mistake of law defense (Iowa) · Go Syfert
← Iowa issues

mistake of law defense in Iowa

5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2020 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Heien v. North Carolinagreen
scotus · 2014 · cited in 2 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2018–2020
2 sentences

2020See Heien, 574 U.S. at 74–75, 135 S. Ct. at 544–45.

2018See id. at ----, 135 S.Ct. at 539 -40 .

22
Saadiq v. Stategreen
iowa · 1986 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
1 sentence

1999We applied this principle so as to preclude a mistake-of-law defense in a conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon in Saadiq v. State, 387 N.W.2d 315, 323 (Iowa 1986).

11
United States v. Bernard L. Barker, United States of America v. Eugenio R. Martinezgreen
cadc · 1976 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
1 sentence

1980See, e. g., United States v. Barker, 546 F.2d 940, 954-57 (D.C.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
State of Iowa v. Michael Scheffert green
iowa · 2018
1 sentence

2020For instance, “the mistake-of-law doctrine is broader under the United States Constitution than it is under the Iowa Constitution.” State v. Scheffert, 910 N.W.2d 577 , 585 n.2 (Iowa 2018).

12020–2020
United States v. LeShawn Stanbridge green
ca7 · 2016
1 sentence

2018"An officer can gain no Fourth Amendment advantage through a sloppy study of the laws he is duty-bound to enforce." Heien , 574 U.S. at ----, 135 S.Ct. at 539 -40 . " Heien does not support the proposition that a police officer acts in an objectively reasonable manner by misinterpreting an unambiguous statute." United States v. Stanbridge , 813 F.3d 1032 , 1037 (7th Cir. 2016).

12018–2018

Where else courts name it

TX 19 (1992–2024) CA 17 (1991–2026) NY 11 (1944–2016) ND 8 (1983–2011) AK 6 (1987–2023) OH 6 (1988–2024) WI 5 (2002–2013) IA 5 (1980–2020) DE 5 (1998–2019) NJ 5 (1992–2021) ID 4 (1997–2017) CO 4 (2000–2020) IL 3 (1989–2008) MD 2 (2024–2024) LA 2 (1997–2003) MI 2 (2018–2018) HI 2 (1996–2004) UT 2 (2003–2010) DC 2 (2016–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check