Opinion ID: 2061983
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Speedy Indictment Violation

Text: The State contends that Rains failed to preserve error on this issue because he did not file a motion to dismiss within forty days of his arraignment. Rains was arraigned on October 29, 1996. The motion to dismiss on speedy indictment grounds was not filed until January 9, 1997, past the forty day time limit. Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure 10(2)(b) and 10(4) require that motions to dismiss based on defects in the indictment must be filed within forty days of arraignment. Rule 10(3) provides that failure by the defendant to timely raise such a motion shall constitute waiver of the issue. However, the court can grant relief from such a waiver for good cause shown. Rains argues that he obtained an extension of time to file pretrial motions which constitutes good cause under rule 10(3). He also contends that the State failed to object to his motion to dismiss on timeliness grounds and that it has therefore waived this issue. Rains' counsel filed a motion for an extension of time to file pretrial motions on November 20, 1996, citing the large number of persons the State listed as possible witnesses and arguing that the bases for possible pretrial motions could not be known until discovery was completed. The court granted Rains' motion on November 22, 1996, ordering a deadline of January 24, 1997, for the filing of all pretrial motions. Our scope of review of the district court's decision on this issue is for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Christensen, 323 N.W.2d 219, 222 (Iowa 1982) (employing abuse of discretion standard in determining whether good cause existed for untimely notice of alibi defense); State v. See, 532 N.W.2d 166, 168 (Iowa App.1995) (utilizing abuse of discretion standard in reviewing whether good cause existed for defendant's untimely motion to suppress). We will not find an abuse of discretion unless it is shown that such discretion was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Christensen, 323 N.W.2d at 222. The district court obviously concluded that defendant and his counsel had shown good cause to warrant an extension of the forty day time limit found in rule 10. We find no abuse of discretion in this decision. Thus, we consider on the merits the defendant's contention that the district court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss for an alleged violation of the speedy indictment rule.

When interpreting Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 27(2)(a), the speedy indictment rule, we review for correction of errors at law. Iowa R.App. P. 4; State v. Dennison, 571 N.W.2d 492, 494 (Iowa 1997); State v. Davis, 525 N.W.2d 837, 838 (Iowa 1994). Rule 27(2) states as follows: 2. Speedy Trial. It is the public policy of the state of Iowa that criminal prosecutions be concluded at the earliest possible time consistent with a fair trial to both parties. Applications for dismissals under this subsection may be made by the prosecuting attorney or the defendant or by the court on its own motion. a. When an adult is arrested for the commission of a public offense . . . and an indictment is not found against him within forty-five days, the court must order the prosecution to be dismissed, unless good cause to the contrary is shown or the defendant waives his right thereto. The term indictment as used in rule 27(2)(a) includes a trial information. Iowa R.Crim. P. 5(5); State v. Schuessler, 561 N.W.2d 40, 41 (Iowa 1997); Davis, 525 N.W.2d at 839. In this case, eighty-five days passed between the incident on July 14 and the filing of the trial information on October 7, 1996. Rains argues that his arrest occurred on July 14, the date of the incident, and that therefore the rule has been violated. The State does not contend that good cause has been shown in this instance. Furthermore, we concluded above that defendant did not waive his right to a speedy indictment by not filing his motion to dismiss on that ground until January 9, 1997. Rather, the State contends that Rains was not arrested for purposes of the speedy indictment rule until October 7, the day the State formally charged him by filing the trial information. We must determine whether Rains was arrested for purposes of the speedy indictment rule based on the conduct of Officer Clark the night of the incident and the presence of the police officer outside Rains' hospital room for several days. The definition of arrest for purposes of rule 27(2)(a) is governed by the general law of arrest provided in Iowa Code chapter 804, specifically sections 804.5 and 804.14. State v. Johnson-Hugi, 484 N.W.2d 599, 600 (Iowa 1992). Because rule 27(2)(a) and sections 804.5 and 804.14 were enacted together, we must construe them together. See State v. Schmitt, 290 N.W.2d 24, 26 (Iowa 1980). Iowa Code section 804.5 defines arrest as the taking of a person into custody when and in the manner authorized by law, including restraint of the person or the person's submission to custody. Iowa Code section 804.14 defines the manner of making an arrest: The person making the arrest must inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest the person, the reason for arrest, and that the person making the arrest is a peace officer, if such be the case, and require the person being arrested to submit to the person's custody.... Prior cases are also helpful in construing the term arrest. It has been held that mere submission to authority does not constitute an arrest. See State v. Delockroy, 559 N.W.2d 43, 45 (Iowa App.1996); State v. Ransom, 309 N.W.2d 156, 159 (Iowa App. 1981). Furthermore, an arrest does not necessarily occur simply because a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe he or she was not free to leave. Johnson-Hugi, 484 N.W.2d at 601 (citing California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 627-28, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 1551, 113 L.Ed.2d 690, 698 (1991)). An arrest requires an assertion of authority and purpose to arrest followed by submission of the arrestee. Id. (quoting Hodari D., 499 U.S. at 626, 111 S.Ct. at 1551, 113 L.Ed.2d at 698 (quoting Rollin M. Perkins, The Law of Arrest, 25 Iowa L.Rev. 201, 206 (1940))) (emphasis added). Although the use of formal words of arrest is not required to effectuate an arrest, see State v. Harvey, 242 N.W.2d 330, 339 (Iowa 1976), it is a factor to consider. See Iowa Code § 804.14; Johnson-Hugi, 484 N.W.2d at 600. The lack of booking or charges being filed does not necessarily mandate a finding of no arrest. Schmitt, 290 N.W.2d at 26. We note our recent statement regarding the effect of our prior pronouncements on the factors constituting an arrest: What can be gleaned from these cases is that the question of whether a defendant was arrested is determined on a case-by-case basis. There is no bright-line rule or test. These basic principles assist us, but are not determinative. Dennison, 571 N.W.2d at 495.
