Charges Dropped In Keokuk County Sheriff OWI Case

Keokuk County Sheriff Jeff Shipley (photo courtesy Sigourney News Review)

Sigourney, Iowa – This first part of this is the press release from the Washington County Attorney’s Office, and near the end of this article is a statement by Sheriff Shipley in this matter.

Washington County – On July 27, 2011 at approximately 7:58 p.m., Keokuk County Sheriff Jeffrey Earl Shipley, 46 of rural What Cheer, Iowa, was stopped by Iowa State Patrol Trooper Richard Diephuis on Highway 92 and Stone Street in Sigourney, Iowa. Based on Trooper Diephuis’ investigation, Sheriff Shipley was charged with the offense of Operating While Intoxicated (“OWI”), First Offense, a serious misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code Section 321J.2. The Washington County Attorney’s office was asked to handle the criminal prosecution on behalf of the State of Iowa due to an ethical conflict with the Keokuk County Attorney’s office.

This office was appointed to specially prosecute this matter on July 29, 2011. An information charging Sheriff Shipley with the crime of OWI, 1st Offense was filed on August 5, 2011. On August 19, 2011, Sheriff Shipley, through his attorney Matthew B. Moore of Heslinga, Heslinga, Dixon & Moore in Oskaloosa, Iowa, filed a written arraignment and plea of not guilty.

Trial was then set for October 3, 2011. The parties then engaged in a series of plea discussions before reaching an agreement for a deferred prosecution of Sheriff Shipley. In order to accomplish the objectives of the agreement, Sheriff Shipley agreed to continue the October 3, 2011 trial date and a pretrial conference was set for February 15, 2012.

In order to find Sheriff Shipley guilty of the crime of OWI, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both of the following elements:

• 1. On or about July 27, 2011, Sheriff Shipley operated a motor vehicle.
• 2. At that time, Sheriff Shipley was under the influence of alcohol.

Based on Trooper Diephuis’ observations, there was no question that Sheriff Shipley was operating a motor vehicle on July 27, 2011. Trooper Diephuis stopped Sheriff Shipley’s truck while it was moving on a public roadway on July 27, 2011. In addition, immediately after the truck stopped, Sheriff Shipley exited the truck on the driver’s side and walked toward Trooper Diephuis. At that time, Trooper Diephuis was able to identify that the person who exited the truck from the driver’s side was Sheriff Shipley. This evidence clearly established that Sheriff Shipley was operating a motor vehicle on July 27, 2011.

As a result, the key issue in this case was whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that Sheriff Shipley was under the influence of alcohol when he was driving his truck on July 27, 2011. Under Iowa law, a person is ‘under the influence’ when, by drinking liquor and/or beer, one or more of the following is true:

• 1. His or her reason or mental ability has been affected;
• 2. His or her judgment is impaired;
• 3. His or her emotions are visibly excited; and/or
• 4. He or she has, to any extent, lost control of bodily actions or motions.

In this case, there was ample evidence to suggest that Sheriff Shipley consumed alcohol at some time on July 27, 2011 before he was stopped by Trooper Diephuis. That evidence included that:

• 1. Trooper Diephuis smelled a very strong odor of alcohol coming from Sheriff Shipley when he first encountered him;
• 2. Trooper Diephuis saw that Sheriff Shipley’s eyes were watery and bloodshot;
• 3. Sheriff Shipley admitted to drinking one beer with his supper;
• 4. Trooper Diephuis smelled a strong odor of alcohol coming from Sheriff Shipley’s truck; and
• 5. Trooper Diephuis saw Busch Light beer cans behind the passenger seat which he later determined were cool to the touch.

In addition, Trooper Diephuis’ observations also indicated that Sheriff Shipley was under the influence of alcohol when he operated his truck on July 27, 2011. That evidence included:

• 1. Sheriff Shipley’s difficulty in finding his registration papers for the truck and failure to recognize the registration two times as he was sorting through the papers;
• 2. Sheriff Shipley handing over his concealed weapons permit when he was asked to give his driver’s license to Trooper Diephuis; and
• 3. After being told by Trooper Diephuis this was not his driver’s license, Sheriff Shipley did not know what document he had handed to Trooper Diephuis.

Furthermore, additional evidence pointed to the fact that Sheriff Shipley was trying to mislead or obstruct Trooper Diephuis’ investigation. This evidence included:

• 1. Several times during Trooper Diephuis’ investigation, Sheriff Shipley engaged in behavior which can be used by persons suspected of OWI to mask the odor of alcohol and interfere with certain breath tests used to determine a person’s level of intoxication. This behavior is well-known to law enforcement officials and, since Sheriff Shipley is a law enforcement official, it is logical to conclude that he was aware of this information as well;
• 2. Sheriff Shipley’s refusal to cooperate with any field sobriety tests which are commonly used by law enforcement officials to determine if a person suspected of OWI has lost control of his or her bodily actions; and
• 3. Sheriff Shipley’s refusal to consent to providing a breath sample on the Datamaster which would scientifically and accurately determine his level of intoxication. Under Iowa Code Section 321J.16, Sheriff Shipley’s refusal to submit to the breath test is evidence a jury could consider in determining if he was guilty of OWI.

