OCTOBER 9, 2002

IOWA SUPREME COURT

State v. Biddle, 652 N.W.2d 191 (Iowa 10/9/2002) [1] Chain of custody – controlled drug buy.  Proper chain of custody for admission of drugs demonstrated by evidence that officers (1) searched informant and his girlfriend (both of whom were participating with the Drug Task Enforcement Team before the buy, (2) followed the two in police cars to and from the buy, (3) tape-recorded the conversation of the buy, and (4) retrieved drugs from the informant or his girlfriend after the buy (drugs that were not present before it) and noted the absence of money from the informant after the buy (money that was present before it).  The Court rejected defendant’s claims that the failure to produce the informant’s girlfriend at trial, the failure to provide a female officer to search her before the controlled buy, and the fact that none of the officers actually witnessed the transaction rendered the evidence “highly unreliable” so as not to be admissible. [2] Judge – alleged help to prosecutor in establishing proper foundation as challenge to neutrality.  District court did not improperly aid the prosecution in establishing chain of custody for drugs purchased in a controlled drug buy.  The judge told the parties, out of the jury’s presence, that it would overrule defendant’s chain-of-custody objection if there was evidence in the record “with respect to the time durations of the periods when the confidential informants were under surveillance”.  After the State presented additional testimony, the court called both attorneys to the bench and told the prosecutor “you know what you have to do if you’re going to get this evidence in; and if you cannot do that, then let’s move on.”  Supreme Court holds that the judge did not improperly aid the State thereby:  the defendant objecting to the admission on a foundational basis had the obligation to provide specific reasons why the foundation was deficient in any event, and all of the court’s comments were made outside the jury’s presence.  [3]  Drugs – constitutionality of statute that allows reduction of sentence for methamphetamine offense only if defendant pleads guilty (Iowa Code section 901.10(2)).  Statute providing that court shall not grant any reduction of sentence for meth offense unless defendant pleads guilty  does not violate Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights.  First, unlike United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570 (1968), the death penalty is not involved.  Second, defendant could still receive the mandatory minimum sentence whether or not a guilty plea is involved (so the risk of that punishment is not completely avoided by a guilty plea). [4]  Drugs – constitutionality of statute that prohibits suspension of sentence for violation of section 124.401(1)(a) or (b) and the drug is methamphetamine.  Reserving for postconviction relief defendant’s unpreserved claim that strict scrutiny should apply to the question, the Court determines that section 901.10(2) and 907.3(3)(3) are constitutional as supported by a rational basis for distinguishing between methamphetamine and other drugs in determining whether suspended sentences are allowed.  “The statutes are rationally related to the government’s interest in curbing the increasing and widespread use of methamphetamine, a highly addictive drug.”