state constitutional claim in Iowa

2019See Veal , --- N.W.2d at ---- ; State v. Coleman , 890 N.W.2d 284 , 286-87 (Iowa 2017) ; State v. Prusha , 874 N.W.2d 627 , 630 (Iowa 2016).

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 ).

2017"Where a party raises both state and federal constitutional claims but does not argue that a standard independent of the federal approach should be employed under the state constitution, we ordinarily apply the substantive federal standards....” Id. ”[W]e generally decline to consider an independent state constitutional standard based upon mere citation to the applicable state constitutional provision,” State v. Lowe, 812 N.W.2d 554, 566 (Iowa 2012) (quoting State v. Effler, 769 N.W.2d 880, 895 (Iowa 2009) (Appel, J., concurring specially)).

2017“Where a party raises both state and federal constitutional claims but does not argue that a standard independent of the federal approach should be employed under the state constitution, we ordinarily apply the substantive federal standards . . . .” Id. “[W]e generally decline to consider an independent state constitutional standard based upon mere citation to the applicable state constitutional provision.” State v. Lowe, 812 N.W.2d 554, 566 (Iowa 2012) (quoting State v. Effler, 769 N.W.2d 880, 895 (Iowa 2009) (Appel, J., concurring specially)).

2018See State v. Lowe, 812 N.W.2d 554, 566 (Iowa 2012) (“[W]e generally decline to consider an independent state constitutional standard based upon a mere citation to the applicable state constitutional provision.”).

2017"Where a party raises both state and federal constitutional claims but does not argue that a standard independent of the federal approach should be employed under the state constitution, we ordinarily apply the substantive federal standards....” Id. ”[W]e generally decline to consider an independent state constitutional standard based upon mere citation to the applicable state constitutional provision,” State v. Lowe, 812 N.W.2d 554, 566 (Iowa 2012) (quoting State v. Effler, 769 N.W.2d 880, 895 (Iowa 2009) (Appel, J., concurring specially)).

2019See In re Det. of Matlock , 860 N.W.2d 898 , 903 (Iowa 2015) ; State v. Short , 851 N.W.2d 474 , 491 (Iowa 2014) ; State v. Baldon , 829 N.W.2d 785 , 822-23 (Iowa 2013) (Appel, J., concurring specially); State v. Bruegger , 773 N.W.2d 862 , 883 (Iowa 2009) ; Racing Ass'n of Cent.

2016See In re Det. of Matlock, 860 N.W.2d 898, 903 (Iowa 2015); State v. Short, 851 N.W.2d 474, 491 (Iowa 2014); State v. Baldon, 829 N.W.2d 785, 822-23 (Iowa 2013) (Appel, J., concurring specially); State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862, 883 (Iowa 2009); Racing Ass’n of Cent.

2017“Error preservation is important for .two reasons: (1) affording the district court an ‘opportunity to avoid or correct error’;, and (2) providing the appellate court ‘with an adequate record in reviewing errors p.ur-portedly committed’ by the district court.” State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d 550, 555 (Iowa 2015) (quoting State v. Pickett, 671 N.W.2d 866, 869 (Iowa 2003)).

2017“Error preservation is important for two reasons: (1) affording the district court an ‘opportunity to avoid or correct error’; and (2) providing the appellate court ‘with an adequate record in reviewing errors purportedly committed’ by the district court.” State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d 550, 555 (Iowa 2015) (quoting State v. Pickett, 671 N.W.2d 866, 869 (Iowa 2003)).

2017Regarding the state constitutional claim, the court noted that the New York Court of Appeals had previously recognized a damages remedy under the state’s equal protection clause in Brown v. State, 89 N.Y.2d 172 , 652 N.Y.S.2d 223 , 674 N.E.2d 1129, 1141 (1996).

2017Regarding the state constitutional claim, the court noted that the New York Court of Appeals had previously recognized a damages remedy under the state’s equal protection clause in Brown v. State, 89 N.Y.2d 172 , 652 N.Y.S.2d 223 , 674 N.E.2d 1129, 1141 (1996).

2017“Error preservation is important for .two reasons: (1) affording the district court an ‘opportunity to avoid or correct error’;, and (2) providing the appellate court ‘with an adequate record in reviewing errors p.ur-portedly committed’ by the district court.” State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d 550, 555 (Iowa 2015) (quoting State v. Pickett, 671 N.W.2d 866, 869 (Iowa 2003)).

2017“Error preservation is important for two reasons: (1) affording the district court an ‘opportunity to avoid or correct error’; and (2) providing the appellate court ‘with an adequate record in reviewing errors purportedly committed’ by the district court.” State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d 550, 555 (Iowa 2015) (quoting State v. Pickett, 671 N.W.2d 866, 869 (Iowa 2003)).

