STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL IVAN WELSHHONS, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-953 / 06-0140
Filed January 18, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MICHAEL IVAN WELSHHONS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Don C. Nickerson,
Judge.
Defendant
appeals
from
his
conviction
for
vehicular
homicide.
AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jim Ward and Ramona BelcherFord, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
MAHAN, P.J.
Michael Welshhons appeals from his conviction for homicide by vehicle, in
violation of Iowa Code section 707.6A(1) (2003). He argues the district court
erred in denying his motion to suppress the results of a urine test obtained when
an officer invoked implied consent procedures. See Iowa Code § 321J.6. We
affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
At approximately 9:23 p.m. on July 10, 2004, a pickup truck driven by
Welshhons struck an SUV at the intersection of Douglas and Bowdoin Avenues
in Des Moines. The two-year-old daughter of the woman driving the SUV was
killed in the accident.
Witnesses told officers investigating the accident that
Welshhons was traveling at a high rate of speed on Bowdoin Avenue and drove
through stop signs at the two intersections he passed before reaching Douglas
Avenue.
Police officers at the scene of the accident detected an odor of alcohol on
Welshhons and observed a beer bottle in his truck. Welshhons was transported
to the hospital for treatment of injuries he sustained in the accident. Officer Tracy
Rhoads, a drug recognition expert, received a phone call about the accident from
Officer Larry Gilmore at 10:00 p.m. Officer Gilmore told Rhoads that Welshhons
was at fault and had admitted to using methamphetamine two to three times per
week.
Officer Rhoads arrived at the hospital at approximately 10:40 p.m.
Welshhons had a broken femur and was in obvious pain; therefore she
3
concluded he was “in no condition” to conduct a full drug recognition exam. 1 She
detected a faint odor of alcohol on Welshhons and observed that his eyes were
bloodshot.
Welshhons was taken for x-rays and a CT scan at 11:00 p.m. When he
returned to his room at 11:58 p.m., Officer Rhoads gave him a preliminary breath
test (PBT). See Iowa Code § 321J.5(1)(b) (permitting an officer to conduct a
PBT when the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the motor vehicle
operator has been involved in an collision resulting in injury or death). The PBT
showed Welshhons had a blood alcohol content of .011.
At 12:01 a.m. Officer Rhoads invoked implied consent procedures.
Welshhons consented to testing and the attending nurse took a sample of urine
from Welshhons’s catheter bag. The sample tested positive for the presence of
alcohol, amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana.
The State charged Welshhons with two counts of homicide by vehicle.
See Iowa Code § 707.6A(1) (count I: operating while intoxicated alternative),
(2) (count II: reckless alternative). After the court denied his motion to suppress,
Welshhons waived his right to jury trial and agreed to a bench trial on the
minutes of testimony. In return, the State agreed to dismiss count II of the trial
information. The district court found Welshhons guilty and sentenced him to an
indeterminate twenty-five-year term of imprisonment. This appeal followed.
1
Welshhons was later transported to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics for
surgery to his shoulder and hip.
4
II. Standard of Review
Our review is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; State v.
Demaray, 704 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Iowa 2005).
III. Discussion
On appeal, Welshhons argues Officer Rhoads improperly invoked the
implied consent procedures of section 321J.6 because she did not have
reasonable grounds to believe he was operating while intoxicated or under the
influence in violation of section 321J.2. Therefore, Welshhons argues the district
court erred in denying his motion to suppress the test results.
Section 321J.6 authorizes a “peace officer” to request the withdrawal and
testing of bodily substances when (1) the officer has reasonable grounds to
believe the person was operating while intoxicated and (2) the person has been
involved in a motor vehicle collision resulting in personal injury or death. Iowa
Code § 231J.6(1)(b); State v. Satern, 516 N.W.2d 839, 841 (Iowa 1994). The
“reasonable grounds” test is met when
the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time action
was required would have warranted a prudent persons’ belief that
an offense had been committed. Further, it is well established that
when police officers are acting in concert, the knowledge of one is
presumed shared by all.
State v. Owens, 418 N.W.2d 340, 342 (Iowa 1988) (citations omitted).
At the time she requested the urine test, Officer Roads knew Welshhons
had been speeding, driving erratically, and had failed to stop at posted signs.
She also knew he had a beer bottle in his car and had admitted to using
methamphetamine two to three times a week. She detected an odor of alcohol
on Welshhons and observed his eyes were bloodshot. Although his PBT showed
5
a blood alcohol content under the legal limit, such a result “does not
automatically eliminate any reasonable grounds for believing” Welshhons was
operating while intoxicated or under the influence. Owens, 418 N.W.2d at 343.
“If, as in this case, the preliminary results showed the presence of alcohol, a
prudent person would be warranted in requesting a more accurate test.” Id.
Based on the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time she
invoked implied consent procedures, we conclude Officer Rhoads had
reasonable grounds to believe Welshhons was operating while intoxicated or
under the influence.
suppress.
AFFIRMED.
The district court did not err in denying the motion to
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
