Opinion
No. 4-323 / 03-1550.
June 23, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Emmet County, Donald J. Bormann, Judge.
The State appeals from the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained in a traffic stop. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Cristen Odell, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas Hansen, County Attorney, and Diane Wallwey, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant.
David Stein, Jr. of Stein Law Office, L.L.P., Milford, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Miller, JJ.
The State appeals from the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained in a traffic stop. The State contends the stop was valid under three theories and the court erred in granting the motion to suppress. On de novo review, we reverse and remand
About 12:30 a.m. on January 8, 2003, an Estherville police officer was on patrol when he saw the defendant's truck swerving on the highway. As he followed, he saw the truck weaving within its lane, crossing the side of the pavement until two wheels were on the gravel shoulder, and going back to touch the center yellow line. The officer stopped the defendant. When he approached the truck the officer smelled alcohol on the defendant and observed his bloodshot, watery eyes. Refusing all field sobriety tests and the preliminary breath test, the defendant was arrested and transported to the police station. While there, he refused to sign any forms or take a breath test. After he was charged with operating while intoxicated, he filed a motion to suppress evidence from the traffic stop, arguing the officer lacked reasonable grounds to stop him. The district court granted the motion. The State filed a motion for discretionary review. The supreme court granted the motion and stayed the district court proceedings pending appellate review of the suppression claim.
We review constitutional issues, such as this Fourth Amendment claim, de novo. State v. Crawford, 659 N.W.2d 537, 541 (Iowa 2003). The standard for traffic stops is well-settled:
One exception to the [Fourth Amendment] warrant requirement allows an officer to stop an individual or vehicle for investigatory purposes based on a reasonable suspicion that a criminal act has occurred or is occurring. [ State v. Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Iowa 1997)] (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 906 (1968)). The purpose of an investigatory stop is to allow a police officer to confirm or dispel suspicions of criminal activity through reasonable questioning. United States v. Hickman, 523 F.2d 323, 327 (9th Cir. 1975).
. . . .
The evidence justifying the stop need not rise to the level of probable cause. [ State v.] Scott, 409 N.W.2d [465,] 468 [Iowa 1987]. An officer may make an investigatory stop with "considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence." State v. Richardson, 501 N.W.2d 495, 496-97 (Iowa 1993) (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1, 10 (1989)). . . .
Moreover, "reasonable cause may exist to investigate conduct which is subject to a legitimate explanation and turns out to be wholly lawful." Richardson, 501 N.W.2d at 497.
State v. Kreps, 650 N.W.2d 636, 641-42 (Iowa 2002).
The State argues the stop was permissible because (1) the defendant committed a traffic violation, (2) the community caretaking exception applies, or (3) the officer had reasonable suspicion that a criminal act had or was occurring.
We find the stop was reasonable because the defendant was weaving both within and outside his lane at a time of day when officers might expect people to be driving home from bars. This provided the officer with reasonable suspicion a criminal act had or was occurring and provided a basis for the traffic stop See State v. Otto, 566 N.W.2d 509, 511 (Iowa 1997); State v. Tompkins, 507 N.W.2d 736, 738 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993). Consequently, we reverse the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.