IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-1324

Filed October 14, 2015

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

LUCAS JAMES BURBRIDGE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Lawrence E. Jahn, 

District Associate Judge. 

A defendant appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicated claiming 

the district court should have granted his motion to suppress. AFFIRMED.

Andrew J. Boettger of Hastings, Gartin & Boettger, L.L.P., Ames, for 

appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik and Heather Ann 

Mapes, Assistant Attorneys General, Stephen Holmes, County Attorney, and 

Ethan Anderson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
2

MULLINS, Judge.

Lucas Burbridge appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to 

suppress evidence obtained following the stop of his vehicle. He argues the 

arresting officer did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime 

to execute an investigatory vehicle stop. We affirm the district court’s denial.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

On April 13, 2014, at approximately 12:21 a.m., while working routine 

patrol on Lincoln Way in Ames, Officers Joshua Vander Zwaag and Lane Thayer 

noticed a vehicle in front of them swerving as it was traveling westbound. The 

officers stayed behind the vehicle and observed the vehicle continue to swerve in 

its lane, and finally it made a lane change in very close proximity to the police 

car. The lane change was without signaling, and the entry into the adjacent lane 

was so close as to cause Officer Vander Zwaag to apply his brakes. Officer 

Vander Zwaag’s speed was forced to decrease from forty miles per hour to 

twenty-seven miles per hour. After this lane change Officer Vander Zwaag 

initiated a traffic stop and observed the driver showed signs of intoxication.

Officer Vander Zwaag requested that dispatch send a state trooper to the traffic 

stop to conduct field sobriety tests. 

The driver was Burbridge. Based on the test results, the officers arrested 

Burbridge and charged him with operating while intoxicated, in violation of Iowa 

Code section 321J.2 (2013). Burbridge pled not guilty and filed a motion to 

suppress, alleging the stop was in violation of his state and federal constitutional 

rights. Following a hearing, the district court denied the motion to suppress, 
3

finding the officers had both probable cause and reasonable suspicion to stop the 

vehicle. 

Upon the denial of the motions to suppress, the case proceeded to a jury 

trial. The jury found Burbridge guilty as charged. Burbridge filed a timely notice 

of appeal, challenging the district court’s denial of his suppression motion.

II. Standard of Review

Burbridge contends his vehicle was stopped in violation of the federal and 

state constitutions. “We follow an independent approach in the application of our 

state constitution. However, when a party does not argue an independent 

approach, ‘we ordinarily apply the substantive federal standards but reserve the 

right to apply the standard in a fashion different from federal precedent.’” State v. 

Mclver, 858 N.W.2d 699, 702 (Iowa 2015) (internal citations omitted) (quoting

State v. Tyler, 830 N.W.2d 288, 291–92 (Iowa 2013)). We review claims 

regarding constitutional rights de novo. Id. We make “an independent evaluation 

of the totality of the circumstances as shown by the entire record.” State v. 

Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d 97, 99 (Iowa 1997).

III. Probable Cause

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits 

“unreasonable search and seizures.” Tyler, 830 N.W.2d at 291. “Temporary 

detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if 

only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of 

‘persons’ within the meaning of [the Fourth Amendment].” Whren v. United 

States, 517 U.S. 806, 808 (1996). An automobile stop is constitutionally 
4

permissible when the officer has either (1) probable cause due to observation of 

a traffic violation or (2) reasonable suspicion, supported by articulable facts that a 

criminal act has occurred or is occurring. State v. Tague, 676 N.W.2d 197, 201-

04 (Iowa 2004). 

“When a peace officer observes a violation of our traffic laws, however 

minor, the officer has probable cause to stop a motorist.” Id. at 201. “Probable 

cause exists if the totality of the circumstances as viewed by a reasonable and 

prudent person would lead that person to believe that a crime has been or is 

being committed and that the arrestee committed or is committing it.” State v. 

