IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1516
Filed August 17, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
STEVEN CHARLES CAMPBELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carol S. Egly, District
Associate Judge.
Steven Campbell appeals the denial of his motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
Aaron D. Hamrock of McCarthy & Hamrock, P.C., West Des Moines, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
Steven Campbell appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence
gathered while he was first detained and subsequently arrested for operating
while intoxicated, second offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2
(2013). Campbell claims the law enforcement officer’s seizure of him and his
vehicle was not justifiable under the community caretaking exception to the
warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
and article 1, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. We disagree and affirm his
conviction.
In the early morning hours of April 24, 2014, police officer Nicholas
Gilchrist stopped at a gas station to purchase food during a meal break. Gilchrist
noticed a vehicle parked parallel to the gas station building, several feet from the
curb, and perpendicular to the painted parking lines. The front of the vehicle was
facing the entrance to the gas station lot. The vehicle’s engine was running and
its brake lights were illuminated. After exiting the building, Officer Gilchrist
noticed an individual (Campbell) sitting in the driver’s seat who “appeared to be
passed out or sleeping. He was still breathing . . . but he was definitely not
awake or conscious.” Officer Gilchrist moved his squad car behind the parked
vehicle “so that [his] in-car video would catch the encounter.” The officer
approached the vehicle and shined his flashlight on Campbell to wake him up.
After receiving no response, the officer used the “strobe” function on his flashlight
and knocked on the driver’s side window. Again, Campbell did not respond and
“[a]t that point in time [the officer] opened the driver’s side door.” The opening of
the door roused Campbell, who then attempted to close the door. The officer
3
stopped Campbell from closing the door. The officer asked Campbell some
questions, but Campbell provided only unintelligible answers. Officer Gilchrist
noticed Campbell’s eyes were “bloodshot and watery,” and the officer detected
the smell of an alcoholic beverage coming from Campbell. The officer had
Campbell perform field sobriety testing, and Campbell failed the testing.
Campbell declined to take both the preliminary breath test and the Datamaster
breath alcohol test at the police station.
On June 4, the State charged Campbell with operating while intoxicated,
second offense, and Campbell moved to suppress the evidence gathered from
his detention and arrest. The district court denied the motion to suppress.
Campbell was subsequently convicted and sentenced. Campbell now appeals.
We review de novo the district court’s denial of Campbell’s motion to
suppress. See State v. Ochoa, 792 N.W.2d 260, 264 (Iowa 2010).
The district court implicitly found (by referencing the State’s argument) the
law enforcement officer’s actions were a valid exercise of the community
caretaking exception to the warrant requirements of the Iowa and United States
Constitutions. See, e.g., State v. Kersh, 313 N.W.2d 566, 568–69 (Iowa 1981)
abrogated on other grounds by State v. Lake, 476 N.W.2d 55, 56 (Iowa 1991)
(finding the officer acted reasonably in opening a car door to check on the
driver’s condition after seeing a car parked oddly and finding the driver “slumped
behind the wheel” and unconscious); State v. Ivankovic, No. 15-0622, 2016 WL
3269627, at *3–5 (Iowa Ct. App. June 15, 2016) (finding an officer’s nighttime
investigation of a parked running car occupied by an unconscious individual in
the driver’s seat was a valid community caretaking encounter); State v. Gamon,
4
No. 01-1622, 2002 WL 987286, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 15, 2002) (finding an
officer’s investigation of a vehicle with its engine running while parked in the lot of
a business closed for the evening was a valid community caretaking encounter)
Upon our review of the record, we agree with the district court’s reasoning
and the denial of Campbell’s motion to suppress. We affirm Campbell’s
conviction without further opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (c),
(d), and (e).
AFFIRMED.