UPDATES & ANALYSIS

10.05

Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in eight cases Oct. 10 and 11

by Rox Laird | October 5, 2023

The Iowa Supreme Court will hear arguments in eight cases Oct. 10 and 11. Five additional cases will be submitted to the Court without oral arguments. Following are brief summaries of the October cases. [Go to On Brief’s “Cases in the Pipeline” page to read the briefs filed in these cases.]

 

State v. Iowa Juvenile Court for Plymouth County

Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 10, 9 a.m.

Question: Did a juvenile court have authority to reverse its earlier ruling waiving jurisdiction in a juvenile criminal prosecution?

The State appeals a decision by the Juvenile Court for Plymouth County reversing its earlier decision waiving jurisdiction over juvenile I.S. to adult court on charges of sexual exploitation of a minor and purchasing or possessing a depiction of a minor in a sex act. The juvenile court initially waived jurisdiction based on its conclusion that there was too little time for treatment of I.S. before he turned 18. The juvenile court subsequently vacated and modified the earlier waiver decision based on “newly discovered evidence” showing there were reasonable prospects of rehabilitating I.S. in his time left under juvenile court jurisdiction. The State appeals that ruling, urging the Iowa Supreme Court to reverse the juvenile court, arguing the “newly discovered” evidence subsequently offered was not new but was available at the time of the original hearing, and that once the juvenile court waived jurisdiction it did not have authority under state law to vacate and modify that order.

 

In re Marriage of Frazier

Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 10, 9 a.m.

Question: Does the district court have the authority to resolve a divorced couple’s disagreement regarding Covid-19 vaccination of their children?

Mary Streicher seeks further review of a divided June 21 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling reversing a Clinton County District Court decision denying her application for a determination regarding the vaccination of their children against Covid-19. Streitcher and her ex-husband, who share legal custody of the children, are at an impasse regarding the vaccinations. The district court held that it lacked tie-breaking authority absent a petition to modify the dissolution decree. Two members of the three-judge Court of Appeals panel disagreed, concluding that when there is a dispute regarding a child’s medical treatment, the district court should step to resolve the deadlock as an objective arbiter by considering what is in the best interest of the child. The dissent argued that the trial court lacked authority to resolve the deadlock because Streitcher did not petition for modification of the divorce decree.

 

State v. Wittenberg

Will be submitted to the Court without oral argument Oct. 10.

Question: Was a driver whose car was partially blocked by a police cruiser seized for Fourth Amendment purposes?

Donald Wittenberg seeks further review of an Aug. 18 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming the Polk County District Court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained in what he alleges was an illegal seizure when Des Moines police officers partially blocked his car in a parking lot without probable cause prior to charging him with OWI. Wittenberg argued that he was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes because a reasonable person in his situation would not have felt free to leave when officers parked their patrol car behind him, trained a spotlight on his car, and approached on foot with flashlights directed into the car, but the Court of Appeals disagreed. In agreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeals cited its January ruling in State v. Cyrus, which had similar facts. That ruling is also under review this term by the Iowa Supreme Court. [Read our summary of the Cyrus case, argued Sept. 29.]

 

State v. Harbach

Will be submitted to the Court Oct. 10 without oral argument.

Question: Was evidence from a blood-test valid in an OWI prosecution where a sheriff’s deputy included a false statement in the warrant application?

Jesse Harbach seeks further review of a Jan. 11 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling reversing the Delaware County District Court’s suppression of evidence from a warrant to obtain a blood-alcohol test following Harbach’s single-vehicle accident. The blood test showed the presence of methamphetamine, and Harbach was charged with OWI. The district court suppressed evidence of the drug-test results, finding that the Delaware County sheriff’s deputy provided false information in the warrant application in which the deputy said he smelled alcohol on Harbach when there was no alcohol present in the drug test. In reversing the trial court, the Court of Appeals held that just because the deputy’s warrant application was inaccurate, the false statement was not necessarily an intentional falsehood, in part because the blood sample was withdrawn several hours after the accident, and probable cause existed for the warrant based on the totality of the circumstances, including the deputy’s observations of Harbach’s impairment.

 

State v. Griffin

Oral argument scheduled for Oct. 10, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Was a darkly tinted cover over a vehicle license plate probable cause for State troopers to make a traffic stop?

The State appeals a Warren County District Court ruling granting Chase Griffin’s motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop that led to his arrest for OWI and child endangerment. The district court agreed with Griffin’s argument that Iowa State Patrol troopers did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to make the stop for having a tinted cover of the license plate. The State argues on appeal that Griffin violated Iowa Code sections 321.37 and 321.38 by having a darkly tinted cover over his plate because the cover failed to permit full view of all numerals and letters. The State argues the district court erred in reading the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in State v. Tyler as holding tinted covers are not illegal “no matter how dark or opaque.” The State argues that if Tyler can be so interpreted, “Tyler should be clarified or abrogated.”

 

State v. T.J.W.

Oral argument scheduled for Oct. 10, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Did a district court have jurisdiction to order restitution after an offender completed all terms and conditions of a deferred judgment?

