12 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2024 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2016A Florida appellate court rejected a defendant’s argument that he had the right to counsel before submitting to a breathalyzer test in State v. Burns, 661 So. 2d 842, 847 (Fla. Dist. 2016A Florida appellate court rejected a defendant’s argument that - he had the right to counsel before submitting to a breathalyzer test in State v. Burns, 661 So.2d 842, 847 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995). | 3 | 3 |
Forte v. Stategreen2 sentences2016App. 1989) (en banc) (holding the chemical breath test procedure “is not a ‘critical stage’ of the criminal process which necessitates either the prior consultation [with] or presence of counsel under the right-to- counsel provision of Article I, § 10 of the Texas Constitution” (quoting Forte v. State, 759 S.W.2d 128, 139 (Tex. Crim. 2016App. 1989) (en banc) (holding the chemical breath test procedure “is not a ‘critical stage’ of the criminal process which necessitates either the prior consultation [with] or presence of counsel under the right-to- counsel provision of Article I, § 10 of the Texas Constitution” (quoting Forte v. State, 759 S.W.2d 128, 139 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Dudleygreen2 sentences2016A prosecution is defined as “the commencement, including the filing of a complaint, and continuance of a criminal proceeding, and pursuit of that proceeding to final judgment on behalf of the state.” Iowa Code § 801.4 (13); accord State v. Dudley, 766 N.W.2d 606 , 617–18 (Iowa 2009) (holding a criminal prosecution for the purposes of the Iowa Constitution is coextensive with the statutory definition of “prosecution”); see also Prosecution, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining “prosecution” as “[a] criminal proceeding in which an accused person is tried”). 2016A prosecution is defined as “the commencement, including the filing of a complaint, and continuance of a criminal proceeding, and pursuit of that proceeding to final judgment on behalf of the state.” Iowa Code § 801.4 (13); accord State v. Dudley, 766 N.W.2d 606, 617-18 (Iowa 2009) (holding a criminal prosecution for the purposes of the Iowa Constitution is coextensive with the statutory definition of “prosecution”); see also Prosecution, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed.2014) (defining “prosecution” as “[a] criminal proceeding in which an accused person is tried”). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Postgreen2 sentences2021See Post, 255 Iowa at 582 , 123 N.W.2d at 16–17; Lyon, 176 Iowa at 175–77, 157 N.W. at 743–44; Com. 2021See Post, 255 Iowa at 582 , 123 N.W.2d at 16–17; Lyon, 176 Iowa at 175–77, 157 N.W. at 743–44; Com. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hrahagreen1 sentence2024See State v. Baraki, 981 N.W.2d 693 , 697 (Iowa 2022); State v. Hraha, 193 N.W.2d 484, 489 (Iowa 1972) (holding statute applied to criminal prosecutions as well as administrative proceedings to suspend driving privileges). | 1 | 1 |
People v. DeMarassegreen1 sentence2017See State v. McIntyre, 863 N.W.2d 471 , 474 (Neb. 2015) (concluding evidence of a chemical breath test that records a deficient sample is admissible if the State lays sufficient foundation); see also United States v. Brannon, 146 F.3d 1194, 1196 (9th Cir. 1998); State v. Mazzuca, 979 P.2d 1226 , 1228–29 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999); People v. DeMarasse, 647 N.E.2d 1353, 1354 (N.Y. 1995); State v. Conrad, 421 S.E.2d 41, 45 (W. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wolfegreen1 sentence2017Va. 1992). 4 Hunt does not challenge the witness’s qualifications. 5 We find this situation is distinct from State v. Wolfe, 369 N.W.2d 458, 460 (Iowa Ct. App. 1985), where our court found an external reading of the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration from an intoxilyzer machine was not admissible when the State did not show the machine was functioning properly. 11 “interfering substances” other than ethyl alcohol if an adequate sample is given; for example, if the subject being tested is a diabetic who has acetone on his breath or has “huffed” a compound containing difluoroethane, the mac | 1 | 1 |
