5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Iowa v. Isaac Andrew Baldon IIIgreen2 sentences2017Coleman’s motion to suppress filed in district court did not mention the Fourth 3See State v. Gaskins, 866 N.W.2d 1, 41 (Iowa 2015) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (criticizing majority opinion that diverged from settled federal precedent and “revers[ed] the district court for failing to credit an argument the defendant never made at trial”); State v. Short, 851 N.W.2d 474, 508 (Iowa 2014) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (“Today’s majority . . . once again uses the Iowa Constitution to evade well-settled Fourth Amendment precedent without setting forth any principled basis for construing Iowa’s nearly i 2017Coleman’s motion to suppress filed in district court did not mention the Fourth 3See State v. Gaskins, 866 N.W.2d 1, 41 (Iowa 2015) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (criticizing majority opinion that diverged from settled federal precedent and “revers[ed] the district court for failing to credit an argument the defendant never made at trial”); State v. Short, 851 N.W.2d 474, 508 (Iowa 2014) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (“Today’s majority . . . once again uses the Iowa Constitution to evade well-settled Fourth Amendment precedent without setting forth any principled basis for construing Iowa’s nearly i | 3 | 3 |
State of Iowa v. Randall Lee Palsgreen2 sentences2017Coleman’s motion to suppress filed in district court did not mention the Fourth 3See State v. Gaskins, 866 N.W.2d 1, 41 (Iowa 2015) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (criticizing majority opinion that diverged from settled federal precedent and “revers[ed] the district court for failing to credit an argument the defendant never made at trial”); State v. Short, 851 N.W.2d 474, 508 (Iowa 2014) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (“Today’s majority . . . once again uses the Iowa Constitution to evade well-settled Fourth Amendment precedent without setting forth any principled basis for construing Iowa’s nearly i 2017Coleman’s motion to suppress filed in district court did not mention the Fourth 3See State v. Gaskins, 866 N.W.2d 1, 41 (Iowa 2015) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (criticizing majority opinion that diverged from settled federal precedent and “revers[ed] the district court for failing to credit an argument the defendant never made at trial”); State v. Short, 851 N.W.2d 474, 508 (Iowa 2014) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (“Today’s majority . . . once again uses the Iowa Constitution to evade well-settled Fourth Amendment precedent without setting forth any principled basis for construing Iowa’s nearly i | 3 | 3 |
State of Iowa v. Stephen Scott Prushagreen2 sentences2017Just last term, in State v. Prusha, we unanimously held the defendant failed to preserve a state constitutional search and seizure claim when he mentioned only the Fourth Amendment in district court. 874 N.W.2d 627, 630 (Iowa 2016). 2017Just last term, in State v. Prusha, we unanimously held the defendant failed to preserve a state constitutional search and seizure claim when he mentioned only the Fourth Amendment in district court. 874 N.W.2d 627, 630 (Iowa 2016). | 3 | 3 |
State of Iowa v. Justin Dean Shortgreen2 sentences2017Coleman’s motion to suppress filed in district court did not mention the Fourth 3See State v. Gaskins, 866 N.W.2d 1, 41 (Iowa 2015) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (criticizing majority opinion that diverged from settled federal precedent and “revers[ed] the district court for failing to credit an argument the defendant never made at trial”); State v. Short, 851 N.W.2d 474, 508 (Iowa 2014) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (“Today’s majority . . . once again uses the Iowa Constitution to evade well-settled Fourth Amendment precedent without setting forth any principled basis for construing Iowa’s nearly i 2017Coleman’s motion to suppress filed in district court did not mention the Fourth 3See State v. Gaskins, 866 N.W.2d 1, 41 (Iowa 2015) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (criticizing majority opinion that diverged from settled federal precedent and “revers[ed] the district court for failing to credit an argument the defendant never made at trial”); State v. Short, 851 N.W.2d 474, 508 (Iowa 2014) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (“Today’s majority . . . once again uses the Iowa Constitution to evade well-settled Fourth Amendment precedent without setting forth any principled basis for construing Iowa’s nearly i | 3 | 3 |
State of Iowa v. Jesse Michael Gaskinsgreen2 sentences2017Coleman’s motion to suppress filed in district court did not mention the Fourth 3See State v. Gaskins, 866 N.W.2d 1, 41 (Iowa 2015) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (criticizing majority opinion that diverged from settled federal precedent and “revers[ed] the district court for failing to credit an argument the defendant never made at trial”); State v. Short, 851 N.W.2d 474, 508 (Iowa 2014) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (“Today’s majority . . . once again uses the Iowa Constitution to evade well-settled Fourth Amendment precedent without setting forth any principled basis for construing Iowa’s nearly i 2017Coleman’s motion to suppress filed in district court did not mention the Fourth 3See State v. Gaskins, 866 N.W.2d 1, 41 (Iowa 2015) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (criticizing majority opinion that diverged from settled federal precedent and “revers[ed] the district court for failing to credit an argument the defendant never made at trial”); State v. Short, 851 N.W.2d 474, 508 (Iowa 2014) (Waterman, J., dissenting) (“Today’s majority . . . once again uses the Iowa Constitution to evade well-settled Fourth Amendment precedent without setting forth any principled basis for construing Iowa’s nearly i | 3 | 3 |
State v. Baileygreen1 sentence2017State v. Bailey, 452 N.W.2d 181, 183 (Iowa 1990), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Heminover, 619 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa 2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brooksgreen2 sentences2017We conclude the district court correctly denied Coleman’s motion to suppress. “[W]here law enforcement authorities are 1 See State v. Brooks, 760 N.W.2d 197 , 203–04 (Iowa 2009) (“Under Iowa law, an appellate court reviewing the validity of a search may consider not only evidence admitted at the suppression hearing, but also evidence admitted at trial.”). 4 cooperating in an investigation, . . . the knowledge of one is presumed shared by all.” Id. (citation omitted). [I]n order to uphold an investigatory stop based upon a communication between law enforcement officers it must be shown that (1) 2017We conclude the district court correctly denied Coleman’s motion to suppress. “[W]here law enforcement authorities are 1 See State v. Brooks, 760 N.W.2d 197 , 203–04 (Iowa 2009) (“Under Iowa law, an appellate court reviewing the validity of a search may consider not only evidence admitted at the suppression hearing, but also evidence admitted at trial.”). 4 cooperating in an investigation, . . . the knowledge of one is presumed shared by all.” Id. (citation omitted). [I]n order to uphold an investigatory stop based upon a communication between law enforcement officers it must be shown that (1) | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Collin Alexander Ruhsgreen1 sentence2017See State v. Ruhs, 885 N.W.2d 822, 825 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Heminover
green
1 sentence2017State v. Bailey, 452 N.W.2d 181, 183 (Iowa 1990), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Heminover, 619 N.W.2d 353 (Iowa 2000). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State of Iowa v. Jeffrey K. Ragland
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.