STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. JEFFREY ALAN PEDEN , Defendant - Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-055 / 08-1039
Filed March 11, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JEFFREY ALAN PEDEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Thomas W. Mott,
District Associate Judge (trial) and Dale Hagen, Judge (motion to suppress).
Jeffrey Peden appeals his conviction for driving while barred. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and E. Frank Rivera, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney
General, Steve Johnson, County Attorney, and Susan Wendel, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, J.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Around 11:00 p.m. on February 8, 2008, Officer Matthew Aswegan was
traveling in the left lane on Highway 163. He was approximately one car length
behind a car driven by Jeffrey Peden in the right lane. Aswegan noticed that the
digits on Peden’s license plate were blurred because of the construction of the
license plate cover.1 Aswegan pulled directly behind Peden’s vehicle and was
able to read the plate from that perspective. Aswegan pulled Peden over. When
Aswegan asked for Peden’s license, insurance, and registration, Peden admitted
to Aswegan that his license was barred.2 Peden was charged with driving while
barred, in violation of Iowa Code section 321.561 (2007).3 Aswegan also issued
Peden a warning for the license plate cover.
Peden filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained subsequent to the
traffic stop, arguing that Aswegan did not have reasonable suspicion that Peden
was engaged in criminal activity and that he was illegally detained. The district
court denied Peden’s motion to suppress, finding Aswegan had probable cause
to make the traffic stop and properly asked for Peden’s identification and
registration.
Peden appeals, arguing that his constitutional right against
unreasonable seizures was violated due to the district court’s improper
interpretation of relevant Iowa Code sections.
1
In response to speed and red light cameras, several companies created special license
plate covers that are designed to block a camera from reading the license plate.
2
Peden also later admitted that he had methamphetamine and paraphernalia on his
person.
3
Peden was also charged with possession of methamphetamine, in violation of Iowa
Code section 124.401(5), but that charge is not at issue on appeal.
3
II. Standard of Review
Though we generally review constitutional issues de novo, there are no
factual issues in this case. State v. Tovar, 656 N.W.2d 112, 114 (Iowa 2003).
We review whether the district court correctly interpreted statutes relating to
license plate laws.
III. Analysis
“When a peace officer observes a violation of [Iowa] traffic laws, however
minor, the officer has probable cause to stop a motorist.” State v. Tague, 676
N.W.2d 197, 201 (Iowa 2004).
“Probable cause exists if the totality of the
circumstances as viewed by a reasonable and prudent person would lead that
person to believe that a crime has been or is being committed . . . .” State v.
Bumpus, 459 N.W.2d 619, 624 (Iowa 1990).
Iowa Code section 321.37 states, “It is unlawful for the owner of a vehicle
to place any frame around or over the registration plate which does not permit full
view of all numerals and letters printed on the registration plate.” Iowa Code
section 321.38 requires that all registration plates be “in a place and position to
be clearly visible and . . . free from foreign materials and . . . clearly legible.”
Peden asserts that neither statute provides any requirements as to angles
or distances from which the license plate must be legible and viewable. Thus, he
argues that the district court’s interpretation of the application of the statutes was
too broad, and the district court was incorrect in its legal conclusion that the
license plate cover violated sections 321.37 and 321.38.
“When the text of a statute is plain and its meaning clear, the court should
not search for a meaning beyond the express terms of the statute.” State v.
4
Schultz, 604 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Iowa 1999). We agree with the district court that
both statutes at issue apply in Peden’s case. The statutes plainly state that the
license plate must be in full view, clearly visible, and clearly legible. A license
plate that is legible only from certain angles does not comply with these
requirements. Aswegan had probable cause to believe that Peden was violating
either section 321.37 or 321.38.
Peden also asserts that he was illegally detained when Aswegan asked
for identification and registration after he discovered that Peden’s plate could be
read.
“Once a lawful stop is made, an officer may conduct an investigation
reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference
in the first place.” State v. Aderholdt, 545 N.W.2d 559, 563 (Iowa 1996) (internal
quotation omitted). A reasonable investigation includes asking for the driver’s
license and registration.
Id. at 563-64.
Thus, Aswegan’s lawful stop legally
allowed him to ask for Peden’s license and registration.
properly denied Peden’s motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
The district court
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.