After a hearing with the Iowa Department of Transportation contesting the revocation of my client’s driver’s license, the IDOT Administrative Law Judge agreed that my client’s right to an Independent Chemical Test under Iowa Code section 321J.11 was violated, and therefore the administrative driver’s license revocation had to be rescinded and my client’s driver’s license not be revoked. As a result, the County Attorney agreed to a plea agreement in which the serious misdemeanor Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) criminal charge was amended and plead down to a lesser offense of simple misdemeanor simulating public intoxication for a fine.
After filing a motion to suppress and supportive brief in an Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs case, a plea agreement was arrived upon wherein the Defendant plead guilty to the lesser amended offense of simple misdemeanor public intoxication for a fine and completion of an OWI Weekend program, and the State consented to a motion in limine suppressing the test refusal, which mean that my client would get her drivers license returned to her. An attendant charge of possession of drug paraphernalia was dismissed.
Iowa Court of Appeals rules that it is impermissible and a violation of the hearsay rule to admit a sworn deposition for the purpose of impeaching the testimony contained therein by using an unsworn out of court recorded hearsay statement by a witness who does not testify at trial. “The right given to the State to impeach its own witnesses . . . is to be used as a shield and not as a sword. The State is not entitled . . . to place a witness on the stand who is expected to give unfavorable testimony and then, in the guise of impeachment, offer evidence which is otherwise inadmissible.”
https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/4042/embed/CourtAppealsOpinion
Iowa Supreme Court rules that an initial positive laboratory test for drugs is not sufficient for a conviction of OWI for having any amount of a controlled substance in the person’s urine.
District Court Judge rules in my client’s favor, canceling temporary domestic abuse protective no contact order, and declining to grant final no contact order, finding after hearing, witness testimony, cross examination, and review of exhibits that the petitioner had failed to sustain her burden of proof of domestic assault.
In Timbs v. Indiana, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Tyson Timbs was convicted in state court of dealing controlled substances. At the time of Timbs’s arrest, the police seized a Land Rover SUV Timbs had purchased for $42,000 with money he received from an insurance policy when his father died. The State sought civil forfeiture of Timbs’s vehicle, charging that the SUV had been used to transport heroin. Observing that Timbs recently had purchased the vehicle for more than four times the maximum $10,000 monetary fine assessable against him for his drug conviction, the trial court denied the State’s request. The vehicle’s forfeiture, the court determined, would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Timbs’s offense, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Excessive Fines Clause constrains only federal action and is inapplicable to state impositions. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with the Indiana Supreme Court, holding that the 8th Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is applicable to the states.
When charged with harassment, and the allegedly harassing or threatening statement is made to a third party (not the alleged target), there must be evidence that the Defendant intended the threat to be communicated to the target. Acquittal is required when the evidence is insufficient to prove intent to communicate to the alleged target of harassment in an email to a third party.
The Iowa Court of Appeals has ruled that the pat down search of a suspect was unconstitutional, for it went beyond the consent for a search for weapons, and the officer squeezed and manipulated the pockets before pulling out a pill container which could not be immediately identified as illegal contraband prior to pulling it out of the pocket.
Client charged with Operating While Intoxicated has charge dismissed.
Client charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI), possession of drugs, and possession of drug paraphernalia obtains a deferred judgment on the possession charge, and dismissal of the OWI and paraphernalia charges.
Client charged with domestic abuse assault causing injury has charge plead down to simple misdemeanor disorderly conduct for a deferred judgment and probation.
Iowa Supreme Court discusses how criminal restitution should be properly calculated and proven. In this case, the Court reversed the lower courts, holding that the restitution was unproven, excessive, and not legally cognizable.