A sentencing court’s failure to explain why consecutive sentences were being imposed (as opposed to concurrent) is reversible error requiring a resentencing.
Prosecutor breach of plea agreement by failing to advocate for an agreed-upon term leads to a re-sentencing in front of a different judge.
The Iowa Supreme Court holds that the implied consent statute requires officer compliance with the statutory requirements of a written request for a chemical test specimen, and that test consent without use of such mandatory procedures is invalid and inadmissible.
The question presented in the OWI case was whether a peace officer can bypass the statutory implied consent provisions and request a motorist provide a bodily specimen for a chemical breath test without a written request and without advising the motorist of the consequences associated with refusing or submitting to the request for a chemical breath test. The Court answered in the negative, absent a warrant or other statutory exceptions. “We conclude the statute is unambiguous and requires a peace officer who requests a motorist to provide a bodily specimen for chemical testing to do so in accord with the statutory procedures when certain conditions exist.”
The Iowa Supreme Court discusses what is required of a Defendant to satisfy his burden of proof in order to obtain a restoration of his firearms rights under Iowa Code section 724.31, in the context of one who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution, upholding the statute’s constitutionality under the newly amended Iowa Constitution.
The Iowa Supreme Court discusses corporal punishment and its limits in the context of a child endangerment case, as well as the imitations on a guardian ad litem’s ability to make sentencing recommendations.
Iowa Supreme Court holds that the evidence was insufficient to show that the Defendant was attempting to engage in commercial sexual activity under Iowa Code section 710A.1(1). The defendant’s did not give or promise any item of value in exchange for a sex act or sexually explicit performance. Any offers that the defendant made were to facilitate a sexual relationship but were not in exchange for sex—or were vague and did not rise to the necessary level to constitute a promise.
The Defendant did not promise, give, or receive items of value in exchange for sex. There must be a quid pro quo offer in exchange sex. Merely arranging a ride or location, things to facilitate the sex, but not in exchange for the sex, do not violate the statute. Although the defendant told the girl he had no problem spoiling her or giving her certain items when they were together, there never was a direct acknowledgment that he would provide anything of value in exchange for sexual activity. In summary, the Iowa Supreme Court agreed that Iowa Code section 710A.1(1) requires an express or implied quid pro quo.
The Iowa Supreme Court has held that fourth-degree theft and unauthorized use of a credit card are different crimes for purposes of the 45 day speedy indictment rule.
The Iowa Supreme Court has clarified that under the old rules of Criminal Procedure, the 45-day speedy indictment does not apply unless there is an appearance before a magistrate or a waiver of such is filed, but the time to start the running of the deadline begins with the date of arrest. However, under the newly amended rules of Criminal procedure, the time to start the running of the clock for a speedy indictment does not begin unless and until either the Defendant appears before a magistrate or a waiver of such is filed. The date of arrest no longer is the applicable starting point for the running of the speedy trial deadline to file a trial information.
The Iowa Court of Appeals has reversed and remanded the suppression ruling in my client’s case. “Richard Eugene Noll appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s ruling on the validity of the traffic stop but reverse and remand with directions to decide the lawfulness of the search of Noll’s person leading to the discovery of methamphetamine as outlined in this opinion.”
Iowa Court of Appeals rules that because a defendant, who was arrested on an assault charge, had no realistic ability to access a fanny pack after he handed it to a friend before he was handcuffed and then escorted to the police patrol car, the search of the fanny pack did not meet the search incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement. Hence, the drugs were found unconstitutionally, without a valid warrant exception.
The Iowa Supreme Court confirms that drug dog sniffs are valid even if the dog briefly touches the exterior of the vehicle, as long as the dog is in a place where it and the police are lawfully allowed to be and does not enter the interior of the vehicle.
The Iowa Supreme Court has issued an interesting and informative opinion regarding the privileges and immunities clause, which involves potentially improper discrimination against those who live out of state.