Iowa Supreme Court confirms that for expungment purposes, each case is to be treated separately. Even if a separately charged simple misdemeanor is related to the indictable offenses, and there are some guilty pleas to the indictable offenses, if the separately charged simple misdemeanor is dismissed, then the Defendant is entitled to expungment. Each separately numbered legal proceeding is to be evaluated on its own, regardless of whether there had been a conviction in another, factually related legal proceeding.
Iowa Court of Appeals confirms that an officer activating his overhead lights and pulling his vehicle next to a car at a rest stop, then approaching the driver’s window, is a seizure under the 4th amendment, because a reasonable person would not believe they are free to leave. Further, a warrant for he arrest for someone who often drives a certain vehicle is not reasonable suspicion to seize without first confirming that person is the one driving.
Iowa Court of Appeals confirms that law enforcement may not extend a stop, seizure, or detention for any time, no matter how short, once the purpose of the detention has been resolved.
My client was found not guilty of harassment, after a trial to a judge.
Prosecutor’s references to excluded evidence, in a veiled attempt to get around the Court’s rulings in limine, was a violation of the Court’s ruling in limine, and the prejudice requires reversal and a new trial.
Iowa Court of Appeals rules that a prosecutor may not personally vouch for the credibility or truthfulness of a witness, especially when credibility is at the crux of the case, and to do so requires reversal and remand for a new trial.
Iowa Court of Appeals rules that it is unconstitutional for an officer to tell a person to leave their purse in the car when at the time there was no probable cause for a seizure of the purse; and the officer cannot later justify a search of the purse based on illegal items found in the car.
The Iowa Supreme Court has held that under the Iowa Constitution, the implied consent procedures requiring a person to submit to a breath test without a warrant in the context of operating a motor boat while intoxicated are unconstitutional and not consensual unless the State proves otherwise.
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that even hateful or offensive speech is protected by the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Writing the opinion in Matal v. Tam, which will become known as the “Slants” case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:
[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
In his concurrence, Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed:
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Shocking Reversal of Decades
In a shocking reversal of decades of precedent, the Iowa Supreme court has held that the speedy indictment rule commences and starts to run from the time of arrest only when an arrest is completed with the Defendant making an initial appearance before a magistrate.
Iowa Supreme Court holds that when a defendant is charged with domestic abuse assault, the defendant is entitled to have a jury instruction defining what it means to reside or cohabit with a household member.
Iowa Supreme Court rules that theft by taking under Iowa Code section 714.1(1) is limited to situations where the person obtains property without consent. Even if the consent is obtained by fraud, it isn’t a theft by taking, but rather theft by deception.