arrest defense in Iowa

2024See id. at 521 (“We recognize that the privilege against arrest is not identical with the Speech or Debate privilege, but it is closely related in purpose and origin.”); Powell, 395 U.S. at 503–05 (explaining that the arrest clause ensures “that legislators are free to represent the interests of their constituents” without risk of being taken to court).

2024“The immunities of the Speech or Debate Clause were not written into the Constitution simply for the personal or private benefit of Members of Congress, but to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators.” Brewster, 408 U.S. at 507 .

2018Ct. App. 2016) (finding that common-law false arrest provided a sufficiently analogous remedy to preclude a constitutional claim, even if such a false arrest claim might not succeed in the particular case); Davis v. Town of S. Pines , 116 N.C.App. 663 , 449 S.E.2d 240 , 248 (N.C.

2018Ct. App. 2016) (finding that common-law false arrest provided a sufficiently analogous remedy to preclude a constitutional claim, even if such a false arrest claim might not succeed in the particular case); Davis v. Town of S. Pines , 116 N.C.App. 663 , 449 S.E.2d 240 , 248 (N.C.

2014Id. at 1534-35 (footnotes omitted).

2014Id. at 1534–35 (footnotes omitted).

2012See Wing, 791 N.W.2d at 249 (considering whether officer manifested a purpose to arrest in the absence of explicit statement); see also id. at 252 (finding it significant to the arrest analysis that the officer handcuffed Wing immediately after the officer acknowledged Wing’s admission to owning the marijuana in the car).

2012See Wing, 791 N.W.2d at 249 (considering whether officer manifested a purpose to arrest in the absence of explicit statement); see also id. at 252 (finding it significant to the arrest analysis that the officer handcuffed Wing immediately after the officer acknowledged Wing’s admission to owning the marijuana in the car).

2002Davis, 438 N.W.2d at 15 (discussing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222, 226 (1962)).

2002Davis, 438 N.W.2d at 15 (discussing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222, 226 (1962)).

2002Davis, 438 N.W.2d at 15 (discussing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 , 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222, 226 (1962)).

1997See id. 1 In a criminal case involving a citizen’s arrest defense, we noted: “the burden being at all times upon the State, the defendant is entitled to an instruction which shall set before the jury the rule or criterion by which the question of justification is to be determined.” State v. Metcalfe, 203 Iowa 155, 170 , 212 N.W. 382, 389 (1927) (emphasis added).

1997See id. 1 In a criminal case involving a citizen’s arrest defense, we noted: “the burden being at all times upon the State, the defendant is entitled to an instruction which shall set before the jury the rule or criterion by which the question of justification is to be determined.” State v. Metcalfe, 203 Iowa 155, 170 , 212 N.W. 382, 389 (1927) (emphasis added).

1997See id. 1 In a criminal case involving a citizen’s arrest defense, we noted: “the burden being at all times upon the State, the defendant is entitled to an instruction which shall set before the jury the rule or criterion by which the question of justification is to be determined.” State v. Metcalfe, 203 Iowa 155, 170 , 212 N.W. 382, 389 (1927) (emphasis added).

1997See id. 1 In a criminal case involving a citizen’s arrest defense, we noted: “the burden being at all times upon the State, the defendant is entitled to an instruction which shall set before the jury the rule or criterion by which the question of justification is to be determined.” State v. Metcalfe, 203 Iowa 155, 170 , 212 N.W. 382, 389 (1927) (emphasis added).

1997See Maxwell v. Maxwell, 189 Iowa 7, 13 , 177 N.W. 541 , 543-44 (1920).

1986In State v. Boelman, 330 N.W.2d 794, 795 (Iowa 1983), we discussed the facts necessary to support a decision on the issue of when a defendant is arrested for the purpose of rule 27(2)(a).