5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Niehausgreen2 sentences2026This differs from Allen’s argument on appeal, which requires us to evaluate a citizen informant’s reliability by conducting “a common-sense analysis of the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Niehaus, 452 N.W.2d 184, 189 (Iowa 1990). 2 To overcome the presumption that affiants included in search warrants are truthful, a defendant challenging the veracity of a warrant application must make a “substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit.” Harbach, 3 N.W.3d a 2021See State v. Walshire, 634 N.W.2d 625, 629 (Iowa 2001); State v. Niehaus, 452 N.W.2d 184, 189 (Iowa 1990) (stating the presumption “that information imparted by a citizen informant is generally reliable” but requiring “a common-sense analysis of the totality of the circumstances . . . to assess its reliability”). | 2 | 3 |
Franks v. Delawaregreen1 sentence2026This differs from Allen’s argument on appeal, which requires us to evaluate a citizen informant’s reliability by conducting “a common-sense analysis of the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Niehaus, 452 N.W.2d 184, 189 (Iowa 1990). 2 To overcome the presumption that affiants included in search warrants are truthful, a defendant challenging the veracity of a warrant application must make a “substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit.” Harbach, 3 N.W.3d a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Walshiregreen1 sentence2021See State v. Walshire, 634 N.W.2d 625, 629 (Iowa 2001); State v. Niehaus, 452 N.W.2d 184, 189 (Iowa 1990) (stating the presumption “that information imparted by a citizen informant is generally reliable” but requiring “a common-sense analysis of the totality of the circumstances . . . to assess its reliability”). | 1 | 1 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen2 sentences1990Cf. Gates, 462 U.S. at 227-28 , 103 S.Ct. at 2326 , 76 L.Ed.2d at 541-42 (anonymous tip *190 as source of information tested by totality of circumstances approach). 1990Cf. Gates, 462 U.S. at 227-28 , 103 S.Ct. at 2326 , 76 L.Ed.2d at 541-42 (anonymous tip *190 as source of information tested by totality of circumstances approach). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. City of Fort Dodgegreen2 sentences1973See Smith v. City of Fort Dodge, 160 N.W.2d 492 , (Iowa 1968) and cases there cited. 1973See Smith v. City of Fort *799 Dodge, 160 N.W.2d 492 , (Iowa 1968) and cases there cited. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.