Opinion ID: 2067463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonable Grounds.

Text: Pointer argues Wilson did not have reasonable grounds to invoke the implied consent law. Iowa's implied consent law requires that withdrawal of body substances and a chemical test must be administered at the written request of a peace officer having reasonable grounds to believe that person was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Munson, 513 N.W.2d at 723 (citing Iowa Code § 321J.6). The reasonable grounds test is met `when the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time action was required would have warranted a prudent person's belief that an offense has been committed.' Id. (quoting State v. Braun, 495 N.W.2d 735, 738-39 (Iowa 1993)). Pointer does not dispute that there were reasonable grounds for Wilson to believe he was intoxicated. He relies on Munson in support of his contention that Wilson did not have reasonable grounds to believe he was or had been operating a vehicle. In Munson a police officer observed a pickup parked in a private parking area next to an adjacent building. Munson, 513 N.W.2d at 723-24. Munson was asleep behind the steering wheel, the keys were in the ignition and the radio was on. Id. The officer woke Munson who said he was sleeping and waiting to go to work. Id. The officer smelled alcohol and asked Munson to perform field sobriety tests which, along with a breath test, Munson failed. Id. Under these facts, we held the arresting officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe Munson was operating a vehicle at the time he was observed in the parking lot because the vehicle was not in motion nor was its engine running. We further found there was not substantial evidence to support the agency's finding that Munson stated he had driven the vehicle to where it was parked and that he had not drunk anything after parking the vehicle. Id. at 725. Therefore, we held there were no reasonable grounds for the officer to believe Munson had been operating his vehicle while intoxicated. Id. We agree that Pointer was not operating a vehicle when Wilson came on the scene. However, as in Munson, our next consideration is whether there were reasonable grounds for Wilson to believe Pointer had been operating the vehicle. See id. We believe the following facts provide substantial evidence to support the agency's finding that there were reasonable grounds for Wilson to believe Pointer had been operating a vehicle while intoxicated: (1) Pointer's car was in a ditch one mile from the nearest town; (2) Wilson did not see anyone but Pointer in the area of the car; (3) Pointer stated to Wilson that he had really screwed up; (4) Pointer appeared intoxicated and stated he had been drinking at a Des Moines bar; (5) Pointer was in the front seat on the driver's side of the car when Wilson found him; and (6) the car keys were found in the car where Pointer stated they were located. While it is true that no one saw Pointer operating the vehicle, both direct and circumstantial evidence may be considered in determining whether reasonable grounds exist. Id. We affirm the district court's ruling upholding the DOT's revocation of Pointer's license. AFFIRMED.