2019See In re Det. of Matlock , 860 N.W.2d 898 , 903 (Iowa 2015) ; State v. Short , 851 N.W.2d 474 , 491 (Iowa 2014) ; State v. Baldon , 829 N.W.2d 785 , 822-23 (Iowa 2013) (Appel, J., concurring specially); State v. Bruegger , 773 N.W.2d 862 , 883 (Iowa 2009) ; Racing Ass'n of Cent.

2018That is what happened in State v. Bruegger , 773 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009).

2019See State v. Coleman , 890 N.W.2d 284 , 286 (Iowa 2017) (stating where a defendant "only identifies [a federal] claim, the state constitutional claim has not been preserved at the district court"); Van Gorden v. Schuller , 192 Iowa 853 , 859, 185 N.W. 604 , 607 (1921) ("Neither is it within the scope of our appellate jurisdiction to remand this proceeding to the district court for the making and trial of new issues at law.").

2019See State v. Coleman, 890 N.W.2d 284, 286 (Iowa 2017) (stating where a defendant “only identifies [a federal] claim, the state constitutional claim has not been preserved at the district court”); Van Gorden v. Schuller, 192 Iowa 853, 859 , 185 N.W. 604 , 607 (1921) (“Neither is it within the scope of our appellate jurisdiction to remand this proceeding to the district court for the making and trial of new issues at law.”).

2013See State v. Baldon, 829 N.W.2d 785 , 837 n. 46 (Iowa 2013) (Mansfield, J., dissenting); see also State v. Lowe, 812 N.W.2d-554, 566 (Iowa 2012) (“‘[W]e generally decline to consider an independent state constitutional standard based upon a mere citation to the applicable state constitutional provision.’” (quoting State v. Effler, 769 N.W.2d 880, 895 (Iowa 2009) (Appel, J., specially concurring))).

2013See State v. Baldon, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2013 WL 1694553 at *46 n.46 (Iowa 2013) (Mansfield, J., dissenting); see also State v. Lowe, 812 N.W.2d 554, 566 (Iowa 2012) (“ ‘[W]e generally decline to consider an independent state constitutional standard based upon a mere citation to the applicable state constitutional provision.’ ” (quoting State v. Effler, 769 N.W.2d 880, 895 (Iowa 2009) (Appel, J., specially concurring))).

2019See In re Det. of Matlock , 860 N.W.2d 898 , 903 (Iowa 2015) ; State v. Short , 851 N.W.2d 474 , 491 (Iowa 2014) ; State v. Baldon , 829 N.W.2d 785 , 822-23 (Iowa 2013) (Appel, J., concurring specially); State v. Bruegger , 773 N.W.2d 862 , 883 (Iowa 2009) ; Racing Ass'n of Cent.

2016See In re Det. of Matlock, 860 N.W.2d 898, 903 (Iowa 2015); State v. Short, 851 N.W.2d 474, 491 (Iowa 2014); State v. Baldon, 829 N.W.2d 785, 822-23 (Iowa 2013) (Appel, J., concurring specially); State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862, 883 (Iowa 2009); Racing Ass’n of Cent.

2024See 8 N.W.3d at 906 (plurality opinion); id. at 911 (McDonald, J., concurring specially).

2024See 8 N.W.3d at 906 (plurality opinion); id. at 911 (McDonald, J., concurring specially).

2024See League of United Latin Am. Citizens of Iowa v. Pate (LULAC), 950 N.W.2d 204 , 209 (Iowa 2020) (per curiam) (applying the same “balancing approach” in another voting case); id. at 222-23 (Oxley, J., dissenting) (noting that voting is a fundamental right but also that voting regulations are subjected to a balancing approach); Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm. v. Pate, 950 N.W.2d 1 , 6-7 (Iowa 2020) (per curiam) (applying the Anderson-Burdick “balancing approach” to a state constitutional challenge to voting regulations).” The majority makes an unsuccessful attempt to rebut the analogy.

2024See League of United Latin Am. Citizens of Iowa v. Pate (LULAC), 950 N.W.2d 204 , 209 (Iowa 2020) (per curiam) (applying the same “balancing approach” in another voting case); id. at 222-23 (Oxley, J., dissenting) (noting that voting is a fundamental right but also that voting regulations are subjected to a balancing approach); Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm. v. Pate, 950 N.W.2d 1 , 6-7 (Iowa 2020) (per curiam) (applying the Anderson-Burdick “balancing approach” to a state constitutional challenge to voting regulations).” The majority makes an unsuccessful attempt to rebut the analogy.

2019See State v. Coleman, 890 N.W.2d 284, 286 (Iowa 2017) (stating where a defendant “only identifies [a federal] claim, the state constitutional claim has not been preserved at the district court”); Van Gorden v. Schuller, 192 Iowa 853, 859 , 185 N.W. 604 , 607 (1921) (“Neither is it within the scope of our appellate jurisdiction to remand this proceeding to the district court for the making and trial of new issues at law.”).

