West Des Moines, IA
Drug Crime Lawyer at West Des Moines, IA
Practice Areas: Drug Crime, DUI & DWI
OUTCOME: Driver's License Revocation Rescinded
On December 16, 2025 the administrative law judge reversed the previous entry of a license revocation based on notice of an out-of-state revocation for implied consent. Our investigation revealed that ... no revocation was warranted because there was no final administrative decision or DUI conviction upon which a revocation could be based.
OUTCOME: Felony Drug Charges Dismissed
On December 8, 2025 the district court granted the State's motion to dismiss following a favorable suppression ruling challenging probable cause to issue a search warrant to search our client's propert ... y. This matter had previously been handled by another attorney who failed to recognize the critical issue. We successfully moved the court to allow the late filing of a suppression motion more than 7 months after the deadline passed, and then prevailed on the setting aside the search warrant. There were 7 felony charges each with a habitual offender enhancement, which meant our client was facing 105 years in prison.
OUTCOME: OWI Charge Dismissed
On December 3, 2025, the district court accepted a plea to the amended charge of public intoxication and reckless driving (for minimum fines and no jail) following the filing of a motion to suppress ch ... allenging the authority to request a breath specimen in this case. This follows a successful DOT ruling where we prevented the driver's commercial driver's license from being disqualified. With a plea to a non-OWI charge, the DOT now has no authority to sanction the driver's privileges for circumstances arising from this traffic stop. Huge win!
OUTCOME: Driver's License Revocation Rescinded
On November 21, 2025 the Administrative Law Judge rescinded the revocation of my client's driver's license following the hearing for a breath test that exceeded 0.08 after we demonstrated the deputy la ... cked a statutory ground to request a breath test through implied consent. This ruling will preserve his commercial driving privileges.
OUTCOME: Seized Property Returned
On October 29, 2025, the district court essentially granted our Application for the return of $22,000 and two cell phones seized from a driver following a traffic stop for speeding. We were in positio ... n to establish that the money was the proceeds of gambling winnings rather than drug proceeds as law enforcement initially suspected. In a strange twist, law enforcement initially returned the money and other property at the end of the traffic stop, only to flag down the driver a second time as he was slowly driving along the shoulder of the road attempting to merge onto highway traffic. This second stop certainly wasn't supported by independent probable cause.
OUTCOME: Felony Drug Charges Dismissed
On October 23, 2025, the district court granted the State's application to dismiss felony charges of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, tax stamp and misdemeanor paraphernalia ... possession after we successfully challenged the search warrant that led to the search of my client's residence. The officer who applied for the warrant indicated that officers on the scene detected the odor of marijuana coming from the residence. However, there training and experience to recognize the odor was not adequately described in the warrant application. The State attempted to justify a warrantless entry into the home at hearing, but that effort was rebutted by showing there was no emergency confronting the officers at the time. Obviously, they took their time applying for the warrant, which negates any exigency under the circumstances.
OUTCOME: Drug Charges Dismissed
On October 17, 2025 the magistrate court granted the State's motion to dismiss after we filed a motion to suppress challenging the deputy's apparent authority to search a passenger's personal belonging ... s based on the male driver's consent to search the vehicle. It was clear from the deputy's body camera that a reasonable peace officer in his position would have inquired whether the purse and shoulder bag on the passenger side floorboard belonged to the female prior to searching it. Because actual authority was absent and apparent authority questionable under the circumstances, the State did the right thing by dismissing.
OUTCOME: Drug Charges Dismissed
On June 29, 2025 the State dismissed the charge of marijuana possession right before the hearing on our motion to suppress was scheduled. A DNR officer entered a fishing shack without a warrant at whi ... ch time he detected the odor of cannabis. He believed he had the consent of a party who was standing outside of the shack on frozen Clear Lake. However, the individual was only a guest and lacked actual or apparent authority to permit law enforcement to enter. A tip of the hat to the prosecutor who recognized the futility of moving forward in the face of a well researched suppression motion.
OUTCOME: Drug Charges Dismissed
On June 17, 2025 the district court granted our motion to suppress challenging the breath test result on the ground that the officer did not honor our client's request for an independent breath test. ... This led the State to amend the charge of OWI to public intoxication and dismiss the marijuana possession charge altogether. There was a larger issue overshadowing the proceedings . . . whether the Meskwaki Nation police officer had jurisdiction to stop the vehicle in the first place as it occurred off of settlement property. That issue will remain open until we can challenge it again.
OUTCOME: Drug Charges Dismissed
On May 21, 2025 the district court approved a motion to amend the charge of marijuana possession to underage nicotine possession after we moved to suppress the search of our client's vehicle. The offi ... cer elected to search the vehicle after discovering a nicotine vape in our client's possession. That search revealed a separate THC cart. However, the vape cart is not a "public offense," but rather a civil penalty that provides no probable cause to search for evidence of a crime. A tip of the hat to the prosecutor for recognizing the distinction here. The result is a $70 monetary penalty with no surcharge, court cost, jail, probation, or community service.