Opinion ID: 1954382
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Steven E. Mitchell was operating a motor vehicle on August 3, 1991, at approximately 11 p.m. An Iowa state patrol trooper observed the vehicle near Highways 58 and 20 and noted that one of the rear taillights was out. The trooper stopped the vehicle to issue a repair or fix-it ticket. There is no evidence the articulated safety concern was a pretext for a warrantless search. The trooper requested Mitchell's driver's license and registration and asked him if he was aware his taillight was out. At this point the trooper noticed Mitchell smelled of alcohol. He asked Mitchell to accompany him back to the patrol car. Once inside the patrol car, a strong odor of alcohol was evident. When asked if he had been drinking, Mitchell stated he had consumed three drinks. After failing several field sobriety tests, Mitchell was arrested for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI). See Iowa Code § 321J.2(2)(a) (1991). Mitchell's blood alcohol concentration registered as 0.139. Mitchell filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained by the trooper as a result of the stop. He claimed the stop was unauthorized because the trooper lacked reasonable cause. At the suppression hearing the trooper testified the sole reason for the stop was the burned-out taillight. He acknowledged that no criminal violation was involved, but rather a safety issue. See Iowa Code § 321.387. [1] Judge James C. Bauch denied Mitchell's motion. The court concluded the trooper was authorized to stop Mitchell for an equipment safety violation, and the trooper's subsequent observations provided grounds for arrest. Mitchell waived his right to jury trial and agreed to have this case decided by the district court upon the minutes of testimony and stipulated exhibits. The case was tried to Judge Walter W. Rothschild. He found Mitchell guilty as charged and filed written findings and conclusions. The defendant waived time for sentencing and the court entered a judgment of conviction. The issue as to whether the court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence was preserved.