Client facing three drug felonies, two serious misdemeanor drug charges, and a simple misdemeanor – five charges in all – pleads to a single count of aggravated misdemeanor prohibited acts for a deferred judgment.
Iowa Court of Appeals holds that when an officer orders a passenger out of a vehicle, it is a seizure, and that seizure must be supported by reasonable suspicion in order to be valid.
Iowa Court of Appeals holds that there is insufficient evidence of forgery when the bill does not purport to be legal tender.
Iowa Court of Appeals reverses conviction of Defendant accused of possession drugs with intent to deliver, finding that there was insufficient evidence of constructive possession when the Defendant was a passenger in the car owned by the driver, the trunk contained drugs, and the Defendant’s backpack inside the car contained a small amount of drugs, and there were some inconsistencies in the stories between the two, but there was no evidence that the Defendant knew the drugs were in the trunk, nor was there evidence the Defendant had the right or authority to control the drugs.
Iowa Court of Appeals requires expungement of case wherein the probationary period ended, and no motion to revoke had been filed prior to the end of probation, nor proper procedural due process afforded.
Iowa Court of Appeals confirms that when it comes to expungement of dismissed charges, separate case numbers are entitled to separate consideration.
Client charged with OWI-2nd offense as a result of alleged drug intoxication while driving obtains plea deal for public intoxication and a fine only.
Client’s OWI 1st offense plead down to simple misdemeanor public intoxication. Test result was above .08 but below .09.
In Collins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the automobile exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement does not permit the warrantless entry of a home or its curtilage in order to search a vehicle therein. In this case, an officer learned that an orange and black motorcycle likely was stolen and in the possession of Collins. The officer discovered photographs on Collins’ Facebook profile of an orange and black motorcycle parked in the driveway of a house, drove to the house, and parked on the street. From there, he could see what appeared to be the motorcycle under a white tarp parked in the same location as the motorcycle in the photograph. Without a search warrant, the officer walked to the top of the driveway, removed the tarp, confirmed that the motorcycle was stolen by running the license plate and vehicle identification numbers, took a photograph of the uncovered motorcycle, replaced the tarp, and returned to his car to wait for Collins, whom he subsequently arrested. In ruling that the evidence should be suppressed, the Supreme Court held that the automobile exception does not give an officer the right to enter a home or its curtilage (the property surrounding the home) to access a vehicle without a warrant.
The Iowa Supreme Court has held that in civil forfeiture cases, individuals may assert their 5th amendment privileges against self-incrimination to avoid the threshold pleading requirements, and that courts should first rule on motions to suppress evidence based on constitutional violations to determine whether the State has fulfilled its burden of proof to establish a case for forfeiture (before deciding whether the claimant has established a defense), and finally that an owner prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees notwithstanding the lack of an adjudication on the merits, given that the property was returned.
Read an article about this issue
In Byrd v. United States, decided on May 14, 2018, the U.S. Supreme court ruled that the mere fact that a driver in lawful possession or control of a rental car is not listed on the rental agreement will not defeat his or her otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy. The Defendant was not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement, and the agreement said permitting an unauthorized driver to drive the car would violate the agreement, but that did not defeat his reasonable expectation of privacy not to have the vehicle searched while he was in possession of it, because the authorized driver had given him the keys to the car. Hence, he still was protected by the 4th amendment. Therefore, the search of the vehicle merely because he was not an authorized driver violated his rights, and the evidence seized had to be suppressed as fruits of an unlawful search.
Iowa Supreme Court rules that a Defendant is entitled to request in discovery the documents of an investigation of an allegedly false claim of abuse by the victim, even if the claim was made after the Defendant was convicted.