98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5677, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,115, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7883 United States of America v. Kevin Vincent Brannongreen1 sentence2017See State v. McIntyre, 863 N.W.2d 471 , 474 (Neb. 2015) (concluding evidence of a chemical breath test that records a deficient sample is admissible if the State lays sufficient foundation); see also United States v. Brannon, 146 F.3d 1194, 1196 (9th Cir. 1998); State v. Mazzuca, 979 P.2d 1226 , 1228–29 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999); People v. DeMarasse, 647 N.E.2d 1353, 1354 (N.Y. 1995); State v. Conrad, 421 S.E.2d 41, 45 (W. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Conradgreen1 sentence2017See State v. McIntyre, 863 N.W.2d 471 , 474 (Neb. 2015) (concluding evidence of a chemical breath test that records a deficient sample is admissible if the State lays sufficient foundation); see also United States v. Brannon, 146 F.3d 1194, 1196 (9th Cir. 1998); State v. Mazzuca, 979 P.2d 1226 , 1228–29 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999); People v. DeMarasse, 647 N.E.2d 1353, 1354 (N.Y. 1995); State v. Conrad, 421 S.E.2d 41, 45 (W. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bristor
green
2 sentences2016The Bristor court recognized that a driver faces serious consequences from a chemical breath test and that “the advice of counsel can be useful because a driver may be dazed as a result of the alcohol, an accident, or both.” Id. 2016The Bristor court recognized that a driver faces serious consequences from a chemical breath test and that “the advice of counsel can be useful because a driver may be dazed as a result of the alcohol, an accident, or both.” Id. | 3 | 2016–2016 |
State of Iowa v. John Arthur Senn Jr.
green
2 sentences2021On appeal, the issue was whether the right to counsel under article I, section 10 of the Iowa Constitution attached before the State filed criminal charges against [the defendant] while he was under arrest for the suspicion of drunk driving and faced with the decision of whether to submit to a chemical breath test that measures his blood alcohol level. 13 Id. at 6 . 2021The plurality reasoned, “The State had not filed criminal charges against Senn at the time he was deciding whether to submit to the chemical breath test. 14 Therefore, he was not entitled to counsel under article I, section 10.” Id. at 12 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Ex parte Grace
green
2 sentences2021The plurality acknowledged that one early case had applied article I, section 10 to a noncriminal proceeding—Ex parte Grace, 12 Iowa 208 (1861). 2021The plurality acknowledged that one early case had applied article I, section 10 to a noncriminal proceeding—Ex parte Grace, 12 Iowa 208 (1861). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Lyon
green
2 sentences2021See Post, 255 Iowa at 582 , 123 N.W.2d at 16–17; Lyon, 176 Iowa at 175–77, 157 N.W. at 743–44; Com. 2021See Post, 255 Iowa at 582 , 123 N.W.2d at 16–17; Lyon, 176 Iowa at 175–77, 157 N.W. at 743–44; Com. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Garcia
green
1 sentence2020See Iowa Code § 321J.5; Garcia, 756 N.W.2d at 222 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Moorehead
green
2 sentences2018According to Johnston, but for Davis's prior submission to field sobriety testing, he would have advised him to decline a chemical breath test. 4 We find the supreme court's subsequent decision in State v. Moorehead , 699 N.W.2d 667 (Iowa 2005) distinguishable. 2018In Moorehead , the defendant "had already failed three field sobriety tests, a preliminary breath test, arguably made an incriminating statement, ... displayed many symptoms of drunkenness" and "[t]he deputy himself testified that he considered Moorehead 'technically' under arrest after he failed the field sobriety tests." 699 N.W.2d at 671 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Mazzuca
green
1 sentence2017See State v. McIntyre, 863 N.W.2d 471 , 474 (Neb. 2015) (concluding evidence of a chemical breath test that records a deficient sample is admissible if the State lays sufficient foundation); see also United States v. Brannon, 146 F.3d 1194, 1196 (9th Cir. 1998); State v. Mazzuca, 979 P.2d 1226 , 1228–29 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999); People v. DeMarasse, 647 N.E.2d 1353, 1354 (N.Y. 1995); State v. Conrad, 421 S.E.2d 41, 45 (W. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State of Iowa Vs. Justin Joseph Hutton
green
1 sentence2012There, we considered a claim that a driver’s consent to a chemical breath test was involuntary because the advisory “inaccurately represented the consequences of his decision to submit to the test or not.” Hutton, 796 N.W.2d at 902 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.