UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in one case in Marshalltown Nov. 19

by Rox Laird | November 18, 2024

The Iowa Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Nov. 19 in an evening session in Marshalltown in a case that involves the legality of a home search under the Iowa Constitution.

The Nov. 19 argument in Marshalltown is one in a series of court sessions held outside of the Judicial Branch Building in Des Moines to give Iowans easier access to the workings of the Court. The session to be held in the Marshalltown Performing Arts Center at Marshalltown High School, 1602 South Second Ave., will begin at 7 p.m. A public reception with the justices sponsored by the Marshall County Bar Association will follow the oral arguments.

In the case to be argued Nov. 19, State v. Young, the question posed is whether evidence produced in a warrantless search of Artell Young’s home by federal probation officers should have been suppressed in the subsequent prosecution of Young for drug offenses under state law. [Go to On Brief’s “Cases in the Pipeline” page to read briefs filed in this case.]

Young was convicted by a Polk County jury for second-offense possession of crack cocaine, second-offense possession of cocaine, and second-offense possession of marijuana and sentenced to six years in prison.

Young argues the search violated his rights under the Iowa Constitution and he asks the Iowa Supreme Court to hold that his conviction should be vacated and his case remanded for a new trial because evidence from the search should have been suppressed at trial.

The search of Young’s home was initiated by a federal probation officer who was supervising Young following his release from prison for time served on a federal crime. The search was allowed as a condition of his federal criminal sentence. When federal authorities declined to prosecute based on the evidence found in the search, they turned it over to the Des Moines Police Department, which brought charges.

Although Young acknowledges the search conducted by federal probation officials was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S Constitution, he argues the evidence should have been suppressed in state court because it violated the Fourth Amendment equivalent in of the Iowa Constitution, which the Iowa Supreme Court has held provides greater protection in search-and–seizure cases.

Although the Iowa Supreme Court has recognized an exception to that constitutional protection in cases of offenders on parole or probation, Young argues that exception does not apply in his case and evidence from the federal probation officers’ search of his house should be excluded from his prosecution under state law.

In response, the State argues the Court should not exclude evidence discovered by federal officers who act lawfully under federal law and the Fourth Amendment, and in Young’s case there was nothing unconstitutional about the search by federal probation officers based on reasonable suspicion they would find evidence of probation violations.

In addition, the State argues that if the Court were to reverse Young’s conviction based on its 2014 decision in State v. Short, which held that a warrantless search of a probationer’s home by police violated the Iowa Constitution, that decision should be reversed. That ruling “was wrong when decided,” the State argues,” and this case illustrates why.”

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25