State of Iowa v. Matthew Louis Sampson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1348
Filed August 7, 2024

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MATTHEW LOUIS SAMPSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Michael Motto, Judge.

Defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress.

AFFIRMED.

Ryan M. Beckenbaugh of Beckenbaugh Law, P.C., Davenport, for

appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.
2

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

Matthew Sampson appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to

suppress evidence. He challenges the evidence obtained following a stop for

operating an off-road vehicle (UTV)1 that resulted in Sampson’s arrest for

operating while intoxicated (OWI). Sampson argues that the arresting officer did

not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion for the stop under a city

ordinance because of the doctrine of preemption. Alternatively, he argues the rule

of lenity supports suppression.

I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings

Law enforcement in Blue Grass executed a stop of Sampson during the

early morning hours of July 3, 2022. Sampson was operating a golf cart. At the

time of the stop, Blue Grass city ordinances prohibited the driving of a UTV on city

roads between sunset and sunrise. City ordinances also required that all UTVs

driven on city streets be equipped with a bicycle safety flag. When Sampson was

stopped between sunset and sunrise, his UTV did not have a safety flag. And

because the officer believed that Sampson was intoxicated, Sampson was

arrested for OWI.

1 The relevant laws use differing terms. The Blue Grass City ordinances discuss
both all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and utility task vehicles (UTVs), while the Iowa
Code sections deal with all-terrain vehicles and off-road utility vehicles. Under
Iowa Code Chapter 321I (2022), a golf cart is an “off-road utility vehicle,” but not
an “all-terrain vehicle.” Iowa Code § 321I.1(1)(a), (17). Despite this distinction,
section 321I.1(17)(b) also makes clear “[t]he operator of an off-road utility vehicle
is subject to provisions governing the operation of all-terrain vehicles in
section 321.234A, this chapter, and administrative rules.” For consistency, we use
the term “UTV” throughout.
3

The State charged Sampson by trial information with OWI, second offense.

Sampson moved to suppress evidence of the stop. He argued that state law

preempted the city ordinances on UTVs and, consequently, the officer lacked

probable cause to initiate a stop. Sampson highlighted a recent publication, Blue

Grass Bugle, a city newsletter, which stated that, because of new state statutes,

UTVs could be operated “day or night.” Following the hearing, the district court

denied the suppression motion. Sampson then entered a conditional guilty plea to

OWI, second offense.2 Sampson now appeals the denial of his motion to

suppress.

II. Standard of Review

“A trial court’s determination of whether a local ordinance is preempted by

state law is a matter of statutory construction and is thus reviewable for correction

of errors at law.” City of Davenport v. Seymour, 755 N.W.2d 533, 537 (Iowa 2008).

III. Analysis

Sampson asserts the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress

because the Blue Grass ordinances relied on for his stop were preempted by a

2 Iowa Code section 814.6(3), which became effective July 1, 2023, permits
conditional guilty pleas. Section 814.6(3) reads: an “appellate court shall have
jurisdiction over only conditional guilty pleas that comply with this section and when
the appellate adjudication of the reserved issue is in the interest of justice.”
Sampson entered his guilty plea on August 18. Sampson’s plea noted that it was
a conditional plea that reserved the right to seek appellate review of the ruling on
his motion to suppress. But we are without the benefit of case law on what qualifies
as “in the interest of justice” under this statute. On these facts, without resistance
from the State, we determine the reservation of the right to challenge the
preemption of the city ordinances by state law satisfies the statute, resulting in our
court having jurisdiction to hear Sampson’s appeal.
4

series of state statutes. In the alternative, he argues that a publication in the Blue

Grass Bugle, a local newsletter, warrants the application of the rule of lenity.

A. Preemption of the Blue Grass City Ordinance

Sampson argues the city ordinances on UTVs, which served as the basis

for the stop, were preempted by a combination of several sections of Iowa Code

chapter 321I. Sampson highlights sections 321I.10, 321I.13, 321I.14, and 321I.30.

Sampson refers to section 321I.30 as “the preemption statute.”

Article III, section 38A of the Iowa Constitution grants municipalities in Iowa

home rule authority, but it makes clear that such power cannot conflict with the

actions of the legislature: “Municipal corporations are granted home rule power

and authority, not inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, to determine

their local affairs and government, except that they shall not have power to levy

any tax unless expressly authorized by the general assembly.” Because the

actions of cities cannot be “inconsistent” with the laws of the legislature, conflicting

city ordinances are preempted by state law. Goodell v. Humboldt Cnty., 575

N.W.2d 486, 492 (Iowa 1998).

