Carter claim in Iowa

2024In denying Carter’s claim, the board considered a non-exclusive five-factor test to determine whether the incident involved “workplace stress ‘of greater magnitude than the day-to-day mental stresses experienced by other workers employed in the same or similar jobs, regardless of their employer.’” Moon, 548 N.W.2d at 568 (citation omitted).

2024See State v. Miller, 841 N.W.2d 583 , 584 n.1 (Iowa 2014) (“Generally, it is the role of the supreme court to decide if case precedent should no longer be followed.”).

2023First, there was no objection made about “victim statements.” See Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012) (“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.” (citation omitted)). 7 Second, there is nothing in the court’s reasons to indicate it considered improper factors.

2019See id.

2019Carter’s motion to suppress specifically stated: Article 1, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution is substantially identical to the Fourth Amendment; as such, the Iowa Supreme Court has “consistently interpreted the scope and purpose of Article 1, section 8, of the Iowa Constitution to track with federal interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Breuer, 577 N.W.2d 41, 44 (Iowa 1998).

2005State v. McConnelee, 690 N.W.2d 27, 30 (Iowa 2004).