Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berkemer v. McCartygreen1 sentence2024See id. at 423 (involving a traffic stop during which the motorist was asked “to perform a field sobriety test, commonly known as a ‘balancing test’”); Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9, 11 (1988) (holding statements made by motorist in response to officer’s question about drinking and request for field sobriety test were admissible); In re S.C.S., 454 N.W.2d 810 , 813–14 (Iowa 1990). | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania v. Brudergreen1 sentence2024See id. at 423 (involving a traffic stop during which the motorist was asked “to perform a field sobriety test, commonly known as a ‘balancing test’”); Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9, 11 (1988) (holding statements made by motorist in response to officer’s question about drinking and request for field sobriety test were admissible); In re S.C.S., 454 N.W.2d 810 , 813–14 (Iowa 1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Truesdellgreen1 sentence2021As to the “under the influence” theory, “a person is ‘under the influence’ when the consumption of alcohol affects the person’s reasoning or mental ability, impairs a person’s 5 judgment, visibly excites a person’s emotions, or causes a person to lose control of bodily actions.” State v. Price, 692 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Iowa 2005) (quoting State v. Truesdell, 679 N.W.2d 611, 616 (Iowa 2004)); see also Iowa State Bar Ass’n, Iowa Criminal Jury Instruction 2500.5 (defining “under the influence”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pricegreen1 sentence2021As to the “under the influence” theory, “a person is ‘under the influence’ when the consumption of alcohol affects the person’s reasoning or mental ability, impairs a person’s 5 judgment, visibly excites a person’s emotions, or causes a person to lose control of bodily actions.” State v. Price, 692 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Iowa 2005) (quoting State v. Truesdell, 679 N.W.2d 611, 616 (Iowa 2004)); see also Iowa State Bar Ass’n, Iowa Criminal Jury Instruction 2500.5 (defining “under the influence”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Speichergreen1 sentence2020“Because a jury verdict is binding on us when supported by substantial evidence, our appellate review is limited to the correction of errors at law.” State v. Speicher, 625 N.W.2d 738, 740 (Iowa 2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Serrinegreen1 sentence2019And we said a request “to provide non-testimonial evidence does not lead to a Fifth Amendment violation.” Id.; see also State v. Serrine, No. 15- 1496, 2017 WL 108290, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2017) (concluding it is not our role to revisit the Iowa Supreme Court holdings that sobriety tests are not testimonial evidence). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tisa Farrowgreen1 sentence2019Cf. State v. Farrow, 144 A.3d 1036, 1045 (Vt. 2016) (stating “it is not clear how applying [constitutional] protections to nontestimonial evidence, including, presumably, the field sobriety exercises themselves, would lead to a requirement that police warn an individual that her refusal may be used as evidence in court”). | 1 | 1 |
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 |
State v. Bloomergreen1 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 |
South Dakota v. Nevillegreen2 sentences2002See State v. Mannion, 414 N.W.2d at 121 (citing South Dakota v. Neville, 459, U.S. 553, 562-64, 563 103 S.Ct. 916, 922 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748, 758-59 (1983)). 2002See State v. Mannion, 414 N.W.2d at 121 (citing South Dakota v. Neville, 459, U.S. 553, 562-64, 563 103 S.Ct. 916, 922 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748, 758-59 (1983)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Manniongreen1 sentence2002See State v. Mannion, 414 N.W.2d at 121 (citing South Dakota v. Neville, 459, U.S. 553, 562-64, 563 103 S.Ct. 916, 922 , 74 L.Ed.2d 748, 758-59 (1983)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hallgreen1 sentence1990As we analyze these opposing viewpoints, we are guided by Iowa Rule of Evidence 702 1 and the Iowa common-law rule that proof of “general acceptance in the scientific community” is not a prerequisite to admission of evidence, “scientific or otherwise, if the reliability of the evidence is otherwise established.” State v. Hall, 297 N.W.2d 80, 85 (Iowa 1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of S.C.S.
green
1 sentence2024See id. at 423 (involving a traffic stop during which the motorist was asked “to perform a field sobriety test, commonly known as a ‘balancing test’”); Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 488 U.S. 9, 11 (1988) (holding statements made by motorist in response to officer’s question about drinking and request for field sobriety test were admissible); In re S.C.S., 454 N.W.2d 810 , 813–14 (Iowa 1990). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Marks
green
1 sentence2019We categorically stated, “The results of a field sobriety test are not testimonial evidence.” Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Tague
green
2 sentences2018Id. 2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Dawdy
green
1 sentence2014The conditions leading to a finding of reasonable grounds or probable cause “are not technical they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.” See State v. Dawdy, 533 N.W.2d 551 , 555–56 (Iowa 1995). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
RAUHAUSER v. State
green
1 sentence2002Rauhauser, 272 N.W.2d at 437 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Heisdorffer
green
1 sentence1978We have addressed a similar issue in State v. Heisdorffer, 164 N.W.2d 173 (Iowa) where the admissibility of testimony descriptive of responses to a field sobriety test was challenged. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.