Background
Brian Michael Freeman crossed the highway center line while driving home from a casino and struck an oncoming vehicle, killing its driver. Freeman, who was injured but responsive, told officers he had been drinking and should not have driven. He acknowledged consuming one mixed drink and six beers that afternoon and evening.
After obtaining a warrant, law enforcement had an emergency-room nurse draw two blood vials at the hospital. Testing showed a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.117. A jury convicted Freeman of homicide by vehicle while operating under the influence, and the district court imposed an indeterminate twenty-five-year prison term.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the blood-test results. The nurse was an advanced registered nurse practitioner and therefore a registered nurse authorized under Iowa Code section 321J.11 to collect the sample at a peace officer’s request. The hospital’s internal policy limiting routine blood draws to laboratory personnel did not alter the nurse’s legal authority to draw blood for alcohol testing.
The court also held that the State supplied an adequate foundation for collection and custody. The trooper testified that he provided a sealed, unexpired collection kit, watched the nurse use the kit’s iodine swab, and observed a proper draw. Testimony disputing the method of collection created a jury question about the evidence’s weight, not its admissibility. Although the nurse did not complete a specimen-release form, the remaining paperwork, transport testimony, and laboratory confirmation that the kit was sealed sufficiently supported chain of custody.
Key Takeaways
- A registered nurse may draw a law-enforcement blood sample under section 321J.11 despite a more restrictive internal hospital policy.
- Conflicting testimony about collection procedures generally goes to the weight of blood-test evidence after an adequate foundation is established.
- Chain of custody requires a showing that tampering or alteration was unlikely, not elimination of every speculative possibility.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Iowa’s statutory requirements for blood draws—not a hospital’s workflow rules—govern admissibility in OWI-related prosecutions. It also confirms that routine-practice testimony and sealed-kit evidence can establish foundation even when an eyewitness disputes the draw procedure or a custody document is incomplete.