Court Opinion

ID: 9663783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:50:36.884525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:56.418276
License: Public Domain

Rawlings, J.
I respectfully dissent. There is no need to *509repeat all of Code section 321B.4. The pertinent portion of that statute provides: uOnly new, originally factory wrapped, disposable syringes and needles, kept under strictly sanitary and sterile conditions shall be used for drawing blood.”
In my humble opinion this statutory mandate has a self-evident purpose with a meaning clearly expressed.
If the General Assembly had intended to make reusable glass syringes and needles legally acceptable for the taking of blood to test alcoholic content, it could easily have so declared. That it did not do. See in this regard rule 344(f) (13), R.C.P. Also Sueppel v. City Council of Iowa City, 257 Iowa 1350, 1354, 136 N.W.2d 523, and citations.
It would appear the maxim, “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” has some degree of relevancy in this case. See State v. Flack, 251 Iowa 529, 533, 534, 101 N.W.2d 535, and citations.
In addition it is impossible for me to agree the evidence here challenged falls within the category of “other competent evidence”, to which reference is made in Code section 321B.12.
Furthermore the fact defendant may have consented to or even requested a blood test should not be deemed a waiver of the specific statutory protection afforded by section 321B.4 of the Code. See Grandon v. Ellingson, 259 Iowa 514, 144 N.W.2d 898, 903, and citations, and State v. Karston, 247 Iowa 32, 38, 72 N.W.2d 463.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.
Becker, J., joins in this dissent.