2019See State v. Coleman, 890 N.W.2d 284, 286 (Iowa 2017) (stating where a defendant “only identifies [a federal] claim, the state constitutional claim has not been preserved at the district court”); Van Gorden v. Schuller, 192 Iowa 853, 859 , 185 N.W. 604 , 607 (1921) (“Neither is it within the scope of our appellate jurisdiction to remand this proceeding to the district court for the making and trial of new issues at law.”).

2018See State v. Ochoa , 792 N.W.2d 260 , 265 (Iowa 2010) (noting that in some cases an independent analysis of the state constitutional claim did not occur "perhaps because the parties did not make an independent argument under the state constitution").

2018See State v. Ochoa, 792 N.W.2d 260, 265 (Iowa 2010) (noting that in some cases an independent analysis of the state constitutional claim did not occur “perhaps because the 35 parties did not make an independent argument under the state constitution”).

2015See Houston, 353 P.3d at 76 n. 133, 2015 WL 773718 , at *14 n. 133.

2015See Houston, 353 P.3d at 76 n. 133, 2015 WL 773718 , at *14 n. 133.

2015See Commonwealth v. Swinehart, 541 Pa. 500 , 664 A.2d 957 , 961 n. 6 (1995); Phyllis W.

2015See Commonwealth v. Swinehart, 541 Pa. 500 , 664 A.2d 957 , 961 n. 6 (1995); Phyllis W.

2010See State v. Lowry, 295 Or. 337 , 667 P.2d 996, 1013 (1983) (Jones, J., concurring) (recognizing failure to raise a state constitutional claim and relying solely on parallel provisions under the Federal Constitution should constitute ineffective assistance of counsel).

2010See State v. Lowry, 295 Or. 337 , 667 P.2d 996, 1013 (1983) (Jones, J., concurring) (recognizing failure to raise a state constitutional claim and relying solely on parallel provisions under the Federal Constitution should constitute ineffective assistance of counsel).

2011See State v. Griffin, 691 N.W.2d 734, 736 (Iowa 2005) (finding a state constitutional claim was not preserved when the Federal Constitution was the sole ground raised in the district court); State v. Wilkins, 687 N.W.2d 263, 265 (Iowa 2004) (same).

2011See State v. Griffin, 691 N.W.2d 734, 736 (Iowa 2005) (finding a state constitutional claim was not preserved when the Federal Constitution was the sole ground raised in the district court); State v. Wilkins, 687 N.W.2d 263, 265 (Iowa 2004) (same).

2011See State v. Griffin, 691 N.W.2d 734, 736 (Iowa 2005) (finding a state constitutional claim was not preserved when the Federal Constitution was the sole ground raised in the district court); State v. Wilkins, 687 N.W.2d 263, 265 (Iowa 2004) (same).

2011See State v. Griffin, 691 N.W.2d 734, 736 (Iowa 2005) (finding a state constitutional claim was not preserved when the Federal Constitution was the sole ground raised in the district court); State v. Wilkins, 687 N.W.2d 263, 265 (Iowa 2004) (same).

2008See State v. Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d 121, 136 (Iowa 2006) (stating that in order to obtain relief on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim one must prove "(1) the attorney failed to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted”).

2008See State v. Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d 121, 136 (Iowa 2006) (stating that in order to obtain relief on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim one must prove “(1) the attorney failed to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted”).

2017"Where a party raises both state and federal constitutional claims but does not argue that a standard independent of the federal approach should be employed under the state constitution, we ordinarily apply the substantive federal standards....” Id. ”[W]e generally decline to consider an independent state constitutional standard based upon mere citation to the applicable state constitutional provision,” State v. Lowe, 812 N.W.2d 554, 566 (Iowa 2012) (quoting State v. Effler, 769 N.W.2d 880, 895 (Iowa 2009) (Appel, J., concurring specially)).

2017See State v. Carter, 696 N.W.2d 31, 37 (Iowa 2005) (“Because Carter has not asserted and we have not found a basis to distinguish the protection afforded by the Iowa Constitution from those afforded by the federal constitution under the facts of this case, our analysis applies equally to both the state and federal grounds.”); see also State v. Tyler, 830 N.W.2d 288, 299 (Iowa 2013) (“We have repeatedly stated when a party makes claims under parallel provisions of both the Iowa and Federal Constitutions but does not suggest an independent state constitutional standard, we apply the federal stan

2015Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864, 879-80 (Ind.2012).

2015Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 , 879–80 (Ind. 2012).

2024See, e.g., In re V.H., 996 N.W.2d 530 , 537 (Iowa 2023) (“[V.H.’s] failure to raise the state constitutional claim [to be self-represented] in the district court means the claim is not preserved for appellate review.”); State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 520, 523 (Iowa 2011) (holding, despite “concerns about the propriety of the asset freeze,” that defendant waived due process challenge to the order freezing his assets where he “did not raise any of the constitutional arguments” in the district court).