The State believes that the evidence listed above was sufficient to prove Sheriff Shipley guilty of OWI beyond a reasonable doubt. However, there were several additional factors that had to be taken into consideration in determining the course of prosecuting Sheriff Shipley for this offense. These considerations included:

• 1. Sheriff Shipley was not observed to have slurred speech or difficulty walking;
• 2. The audio quality of the videotape of the incident taken by Trooper Diephuis’ patrol car was poor and it was difficult to hear most of what was said during Trooper Diephuis’ investigation;
• 3. Several deputies from the Keokuk County Sheriff’s office observed Sheriff Shipley’s demeanor during his interaction with Trooper Diephuis and Sergeant Rathmun and likely would have been called to rebut Trooper Diephuis’ testimony that Sheriff Shipley was under the influence of alcohol;
• 4. The Keokuk County Attorney was also present at the Keokuk County Sheriff’s office that evening and would also likely have been called as a witness to the events he observed;
• 5. The trial would take place in Keokuk County where Sheriff Shipley was elected in 2008 by receiving 49% of the vote in a four-person race in which: a) the second place vote getter received only 35% of the vote; and b) Sheriff Shipley received the most votes in 14 out of 17 precincts thereby indicating that Sheriff Shipley received strong and widespread support throughout Keokuk County; and
• 6. Sheriff Shipley was still coping with the tragic events that occurred on April 4, 2011 when Keokuk County Deputy Eric Stein was killed by Jeff Krier in the line of duty.

Recognizing that these considerations could be used to raise doubt about Sheriff Shipley’s level of intoxication, this office concluded that the probability of convincing a Keokuk County jury to convict Sheriff Shipley of OWI was less than 50%. Although this office was ready, willing and able to proceed to a jury trial on this matter, this office realized that a failure to convict Sheriff Shipley would eliminate any possibility of insuring that Sheriff Shipley would get a substance abuse evaluation to determine if he had a drinking problem.

Therefore, this office entered into an agreement with Sheriff Shipley for a deferred prosecution. The terms of the agreement were:

• 1. Prosecution of this matter would be deferred for a period of six months;
• 2. During that time period, Sheriff Shipley would obtain a substance abuse evaluation from a facility located outside of Keokuk County;
• 3. Sheriff Shipley would provide this office with a copy of the substance abuse evaluation;
• 4. Sheriff Shipley would follow any and all treatment recommendations contained in the substance abuse evaluation;
• 5. Sheriff Shipley would not be involved in any further incidents involving alcohol;
• 6. If all of the above terms were complied with, this matter would be dismissed with all costs of prosecution being paid by Sheriff Shipley; and
• 7. Upon the dismissal of this action, this office would release a thorough and comprehensive report discussing the details of the investigation and subsequent criminal prosecution of Sheriff Shipley as well as discussing and explaining the reasons underlying the ultimate resolution of this matter.

This office has received a substance evaluation assessment for Sheriff Shipley indicating he received a substance abuse evaluation from a facility located in Mahaska County. In addition, we received confirmation that he is following all of the treatment recommendations set forth in the substance abuse evaluation. Therefore, based on Sheriff Shipley’s compliance with the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, this office recommended that this matter be dismissed with Sheriff Shipley to pay all costs associated with this prosecution based on the interest of justice.

The Washington County Attorney’s office would like to thank the Iowa State Patrol, particularly Trooper Richard Diephuis and Sergeant Tim Rathmun, for its invaluable assistance and cooperation throughout the investigation and prosecution of this matter. Their investigation and handling of this matter was conducted in a professional and thorough manner and greatly assisted this office in determining an outcome that benefitted both Sheriff Shipley and the citizens of the state of Iowa.

Larry J. Brock
Washington County Attorney

Keokuk County – I also wrote to the Keokuk County Sheriff’s Office asking for a statement from the Sheriff in regards to this matter:

“I understand that the Washington County Attorney held a press conference this morning stating that, after his investigation, he concluded that in the interest of justice, the OWI 1st offense charge filed against me should be dismissed.”

“Since that charge was filed, I have wanted to speak out, however, at the direction of my attorney, I was instructed not to make any statements or issue any releases until the presiding judge had issued the order formally dismissing my case.”

“I understand that today the Motion to Dismiss my case and that Order have been sent to the presiding judge. When the order is filed with the Clerk of Court, I will issue a statement. However, again, until this matter is formally finalized, I must follow the direction of my attorney and wait to comment. Thank you.”.