CASELAW PAGE 2

investigating officer failed to disclose during a deposition (that the defendant's wife -- who denied the statement during her own cross-examination at trial -- had told another witness she was not sure whether her husband had committed the offense). "Belken's request to preclude testimony came from the investigating officer's failure to disclose information in a deposition, which Belken wrongly attempted to use as a discovery device to pin sanctions on the State. We also conclude Belken was not prejudiced by the evidence."  [2]  Evidence -- DNA.  Scientific director of a private forensic paternity and DNA testing laboratory in St. Louis, Missouri was qualified to testify as an expert on DNA testing and results; State was not required to show expert's laboratory was certified in order to independently establish she was competent to apply and use the DNA technology; and witness was not obligated to explain the specific mathematical computations utilized during the DNA process. [3] Merger.  The district court erred in entering judgment and sentence for both first-degree kidnapping and second-degree sexual abuse. "We merge the sexual abuse conviction, and vacate the judgment and sentence entered on that conviction."

Search and seizure:  patdowns of persons and cars
Canine sniffs of vehicle exteriors not a search

State v. Bergmann, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Sup. Ct. No. 00-778) (Iowa 9/6/2001) [1]  Search and seizure -- patdown of person and search of immediate area.  Police are allowed to pat down a suspect if they have reasonable suspicion that a crime is being or is about to be committed, or if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and the officer's safety is in jeopardy.  The following factors justified both a patdown of the suspect as well as the area under the seat in the vehicle he had been driving:  "Bergmann was spotted in a known drug area alongside a nefarious drug dealer.  When the drug dealer saw police, he immediately retreated from Bergmann's car, and Bergmann drove away quickly.  [The officer] recognized Bergmann from a past weapon and drug arrest.  [The officer] felt concern for his safety.  Bergmann lied to [the officer] about where he had been recently.  Bergmann acted nervous while outside the car.  Given all of these factors, [the officer] had reasonable suspicion to pat down Bergmann for weapons.  Moreover, once [the officer] concluded that further investigation was reasonably necessary, he was warranted to assure his protection by ensuring that those in his presence were not armed." [2] Detention and performance of canine sniff.  A dog sniff of a car's perimeter is not a search.  However,  "police cannot unduly prolong their detention of an individual to secure a drug dog or for any other reason without additional suspicion of wrongdoing that warrants expansion of the stop"  The few minutes required for the canine unit to reach the scene fell within the requirements that "the dog sniff be conducted within a reasonable amount of time from the initial, lawful stop and that the stop is not unduly prolonged without a sufficient basis." [3]  Probable cause based on results of dog sniff.  "When the dog was alerted by smelling the presence of narcotics, this provided police with probable cause to search the vehicle."

Alcohol consumption by underaged person:  can't be own "guardian"

State v. Campbell, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Sup. Ct. No. 00-1109) (Iowa 9/6/2001)  Alcohol consumption by underaged person in the home.  An adult under the age of 21 cannot act as his or her own guardian so as to fall within the exception allowing consumption of alcohol in private residences when a guardian consents to the underage person's consumption of alcohol and is present.