Background
An Iowa state trooper stopped Anna Marie Bryant’s vehicle late at night because it lacked a front license plate. Bryant said a recent deer strike had dislodged it. The trooper testified that he smelled alcohol while speaking with her at the vehicle, then asked her to sit in his patrol car. There, he again smelled alcohol and observed bloodshot eyes and mumbled speech.
Bryant agreed to field sobriety testing and later provided a preliminary breath sample of 0.026 BAC. The trooper continued the OWI investigation based on suspected impairment from alcohol and prescription medication. A warrant-authorized blood draw tested positive for methamphetamine and phentermine. Bryant moved to suppress the blood-test evidence, was denied relief, waived a jury trial, and was convicted of first-offense OWI.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed. It did not reach the merits of Bryant’s appellate argument that the trooper unlawfully extended the traffic stop by moving her to the patrol car and beginning an OWI investigation.
At the suppression hearing, Bryant’s trial counsel expressly said he was not challenging the initial decision to bring her to the patrol car because the trooper had some reasonable suspicion to do so. That concession was inconsistent with her appellate position that reasonable suspicion arose only after an unconstitutional extension of the stop. Under the invited-error doctrine, Bryant was bound by the position taken below.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant cannot take a position at a suppression hearing and then advance an inconsistent position on appeal.
- The court treated trial counsel’s concession of reasonable suspicion before Bryant entered the patrol car as dispositive.
- The court affirmed the OWI conviction without deciding whether the stop would have been constitutionally valid on the merits.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of preserving the precise factual and legal theory of a suppression challenge. A concession about when reasonable suspicion arose can foreclose a later appellate claim that the same police action unlawfully prolonged a traffic stop.