Opinion ID: 1813958
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Davis Case.

Text: Dennison and the trial court relied upon State v. Davis, 525 N.W.2d 837 (Iowa 1994), to support the dismissal of the trial information. In Davis, the officer arrested Davis for OWI on April 9, 1993, took him to the jail, read him the implied consent advisory, transported him to the hospital for the withdrawal of a blood sample, completed the citation and complaint for OWI, and turned him over to the jailer who booked him. Davis, 525 N.W.2d at 838. After consulting with a supervisor, the officer retrieved the citation and complaint and released Davis. Id. The complaint and citation were filed after the blood test results were returned. Id. The State filed the trial information on June 15, 1993. Id. On appeal from the dismissal of the trial information on speedy indictment grounds, the State conceded Davis had been arrested on April 9. Id. at 839. We noted that Davis' situation easily corresponded to the definition of arrest: he was handcuffed for a substantial period, booked, and in custody for two hours. Id. We then concluded an officer could not unarrest a defendant to preclude the running of the speedy indictment deadline. Id. at 841. Strong public policy reasons supported this outcome: (1) allowing officers to unarrest a defendant would permit them to arrest an individual on insufficient or questionable evidence and then, at their convenience, gather enough evidence to support the filing of a trial information; (2) the test result was available within the forty-five-day period; (3) an arrest is a serious matter and should not be done without probable cause; (4) allowing an unarrest abuses citizens' rights as defendants remain anxious as to when the other shoe will drop; and (5) Davis was not put in the same position as a person under investigation, but not charged with a crime, because the arrest was reported in the paper. Id. at 840.