State of Iowa
v.
Alexander Harrison Bachman
Appellee
State of Iowa
Appellant
Alexander Harrison Bachman
Attorney for the Appellee
Joshua A. Duden (argued), Assistant Attorney General
Attorney for the Appellant
David V. Newkirk (argued), Christine E. Branstad, and Nathan Olson
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Becky Goettsch, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard at oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. (11 pages)
Alexander Bachman appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicated, third offense, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress his blood test results obtained by a warrant. He argues that the officer invoked the implied-consent procedures of Iowa Code chapter 321J (2022) by offering him a preliminary breath screening test (“PBT”) and was thus exclusively required to follow the implied-consent procedures rather than seeking a warrant. OPINION HOLDS: Neither the text of the statute nor precedent supports Bachman’s interpretation that the implied-consent procedures become mandatory merely because of offering a PBT. Implied consent is invoked only when an officer requests a motor vehicle operator to submit to a chemical test of the operator’s blood, breath, or urine. The officer never did that here—he got a warrant instead. And that does not violate the statute. We thus affirm the district court’s suppression ruling and Bachman’s conviction.
