The state is seeking to overrule Chris Soules' defense attorney's motion to dismiss charges against him, saying they do not violate his constitutional rights.

Soules, 35, a former contestant on the reality TV show "The Bachelorette" and star of season 19 of "The Bachelor," was arrested in April and charged with leaving the scene of a deadly crash, a Class D felony in Iowa. After legal wrangling over the specifics of the allegations, prosecutors filed new "trial information," amending the charge against Soules in September.

Soules is suspected of driving a pickup truck that rear-ended a Buchanan County farmer's tractor, killing the driver. Soules called 911 and identified himself, but later left, authorities said. He was arrested a couple of hours later at his home, about six miles away, in rural Arlington.

Soules' defense attorneys filed a motion seeking to dismiss the criminal charge, claiming that it is unconstitutional to expect Soules to incriminate himself by staying at the crash scene.

'Sad deal all around': Chris Soules' Iowa hometown reacts to fatal crash

Iowa law requires a driver involved in a fatal accident to remain at the scene, except for going to seek necessary help.

"After leaving the scene of the accident, a surviving driver shall promptly report the accident to law enforcement authorities and shall immediately return to the scene of the accident" or tell law enforcement where they are, the law states.

Soules' attorneys argue that this law violates Soules' privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself," according to a brief filed by Soules' lawyers.

However, the state says his physical presence at the scene would have been "non-testimonial" and he would have been allowed to assert his fifth amendment rights and decline to provide any incriminating statements, other than his identification, according to court documents.

Soules' attorneys also claim that the criminal charge against him violates his Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable seizure.

"By obligating an individual to return to the scene, (the law) certainly intrudes on an individual’s freedom of action," the attorneys wrote.

The state says no seizure occurred, however, because no officer asserted his authority over Soules and that no true "seizure" occurred until officers obtained a search warrant and put him under custody, according to court documents.

"Iowa law imposed a duty to remain at the scene and would expose him to criminal prosecution if he refused to comply — but no particularized assertion of police authority limited his freedom to make that choice to disregard that duty, so there was no seizure at all at that point," according to the state, in court documents.

Overall, the state emphasizes that the "heart of the crime" committed by Soules was leaving the scene of a fatal collision without the purpose of seeking emergency aid.

"The State must emphasize that none of the arguments Soules raises in his

motion to dismiss or the accompanying brief truly strike at the heart of the crime that

the State is alleging — leaving the scene of the fatal collision for a purpose not permitted

by (law)," according to court documents.