Iowa Code » Chapter 809 — DISPOSITION OF SEIZED PROPERTY
Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 809.1 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. “Seizable property” means any of the following: a. Property which is relevant in a criminal prosecution or investigation. b. Property defined by law to be forfeitable property. c. Property which if not seized by the state poses an imminent danger to a person’s health, safety, or welfare. 2. “Seized property” means property taken or held by any law enforcement agency without the consent of the person, if any, who had possession or a right to possession of the property at the time it was taken into custody. Seized property does not include property taken into custody solely for safekeeping purposes or property taken into custody with the consent of the owner or the person who had possession at the time of the taking. If consent to the taking of property was given by the person in possession of the property and later withdrawn or found to be insufficient, the property shall then be returned or the property shall be deemed seized as of the time of the demand and refusal. 3. The definitions contained in subsections 1 and 2 shall not apply to violations of chapter 321. 86 Acts, ch 1140, §3; 95 Acts, ch 48, §23; 96 Acts, ch 1133, §47

\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases, 1989–2020 · leading case: In Re Prop. Seized From Rush, 448 N.W.2d 472 (Iowa 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Prop. Seized From Rush, 448 N.W.2d 472 (Iowa 1989). · cites it 24× “See Iowa Code §§ 809.1 (2)(b), 809.1(2)(c). A.”
In Re Prop. Seized From Bly, 456 N.W.2d 195 (Iowa 1990). · cites it 22× “Iowa Code section 809.1(2) defines “forfeitable property” as any: a.”
Matter of Kaster, 454 N.W.2d 876 (Iowa 1990). · cites it 20× “Compare Iowa Code § 809.1 (3) (1985) with Iowa Code § 809.”
State v. Predka, 555 N.W.2d 202 (Iowa 1996). · cites it 10× “See Iowa Code § 809.1 . And, as the Supreme Court held in Ursery II with respect to the federal forfeiture statutes, this fact by itself is far from the proof necessary to show a proceeding is criminal in form and effect.”
State v. Dykes, 471 N.W.2d 846 (Iowa 1991). · cites it 16× “Iowa Code § 809.1 (2)(a) and (b). Cases from other jurisdictions, interpreting the uniform controlled substance Act, are not in point to interpret Iowa's present forfeiture law.”
Matter of Prop. Seized From Chiodo, 555 N.W.2d 412 (Iowa 1996). · cites it 14× “See Iowa Code § 809.1 (2)(b). Chiodo filed an application in district court seeking the return of the 1994 Pontiac Grand Prix.”
In re Prop. Seized from Raster, 454 N.W.2d 876 (Iowa 1990). · cites it 20× “Compare Iowa Code § 809.1 (3) (1985) with Iowa Code § 809.”
Matter of Prop. Seized From DeCamp, 511 N.W.2d 616 (Iowa 1994). · cites it 6× “See Iowa Code § 809.1 (2) (1991). Several weeks later DeCamp filed an application for return of his truck.”
State v. $10,000 Seized From Mary Patrick, 562 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 12× “2d at 620 ); Iowa Code § 809.1 (2) (1995). The police seized the $10,000 from Mary Patrick because the money was intended to be used to buy illegal drugs in California and then return to sell the drugs in Iowa.”
In Re Prop. Seized From Sopoci, 467 N.W.2d 799 (Iowa 1991). · cites it 4× “See Iowa Code § 809.1 (2)(c). On September 12, 1989, Sopoci made claim for return of the property.”
Coyle v. Kujaczynski, 759 N.W.2d 637 (Iowa Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “There, the court concluded that because chapter 809 did not expressly mention the homestead exemption and because forfeitures are severe sanctions not favored by our law, the current Iowa statutes did not permit the State to forfeit a legitimately acquired homestead under…”
State v. Ludtke, 446 N.W.2d 797 (Iowa 1989). · cites it 2× “See Iowa Code § 809.1 (2)(a). However, the district court erred in concluding that Ludtke’s application for return of seized property was untimely and in concluding that Ludtke thus abandoned the property.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Iowa Code § 809.1(1)(c) — 2 cases
MacKenzie Rumsey & Bela Animal Legal Def. & Rescue v. City of Des Moines, Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2016).
Cynthia Pesce v. City of Des Moines & The Animal Rescue League of Iowa, Inc. (Iowa Ct. App. 2018).
