A person arrested for or charged with an offense may request a district court judge to
order a nontestimonial identification procedure. If it appears that the results of specific
nontestimonial identification procedures will be of material aid in determining whether
the defendant committed the offense, the judge shall order such identification procedures
involving the defendant under such terms and conditions as the judge shall prescribe.
[C79, 81, §810.2]
\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case:
State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa 1980).
State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa 1980).
· cites it 8× “Defendant’s second original basis for asserting that trial court erred in excluding evidence of his polygraph examination relies upon section 810.2, Supplement to the Code 1977.”
State v. Anderson, 308 N.W.2d 42 (Iowa 1981).
· cites it 12× “Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a lineup under section 810.2? V. Was defendant denied his constitutional rights to confront witnesses and be present at trial when he was not present at a hearing on a motion to dismiss? VI.”
Bousman v. Iowa Dist. Court for Clinton Cnty., 630 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2001).
· cites it 8× “Proceedings under chapter 810 can be initiated only by a person who has been arrested for or charged with a criminal offense, see Iowa Code § 810.2 , or, as in this case, by a prosecuting attorney during the investigation of a criminal offense, see id.”
State v. Evans, 338 N.W.2d 788 (Neb. 1983).
· cites it 2× “1 (1973); Idaho Code § 19-625 (1979); Iowa Code Ann. §§ 810.2 et seq. (West 1979 & Supp.”
State of Iowa v. Keith Michael Moss (Iowa Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 2× “In district court, Moss tried to access the child’s cell phone through a motion under Iowa Code section 810.2, which allows a “person arrested for or charged with an offense” to “request a district court judge to order a nontestimonial identification procedure.”
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.