IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18

- 1888 Filed September 11, 2019

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs. JOSEPH W. WHITE , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin Parker , District Associate Judge.

Joseph White appeals the denial of his motion to suppress. AFFIRMED

.

Robert G. Rehkemper of Gourley, Rehkemper , & Lindholm, P.L.C. , West Des Moines , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Israel Kodiaga , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J. , and Doyle and Bower, JJ.2

BOWER , Judge

. Joseph White appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence obtained following the warrantless st op of his vehicle. Because the trooper had reasonable suspicion of an inoperative headlamp to stop the vehicle, we affirm. At about 11:30 p.m. on June 22, 2018, T rooper Matthew Struecker was traveling south on R

- 45 in Warren County when he observed an oncoming vehicle with one of its headlights out. Trooper Struecker turned his vehicle around and initiated a traffic stop. Once the vehicle stopped, the trooper approached and asked the driver, White, for his license, registration, and insurance. White could not provide his registration. When White asked why he was stopped, Trooper Struecker stated, “O ne of the headlights [ w as] out .” 1 The officer could smell alcoholic beverage s and asked White to accompany him to the patrol vehicle where the trooper issued a warning to White for failure to carry a registration card and for the faulty headlight. The trooper requested White perform field sob riety
tests , which he failed. T he trooper arrested White. White was subsequently charge d with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, second offense

. White filed a motion to suppress , asserting the traffic stop was without probable cause o r reasonable suspicion

. A hearing was held on the motion to suppress. Trooper Struecker testified he stopped White’s vehicle because a headlight was out. He acknowledged that

1 Iowa Code section 321.385 (2018) provides, “E very motor vehicle

. . . shall be equipped with at least two headlamps with at least one on each side of the front of the motor vehicle, which headlamps shall comply with the requirements and limitations set fo rth in this chapter. ”3

it was difficult to tell if both headlamps were working from the patrol car vi deo , but he was “a hundred percent positive that one of the headlights was out.” White’s girlfriend was a passenger in the vehicle the night of the stop. She testified the vehicle was released to her after White’s arrest. She drove the vehicle to White’ s house and did not “notice any deficiency in the lights on my way home.” She photographed the vehicle’s headlamps at about 1:15 a.m. on June 23. Photographs and video recordings were admitted into evidence. The still shots indicate the passenger side h eadlamp was much dimmer than the driver side headlamp. She and White recorded a video on June 26 of the vehicle headlamps illuminating White as he walked away and measured 100 feet from the vehicle. White testified he was driving on the evening of June 2 2 and found oncoming traffic was sufficiently illuminated and he had no concerns about the vehicle’s lighting. The district court denied the motion to suppress, concluding the trooper had cause to stop White’s vehicle for an inoperative headlamp. 2 White waived a jury trial and agreed to a trial on the minutes. T he court adjudged White guilty and imposed sentence. On appeal, White challenges the denial of his motion to suppress,
contend ing the stop of his vehicle was not supported by probable cause and

c onsequently violated the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution.

2 The court stated, “Trooper Struecker had cause to stop White’s vehicle due to a violation of Iowa Code section 321.409.” Section 321.409(1)(b) requires low beam or composite beam headlamps provide illumination of “ sufficient intens ity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least one hundred feet ahead. ”4

White asserts his state and federal constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure were violated. We review constitutional issues de novo. State v. Tyler , 830 N.W.2d 288, 291 (Iowa 2013). “We make an ‘independent evaluation of the totality of the circumstances as shown b y the entire record.’” State v. Scheffert , 910 N.W.2d 577, 581 (Iowa 2018) (quoting State v. Tague , 676 N.W.2d 197, 201 (Iowa 2004)). “We give deference to the district court’s factual findings, but they do not bind us.” Id. Both the federal and state constitutions prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. State v. Kinkead , 5 70 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Iowa 1997) (“The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials

. ”). Because White has not propo sed a standard for interpreting our search and seizure provisions under the Iowa Constitution differently from its federal constitutional counterpart, we apply t he general standards as outlined by federal case law

. State v. Bruegger , 773 N.W.2d 862, 883 ( Iowa 2009)

.

“ A traffic stop is unquestionably a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. ” Tyler , 830 N.W.2d at 292 (citing Ber kemer v. McCarty

, 468 U.S. 420, 436

– 37 (1984) ). Under the Fourth Amendment, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that allowing law enforcement unbridled discretion in stopping vehicles “would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights.” Delaware v. Prouse , 440 U.S. 648, 661 (1979) (quoting Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968) ). The State argues the troop er’s vehicle stop may be suppo rted under either probable cause or r easonable suspicion theories. If a traffic violation actually5

occurred and the officer witnessed it, the State has established probable cause. Tague , 676 N.W.2d at 201. Upon our de novo review, and giving deference to the trial court’s implied finding that the trooper was credible in his testimony that he observed an inoperable headlamp, we conclude there was probable cause to stop the vehicle. See State v. Storm , 898 N.W.2d 140 , 144 (Io wa 201 7 ) ( “ We give deference to the district court’s fact findings due to its opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses, but we are not bound by those findings.” (citation omitted)). In any event, “ a mistake of fact may justify a traffic stop. ” Tyler , 830 N.W.2d
at 294

. “The .

. . question is whether [the officer ’ s] mistake was an objectively reasonable one.” State v. Lloyd , 701 N.W.2d 678, 68 1 (Iowa 2005)

. The trooper’s vehicle video is not parti cularly helpful due to the glare from the oncoming headlamps. However, when reviewed carefully, it does appear the passenger side light is dimmer. The photograph submitted by White shows that of the two lights on the passenger side, the dimmer side light is illuminated but the central headlamp is not. We conclude Trooper Struecker ’s belief that a headlamp was inoperative was objectively reasonable and we affirm the denial of the motion to
suppress. AFFIRM ED.