STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TRAVIS RAY MCPEEK, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-534 / 08-1444
Filed August 19, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
TRAVIS RAY MCPEEK,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Gary E. Wenell
(suppression hearing) and John D. Ackerman (trial/sentencing), Judges.
The defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress and
conviction by the district court. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Stephan J. Japuntich,
Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and Amy L. Ellis, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
Travis McPeek argues the district court erred in overruling his motion to
suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. We affirm.
I.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
In July 2007, Sioux City Police investigated the passing of five forged
checks. As a result of their investigation, the police applied for a search warrant
for Travis‟s residence. The officer‟s attachment to the search warrant application
states two Wal-Mart surveillance tapes and a Tobacco Hut tape show what
“appears to be the same female on camera committing the forgeries.” In the
Tobacco Hut tape, the female was accompanied by “a white male with a goatee
and a hat,” but the officer “could not identify these suspects from the video
alone.” In both Wal-Mart tapes, the female suspect was met outside “by a white
male driving a Chevy Astro Panel Van with a distinctive logo on the sides.”
The warrant application further explains the investigating officer requested
help from other officers in locating the van. In response, a sergeant told the
investigating officer to check “Travis McPeek for this van and said he delivers
meat.” When the police arrived at Travis‟s residence, they discovered “[t]he van
parked at [Travis‟s] house is the same van on the video.” The officers took a
picture of the van.
Next to the van in the driveway was a second vehicle
registered to Katrina McPeek. Katrina‟s mug shot appears “to match the person
seen on the video committing these forgeries.”
Based upon the above
3
application, the search warrant was issued authorizing the officers to search
Travis‟s residence for evidence relating to the uttering of forged checks.
When the warrant was executed, the officers observed marijuana in the
basement. The officers stopped the search and a second search warrant was
obtained. Evidence discovered during the execution of the second warrant led to
Travis being charged with manufacturing a controlled substance.
Travis filed a motion to suppress the evidence arguing the application for
the first search warrant failed to establish probable cause. The district court
denied the motion to suppress, stating:
Put simply, the court believes probable cause is
warranted . . . by the simple fact that the officers were informed
[Travis] was in possession of a van with a distinctive logo that
matched the footage taken of the van at a local Wal-Mart and the
visual comparison between Katrina McPeek and the woman on the
videotape.
Trial to the court on the minutes of testimony resulted in Travis being
found guilty of manufacturing a controlled substance–marijuana.
Travis now
appeals the district court‟s decision and contends the search warrant violated his
federal and state constitutional rights. He alleges the warrant application should
have been denied because “it fails to establish a sufficient nexus between the
van, Katrina McPeek, and [Travis‟s] residence.
Neither did the information
supply the nexus between the individuals depicted in the surveillance videos and
[Travis].”
II.
Standard of Review.
When a defendant‟s motion to suppress is based on constitutional
violations, our review is de novo in light of the totality of the circumstances. State
4
v. McConnelee, 690 N.W.2d 27, 30 (Iowa 2004). We “assess the entire record,
including evidence presented during the suppression hearing.” State v. Lovig,
675 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 2004). We are not bound by the district court‟s
factual determinations, but give deference to the court‟s credibility findings. Id.
III.
Probable Cause.
A search warrant must be supported by probable cause. State v. Gogg,
561 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Iowa 1997). A totality of the circumstances standard is
used to determine whether probable cause has been established. State v. Davis,
679 N.W.2d 651, 656 (Iowa 2004). “The existence of probable cause to search a
particular area depends on whether a person of reasonable prudence would
believe that evidence of a crime might be located on the premises to be
searched.” Id. The judge issuing the warrant must make a “„practical, commonsense decision, whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit
before him, including the „veracity‟ and „basis of knowledge‟ of persons supplying
hearsay information,‟ probable cause exists.” Gogg, 561 N.W.2d at 363 (quoting
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 548
(1983)).
“In reviewing the court‟s determination, we draw all reasonable
inferences to support a court‟s finding of probable cause.” Davis, 679 N.W.2d at
656. Due to our preference for warrants, any doubts are resolved in favor of their
validity. State v. Weir, 414 N.W.2d 327, 330 (Iowa 1987).
Our review of the totality of the circumstances contained in the warrant
application convinces us a sufficient basis existed to support the magistrate‟s
finding of probable cause to issue the search warrant. Accordingly, we adopt the
5
reasoning of the district court and affirm the district court‟s order overruling
Travis‟s motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
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.
