IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0552
Filed March 9, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BRADLEY ALLSPACH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Jeffrey L.
Harris, District Associate Judge.
Bradley Allspach appeals his conviction for operating a motor vehicle
while intoxicated, first offense. AFFIRMED.
Jesse M. Marzen of Marzen Law Office, P.L.L.C., Waverly, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
Bradley Allspach appeals his conviction for operating a motor vehicle
while intoxicated, first offense. He contends the officer who stopped his vehicle
lacked reasonable suspicion to believe he was engaged in criminal activity, and
accordingly, the district court should have suppressed evidence obtained in
connection with the stop.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
At approximately 1:00 a.m. one morning, a Black Hawk County deputy
sheriff observed a vehicle driven by Allspach “weaving in and out of its lane” and
“crossing back and forth over the dash line on the left and the fog line on the
right.” The deputy stopped the vehicle and observed signs of intoxication in
Allspach. After conducting field sobriety tests, he arrested Allspach for operating
a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The deputy also issued Allspach a citation for
improper use of lanes, in violation of Iowa Code section 321.306 (2013)—a
citation that was later dismissed.
Following his arrest, Allspach agreed to provide a breath sample for
testing. The result revealed an alcohol concentration of .140, well over the legal
limit of .08.
The State charged Allspach with operating a motor vehicle while
intoxicated, first offense. See Iowa Code § 321J.2. Allspach moved to suppress
evidence gained in connection with the stop, citing the United States and Iowa
Constitutions. The district court denied the motion. Allspach waived his right to a
jury trial, and the district court found him guilty on the minutes of testimony. This
appeal followed.
3
II. Constitutionality of Stop
The United States and Iowa Constitutions protect citizens against
unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend IV; Iowa Const. art. I,
§ 8. “A traffic stop is unquestionably a seizure.” State v. Tyler, 830 N.W.2d 288,
292 (Iowa 2013). This type of seizure is permissible under our constitutions
when supported by reasonable suspicion of a crime. State v. McIver, 858
N.W.2d 699, 702 (Iowa 2015).1
Allspach argues there was “nothing remarkable about his driving that
provided reasonable suspicion for the arresting officer to stop him.” On our
review of the totality of the circumstances, we disagree.
Allspach’s weaving was not a single “isolated incident,” but a series of
incidents within a short time frame. State v. Tague, 676 N.W.2d 197, 205 (Iowa
2004). The deputy testified he saw Allspach’s truck touch the fog line or the dash
line at least five times in less than one and a half minutes. Cf. id. (noting Tague’s
“left tires barely crossed the edge line once for a very brief period”); State v.
Nguyen, No. 13-0045, 2013 WL 5498072, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 2, 2013)
(noting the absence of “aggravated, continual, or pronounced weaving” within the
lane); State v. Troge, No. 08-2029, 2009 WL 3064648, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept.
17, 2009) (noting vehicle “moved slowly near the center median once and moved
slowly near the center line once”). In his experience, “with someone driving like
that, it’s a good possibility they are intoxicated.” The district court gave credence
1
In the absence of argument to the contrary, we will apply the United States and Iowa
constitutional provisions in the same manner. McIver, 858 N.W.2d at 702.
4
to the deputy’s testimony. We defer to this credibility finding. See State v. Pals,
805 N.W.2d 767, 771 (Iowa 2011).
The deputy’s observations were corroborated by a video recording of the
encounter taken from the deputy’s vehicle. The video captured multiple contacts
between the vehicle and the painted lines on either side of the lane. See State v.
Fischels-Wordehoff, No. 05-0762, 2006 WL 782447, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar.
29, 2006) (noting videotape showed the “defendant’s vehicle drifting from side to
side in the lane”). The video also documented the absence of severe weather
conditions, roadway obstacles, or other vehicles that might have explained the
weaving.
We conclude the deputy “had specific and articulable facts, which taken
together with rational inferences from those facts” would have reasonably led him
to “believe criminal activity may have occurred.” Tague, 676 N.W.2d at 204;
State v. Otto, 566 N.W.2d 509, 511 (Iowa 1997).
We affirm Allspach’s judgment and sentence for operating a motor vehicle
while intoxicated, first offense.
AFFIRMED.