Opinion ID: 1894401
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural and Substantive Rights Under the Due Process Clause and the Iowa Code.

Text: Owens also argues that the alleged threat violated his procedural and substantive rights under the Iowa Code and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution. We disagree. A. Procedural rights. Owens contends his statutory and due process procedural rights were violated when, after he refused the blood test, the officers threatened to get a search warrant instead of offering him an alternate test as apparently required by Iowa Code section 321B.4(2). [2] We find no merit in this argument. Putting aside, for a moment, what the statute requires, we think it is well settled that the due process clause does not require the police to offer an alternate test. Since a blood test can be forced upon an unconsenting driver without violating due process, South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 559 & n. 9, 103 S.Ct. 916, 920, 74 L.Ed.2d 748, 756 (1983); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 758-60, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1830, 16 L.Ed.2d 908, 912-13 (1966), we cannot see how the due process clause could require the offer of an alternate test if a blood test is refused. Cf. State v. Knous, 313 N.W.2d 510, 512 (Iowa 1981) (driver's right to refuse test is not part of the procedural due process rights). We likewise see no statutory violation here. Section 321B.4(2) allows the officer to determine which of the four substances, breath, blood, saliva, or urine, shall be tested. If the driver refuses the blood test, the statute goes on to say that the officer shall then determine which one of the other three substances shall be tested and shall offer the test. In this case, a breath testing instrument was not readily available, leaving the officer a choice between a saliva and urine test. Owens was given his choice. He picked the urine test. This was more than what the statute required. We hold that neither statutory nor due process procedural rights were violated here. B. Substantive rights. Additionally, Owens claims his substantive rights under the due process clause and the Iowa Code were denied by the officers' alleged threat to obtain a search warrant and forcibly execute it, if necessary, to obtain a blood specimen. He argues such a threat violates the sense of justice that the due process clause was intended to guarantee and is contrary to the statutory sanctions for resisting withdrawal of a specimen pursuant to a warrant. 1. The due process challenge. The United States Supreme Court has said that convictions cannot be brought about by methods that offend `a sense of justice' or shock[] the conscience. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172-73, 72 S.Ct. 205, 209-10, 96 L.Ed. 183, 190 (1952). In applying this principle, the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause allows a state to force a person suspected of driving while intoxicated to submit to a blood-alcohol test, as long as the force is not inappropriate or accompanied by police violence, and reasonable requests for alternate tests are respected. Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 760 & n. 4, 86 S.Ct. at 1830, 16 L.Ed.2d at 913; accord Neville, 459 U.S. at 559 & n. 9, 103 S.Ct. at 920, 74 L.Ed.2d at 756. We do not think the alleged threat to secure a search warrant and to restrain Owens while a blood specimen was being taken is the sort of brutal conduct that was held in Rochin to have offended due process principles. Compare Rochin, 342 U.S. at 173-74, 72 S.Ct. at 209-10, 96 L.Ed. at 190-91 (forcing emetic solution into defendant's stomach to extract narcotic capsules). Moreover, looking at the totality of the circumstances, we find that Owens' consent to the urine test was voluntary. See Downing v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 415 N.W.2d 625, 627 (Iowa 1987). Our conclusion is supported by the record in several respects. First, the police did not initiate physical violence, did not respond to resistance with inappropriate force, and did not refuse a reasonable request to undergo a different form of testing. In fact, as we said earlier, the police accepted Owens' own offer to take a urine test, which is consistent with the precautionary notes on police behavior in Schmerber and Neville. Second, we view the decision to submit to chemical testing as a reasonable and informed decision to cooperate with the officers' investigation rather than a decision coerced by threat. A review of the record reveals the following scenario. After conferring with Owens, the attorney told the police that his client would not submit to testing. According to the attorney, the police responded that they would seek a warrant and forcibly execute it if necessary. Realizing that some form of testing was inevitable, the attorney sought to bargain for the test indicating a lower alcohol content. [3] Considering the totality of these circumstances, we think Owens' decision to submit was voluntary and not coerced. See Knous, 313 N.W.2d at 512. Third, contrary to Owens' contention, we do not think the alleged threat vitiated his consent to testing. The officers were simply informing Owens through his attorney what they were already entitled to do as a matter of law: to secure a warrant and use force, if necessary, to carry it out. See United States v. Culp, 472 F.2d 459, 461 n. 1 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 970, 93 S.Ct. 2161, 36 L.Ed.2d 692 (1973) (law enforcement officers' statement that they will attempt to obtain or are getting a warrant does not serve to invalidate an otherwise consensual search); see also United States v. Faruolo, 506 F.2d 490, 493-94 (2d Cir. 1974). Owens' attorney conceded he was aware of the officers' legal powers in this respect. [4] 2. The statutory challenge. In contrast to the permissible use of force under federal due process principles, an earlier version of our implied consent law did not permit the use of any force. A driver's refusal to submit to chemical testing ended the matter. State v. Hitchens, 294 N.W.2d 686, 687-89 (Iowa 1980) (results of blood test taken pursuant to search warrant in an involuntary manslaughter investigation held inadmissible). In an apparent response to Hitchens, the legislature passed Iowa Code section 321B.14. Notwithstanding a driver's earlier refusal, the driver may be compelled under this statute to submit to withdrawal of a specimen for chemical testing pursuant to a search warrant issued as part of an involuntary manslaughter investigation. Iowa Code §§ 321B.14(1) and (5). [5] Owens seems to argue the legislature intended to preserve the driver's right to refuse under section 321B.14(1) and intended the penalties in section 321B.14(5) as trade-offs for the refusal. Thus, according to Owens, if the driver does refuse, the police are left with only one recourse: they must resort to the penalties and may not use any force. Contrary to Owens' interpretation of section 321B.14, we think, for several reasons, that the legislature intended to permit the use of force under our implied consent law in a case such as this one. First, section 321B.14(5) deems [t]he act of any person knowingly resisting or obstructing the withdrawal of a specimen pursuant to a search warrant issued under the statute a contempt punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both. In addition, the driver incurs two other penalties: his driver's license is revoked and proof of his refusal is admissible as evidence. Iowa Code § 321B.14(5). By using the words knowingly resisting or obstructing, the legislature contemplated that the police would use some force to obtain the specimen because there could be no resistance or obstruction unless force were being used. The permissible use of force to execute a search warrant is by no means a novel concept in the law. See, e.g., State v. Iverson, 272 N.W.2d 1, 4 n. 1 (Iowa 1978); Iowa Code § 808.6. Second, if the legislature intended the result suggested by Owens, we think it could easily have said so, as it did in section 321B.13. Section 321B.13 leaves no doubt that the police must respect a driver's refusal when no fatality is involved and can only resort to revocation: If a person refuses to submit to chemical testing, a test shall not be given, but the department... shall revoke the person's license... to drive.... Iowa Code § 321B.13. When, however, a fatality is involved in a potential OWI situation, we think the legislature believed it should authorize force and impose stringent penalties in addition because it considered the chemical test crucial evidence in such a case. Finally, section 321B.14 seeks to accomplish an important objective: to secure and preserve crucial evidence in a fatal accident having serious criminal implications. The evidence could establish not only guilt but also innocence. A permitted refusal under this section would obviously defeat this important and laudable objective. By interpreting section 321B.14 to permit the police to use force in executing the warrant, we allow the statute to operate in a practical and sensible manner. See Iowa Code §§ 4.2; 4.4(3), (4); 4.6(1), (5). Because we think the officers' authority to use force under section 321B.14 equates with their authority under the due process clause, we hold that no violation of substantive statutory rights occurred here either.