Opinion ID: 1841956
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Propriety of Implied Consent Procedures.

Text: Green has also renewed on appeal his claim that the deputy improperly invoked implied consent when he came to visit Green at the hospital and received Green's waiver to have his blood withdrawn. Of course, the district court never ruled on this issue, choosing instead to sustain the motion based solely on its phlebotomy analysis. We have previously deemed the absence of a decision by a district court on an alternative ground asserted but not ruled upon by the courthere, another possible ground for suppressionas precluding our review of that ground on appeal. See Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 135-36 (Iowa 1988); Iowa-Illinois Gas & Elec. Co. v. Iowa State Commerce Comm'n, 347 N.W.2d 423, 427 (Iowa 1984). We believe this approach is warranted in this case as well and remand this issue for further consideration by the district court.