James Dean Arneson v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-0635
Filed September 22, 2021
JAMES DEAN ARNESON,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Rustin T.
Davenport, Judge.
James Arneson appeals the denial of his application for postconviction
relief. AFFIRMED.
Travis M. Visser-Armbrust of TVA Law P.L.L.C., Sheldon, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sheryl Soich, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J. and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
A jury found James Arneson guilty of two counts of third-degree sexual
abuse in connection with acts committed on a teen. The court of appeals affirmed
his judgment and sentence. See State v. Arneson, No. 16-0808, 2017 WL
4049324, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2017). Of relevance to this appeal, we
stated, “Before charges were filed, a police officer asked Arneson if he would agree
to an interview. Arneson went to the police station and was questioned about the
sex-abuse allegation. During the interview, he provided police with a DNA
sample.” Id. at *4. We rejected a claim that the DNA sample was obtained in
violation of Arneson’s right to counsel. Id. We preserved a claim that Arneson’s
“trial attorney was ineffective in failing to challenge the interview and seizure of his
DNA under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
article I, sections 8 and 9 of the Iowa Constitution.” Id. at *5.
Arneson filed a postconviction-relief application in which he raised the
preserved ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. To prevail, Arneson had to
show (1) deficient performance and (2) prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court
concluded Arneson failed “to establish his burden for even the first prong of the
test.” The court dismissed the application. Arneson appealed.
“Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I,
section 8 of the Iowa Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable searches
and seizures.” State v. Warren, 955 N.W.2d 848, 859 (Iowa 2021) (citing U.S.
Const. amend. IV; Iowa Const. art. I, § 8). “Subject to a few carefully drawn
exceptions, warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable.” State
3
v. Lewis, 675 N.W.2d 516, 522 (Iowa 2004); see also State v. McGee, 959 N.W.2d
432, 445 (Iowa 2021). One of the exceptions recognized by the supreme court is
a consensual search or seizure. See Lewis, 675 N.W.2d at 522. “We ordinarily
‘interpret the scope and purpose of the Iowa Constitution’s search and seizure
provisions to track with federal interpretations of the Fourth Amendment’ due to
their nearly identical language, though we remain cognizant of our duty to
independently interpret the Iowa Constitution.” Warren, 955 N.W.2d at 859
(citation omitted).
Arneson argues the two constitutional provisions as one. He concedes he
consented to the warrantless seizure of his DNA but asserts his consent was
involuntary and his trial attorney should have raised the issue.
Voluntariness of consent requires consideration of several factors:
[P]ersonal characteristics of the [consenter], such as age, education,
intelligence, sobriety, and experience with the law; and features of
the context in which the consent was given, such as the length of
detention or questioning, the substance of any discussion between
the [consenter] and police preceding the consent, whether the
[consenter] was free to leave or was subject to restraint, and whether
the [consenter’s] contemporaneous reaction to the search was
consistent with consent.
State v. Lane, 726 N.W.2d 371, 378 (Iowa 2007) (emphasis omitted). The district
court addressed these factors as follows:
During the police interview, the detective questioning Arneson
is in plain clothes and seated at the end of the table from Arneson.
The detective is not in between Arneson and the door of the interview
room. Arneson even states at one point, “See I’m not looking at you
as a detective prosecuting me, I’m looking at you as the guy in the
middle.” As pointed out in the State’s Brief in Resistance, the
detective told Arneson that he was free to go, told him he was not
under arrest, and explained the way that Arneson could easily leave
the building. Further, Arneson arrived at the police station voluntarily
4
and was not arrested until approximately one year later. Arneson
even left the room at one point to use the restroom.
....
. . . [T]he detective begins by asking Arneson if he
understands what DNA is and the different sources of DNA. The
detective then provides explanation and information to these
questions. The detective asks Arneson if his DNA would show up on
the victim’s body after an examination. The detective proceeds to
say that he is asking Arneson for his DNA to compare to the victim’s
examination kit. Arneson then responds, “This is crazy! You can
have my DNA, I don’t care.” Later on in the interview, Arneson also
says, “Let’s do your DNA. I’m going to give my DNA because I didn’t
do anything . . . .” Therefore, the Court finds that Arneson gave
voluntary consent to the DNA sample and it was not coerced.
The record, including a recording and transcript of the police interview, supports
the district court’s findings. Reviewing the record de novo, we also note that
Arneson was sixty-two years old, had a GED and “a degree in reinforced plastics,
fiberglass,” and had extensive work experience including employment “as a
superintendent for a construction company” and supervisory duties over nineteen
people. Arneson seemed unimpaired during the interview, although he
acknowledged an addiction to cold pills. As for Arneson’s familiarity with the law,
he knew the matter was serious enough to ask for an attorney. He also asked the
detective “why” the detective wanted his DNA and, when told it was for comparison
purposes, said “I understand.” Notably, the detective did not dissuade Arneson
from retaining counsel, nor did he sugar coat the purpose of the DNA sample.
Even with an understanding of its import, Arneson said, “I want to give you the
DNA, I think that’s fair.” He repeated, “I haven’t done anything, but you’re more
than welcome to have the DNA.” “Want” and “welcome” are not words of coercion.
Like the district court, we conclude Arneson voluntarily consented to give
the detective a DNA sample. It follows that Arneson’s trial attorney could not have
5
performed deficiently in failing to seek suppression of the sample under the Fourth
Amendment.
Arneson also mounts a Fifth Amendment challenge to the concededly
consensual taking of his DNA. At the same time, he acknowledges “[t]he taking of
a sample of a person’s bodily fluids was a matter under the purview of the Fourth
Amendment’s restrictions.” His concession is apt. The Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution protects testimonial evidence. See State v. Decker, 744
N.W.2d 346, 354–55 (Iowa 2008). The DNA sample was non-testimonial
evidence. See id. at 355 (“[C]ompelling an arrested suspect to submit to
fingerprinting, photographing, or other physical measurements . . . or to submit to
a blood test does not result in the gathering of testimonial evidence.”); see also
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 765 (1966) (“Since the blood test evidence,
although an incriminating product of compulsion, was neither petitioner’s testimony
nor evidence relating to some communication or writing by the petitioner, it was
not inadmissible on [Fifth Amendment] privilege grounds.”); cf. Mitchell v
Wisconsin, 139 S. Ct. 2525, 2532–39 (2019) (analyzing a warrantless seizure of
blood from an unconscious person under the Fourth Amendment); McGee, 959
N.W.2d at 435 (applying Mitchell “to cases of suspected driving while under the
influence of controlled substances, in addition to alcohol-related cases”). Because
the Fifth Amendment is inapplicable, Arneson’s attorney did not perform deficiently
in failing to seek suppression on this ground.
We affirm the district court’s denial and dismissal of Arneson’s
postconviction-relief application.
AFFIRMED.