Case No. 24-1378

State of Iowa
v.
Peter Douglas Vannausdle

Appellee

State of Iowa

Appellant

Peter Douglas Vannausdle

Attorney for the Appellee

Linda J. Hines (until withdrawal) and Sheryl Soich, Assistant Attorneys General

Attorney for the Appellant

R.A. Bartolomei

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Opinion

Summary

              Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Gregory D. Brandt, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. (11 pages)

              Peter Vannausdle appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicating after a conditional guilty plea, challenging only the denial of his motion to suppress. He argues that the district court erred in failing to suppress: (1) statements about his drinking that he made during the traffic stop because the deputy sheriff did not first advise him of his Miranda rights and (2) evidence of his refusal to submit to chemical testing because the deputy violated his rights to see his father in person and to call an attorney under Iowa Code section 804.20 (2023). OPINION HOLDS: Vannausdle was not in custody during the deputy’s traffic-stop questioning, so Miranda’s protections did not apply. Neither did the deputy hinder Vannausdle’s exercise of his rights under section 804.20. Vannausdle made multiple phone calls to family members, and the deputy’s response to questioning during one of those calls that Vannausdle’s father would have to wait to take Vannausdle home did not violate section 804.20. So too did Vannausdle have ample chance to call an attorney, and the deputy had no duty to take further action to facilitate a call because of Vannausdle’s comments about an attorney.