search and seizure clause in Iowa

2025App. P. 6.903(2)(a)(8)(3) cmt.; cf. State v. Tyler, 830 N.W.2d 288 , 291–92 (Iowa 2013) (“Because Tyler has not proposed a standard for interpreting our search and seizure provisions under the Iowa Constitution differently from its federal constitutional counterpart, we will apply the general standards as outlined by the United States Supreme Court for addressing a search and seizure challenge under the Iowa Constitution.”). 17 terms.

2025Cullum has not suggested we interpret the Iowa Constitution’s search and seizure provisions “differently from its federal constitutional counterpart, [so] we will apply the general standards as outlined by the United States Supreme Court for addressing a search and seizure challenge under the Iowa Constitution.” State v. Tyler, 830 N.W.2d 288, 292 (Iowa 2013).

2019See State v. Ingram, 914 N.W.2d 794, 801 (Iowa 2018) (noting a search-and-seizure claim under our state constitution is “minimally preserved” when counsel merely cites article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution but describes the claim based on “generally adopted federal caselaw”); State v. Prusha, 874 N.W.2d 627, 630 (Iowa 2016) (finding the defendant failed to preserve error on state constitutional claim because he “never apprised the district court that he believed the search violated article I, section 8”).

2017Our supreme court has held, “[W]hen a defendant in the trial court only identifies the Fourth Amendment as the basis for a search and seizure claim, the state constitutional claim has not been preserved at the district court.” Coleman, 890 N.W.2d at 286 (citing State v. Prusha, 874 N.W.2d 627, 630 ).

2017We invalidated sodomy statutes early on in State v. Pilcher, 242 N.W.2d 348, 359 (Iowa 1976), and we recognized gay marriage rights in Varnum, 763 N.W.2d 862, 907 , well in advance of the United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ , ___, 135 S. Ct. 2584 , 2604–05 (2015). 34 Similarly, fifty years before the United States Supreme Court decided Bivens, we decided several cases finding that the search and seizure clause of the Iowa Constitution supported an action for damages without implementing legislation.

2017We invalidated sodomy statutes early on in State v. Pilcher, 242 N.W.2d 348, 359 (Iowa 1976), and we recognized gay marriage rights in Varnum, 763 N.W.2d 862, 907 , well in advance of the United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ , ___, 135 S. Ct. 2584 , 2604–05 (2015). 34 Similarly, fifty years before the United States Supreme Court decided Bivens, we decided several cases finding that the search and seizure clause of the Iowa Constitution supported an action for damages without implementing legislation.

2016State v. Hoskins, 711 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa 2006).

2008State v. Hoskins, 711 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa 2006).

2025See Hahn, 961 N.W.2d at 372; see also Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 , 360–61 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring). 24 To begin, as we recognized in Wright, our trash “contains intimate and private details of life.” 961 N.W.2d at 418.

2024The “reasonable expectation of privacy” test from Justice Har- lan’s concurring opinion in Katz v. United States remains the overarching test for determining whether a search-and-seizure violation has occurred. 389 U.S. 347 , 360–61 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring).

2021Id. at 789–90.

2016We did not consider whether the State’s maintenance of a parole system presented “special needs[] beyond the normal need for law enforcement.” Id. at 789 (alteration in original) (quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 , 105 S. Ct. 733, 748 , 83 L.

2016On appeal, the only issue we addressed was “whether a parole agreement containing a consent-to-search clause renders suspicionless and warrantless searches of parolees reasonable under the search and seizure clause of the Iowa Constitution.” Id. at 789–90.

2016On appeal, the only issue we addressed was “whether a parole agreement containing a consent-to-search clause renders suspicionless and warrantless searches of parolees reasonable under the search and seizure clause of the Iowa Constitution.” Id. at 789–90.

2015In State v. Ochoa, 792 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2010), we held that a search by police of a motel room occupied by a parolee was unreasonable under the search and seizure clause of the Iowa Constitution when based solely on the parolee’s status.

2015In State v. Ochoa, 792 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2010), we held that a search by police of a motel room occupied by a parolee was unreasonable under the search and seizure clause of the Iowa Constitution when based solely on the parolee’s status.

2015State v. Tague, 676 N.W.2d 197 , 201–04 (Iowa 2004).

2012In State v. Tague, 676 N.W.2d 197, 205-06 (2004), this court, as correctly noted by the majority, cited Fourth Amendment cases in resolving a case involving “community caretaking” under the Iowa Constitution, article I, section 8.

2025Officers may make a brief stop without a warrant for investigatory purposes if they have “a reasonable suspicion that a criminal act has occurred or is occurring.” State v. Baker, 925 N.W.2d 602, 610 (Iowa 2019).

2020Id. at 290 (quoting State v. Marsala, 579 A.2d 58, 68 (Conn. 1990)).

2019See State v. Ingram, 914 N.W.2d 794, 801 (Iowa 2018) (noting a search-and-seizure claim under our state constitution is “minimally preserved” when counsel merely cites article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution but describes the claim based on “generally adopted federal caselaw”); State v. Prusha, 874 N.W.2d 627, 630 (Iowa 2016) (finding the defendant failed to preserve error on state constitutional claim because he “never apprised the district court that he believed the search violated article I, section 8”).

2018For example, in State v. Kersh, we considered the admissibility of evidence—namely a pistol—obtained pursuant to a search of an automobile and driver after police received a report that the vehicle had been driven up onto the lawn, the driver was slumped over the wheel when police arrived, and the driver did not respond to police knocks on the window. 313 N.W.2d 566, 567 (Iowa 1981), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Lake, 476 N.W.2d 55 , 56–57 (Iowa 1991).

2018For example, in State v. Kersh , we considered the admissibility of evidence-namely a pistol-obtained pursuant to a search of an automobile and driver after police received a report that the vehicle had been driven up onto the lawn, the driver was slumped over the wheel when police arrived, and the driver did not respond to police knocks on the window. 313 N.W.2d 566 , 567 (Iowa 1981), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Lake , 476 N.W.2d 55 , 56-57 (Iowa 1991).

2017We therefore usually deem the two provisions to be identical in scope, import, and purpose.” State v. Kreps, 650 N.W.2d 636, 640-41 (Iowa 2002) (citations omitted).

2016“Because the search and seizure clause of the Iowa Constitution is nearly verbatim to the language of the Fourth Amendment,” we generally “interpret the scope and purpose of the Iowa Constitution’s search and seizure provisions to track with federal interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Christopher, 757 N.W.2d 247, 249 (Iowa 2008).

2015Although our supreme court’s interpretation of the search and seizure clause under the Iowa Constitution generally “conforms to the Search and Seizure Clause under the Federal Constitution,” State v. Vance, 790 N.W.2d 775, 791 (Iowa 2010) (Cady, J, dissenting), Pardee’s argument, citing other jurisdictions and Justice Appel’s dissent in State v. Harrison, is persuasive.

2015See Griffin, 483 U.S. at 876 , 107 S.Ct. at 3170 , 97 L.Ed.2d at 719 (“Although a probation officer is not an impartial magistrate, neither is he the police officer....”).

2015See Griffin, 483 U.S. at 876 , 107 S.Ct. at 3170 , 97 L.Ed.2d at 719 (“Although a probation officer is not an impartial magistrate, neither is he the police officer....”).