12 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bankson v. Iowa Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Divisiongreen2 sentences2015See Iowa Code § 321J.6(3) (1987) (“[A] urine test may be required even after a blood or breath test has been administered.” (Emphasis added.)); see also Bankson v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 444 N.W.2d 515, 518 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989) (permitting a urine test following a breath test that resulted below the legal limit when officer had found marijuana seeds in driver’s vehicle). 15 Yet, prior to 1986, the implied consent law did not specifically require a driver to submit to multiple testing. 2015See Iowa Code § 321J.6(3) (1987) (“[A] urine test may be required even after a blood or breath test has been administered.” (Emphasis added.)); see also Bankson v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 444 N.W.2d 515, 518 (Iowa Ct.App.1989) (permitting a urine test following a breath test that resulted below the. legal limit when officer had found marijuana seeds in driver’s vehicle). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bloomergreen2 sentences2014Id. 2014See Bloomer, 618 N.W.2d at 552–53 (holding the defendant’s insistence on taking a urine test instead of the breathalyzer was a refusal to submit to the test requested by the officer); State v. Mahoney, 515 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (“The legislature’s clear intent, by its use of the words ‘in addition to,’ was that a defendant must submit to a state-administered chemical test before being allowed to demand an independent test.”). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Mahoneygreen1 sentence2014See Bloomer, 618 N.W.2d at 552–53 (holding the defendant’s insistence on taking a urine test instead of the breathalyzer was a refusal to submit to the test requested by the officer); State v. Mahoney, 515 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (“The legislature’s clear intent, by its use of the words ‘in addition to,’ was that a defendant must submit to a state-administered chemical test before being allowed to demand an independent test.”). | 1 | 1 |
Shawna Hess v. Carol Abelsgreen2 sentences2013See Hess v. Ables, 714 F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th Cir. 2013) (“[A] urine drug test would not violate her Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination because urine samples, which are not testimonial evidence, do not trigger Fifth Amendment protections.”). 2013See Hess v. Ables, 714 F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th Cir.2013) (“[A] urine drug test would not violate her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because urine samples, which are not testimonial evidence, do not trigger Fifth Amendment protections.”). | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez v. Fultongreen1 sentence2005State v. Hammonds, 192 Ariz. 528 , 968 P.2d 601, 603 (Ct.App.1998); accord Rodriguez v. Fulton, 190 N.W.2d 417, 418 (Iowa 1971) (stating that blood tests are “generally considered more reliable than the other tests”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hammondsgreen2 sentences2005State v. Hammonds, 192 Ariz. 528 , 968 P.2d 601, 603 (Ct.App.1998); accord Rodriguez v. Fulton, 190 N.W.2d 417, 418 (Iowa 1971) (stating that blood tests are “generally considered more reliable than the other tests”). 2005State v. Hammonds, 192 Ariz. 528 , 968 P.2d 601, 603 (Ct.App.1998); accord Rodriguez v. Fulton, 190 N.W.2d 417, 418 (Iowa 1971) (stating that blood tests are “generally considered more reliable than the other tests”). | 1 | 1 |
Downing v. Iowa Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence1988See Downing v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 415 N.W.2d 625, 627 (Iowa 1987). | 1 | 1 |
McCrea v. Iowa Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence1987Under the substantial evidence rule of Iowa Code section 17A.19(8)(f), “we determine if there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the decision of the agency.” McCrea v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 336 N.W.2d 427, 429 (Iowa 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Morgan v. Iowa Department of Public Safetygreen1 sentence1985See e.g., Morgan v. Iowa Department of Public Safety, 227 N.W.2d 155, 156-57 (Iowa 1975) (defendant’s refusal to submit to blood test at one hospital for personal reason but willingness to undergo it at another hospital constituted a refusal for purposes of the implied consent law); Janson v. Fulton, 162 N.W.2d 438, 439-41 (Iowa 1968) (defendant’s refusal to submit to a urine test not excused by his belief that the container furnished him was contaminated). | 1 | 1 |
Janson v. Fultongreen1 sentence1985See e.g., Morgan v. Iowa Department of Public Safety, 227 N.W.2d 155, 156-57 (Iowa 1975) (defendant’s refusal to submit to blood test at one hospital for personal reason but willingness to undergo it at another hospital constituted a refusal for purposes of the implied consent law); Janson v. Fulton, 162 N.W.2d 438, 439-41 (Iowa 1968) (defendant’s refusal to submit to a urine test not excused by his belief that the container furnished him was contaminated). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Foxgreen2 sentences1978A challenge to the foundation for admission of results of a urine test was considered in State v. Fox, 248 Iowa 1394, 1398 , 85 N.W.2d 608, 611 (1957). 1978A challenge to the foundation for admission of results of a urine test was considered in State v. Fox, 248 Iowa 1394, 1398 , 85 N.W.2d 608, 611 (1957). | 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 Of Iowa Vs. Robert Joseph Vance
green
1 sentence2019However, since we find suppression was properly denied, we decline to address this argument. 11 supreme court found “substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that at one time [the defendant] had actual possession of the pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine.” Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Biddle
green
1 sentence2019Unless there is a clear abuse of discretion in such a ruling, we will not overturn it.” Biddle, 652 N.W.2d at 3 Hayer also presents an argument for insufficient evidence if we find the urine test results should be suppressed. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.