There are three kinds of preemption. Id. at 492–93. The first is express

preemption: “Express preemption occurs when the general assembly has

specifically prohibited local action in an area.” Id. at 492. The second and third

types are both forms of implied preemption. See id. at 493. The first, “[w]hen an

ordinance ‘prohibits an act permitted by a statute, or permits an act prohibited by

a statute,’ the ordinance is considered inconsistent with state law and preempted.”

Id. (quoting City of Des Moines v. Gruen, 457 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Iowa 1990)). This

is normally referred to as “conflict preemption.” Seymour, 755 N.W.2d at 539. The
5

final kind of preemption, often called “field preemption,” id., occurs “when the

legislature has ‘cover[ed] a subject by statutes in such a manner as to demonstrate

a legislative intention that the field is preempted by state law.’” Goodell, 575

N.W.2d at 493 (quoting City of Council Bluffs v. Cain, 342 N.W.2d 810, 812

(Iowa 1983)). Sampson argues portions of all three apply to preempt the Blue

Grass city ordinances concerning the operation of UTVs.

The Blue Grass city ordinance 10.90.100 as in effect at the time of the stop

of Sampson’s operation of the golf cart read: “UTVs may be operated on City

streets only between sunrise and sunset.” The version of Blue Grass city

ordinance 10.90.70 in effect at the time of the stop read:

A UTV operated upon city streets shall be equipped with at
least the following:
1. A slow moving sign.
2. A bicycle safety flag, the top of which shall be a minimum
of five feet (5’) from ground level and a minimum of two feet (2’)
above the highest point of the UTV.
3. UTVs operated on City streets shall be equipped with a
muffler, headlight, taillights located on the driver’s or operator’s side
and adequate brakes to stop and hold the UTV in a stopped position.
4. UTVs operated on City streets shall be equipped with an
adequate exhaust system.

Sampson argues the city ordinances are preempted by a combination of several

of the sections in Iowa Code chapter 321I. Those sections include section 321I.10:

2. A registered all-terrain vehicle or off-road utility vehicle may
be operated on an undivided two-lane primary highway that is not
part of the interstate road system over the most direct and accessible
route between any of the following locations:
a. An all-terrain vehicle park or trail.
b. A secondary road on which such vehicles are authorized to
operate under subsection 3.
c. A city street on which such vehicles are authorized to
operate under subsection 4.
d. The vehicle operator’s residence.
....
6

4. A city may regulate the operation of registered all-terrain
vehicles and off-road utility vehicles and may designate streets under
the jurisdiction of the city within its corporate limits, and two-lane
primary and secondary road extensions in the city, which may be
used for the operation of such vehicles. In designating such streets,
the city may authorize all-terrain vehicles and off-road utility vehicles
to stop at service stations or convenience stores along a designated
street. However, a city shall not charge a fee to operate a registered
all-terrain vehicle or off-road utility vehicle within the city.

Section 321I.13: “Every all-terrain vehicle operated during the hours of darkness

shall display a lighted headlight and taillight. Every all-terrain vehicle shall be

equipped with brakes.” Section 321I.14(1)(d): “A person shall not drive or operate

an all-terrain vehicle. . . . Without a lighted headlight and taillight from sunset to

sunrise and at such other times when conditions provide insufficient lighting to

render clearly discernible persons and vehicles at a distance of five hundred feet

ahead.” And section 321I.30, which Sampson refers to as the “preemption statute”

reads:

This chapter and other applicable laws of this state shall
govern the operation, equipment, numbering, and all other matters
relating to an all-terrain vehicle when the all-terrain vehicle is
operated or maintained in this state. However, this chapter does not
prevent the adoption of an ordinance or local law relating to the
operation or equipment of all-terrain vehicles. The ordinances or
local laws are operative only so long as they are not inconsistent with
this chapter or the rules adopted by the commission.

Sampson argues the nighttime use regulations in sections 321I.13 and .14,

the city street authorizations in section 321I.10, and the restriction on “inconsistent”

ordinances in section 321I.30 conflict with and preempt the Blue Grass city

ordinances. He argues elements of both express and implied preemption apply.

In making an express-preemption claim, Sampson relies on the placement

of “inconsistent” in the statute, which he argues is a higher standard than an
7

“irreconcilable conflict.” But section 321I.10 states, “A city may regulate the

operation of registered all-terrain vehicles and off-road utility vehicles.” And in

interpreting a statute “we consider the language’s relationship to other provisions

of the same statute and other provisions of related statutes.” Com. Bank v.

