Opinion
No. 3-026 / 02-0619
Filed January 29, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Gregory A. Hulse, Judge.
On interlocutory appeal, the State appeals the district court's ruling granting David Hedlund's motion to suppress evidence. REVERSED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda Hines, Assistant Attorney General, Wayne Reisetter, County Attorney, and Charles Sinnard, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant.
Rick Olson, Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
On interlocutory appeal, the State appeals the district court's ruling granting David Hedlund's motion to suppress evidence. The State claims the district court erred in finding there was no probable cause for the search of the defendant's vehicle. We reverse.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings. At 8:40 a.m. on November 8, 2001, Department of Transportation (DOT) Officer Rod Culbertson stopped David Hedlund's tractor-trailer at a Dallas County weigh station. Culbertson requested Hedlund's logbook and noticed Hedlund was not wearing his seatbelt. Culbertson and his passenger were brought inside the weigh station for further questioning by Officer Culbertson and another DOT officer, Officer Jones. Upon obtaining identification, Jones learned Hedlund's passenger had provided a false name. The passenger explained that he provided a false name because he believed he had traffic citations outstanding in another state. A computer search yielded no outstanding citations.
Both officers observed that Hedlund's eyes were bloodshot, and they believed he was acting nervously. Officer Jones also noted that one of Hedlund's eyes was jerking to the side. Hedlund refused the officers request to search the cab of the tractor. At approximately 9:30 a.m., the officers called for a K-9 unit from the West Des Moines Police Department. When the unit arrived approximately thirty minutes later, the dog reacted to the rear doors of the trailer and "hit on" the side door and inside the cab. The officers searched the cab and discovered marijuana in a compartment behind the driver's seat and in some overhead storage areas on the right side of the cab.
Hedlund was charged with possession of marijuana in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2001). He pled not guilty and filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his vehicle. Following a hearing, the district court granted the defendant's motion, and the State filed this interlocutory appeal.
II. Scope of Review. Our review of the conclusion a district court reaches on a motion to suppress concerning Fourth Amendment issues is de novo. State v. Gillespie, 619 N.W.2d 345, 350 (Iowa 2000). We give deference to the district court's factual findings, but are not bound by them. State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Iowa 2001).
III. Motion to Suppress. The issue before this court is whether the DOT officers had a reasonable suspicion warranting Hedlund's detention beyond the scope of the initial stop. We conclude they did.
Although the district court found Hedlund's behaviors did not rise to the level of probable cause, the State argues and the defendant concedes the proper standard in analyzing this Fourth Amendment challenge is reasonable suspicion. See State v. Aderholdt, 545 N.W.2d 559, 564 (Iowa 1996).
Hedlund's eyes were bloodshot and one of Hedlund's eyes was jerking to the side. From his training, Officer Jones believed alcohol, narcotics, or medication could cause this reaction. The officers also testified that Hedlund appeared to be nervous and was hesitant to answer their questions. Additionally, Hedlund's passenger provided the officers false identification. Although the passenger claimed he gave a false name because he believed he had outstanding traffic citations in another state, a computer search did not produce any such information.
When an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the automobile contains narcotics, he may temporarily detain it to allow an olfactory inspection by a trained police dog. State v. Bergmann, 633 N.W.2d 328, 337 (Iowa 2001) (citing with approval Estrada v. State, 30 S.W.3d 599, 603 (Tex.Ct.App. 2000)). In Estrada v. State, the Texas Court of Appeals held the nervousness of the passengers, confusing and contradictory statements made between the individuals, and an air freshener and carpet cleaner visible in the car were enough to provide reasonable suspicion that further investigation was necessary and justified. Estrada, 30 S.W.3d at 603. Here, Hedland's bloodshot and twitching eyes, his nervous behavior, and the false identity provided by the passenger amount to reasonable suspicion. The district court erred in granting Hedlund's motion to suppress.