Court Opinion

ID: 9687654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:41:09.879973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:29.695074
License: Public Domain

CARTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
It is tempting to approve a procedure for rescinding the consequences of chemical test refusal where an officer’s reasonable belief that a person has been driving while under the influence of an intoxicant later proves to have been mistaken. However, the statutory scheme does not authorize such relief.
The issue in the present case is similar to the one presented in Benning v. Iowa Department of Transportation, 441 N.W.2d 372 (Iowa 1989). In that ease, the person whose license had been revoked under section 321J.9 for refusing to submit to a chemical test had obtained a privately administered blood test within the permissible time for chemical testing. That test revealed a blood alcohol concentration of only .043. Notwithstanding this fact, the district court and the court of appeals concluded that, if the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the subject had been operating while intoxicated at the time of requesting the chemical test, a license revocation for refusing the test could not later be rescinded based on proof that the officer had been mistaken.
The court of appeals in Benning reversed the agency on another ground. On that issue, we disagreed with the court of appeals and ultimately affirmed the district court’s ruling refusing to allow the revocation to be rescinded. In so doing, we necessarily approved the legal conclusion of the district court and the court of appeals on the controlling question of statutory interpretation.
The claim made in the present case is that a license cannot be revoked under section 321J.9 if the licensee was not in fact driving the automobile. This is no more persuasive than the argument in Ben-ning that a revocation should not be allowed to stand if the licensee was not in fact intoxicated or under the influence while operating a motor vehicle. This court observed in Saunders v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 226 N.W.2d 19 (Iowa 1975), that:
The question of whether plaintiff was in fact operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, the major issue in a criminal prosecution for O.M.V.U.I. ... is not an issue in this civil proceeding.... The issue presented here is whether [the officer] had “reasonable grounds” to believe plaintiff was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.
Id. at 22.
In the present case, the majority concedes that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Furry had been operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated at the time the chemical test was requested. That is all that the statute requires in order to sustain a license revocation under section 321J.9. The majority seeks to avoid the plain language of this statute by borrowing language from section 321J.6. The opinion suggests that none of the implied consent law provisions can be applied unless the person affected was in fact operating a motor vehicle in that particular instance. This conclusion is flawed.
*874A more realistic interpretation of section 321J.6 is that it puts licensees on notice that, by obtaining an operator’s license in this state, they impliedly consent to chemical testing when they give an officer reasonable grounds to believe that they were driving while intoxicated. This interpretation harmonizes section 321J.6 with section 321J.9 and is consistent with the manner in which courts from other jurisdictions have interpreted similar language. See State v. Neitzel, 95 Wis.2d 191, 194, 289 N.W.2d 828, 830 (1980) (A driver who applies for and receives an operator’s license submits to the legislatively imposed conditions of consenting to chemical testing in accordance with statutory requirements.); Langfield v. Department of Pub. Safety, 449 N.W.2d 738 (Minn.App.1990) (it is the privilege of operating a motor vehicle which triggers regulations under implied consent theory).
For the reasons stated, I would reverse the district court’s decision and uphold the decision of the agency.
LARSON and SCHULTZ, JJ., join this dissent.