. Freeman, 705 N.W.2d 293, 297 (Iowa 2005).
A police officer stopped the vehicle Chrisp was driving because it matched the make, model, and license plate number of a vehicle witnesses saw driving away from a bar fight that involved a knife and property damage. Although the purpose of the stop was to investigate what had occurred at the bar, the stopping officer smelled alcohol on Chrisp. After admitting he had been drinking and after failing field sobriety tests, Chrisp was taken into custody.
The district court concluded, “[T]he information available to [the officer] at the time of his investigatory stop of [the vehicle] rose to the level of reasonable suspicion and did in fact justify the stop of the defendant's car on the night in question to investigate the assault and criminal damage complaints.”
We agree and affirm the district court's decision pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (d) and (e).