State of Iowa v. John Charles Pickering ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1272
Filed April 19, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JOHN CHARLES PICKERING,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Gregory D. Brandt,
District Associate Judge.
A defendant appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine
(first offense), in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2016). AFFIRMED.
Charles J. Kenville of Kenville Law Firm, P.C., Fort Dodge, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, Judge.
Following a bench trial on the minutes of testimony, John Pickering was
convicted of possession of methamphetamine (first offense), in violation of Iowa
Code section 124.401(5) (2016).
The defendant contends the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless search of the
defendant’s vehicle without probable cause following a lawfully initiated traffic
stop. The argument is without merit. After initiating the traffic stop, the deputy
detected the smell of marijuana wafting from the vehicle as the driver was exiting
the vehicle. This is sufficient to establish probable cause to search further. See
State v. Eubanks, 355 N.W.2d 57, 59 (Iowa 1984) (“It is well established that a
police officer may search an automobile without a warrant when probable cause
and exigent circumstances exist. Here, the patrolman clearly had sufficient
probable cause to search the vehicle and its contents. The patrolman smelled the
odor of marijuana drifting from the car when he approached defendant, who was
seated behind the steering wheel. The odor of that controlled substance in the
automobile gave the patrolman reasonable cause to conduct a comprehensive
search of the car.” (citations omitted)).
The defendant also contends his conviction is unconstitutional because
his possession of controlled substances is part of his free exercise of sincerely
held religious beliefs. The defendant never obtained a ruling on this issue. Error
is not preserved. See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002)
(“When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the
party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to
3
preserve error for appeal.”). Even if error had been preserved, the argument is
without merit. See State v. Olsen, 315 N.W.2d 1, 8–9 (Iowa 1982) (rejecting free
exercise claim with regard to marijuana use).
The defendant’s conviction is affirmed without further opinion. See Iowa
Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (c), (e).
AFFIRMED.