Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2021 3 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. Halliburtongreen1 sentence2017See State v. Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 342-43 (Iowa 1995) (holding a passenger in a vehicle did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in absence of evidence he was in control of the vehicle or otherwise possessed it at the time of the search); State v. Nurcaro, 614 N.W.2d 856, 859 (Iowa 2000) (holding counsel was not ineffective in conceding the defendant lacked standing to challenge search the of the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger because the defendant lacked a privacy interest in the vehicle and its contents). 5 Flippo contests this finding.3 “When the police stop a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Heminovergreen1 sentence2017See State v. Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 342-43 (Iowa 1995) (holding a passenger in a vehicle did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in absence of evidence he was in control of the vehicle or otherwise possessed it at the time of the search); State v. Nurcaro, 614 N.W.2d 856, 859 (Iowa 2000) (holding counsel was not ineffective in conceding the defendant lacked standing to challenge search the of the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger because the defendant lacked a privacy interest in the vehicle and its contents). 5 Flippo contests this finding.3 “When the police stop a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nucarogreen1 sentence2017See State v. Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 342-43 (Iowa 1995) (holding a passenger in a vehicle did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in absence of evidence he was in control of the vehicle or otherwise possessed it at the time of the search); State v. Nurcaro, 614 N.W.2d 856, 859 (Iowa 2000) (holding counsel was not ineffective in conceding the defendant lacked standing to challenge search the of the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger because the defendant lacked a privacy interest in the vehicle and its contents). 5 Flippo contests this finding.3 “When the police stop a | 1 | 1 |
California v. Hodari D.green1 sentence2015See California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 629 (1991) (holding cocaine the defendant threw while fleeing from police was “not the fruit of a seizure” but was abandoned by the defendant); State v. Bumpus, 459 N.W.2d 619, 625 (Iowa 1990) (holding the defendant lacked standing to challenge a search of property because he had voluntarily abandoned it and no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to that property); State v. Phipps, 528 N.W.2d 665, 668 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (holding the defendant lost any reasonable expectation of privacy he had in marijuana when he removed it fro | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Christine Ann Kerngreen1 sentence2015In order to prove the element of possession, the State was required to show Brown “exercised dominion and control over the contraband, had knowledge of the contraband’s presence, and had knowledge the material was a narcotic.” State v. Kern, 831 N.W.2d 149, 160 (Iowa 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bumpusgreen1 sentence2015See California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 629 (1991) (holding cocaine the defendant threw while fleeing from police was “not the fruit of a seizure” but was abandoned by the defendant); State v. Bumpus, 459 N.W.2d 619, 625 (Iowa 1990) (holding the defendant lacked standing to challenge a search of property because he had voluntarily abandoned it and no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to that property); State v. Phipps, 528 N.W.2d 665, 668 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (holding the defendant lost any reasonable expectation of privacy he had in marijuana when he removed it fro | 1 | 1 |
State v. Phippsgreen1 sentence2015See California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 629 (1991) (holding cocaine the defendant threw while fleeing from police was “not the fruit of a seizure” but was abandoned by the defendant); State v. Bumpus, 459 N.W.2d 619, 625 (Iowa 1990) (holding the defendant lacked standing to challenge a search of property because he had voluntarily abandoned it and no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to that property); State v. Phipps, 528 N.W.2d 665, 668 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (holding the defendant lost any reasonable expectation of privacy he had in marijuana when he removed it fro | 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. Brooks
green
2 sentences2021Id. 2021Id. | 3 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Turner
green
1 sentence2017See State v. Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 342-43 (Iowa 1995) (holding a passenger in a vehicle did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in absence of evidence he was in control of the vehicle or otherwise possessed it at the time of the search); State v. Nurcaro, 614 N.W.2d 856, 859 (Iowa 2000) (holding counsel was not ineffective in conceding the defendant lacked standing to challenge search the of the vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger because the defendant lacked a privacy interest in the vehicle and its contents). 5 Flippo contests this finding.3 “When the police stop a | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.