— Iowa Code § 809.1(2) — 10 cases
In Re Prop. Seized From Rush, 448 N.W.2d 472 (Iowa 1989). “See Iowa Code §§ 809.1 (2)(b), 809.1(2)(c). A.”
Matter of Prop. Seized From Chiodo, 555 N.W.2d 412 (Iowa 1996). “See Iowa Code § 809.1 (2)(b). Chiodo filed an application in district court seeking the return of the 1994 Pontiac Grand Prix.”
In Re Prop. Seized From Bly, 456 N.W.2d 195 (Iowa 1990). “Iowa Code section 809.1(2) defines “forfeitable property” as any: a.”
Matter of Kaster, 454 N.W.2d 876 (Iowa 1990). “Compare Iowa Code § 809.1 (3) (1985) with Iowa Code § 809.”
State v. $10,000 Seized From Mary Patrick, 562 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). “2d at 620 ); Iowa Code § 809.1 (2) (1995). The police seized the $10,000 from Mary Patrick because the money was intended to be used to buy illegal drugs in California and then return to sell the drugs in Iowa.”
— Iowa Code § 809.1(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Predka, 555 N.W.2d 202 (Iowa 1996). “See Iowa Code § 809.1 . And, as the Supreme Court held in Ursery II with respect to the federal forfeiture statutes, this fact by itself is far from the proof necessary to show a proceeding is criminal in form and effect.”
— Iowa Code § 809.1(2)(a)(b) — 2 cases
Matter of Kaster, 454 N.W.2d 876 (Iowa 1990). “Compare Iowa Code § 809.1 (3) (1985) with Iowa Code § 809.”
In re Prop. Seized from Raster, 454 N.W.2d 876 (Iowa 1990). “Compare Iowa Code § 809.1 (3) (1985) with Iowa Code § 809.”
— Iowa Code § 809.1(2)(b) — 11 cases
In Re Prop. Seized From Bly, 456 N.W.2d 195 (Iowa 1990). “Iowa Code section 809.1(2) defines “forfeitable property” as any: a.”
Matter of Kaster, 454 N.W.2d 876 (Iowa 1990). “Compare Iowa Code § 809.1 (3) (1985) with Iowa Code § 809.”
State v. Predka, 555 N.W.2d 202 (Iowa 1996). “See Iowa Code § 809.1 . And, as the Supreme Court held in Ursery II with respect to the federal forfeiture statutes, this fact by itself is far from the proof necessary to show a proceeding is criminal in form and effect.”
State v. Dykes, 471 N.W.2d 846 (Iowa 1991). “Iowa Code § 809.1 (2)(a) and (b). Cases from other jurisdictions, interpreting the uniform controlled substance Act, are not in point to interpret Iowa's present forfeiture law.”
Coyle v. Kujaczynski, 759 N.W.2d 637 (Iowa Ct. App. 2008). “There, the court concluded that because chapter 809 did not expressly mention the homestead exemption and because forfeitures are severe sanctions not favored by our law, the current Iowa statutes did not permit the State to forfeit a legitimately acquired homestead under…”
— Iowa Code § 809.1(2)(c) — 2 cases
In Re Prop. Seized From Sopoci, 467 N.W.2d 799 (Iowa 1991). “See Iowa Code § 809.1 (2)(c). On September 12, 1989, Sopoci made claim for return of the property.”
Matter of Prop. Seized From Sykes, 497 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 1993).
— Iowa Code § 809.1(2)(e) — 1 case
State v. Predka, 555 N.W.2d 202 (Iowa 1996). “See Iowa Code § 809.1 . And, as the Supreme Court held in Ursery II with respect to the federal forfeiture statutes, this fact by itself is far from the proof necessary to show a proceeding is criminal in form and effect.”
— Iowa Code § 809.1(4) — 2 cases
Matter of Kaster, 454 N.W.2d 876 (Iowa 1990). “Compare Iowa Code § 809.1 (3) (1985) with Iowa Code § 809.”
In re Prop. Seized from Raster, 454 N.W.2d 876 (Iowa 1990). “Compare Iowa Code § 809.1 (3) (1985) with Iowa Code § 809.”
— Iowa Code § 809.1(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Predka, 555 N.W.2d 202 (Iowa 1996). “See Iowa Code § 809.1 . And, as the Supreme Court held in Ursery II with respect to the federal forfeiture statutes, this fact by itself is far from the proof necessary to show a proceeding is criminal in form and effect.”
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.