Court Opinion

ID: 9571916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:36:14.606175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:10.254273
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I disagree with the majority’s determination there was evidence to support a finding the officer had a reasonable suspicion to conclude the defendant was engaged in criminal activity. The majority has determined the fact that the defendant, while being followed by a marked police car, went into a dimly lit park and switched drivers created circumstances that gave the officer a reasonable and articulable suspicion that criminal activity may have been going on. The majority further supports their position by the fact the switch occurred off the road in a park rather than on the shoulder of the road.
The essential purpose of the fourth amendment search and seizure proscription is to impose a standard of reasonableness upon the exercise of discretion by govern*335ment officials, including law enforcement officials, in order to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against invasion. State v. Hilleshiem, 291 N.W.2d 314, 316 (Iowa 1980); State v. Losee, 353 N.W.2d 876, 878 (Iowa App.1984).
For a stop to be valid, an officer must be acting on facts directly relating to a suspect’s guilt or the suspect’s conduct, and not just a “hunch” or circumstances that describe a very broad category of predominately innocent persons. See United States v. Jones, 759 F.2d 633, 643 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 837, 106 S.Ct. 113, 88 L.Ed.2d 92 (1985); State v. Rosenstiel, 473 N.W.2d 59 (Iowa 1991). There must be specific, objective facts indicating society’s legitimate interests require the seizure of the particular individual. Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 2640, 61 L.Ed.2d 357, 362 (1979).
Changing drivers is an action that describes a very broad category of predominately innocent persons. The act of a driver and a passenger changing places is an action consistent with innocent behavior. It is frequently an action consistent with responsible behavior. Furthermore, the act of going to a park and off the road to change drivers is even more responsible than changing drivers on the shoulder of a roadway.
The number of innocent and/or responsible reasons for changing drivers is limitless. Reasons could be the driver is tired, the driver is sick, a passenger wants to drive the car, the driver has a cramp in his or her leg, the driver wants to sit in back with his or her friend, a spouse criticizes the other’s driving, and he or she says “you drive,” the car isn’t driving right and the passenger drives to see what is wrong, the driver got a bug in his or her eye, or the driver needs to take medication that may affect his or her driving ability. The act of changing drivers is susceptible to a series of legitimate explanations. The existence of a legitimate explanation is an important consideration in assessing the reason for officers’ actions. See State v. Cooley, 229 N.W.2d 755, 760 (Iowa 1975). Furthermore and very importantly, changing drivers is frequently done for safety reasons. The reasonableness of a seizure depends on a balance between the public interest and an individual’s right to personal security, free from arbitrary interference by law officers. Brown, 443 U.S. at 50, 99 S.Ct. at 2637, 61 L.Ed.2d at 361. The majority’s decision does not strike this balance. I advance the public interest is better served not by labeling an act of changing drivers as a suspicious act to be discouraged, but by labeling it, as it very frequently is, an act of safe and responsible behavior to be encouraged.
I agree with the majority if the reason for the stop was the license plate light violation, the officer had a reason to stop the car, even though the stop would have been a violation by the driver, and further intrusion on the passenger would not have been justified unless some articulable suspicion existed concerning a violation of the law by the passenger.
Unfortunately, the record also causes me to question the officer’s truthfulness on the license plate light issue. According to the officer’s own testimony, he mainly stopped the car to ascertain the vehicle and its occupants. While the officer also testified he stopped the vehicle because of the license plate violation, the first time the defendant and the others in the car learned of this reason was when the officer filed a report after the incident. At this point, it was too late for the defendant to check the car to verify the deputy’s position. No ticket was given for the violation, nor was a “fix-it” ticket given, even though the officer was well aware the vehicle was operable and would continue to be driven. The undisputed evidence is the light violation was not communicated to the driver or the passengers at any time during the stop. Furthermore, the deputy, by his own testimony, observed the license plate in Hills. Although he testified the lights of Hills allowed him to see the plate, he followed the vehicle out of town to a poorly lit area and did not stop the vehicle immediately for a license plate light violation. None of these facts support the officer’s reason for the stop, and most of these facts contradict the officer’s reason. Consequently, I do not agree with the majority’s finding a *336license plate light violation was the reason for the stop.
I also take issue with the majority’s holding that the facts of this case suggest the defendant may have been seeking to avoid arrest for operating while intoxicated. There is no support in this record for such a holding. There is no suggestion the defendant was intoxicated. There is no evidence of erratic driving. The stopping officer did not testify he observed any signs indicating the defendant might be intoxicated. Had there been evidence of erratic driving or other evidence of intoxication, I would not be dissenting.
I would dismiss the case.
I concur with the majority on the attorney fee issue.