In the execution of a search warrant the person executing the same may reasonably detain
and search any person or thing in the place at the time for any of the following reasons:
1. To protect the searcher from attack.
2. To prevent the disposal or concealment of any property subject to seizure described in
the warrant.
3. To remove any item which is capable of causing bodily harm that the person may use
to resist arrest or effect an escape.
[C79, 81, §808.7]\n\nTue Dec 09 21:54:09 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 808 (40, 1)
§808.8, SEARCH AND SEIZURE 4
\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case:
State v. Phipps, 528 N.W.2d 665 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Phipps, 528 N.W.2d 665 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 24× “…remove any item which is capable of causing bodily harm that the person may use to resist arrest or effect an escape. Iowa Code § 808.7 (1993).”
State v. Smith, 476 N.W.2d 86 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 6× “The State contends that the search was permitted under section 808.7, which states: In the execution of a search warrant the person executing the same may reasonably detain and search any person or thing in the place at the time for any of the following reasons: 1.”
State of Iowa v. Andrew Jay Porter (Iowa 2026).
· cites it 4× “Further, the majority points to a statute, Iowa Code § 808.7 (2) (2023), that it asserts “legally required” the officers executing the warrant to search the backpack because it might have contained evidence described in the warrant.”
State of Iowa v. Austin Michael Muilenberg (Iowa Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Combining Winterboer’s two visits to the apartment, the officer detected the odor of marijuana on each occasion and encountered Cody plus one person on one occasion and another person on the 2 On appeal, the State also argues that law enforcement could search the bedroom…”
Iowa Code § 808.7(2): 1 case
State of Iowa v. Andrew Jay Porter (Iowa 2026).
“Further, the majority points to a statute, Iowa Code § 808.7 (2) (2023), that it asserts “legally required” the officers executing the warrant to search the backpack because it might have contained evidence described in the warrant.”
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.