State of Iowa v. Matthew Robert Sewell

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed Matthew Robert Sewell’s conviction for operating while intoxicated. The court held that Iowa Code section 804.20 does not provide an arrested person with a right to a confidential telephone consultation with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing. The court also held that the Iowa Constitution does not provide a right to counsel at that pre-charge stage.

Holdings

1. Iowa Code section 804.20 does not require a private or confidential telephone conversation between a detainee and an attorney. The statute permits telephone calls to be made in the presence of the custodian but expressly provides confidentiality for an attorney's in-person consultation at the place of detention.
2. Article I, section 10 does not provide an arrested person a constitutional right to a private consultation with counsel before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing when no criminal prosecution or other qualifying case has commenced.
3. The denial did not violate due process because neither Iowa Code section 804.20 nor the Iowa Constitution gave Sewell a right to a private telephone consultation with counsel, and Sewell did not allege that law enforcement misled or deceived him.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Iowa Code section 804.20 requires law enforcement to permit a detainee a confidential telephone consultation with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing.
2. Whether article I, section 10 of the Iowa Constitution provides a right to consult privately with counsel before an arrested person decides whether to submit to implied-consent chemical testing and before criminal charges are filed.
3. Whether denial of a confidential telephone consultation violated due process under article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution.

Disposition

affirmed