Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 321.232 (2026)

Speed detection jamming devices — penalty

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. A person shall not sell, operate, or possess a speed detection jamming device, except as otherwise provided in this section, when the device is in a vehicle operated on the highways of this state or the device is held for sale in this state.

2. This section does not apply to speed measuring devices purchased by, held for purchase for, or operated by peace officers using the devices in performance of their official duties.

3. A speed detection jamming device sold, operated, or possessed in violation of subsection 1 may be seized by a peace officer and is subject to forfeiture as provided by chapter 809 or 809A.

4. For the purposes of this section:

a. “Speed detection jamming device” means any active or passive device, instrument, mechanism, or equipment that is designed or intended to interfere with, disrupt, or scramble the radar or laser that is used by a peace officer to measure the speed of motor vehicles. “Speed detection jamming device” does not include equipment that is legal under federal communications commission regulations, such as a citizens’ band radio, a ham radio, or other similar electronic equipment.

b. “Speed measuring device” includes but is not limited to devices commonly known as radar speed meters or laser speed meters. [81 Acts, ch 109, §1] 96 Acts, ch 1133, §41; 2013 Acts, ch 140, §158 Referred to in §805.8A(14)(g), 809A.3 For applicable scheduled fines, see §805.8A, subsection 14, paragraph g \n

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1975–1976 · leading case: City of Des Moines v. Huff, 232 N.W.2d 574 (Iowa 1975).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Des Moines v. Huff, 232 N.W.2d 574 (Iowa 1975). · cites it 2× “See § 321.232, The Code ("when such vehicle is operated in response to an emergency call or in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law").”

Hamilton v. Town of Palo, 244 N.W.2d 329 (Iowa 1976). · cites it 2× “296 (listing standards for the operation of emergency vehicles); and § 321.232 (setting forth when the driver of an emergency vehicle is entitled to “special privilege.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.