There is no evidence of explicit statements regarding arrest made by either Officer Clark the night of the incident or the officers who occupied the hallway outside Rains' hospital room for several days. Therefore, we must consider the other surrounding circumstances to determine whether Rains was arrested on July 14 or during the time officers were present outside his hospital room. Delockroy, 559 N.W.2d at 46. In making this consideration, we look to determine whether the facts reveal an assertion of authority and purpose to arrest, along with submission of the arrestee. Johnson-Hugi, 484 N.W.2d at 601. We conclude that Rains was not arrested during his encounter with Officers Clark and Allspach on July 14, 1996. The officers followed Rains into the parking lot for investigative purposes only, to ascertain whether he had been drinking and to determine his reason for being in the deserted parking lot so late at night. As we have cautioned before, [a]n arrest of a citizen is a serious matter. It should not be done unless the peace officer or the state has probable cause to do so. Davis, 525 N.W.2d at 840. At the time Officer Clark first placed his hands on Rains, in order to reiterate his command to leave the car in the same position, he was still gathering facts before deciding whether to make an arrest. All that had taken place prior to that point was an inquiry as to whether Rains had been drinking and a request for identification. More information was needed for Clark to make the decision to place Rains under arrest. When the encounter quickly escalated, Clark feared for his safety. His actions at that point were taken in self-defense. Simply dropping to the pavement was not an option because he might have been run over by the rear wheels. Clark tried increasingly forceful measures to encourage Rains to stop the vehicle. He verbally commanded Rains to stop many times, attempted to choke him, and ultimately, when no other options remained available to him, used his firearm to force Rains to stop the vehicle. The arguable purpose of Officer Clark's actions that night was not to arrest the defendant, but to save himself from death or serious injury. Although Rains ultimately did submit to Clark's authority, without evidence of a purpose to arrest, we cannot find that an arrest occurred that night. Johnson-Hugi, 484 N.W.2d at 601. Moreover, any indicia of arrest that were present that evening, such as the use of force to subdue Rains, were the result of Rains' own actions. We will not allow the defendant to manipulate a factual scenario which he was responsible for creating to effect a dismissal under the speedy indictment rule. The facts in the present case are distinguishable from the case relied on by the defendant, State v. Delockroy . In Delockroy, officers removed the defendant from her house late at night in handcuffs, transported her to the sheriff's office, Mirandized her, and placed her in a room alone for a long period of time. Furthermore, the defendant knew officers had found drugs in her home and that she was facing drug charges. Delockroy, 559 N.W.2d at 46. Our court of appeals found these factors established sufficient indicia of arrest, specifically noting that it believed the officers acted with a purpose to arrest. Id. However, we are unable to reach a similar conclusion in the case at bar. Similarly, we also conclude Rains was not arrested by the presence of an armed officer outside his hospital room. Although there is no testimony as to the purpose of placing an officer outside Rains' room, we do note from the record that the officer did not prohibit family members from coming or going, showed no signs of force, and made no verbal indication that Rains was under arrest. Furthermore, the armed officer was removed upon the request of Rains' family, indicating there was no purpose to arrest. We have never before dealt with the issue of whether the presence of an armed officer outside a defendant's hospital room constitutes arrest, but other jurisdictions have considered similar issues. In State v. Hoskins, 292 Minn. 111, 193 N.W.2d 802, 814 (1972), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the presence of a deputy sheriff outside the defendant's hospital room did not compel a finding that the defendant was in custody with regard to the necessity of a Miranda warning. In People v. MacCallum, 925 P.2d 758, 765 (Colo.1996) (en banc), the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the posting of police officers outside the defendant's hospital room for several days prior to his release did not constitute an arrest. Given only the officer's presence outside the defendant's hospital room, we conclude that there was no purpose to arrest the defendant by this action. Therefore, we conclude the defendant was not under arrest during the three days the officer was present. Because we conclude that the defendant was not under arrest either at the time of the incident on July 14 or in the ensuing days at the hospital, we conclude that the indictment of defendant was timely under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 27(2)(a). The trial information was filed the same day the defendant was arrested, obviously within the forty-five day time period allowed under rule 27(2)(a).