DECEMBER 20, 2000

IOWA SUPREME COURT

In re Detention of Garrin, 620 N.W.2d_275 (Iowa 12/20/2000). Sexually Violent Predator Act not unconstitutional. Because the Sexually Predator Act is a civil statute, it does not implicate the state or federal Ex Post Facto Clauses or Double Jeopardy Clauses; nor does it violate the constitutional rights to substantive due process or equal protection. Finally, this petitioner did not preserve his claim that the statute is vague as applied to him and he had no standing to assert that the act is facially vague.

No Right to Depositions in Simples

Jones v. Iowa District Court for Wapello County, 620_N.W.2d_242 (Iowa 12/20/2000). Discovery -- no right to depositions in simple misdemeanor case. Defendant has neither statutory nor due process constitutional right to take depositions in simple misdemeanor cases (here, domestic abuse).

Police action exceeded Terry stop

State v. Bradford, 620 N.W.2d 503 (Iowa 12/20/2000). Warrantless searches: Terry stop vs. search incident to arrest. Police actions of detaining defendant at the scene of the alleged crime for almost an hour, handcuffing him, placing him in a patrol car, and transporting him to the police station, followed by a second search, exceeded Terry investigative search exception. "[T]he removal of a suspect from the scene of the stop generally marks the point at which the Fourth Amendment demands probable cause". Although these actions constituted an arrest and not merely an investigative stop, the arrest was supported by probable cause to believe defendant had aided and abetted the harassment of the victim so that the warrantless search was constitutionally permissible as incident to his arrest.

Perjury -- retraction of postconviction not sufficient to avoid charge

State v. Hawkins, 620 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 12/20/2000). [1] Perjury – retraction not accomplished by simply dismissing postconviction action. Defendant who made perjurious statements in postconviction action (claiming that his guilty plea was involuntary because counsel coerced him to lie) was not deemed to have retracted the statements for the purposes of avoiding a perjury charge when he subsequently dismissed the postconviction action, without more. Further, defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to claim that the dismissal gave rise to the statutory defense of retraction under Iowa Code section 720.2. Retraction involves uncovering the truth, meaning that the lie must be exposed, admitted, and the truth told. Defendant’s dismissal of the postconviction action accomplished none of the essence of retraction. [2] Perjury -- opinion or belief not generally a basis for charge. Generally, one cannot be convicted of perjury based on testimony as to one’s opinion or belief. However, the existence of an opinion or belief can itself be a question of fact. Here, "the issue is whether he actually [held the belief that he was being coerced into pleading guilty] at the time of the guilty plea or only claimed coercion ... to support his postconviction application", a question of fact.

Suspended sentence allowed for OWI 3rd under certain circumstances

State v. Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, 620 N.W.2d_271(Iowa 12/20/2000). OWI 3^rd -- suspended sentence allowed upon commitment to Department of Corrections instead of jail. District Court has power to impose prison sentence and suspend the entire sentence for OWI 3rd offense, notwithstanding language in section 321J.2 requiring service of "mandatory minimum" periods of incarceration for people convicted of previous OWIs. Under the jail/prison sentencing scheme used in Iowa, mandatory minimum jail sentences apply only to defendants sentenced to serve their time in jail. No mandatory minimum jail sentence is authorized for prison sentences, and no mandatory minimum prison sentence is authorized for prison sentences.

Search warrant challenged based on omissions in application; upheld

State v. Poulin, 620_N.W.2d_287 (Iowa 12/20/2000). [1] Search warrant -- challenge based on omissions in application. Defense counsel properly challenged search warrant on Franks grounds, including that review of a warrant allegedly based on false information in the form of factual omissions should take into consideration information beyond the four corners of the warrant application. [2] Probable cause -- sufficient corroboration of confidential informant's story, including police knowledge of defendant and visitors' reputations. Confidential informant’s information was sufficiently corroborated by neighbor’s reports of suspicious activities at defendant’s home, marijuana residue found in the trash behind defendant’s apartment, and officers’ knowledge of the reputation of defendant and his visitors as drug users: "police knowledge of reputation may be an important element in determining probable cause".