McGowen, 956 N.W.2d 128, 133 (Iowa 2021). There is no broad express

preemption when the chapter explicitly allows for municipal regulation. Further,

“inconsistent” is used in both section 321I.30 and article III of the Iowa Constitution.

We see no reason that in the context of preemption, such has a stricter meaning

in Iowa Code section 321I.30 than in article III, section 38A of the Iowa

Constitution. See Iowa Const. art. III, § 38A; Iowa Code § 321I.30.

Finding no express preemption, we turn to Sampson’s implied-preemption

arguments. Implied preemption is a difficult standard to meet considering “we

presume that the municipal ordinance is valid.” Seymour, 755 N.W.2d at 539. And

“[w]e strive to interpret state law and municipal law in a manner that renders them

harmonious.” Livingood v. City of Des Moines, 991 N.W.2d 733, 743 (Iowa 2023).

Ultimately, “[w]e will not find an ordinance in conflict with state law unless the

ordinance is ‘irreconcilable’ with state law.” Id. The state statutes and city

ordinances are not irreconcilable and can all be given effect. For there to be

implied preemption by conflict, “the conflict must be obvious, unavoidable, and not

a matter of reasonable debate.” Seymour, 755 N.W.2d at 539. Such is not the

case here.

The city ordinances at issue prohibit driving a UTV between sunset and

sunrise and make the display of a safety flag on a UTV mandatory. The ordinances

set standards for driving UTVs on city streets, allowed under section 321I.10. See
8

Iowa Code § 321I.10(4) (“A city may regulate the operation of registered all-terrain

vehicles and off-road utility vehicles and may designate streets under the

jurisdiction of the city within its corporate limits.”). Further, of the statutes Sampson

cites, only sections 321I.13 and 321I.14 reference driving a UTV at night or

equipment standards. These sections set out equipment standards for UTVs when

driven at night, but they do not specifically authorize UTVs to be driven at night. A

conflict between the ordinances and these statutes is not obvious and unavoidable,

and there is a harmonious interpretation. Livingood, 991 N.W.2d at 743. The state

statutes set out minimum requirements if a UTV is driven at night, but it does not

require that driving at night be permitted. The statutes do not prevent a city from

imposing more stringent requirements or even barring nighttime driving.

As to field preemption, which Sampson appears to address concurrently

with his claim of conflict preemption, section 321I.10 specifically allowing city

regulation of UTVs makes any claim of a “clear expression of legislative intent to

preempt a field” unpersuasive. See Seymour, 755 N.W.2d at 539. Sampson

argues that allowing cities to maintain their own UTV regulations creates

unnecessary burdens on drivers traveling from city to city. We consider:

Field preemption is a narrow doctrine that cannot be enlarged
by judicial policy preferences. In determining the applicability of field
preemption, this court does not entertain arguments that statewide
regulation is preferable to local regulation or vice versa, but focuses
solely on legislative intent as demonstrated through the language
and structure of a statute.

Id. Given the above, we determine Sampson’s argument on field preemption to

be unconvincing.
9

The UTV statutes in chapter 321I do not act to preempt the Blue Grass

ordinances. None of these statutes state that they preempt city ordinances, none

conflict with the city ordinances, and none show an intent to preempt the field of

UTV regulation.

B. Rule of Lenity

Sampson also raises a “rule of lenity” argument based on a publication in

the Blue Grass Bugle shortly before his arrest. He asserts a publication in the Blue

Grass Bugle announced that a new state law allowed UTVs to be driven “day or

night.” Sampson asserts the motion to suppress should have been granted

because of the unfairness created by the publication and the conflict between the

state statutes and city ordinances.

Sampson makes the rule-of-lenity argument for the first time on appeal, and

thus it has not been preserved for our review. Meier v. Senecaut, 641

N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that

issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we

will decide them on appeal.”). Because it has not been preserved, we do not

address Sampson’s rule of lenity argument.3

IV. Conclusion

There is no preemption of the Blue Grass ordinances by any of the statutes

cited by Sampson. See Livingood, 991 N.W.2d at 743. The statutes and

3 Even if we were to consider the rule-of-lenity argument preserved for our review,

we would not find such applicable here, as the rule of lenity requires that
ambiguous statutes imposing criminal liability be construed for the defendant.
State v. Hearn, 797 N.W.2d 577, 585 (Iowa 2011). As recited above, we find no
ambiguity in the statutes. And Sampson argues a publication in a local newsletter
created the ambiguity, not a statute.
10

ordinances can be reconciled, and therefore we do not find preemption. See id.

The district court appropriately denied Sampson’s motion to suppress.

Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.