State of Iowa v. Iowa District Court for Scott County ( 2017 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 15–2150
Filed January 20, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SCOTT COUNTY,
Defendant.
Certiorari to the Iowa District Court for Scott County,
Cheryl Traum, Judge.
The State seeks certiorari review of the denial of an order requiring
restitution of law enforcement response costs following the defendant’s
conviction for operating while intoxicated. WRIT ANNULLED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Trout, Assistant
Attorney General, Michael Walton, County Attorney, and Noah
Poppelreiter, Assistant County Attorney, for plaintiff.
Andrea D. Mason of Lane & Waterman LLP, Davenport, for
defendant.
2
PER CURIAM.
The State seeks review of the district court’s denial of “emergency
response” restitution pursuant to Iowa Code section 321J.2(13)(b) in an
operating while intoxicated (OWI) case. The same legal issue is presented
in State v. District Court, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2016), decided today. Our
holding in that case is dispositive on the facts presented in this case.
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court denying
restitution and annul the writ.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
According to the minutes of testimony, Officer Richard Niesen of
the Davenport Police Department was on routine patrol in the morning
hours of March 30, 2015. Officer Niesen saw a beige Buick Century with
a nonfunctioning license plate light make a left turn and cut across
several lanes of traffic without establishing itself in any of the lanes.
Officer Niesen pulled over the Buick due to these traffic violations.
Upon identifying the driver of the vehicle as Matthew Harter,
Officer Niesen immediately noticed Harter had bloodshot and watery
eyes, slurred speech, and the odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath.
Officer Niesen also observed an open can of alcohol in the vehicle and
noticed the smell of burnt marijuana coming from the vehicle. Officer
Niesen asked Harter to step out of the vehicle, at which time Niesen
noticed that Harter had difficulty standing. Because there was a
passenger in the vehicle, Officer Niesen requested backup. Two other
Davenport police officers, Officer Gregory Lalla and Corporal Jacob Pries,
arrived at the scene to assist Officer Niesen.
Harter was transported to the Scott County Jail, where he
performed several field sobriety tests. Harter then refused a preliminary
breath test and Officer Niesen read the implied consent advisory to him.
3
After Harter was given an opportunity to make two phone calls, he
refused to provide a breath or urine sample.
Harter later pled guilty to OWI, first offense, in violation of Iowa
Code section 321J.2(2)(a) (2015). Before Harter’s sentencing, the State
requested that Harter pay “victim restitution” to the City of Davenport.
The State also submitted a form entitled “emergency response
restitution” on behalf of the Davenport Police Department pursuant to
Iowa Code section 321J.2(13)(b). The form requested restitution for the
cost of Officers Niesen and Lalla’s time, as well as costs for the time the
officers’ squad cars were used in connection with the traffic stop, arrest,
and processing of Harter. Harter resisted the State’s request and
disputed that Officers Niesen and Lalla’s response was an “emergency
response” within the meaning of the statute. The court scheduled a
separate hearing on the State’s request for restitution.
At the restitution hearing, Officer Niesen testified that he pulled
over Harter’s vehicle at approximately 12:21 a.m. because of the
improper lane change and the burnt-out license plate light. Niesen
further testified that there had been no accident, reported injuries, or a
911 call made before he stopped Harter. Officer Niesen explained that he
placed Harter under arrest at approximately 1:17 a.m. and spent another
hour completing various paperwork related to the incident. Niesen
clarified that the restitution request covered two hours of his own time,
an hour of Officer Lalla’s time, and an hour of Corporal Pries’s time, all
at an hourly rate of $61.30. The request also covered the cost of the
officers’ squad cars during the same hours, at an hourly rate of $18.00.
All told, the State requested $317 related to the OWI traffic stop and
arrest.
4
In a written ruling, the district court denied the State’s claim for
restitution. The court characterized the present case as only involving
“services provided by a police department in investigating and effecting
the routine arrest and processing of a person” for OWI. The court
therefore concluded,
[T]he Iowa Legislature did not intend the routine arrest and
processing of a Defendant to be subject to an emergency
response restitution claim. If the legislature wanted to
include nonemergency routine traffic stop activity, it would
have said the cost of any response and not add the limiting
language of “emergency.” The legislature purposefully
defined “emergency response” broadly to capture the often
unique responses fire, medical, and law enforcement must
have to these incidents. Not every emergency involves an
accident, although that is typically the case. . . . The
broadness of the Iowa definition was merely a way to include
those unique, case specific responses that happen even
when there is no accident as a result of the violation. It is
over reaching to include the routine traffic stop,
investigation, and processing in the definition of “emergency
response.”
The State filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this court. See
Iowa R. App. P. 6.107(1). We granted the petition.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
“We review rulings on questions of statutory interpretation for
correction of errors at law.” State v. Olutunde, 878 N.W.2d 264, 266
(Iowa 2016) (quoting In re R.D., 876 N.W.2d 786, 791 (Iowa 2016)). We
also review restitution orders for correction of errors at law. State v.
Hagen, 840 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Iowa 2013). “In reviewing a restitution
order ‘we determine whether the court’s findings lack substantial
evidentiary support, or whether the court has not properly applied the
law.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Bonstetter, 637 N.W.2d 161, 165 (Iowa 2001)).
5
III. Disposition.
For the reasons set forth in today’s State v. District Court decision,
Iowa Code section 321J.2(13)(b) does not authorize recovery of the costs
of the routine law enforcement activities involved in this case. See ___
N.W.2d ___. Officer Niesen stopped Harter based on an improper lane
change and because the vehicle’s license plate light was burnt out.
There was no accident, there were no actual or potential injuries, and no
one made a 911 call. Hence, there was no emergency response by Officer
Niesen within the meaning of the statute, and this is not the type of case
for which public agency restitution is authorized. Accordingly, we annul
the writ.
WRIT ANNULLED.
All justices concur except Waterman, J., who takes no part.
This opinion shall not be published.