T.J.W. appeals the Scott County District Court’s order that she pay $6,067.44 in victim restitution after she completed terms and conditions of a deferred judgment. T.J.W. pleaded guilty to criminal mischief in the fourth degree for her part in vandalizing two vehicles. She was granted a deferred judgment, placed on unsupervised probation for one year, and ordered to pay a $315 civil penalty. The charges were dismissed and expunged after she completed all terms and conditions of the deferred judgment, at which point the trial judge ordered payment of restitution. T.J.W. argues on appeal that once the case was dismissed, the district court no longer had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the restitution order.

 

State v. B.C.D.

Will be submitted to the Court without oral argument Oct. 10.

Question: Did a district court have jurisdiction to order restitution after an offender completed all terms and conditions of a deferred judgment?

B.C.D. appeals the Scott County District Court’s order that she pay $6.067.44 in victim restitution for her part in vandalizing two vehicles after charges of third-degree criminal mischief were dismissed and expunged. B.C.D. argues on appeal that once the district court dismissed her case, it lacked authority to subsequently order restitution. [See the summary of State v. T.J.W. above for a related appeal.]

 

State v. Amisi

Will be submitted to the Court Oct. 10 without oral argument.

Question: Should an edited police video suggesting an OWI suspect failed a preliminary breath test have been allowed into evidence?

Bita Amisi seeks further review of a Feb. 8 Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming the Polk County District Court’s admission of a police video, which showed that he agreed to a preliminary breath test, and affirming his convictions for third-offense operating while intoxicated (OWI) and eluding. The edited police video shows Amisi agreeing to the preliminary breath test and then, following the test, Amisi’s arrest. Amisi claims the jury would interpret the video to show that he failed the test, which he argues renders the video inadmissible under Iowa Code section 321J.5(2).

 

Olson v. BNSF Railway

Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 11, 9 a.m.

Question: Was an employer entitled to a new trial because of an omission from a verdict form even though neither party objected to the error at trial?

Scott Olson seeks further review of a Jan. 25 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling reversing the Polk County District Court’s denial of BNSF Railway’s motion for new trial following a jury verdict in Olson’s favor for a workplace injury. The Court of Appeals held that BSNF was entitled to a new trial because the verdict form omitted a question on whether Olson proved that the railroad was negligent. Although neither party objected to the omission at trial, the Court of Appeals cited the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Whitlow v. McConnaha as allowing consideration of the omission on the verdict form in the absence of a formal objection during trial. One member of the three-judge Court of Appeals panel concurred in the judgment but wrote separately to express reservations about whether Whitlow should be read so broadly. In his application for further review, Olson urges the Iowa Supreme Court to revisit Whitlow, arguing that its application by the Court of Appeals conflicts with Iowa case law, the Iowa Constitution, and Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

State v. Flores

Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 11, 9 a.m.

Question: Was a defendant wrongly convicted of crimes related to sexual abuse of a child as a result of errors by the trial court regarding his right to a speedy trial and the admissibility of certain evidence?

Nelson Flores seeks further review of a May 10 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming his conviction by a Crawford County jury for several crimes relating to sexual abuse of a child. In his application for further review, Flores argues the Court of Appeals erred in concluding there was good cause for violating his right to a speedy trial, and that the Court of Appeals’ ruling conflicts with Iowa Supreme Court precedent on the admissibility of a forensic interview as harmless error and on the admissibility of coconspirator statements.

 

In re the Detention of Stewart Schuman

Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 11, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Is a convicted sex offender suitable for release from civil commitment to a transitional release program?

The State appeals a Story County District Court finding that Stewart Schuman, who was determined by a jury in 2012 to be a sexually violent predator, is suitable for release from the Iowa Civil Commitment Unit for Sex Offenders and placement in a transitional release program. The State argues on appeal that that the district court erred in holding that the State failed to prove that Schuman had not developed a detailed “Relapse Prevention Plan” approved by a treatment provider.

 

State v. Laub

Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 11, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Did a district court judge err in suppressing search warrant documents related to an OWI prosecution?

The State appeals the Boone County District Court’s suppression of evidence related to the prosecution of Colby Laub for first-offense operating while intoxicated. The State argues on appeal that the district court erred in suppressing search warrant documents and breath-testing procedures. The district court concluded that the provision for implied consent for chemical testing in Iowa Code section 321J.6 superseded all other forms of OWI investigation, including a search warrant issued under Code Chapter 808.

An amicus curiae brief in support of defendant-appellee Laub filed with the Court by the Iowa Association for Justice argues that while a driver has a statutory right to withdraw implied consent and refuse to provide a body specimen for chemical testing, permitting the use of a general search warrant under Chapter 808 “eviscerates this statutory right.”

 

State v. McMickle

Will be submitted to the Court Oct. 11 without oral argument.

Question: Did a district court judge err in suppressing search warrant documents related to an OWI prosecution?

The State appeals a Boone County District Court’s suppression of evidence related to the prosecution of Morgan McMickle for first-offense operating while intoxicated. The State argues on appeal that the trial court erred in concluding that an officer engaged in an OWI investigation must comply with the implied consent provision in Iowa Code section 321J.6 and that section 321J is the exclusive means of investigating and obtaining a bodily specimen for conducting an OWI investigation.  [See the summary of State v. Laub above for a related appeal.]

An amicus curiae brief in support of defendant-appellee McMickle was filed with the Court by the Iowa Association for Justice.

 

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2023-24