State of Iowa v. Jack Harold Smith Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: August 30, 2023
• Docket: 22-0396
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0396 Filed August 30, 2023

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JACK HAROLD SMITH JR., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Daniel P. Vakulskas,

District Associate Judge.

Jack Harold Smith Jr. appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence

obtained from a traffic stop. AFFIRMED.

Marti S. Sleister of Sleister Law, Fremont, Nebraska, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Israel Kodiaga, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., Greer, J., and Scott, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2023). 2

SCOTT, Senior Judge.

Jack Harold Smith Jr. appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence

obtained from a traffic stop. He asserts the police officer did not have probable

cause or reasonable suspicion to make the stop because the officer misinterpreted

the law about yielding to pedestrians. We affirm.

At 12:24 a.m. on June 5, 2021, Sioux Center Police Officer Josh Koedam

was on duty driving south on Highway 75 (Main Street) toward the intersection of

Second Street.1 The speed limit is thirty miles per hour and no traffic signal is at

the intersection, but there are overhead signs indicating a crosswalk, as well as a

painted crosswalk across Highway 75. As Officer Koedam neared the intersection,

he saw three pedestrians on the right-hand side of the road in the crosswalk. He

also observed an orange F-250 flatbed truck stopped at the stop sign facing east

on Second Street intending to turn left/northbound onto Highway 75. The officer’s

patrol vehicle dash cam video shows the three pedestrians traversing Highway 75

in the crosswalk as the driver of the F-250 pulls into the intersection. The

pedestrians stopped in the roadway as they neared the center line while the driver

turned left in front of the them neither slowing nor stopping for the pedestrians.2

Officer Koedam did a u-turn and pulled the F-250 over. He explained to the

driver, Smith, the reason for the stop was his failure to yield for pedestrians. Smith

said he saw the pedestrians in the crosswalk and he thought the pedestrians

1 Highway 75 in downtown Sioux Center runs in a north-south direction. It is intersected by Second Street, which runs east-west. 2 A semi-trailer truck traveling north on Highway 75 stopped for the passengers as

they finished crossing the roadway. 3

should have waited for him to complete the turn before continuing through the

crosswalk.

Noting the smell of alcoholic beverages on Smith’s breath and the manner

in which Smith answered questions, Officer Koedam suspected Smith was

intoxicated. Smith admitted to having drunk some alcohol, and the officer

administered field sobriety tests, during which Smith exhibited signs of impairment.

Officer Koedam arrested Smith for operating while intoxicated (OWI). At the jail,

Smith refused to provide a breath sample on the DataMaster.

Smith was charged with OWI, first offense. He filed a motion to suppress

the evidence of his intoxication asserting the traffic stop was unlawful and in

violation of both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and

Article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. At the suppression hearing, the State

argued Officer Koedam had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to seize

Smith because he observed an infraction of Iowa Code section 321.327 (2021). In

arguing the court should grant his motion to suppress, the defense did not contest

an officer’s authority to conduct a traffic stop after observing a traffic violation. The

defense asserted the officer made a mistake of law as to pedestrians’ right of way,

arguing section 321.327 only required a vehicle to slow down or stop if need be.

The defense argued that because Smith’s vehicle was not “obstructing the

pedestrians or causing any kind of accident,” he had no obligation to stop or slow

down.

The district court did not agree. In its written ruling, the court opined the

defense’s reading of the statutory provision was too restrictive. Finding the video

“clearly shows the pedestrians in the crosswalk while the Defendant executed a 4

turn through the crosswalk,” the court concluded Officer Koedam had both

reasonable suspicion and probable cause to believe Smith committed a violation

of Iowa Code section 321.327 and denied the motion to suppress.

After a trial on the minutes of testimony, the court found Smith guilty as

charged. Smith appeals, claiming the trial court erred in denying his motion to

suppress.

We review suppression rulings addressing constitutional issues de novo.

State v. Ingram, 914 N.W.2d 794, 798 (Iowa 2018). We defer to the district court’s

factual findings, but they do not dictate our result. State v. Louwrens, 792 N.W.2d

649, 651 (Iowa 2010).

Here, Smith argues the officer “erroneously thought the law required traffic

to stop whenever pedestrians were ‘established’ in the crosswalk, rather than to

simply yield to avoid an accident.”

Iowa Code section 321.327 provides:

Where traffic-control signals are not in place . . . the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

“The word ‘shall’ imposes a duty.” Id. § 4.1(30)(a). The ordinary dictionary

meaning of “yield” is “to surrender or relinquish to the physical control of another.”

Yield, Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yield

(last visited July 28, 2023). And—though Smith fails to mention it—the term “right-

of-way” is defined in chapter 321 as meaning “the privilege of the immediate use

of the highway.” Iowa Code § 321.1(64). Nothing in section 321.327 qualifies the 5

duty to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian in a crosswalk only “to avoid an

accident.”

There is no dispute that there were no traffic signals at the intersection.

Incorporating the definitions above, driver-Smith had a duty to surrender “the

privilege of the immediate use of the highway” to the three “pedestrian[s] crossing

the roadway within any marked crosswalk.” Officer Koedam observed Smith fail

to yield to the pedestrians and turned in front of them, causing them to stop as they

crossed the roadway.

“[W]hen a peace officer observes a violation of our traffic laws, however

minor, the officer has probable cause to stop a motorist.” State v. Tyler, 830

N.W.2d 288, 293 (Iowa 2013). Because Officer Koedam observed a traffic

violation, he had probable cause to stop Smith. Smith’s constitutional rights to be

free from an unreasonable seizure and search were not violated. So, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.