From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Wheeler

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Dec 11, 2002
No. 2-839 / 02-0401 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2002)

Opinion

No. 2-839 / 02-0401.

Filed December 11, 2002.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Bremer County, PETER B. NEWELL, Judge.

The defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for OWI, second offense, arguing the court should not have denied his suppression motion. AFFIRMED.

Kevin Engels of Correll, Sheerer, Benson, Engels, Galles Demro, P.L.C., Cedar Falls, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Cristen Odell, Assistant Attorney General, Kasey E. Wadding, County Attorney, and Christine DeLorme, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and MAHAN and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.


Following a traffic stop, the State charged Paul Wheeler with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, second offense. See Iowa Code § 321J.2 (1999). Wheeler moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the stop, claiming the stop "was not supported by any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity." The district court denied the motion, and based on the minutes of testimony, found Wheeler guilty as charged.

On appeal, Wheeler takes issue with the court's suppression ruling. His challenge implicates constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. See State v. Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Iowa 1997). Therefore, our review is de novo. See State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 606 n. 2 (Iowa 2001) (disavowing cases reviewing fact findings for substantial evidence where a defendant alleges constitutional error).

In reviewing the constitutionality of a vehicle stop, we "look to the record as a whole to determine what facts were known to the deputy and then consider whether a reasonable officer in those circumstances would have reasonably believed the defendant was committing a traffic offense. . . ." State v. Heminover, 619 N.W.2d 353, 361 (Iowa 2000) ( overruled on other grounds in State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 606 n. 2 (Iowa 2001). This standard was satisfied.

The officer who stopped Wheeler testified he believed Wheeler was driving with his high beam lights in the vicinity of another vehicle, in violation of Iowa Code section 321.415(1). Although there was evidence the bright lights were off during the vehicle stop, the officer testified he believed they had been dimmed by the time he made the stop. See Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d at 101 ("mistaken basis for a stop does not necessarily render the stop invalid, but is merely a factor to consider in the reasonable suspicion analysis."). The district court found this testimony more credible than Wheeler's denial that the bright lights were ever on that evening. We defer to this credibility finding. See Turner, 630 N.W.2d at 606.

We affirm the district court's suppression ruling.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

State v. Wheeler

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Dec 11, 2002
No. 2-839 / 02-0401 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2002)
Case details for

State v. Wheeler

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAUL CRAIG WHEELER…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Dec 11, 2002

Citations

No. 2-839 / 02-0401 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2002)