State of Iowa v. Joshua DeWeerdt

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0754
Filed March 11, 2026
_______________

State of Iowa,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Joshua DeWeerdt,
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________

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

AFFIRMED
_______________

Gary Dickey of Dickey, Campbell, & Sahag Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines,
attorney for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant
Attorney General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.
Opinion by Schumacher, J.

1
SCHUMACHER, Judge.

Following his conviction for operating while intoxicated (OWI), first
offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2(2)(a) (2024), Joshua
DeWeerdt appeals, asserting the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress test results of his urine, which showed the presence of opiates,
amphetamines, methadone, and fentanyl. We review his constitutional claim
de novo. State v. Harbach, 3 N.W.3d 209, 217 (Iowa 2024).

A police officer responded to an accident involving DeWeerdt’s
vehicle and a semi tractor-trailer. The 911 caller reported that DeWeerdt
“appeared intoxicated.” The semi driver stated that DeWeerdt ran a red
light, and DeWeerdt confirmed, “It was more or less my fault.” The officer
didn’t smell alcohol on DeWeerdt but noticed he was pacing and had an
unsteady balance. DeWeerdt stated that he hit his head on his steering wheel
and he was tired because he had just woken up and he was working “twelves.”
DeWeerdt also reported he was on methadone but hadn’t taken any that day.
The officer learned that DeWeerdt’s license was suspended. While
completing reports in his patrol vehicle, the officer noticed DeWeerdt was
swaying and falling asleep while leaning against his truck. Based on these
observations, the officer called for help from another officer who was a drug
recognition expert (DRE). Upon DeWeerdt’s failure performing
standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs), the officers invoked implied
consent and requested a urine sample.

The district court concluded,
The Court finds that the responding officer had reasonable grounds to
believe that an offense had been committed, to wit: operating while
intoxicated. While the officer ruled out alcohol, that does not rule out all
possible substances. The officer was justified in requesting a DRE officer
to perform SFSTs for possible intoxication related to drugs other than

2
alcohol. The Defendant’s SFST failure then warranted the invocation of
implied consent and a request for a urine sample.

The Court notes that this was not the typical interaction that leads
to an OWI, namely, a traffic stop for some unrelated offense that turns in
to an OWI investigation. In this instance, the police responded to the scene
of an automobile accident, which necessarily carries with it some
processing time. Upon arrival, the responding officer noted the Defendant
had a suspended license and was not free to drive away anyway. In any
event, the responding officer’s observations regarding potential
intoxicated driving would have permitted the expansion of the traffic stop
as the officer made those observations almost immediately upon
interacting with the Defendant.

Upon our review of the record, we affirm the district court’s denial of
the motion to suppress and affirm DeWeerdt’s conviction without further
opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (d), and (e).

AFFIRMED.

3