Bumpus, 459 N.W.2d 619, 624 (Iowa 1990). “The existence of probable cause 

for a traffic stop is evaluated ‘from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable 

police officer.’” Tyler, 830 N.W.2d at 293–94 (citation omitted). “[W]e look to the 

record as a whole to determine what facts were known to the deputy.” State v. 

Heminover, 619 N.W.2d 353, 361 (Iowa 2000), overruled in part on other 

grounds by State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 606 n.2 (Iowa 2001).

At the suppression hearing, the State did not identify which specific traffic 

law the officer thought Burbridge violated and upon which the traffic stop was 

based. The district court held that “it is likely that probable cause existed to cite 

Burbridge for a violation of Iowa Code section 321.314.” However, we held in 

State v. Troge, No. 08-2029, 2009 WL 3064648, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 17, 

2009), that section 321.314 applies to turns at intersections. 

The State argues that the substance of the argument at the suppression 

hearing was the safety of the lane change and that section 321.306 is the 
5

appropriate code section for us to consider.1 Section 321.306(1) provides in 

relevant part: “A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practical entirely within a 

single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first 

ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.” Our supreme court 

has explained the “dual purpose” behind section 321.306: (1) “to promote the 

integrity of the lane markings on the highway” and (2) “to ensure the safe 

movement of vehicles on laned roadways.” Tague, 676 N.W.2d at 203. The 

Tague court pointed out: “A violation does not occur unless the driver changes 

lanes before the driver ascertains that he or she could make such movement with 

safety.” Id.

Burbridge contends according to the facts in this case, the officer lacked

probable cause of a traffic violation to warrant his stop. He argues the factual 

scenario in this case is similar to State v. Thomas, No. 12-2112, 2013 WL 

3871080, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 24, 2013), where our court held the 

defendant’s lane change without signal was not a section 321.306 violation, and 

therefore, it did not provide probable cause for a traffic stop. 

 

1

In the case before us, neither the State nor the officers who made the traffic stop 

specified that section 321.314 was the statute on which the stop was based. They 

merely claimed that based on the totality of circumstances—the swerving and the 

sudden lane change without a signal—the officers reasonably believed that a traffic 

violation had been committed. Moreover, the legitimacy and propriety of Burbridge’s

lane change was argued by both parties in their appellate briefs. “We are obliged to 

affirm an appeal where any proper basis appears for a trial court’s ruling, even though it 

is not one upon which the court based its holding.” See Regent Ins. Co. v. Estes Co.,

564 N.W.2d 846, 848 (Iowa 1997) (restating “well-established” proposition that an 

appellee may seek to save a judgment on an alternative basis presented to the trial 

court). The issue of whether a lane change is safe is a determining factor in a section 

321.306(1) violation. Therefore, we will analyze the vehicle stop under that section.
6

In Thomas, the defendant’s vehicle made several lane changes, but no 

other cars were affected by the lane changes. 2013 WL 3871080, at *1. The 

court found “[a] digital video recording of the incident reveals no unsafe lane 

changes.” Id. at *2. In the present case, however, the video recording shows 

that Burbridge not only made a lane change in close proximity to the police car 

without signaling but also forced the officer to decrease his speed from 

approximately forty miles per hour to twenty-seven miles per hour. If Officer 

Vander Zwaag had not applied his brakes, it is very likely the police car would 

have hit Burbridge’s car. When Burbridge changed lanes without signaling, and 

his lane change interfered with the normal movement of the police vehicle, it was

objectively reasonable for the officer to believe the lane change had been 

initiated without Burbridge having first ascertained his movement could be made 

safely and that a section 321.306 violation had been committed. Officer Vander 

Zwaag had probable cause to stop Burbridge’s vehicle. 

Having concluded the officer had probable cause to make the vehicle 

stop, we need not consider Burbridge’s claim the officer lacked reasonable 

suspicion to believe criminal activity was occurring and thus had no authority to 

stop the vehicle.

We affirm the district court’s suppression ruling. 

AFFIRMED.