Client acquitted after trial on a charge of interference with official acts. The police violated his rights by preventing him from closing his door. The State unsuccessfully argued the community caretaking function.

The Court ruled:

The parties appeared for trial as scheduled. Based upon the evidence presented the Court finds the defendant not guilty and orders that this case be dismissed. Costs to be paid by the plaintiff. …

This matter came before the Court … at the time set for bench trial on the charge of Interference With Official Acts in violation of Iowa Code Section 719.1(1)(B). It was also the date and time set for the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress … . The State appeared by Assistant Johnson County Attorney Jacob Behnke. The Defendant was present with his attorney Adam Pollack. Witnesses were sworn and testimony was heard. State’s Exhibits 1 and 2 and Defendant’s Exhibits A and B were admitted. Post-trial briefs were submitted by the State and the Defendant.

FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT

Officer Trenton Geer of the Coralville Police Department testified that he was on duty on April 5, 2022 at around midnight. He responded to a call for domestic disturbance at … Apartments located at ….. in Coralville, Johnson County Iowa. The caller indicated hearing a male and female screaming and items being broken. Geer was wearing his uniform and badge. Geer went to the door of the apartment to speak to the Defendant. The Defendant had opened the door. The Defendant volunteered a statement that he did not hit her. Geer described the Defendant as argumentative, aggressive, and screaming. Geer testified that saw holes in the wall. Geer agreed that the door of the apartment opened inward. He stated his foot was on the door. Geer admitted that the Defendant wanted to close the door and that the Defendant asked that he get a warrant. Geer did not have a video or a report.

Sergeant Micheal Mrstik of the Coralville Police Department testified. He was wearing his uniform and badge. He was dispatched for a possible fight. He arrived and Officers Geer and Freeman on the scene. He was concerned as the Defendant appeared belligerent and emotional and he noticed things scattered inside. He was concerned about safety. He indicated the Defendant tried to slam the door. Officers stopped it and placed the Defendant under arrest.

The Defendant and the State each submitted post-trial briefs to the Court. In its post-trial brief, the State argues the Defendant’s crime was interference with the Officers carrying out their community caretaking function. The State relies on State v. Kern, 831 N.W.2d 149, 173 (Iowa 2013). The facts in Kern are quite different than in this matter. In general, Kern involved a parolee with a signed parolee agreement and officers were initially permitted into the home. On the facts in this matter, the Court does not agree that there was an exception to the warrant requirement. With that logic, the State could assert in every situation that Officers are carrying out their community caretaking function. If that were true, there would be no protections of privacy that the Fourth Amendment and state constitutions afford. The Court finds the lineage of cases in the Defendant’s post-trial brief to be persuasive. In the instant case, the Defendant was in his own home. The Court finds that at the point that the Defendant indicated the need to get a warrant, that obtaining the warrant was required. But the State seems to suggest that if any Defendant does not cooperate, they are inherently interfering.

The Court finds the alleged victim was leaving the apartment when officers came on scene. She did not indicate distress or engage with the officers other than to say she was going home. The Court finds that the Officers knocked and the Defendant opened his door. The Court finds that the Defendant did not want the Officers to enter his home and asked that the Officers to obtain a warrant. The Officers admitted to preventing the Defendant from closing his door. The Court finds that this violated the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment and Iowa Constitutional rights. The Court does not find that there was exigence.

The State asserted that the officers were doing an investigation and the Defendant was not permitting them to do so. After the Defendant was arrested there was no further investigation conducted. The Court does not find that any additional investigating occurred. The Court does not find that there was an exigent circumstance that would forgo obtaining a warrant. The Court does not find that these facts meet the high burden to qualify as an exception to the Fourth Amendment. The importance of obtaining a warrant cannot be overlooked even with a difficult and belligerent defendant. All parties agreed that there was no evidence of the Defendant was resisting arrest.

The Court finds that there was no legal basis to justify officers not obtaining a warrant. The Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is GRANTED. Further, the Court does not find the State’s evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for interference with official acts in violation of Iowa Code Section 719.1(1)(B).

Client accused of Operating While Intoxicated has been acquitted by a jury after a 1.25-day trial and 2 hours of deliberations.

Iowa Court of Appeals holds that a non corroboration instruction that specifically singles out the victim’s testimony is improper.

Read the case 

Iowa Court of Appeals holds that promises of leniency, suggesting that confessing may help the Defendant avoid his wife being implicated, crossed the line and rendered his statements involuntary. Furthermore, it was error to provide a non corroboration jury instruction.

Read the case

Iowa Court  of Appeals holds that Iowa Code section 321I.27 as applied is unconstitutional, for a statute cannot overrule the 4th Amendment or Article I section 8 of the Iowa constitution. An officer must have probable cause of a law violation in order to stop a vehicle. In this case, the stop of the Defendant’s utility vehicle (UTV) by a conservation officer, which was not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause, violated his constitutional rights—notwithstanding Iowa Code section 321I.27, which gives statutory authority for the stop.

Read the case here

Iowa Court of Appeals discusses case in which waiver of Miranda and statements given were deemed involuntary as a result of promissory leniency.

Read the case here

Iowa Supreme Court holds that in an aiding and abetting robbery case, in order for there to be a conviction of robbery in the 1st degree, there must be sufficient evidence that the Defendant knew that a weapon would be involved. Also, a conviction for ongoing criminal conduct requires lengthy ongoing protracted activities which essentially were the regular course of business, or clearly intended to be such, as opposed to intermittent activities which may or may not continue.

Read the case

Iowa Court of Appeals finds that there was insufficient evidence for a domestic abuse protective order/no contact order, for screaming, slamming and punching a door is not an assault.

Read the case

Iowa Court of Appeals rules that a Defendant is entitled to a new trial after the lower court improperly overruled hearsay objections to the admission of an investigative report written by law enforcement and a search warrant application, which contained statements by an informant who did not testify, for their admission violated the Defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation.

Read the case

Iowa Court of Appeals rules that a trailer hitch partially covering a license plate is not a law violation and does not give probable cause for a seizure.

Read the case

Iowa Court of Appeals rules that an officer’s search of a glove compartment and center console of the Defendant’s vehicle, looking for evidence of identity, proof of insurance, and vehicle registration after the Defendant refused the officer’s requests, was not a valid search under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.  The officer did not have probable cause to believe evidence of a crime was in the vehicle, and there was no exigency requiring a search at that time.

Read the case

 

 

Iowa Supreme Court holds that asking a passenger to exit the vehicle in order to effectuate a search or arrest of the driver or other person is not necessarily an unconstitutional violation of 4th amendment if reasonable under all of the circumstances.

Read the case