Opinion ID: 1648183
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of Request

Text: The primary thrust of the State's argument before the court of appeals did not concern the timing of Moorehead's request, but rather its sufficiency. The State argued the district court's ruling should be affirmed because there was substantial evidence in the record to conclude Moorehead's request to talk to his mother was not an unequivocal request to ask his mother for advice about his predicament, but instead an inquiry about what to do with the car. Lacking a clear request to seek advice, the State submitted Moorehead needed to ask for his mother again at the police station if he wanted to invoke the statute. The court of appeals rejected the State's argument. We agree with the court of appeals. In analyzing the sufficiency of Moorehead's request, we apply an objective consideration of the statements and conduct of the arrestee and peace officer, as well as the surrounding circumstances. See Bromeland v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 562 N.W.2d 624, 626 (Iowa 1997); accord State v. Bowers, 661 N.W.2d 536, 542 (Iowa 2003) (section 804.20 claim must be decided in the context of the situation defendant was in at the time of the request). Although Moorehead's request to talk to his mother arose in the context of a discussion about the disposition of his mother's car, Moorehead specifically, separately, and unequivocally requested to talk to his mother. Moorehead's request was sufficient to invoke the statute. As a consequence, the police were obligated to honor Moorehead's request without unnecessary delay after arrival at the place of detention, in this case the police station. Iowa Code § 804.20. Because the police did not do so, [1] they violated Moorehead's statutory right to contact a family member.