IA search and seizure

Iowa case law summary by Attorney Richard Clem: search & seizure.

State of Iowa v. Stacy James Levell. IA search and seizure

A state trooper noticed a car approaching from the rear, which slowed when the driver saw the squad car. The trooper slowed down, and when the car passed, he checked the license number. He was automatically alerted to an arrest warrant for the defendant, even though he was not the registered owner, since he had been driving the vehicle when originally arrested for the offense giving rise to the warrant.

When the vehicle pulled into a rest area, the trooper followed, activated his lights behind the car as it parked, and approached the vehicle. The driver identified himeslf as Stacy Levell, the subject of the warrant.

The trooper also learned that Levell had a revoked license and was barred from driving.

At trial, the defendant moved to suppress, arguing that there was no reasonable suspicion to seize the vehicle by making the original stop. He was convicted, and appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals.

The state argued that there was no seizure, but the Court of Appeals held that the trooper's actions "demonstrated authoritative behavior necessary to establish seizure," noting that a reasonable person would not believe that they could disregard the trooper and go about their business. The trooper had also testified that he "initiated a traffic stop."

The court also held that under these circumstances, there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. The trooper did not know the identity of the driver, and the evasive behavior by itself was insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion.

Judge McDonald dissented. He noted that the defendant was in a public place and had parked of his own accord. When the officer stated that he was looking for the defendant, the defendant volunteered his identity. Under these facts, the dissent would have ruled that there was no seizure.

No. 17-0012 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2017).

Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.

Advertisement:

Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).

For more information about attorney Clem, please visit his website.
For more information about his low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case summaries

Copyright 2017, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.

Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648

Books by Richard Clem:


Please visit my author page at amazon.com

Copyright and privacy notice. State of Iowa v. Stacy James Levell A state trooper noticed a car approaching from the rear, which slowed when the driver saw the squad car. The trooper slowed down, and when the car passed, he checked the license number. He was automatically alerted to an arrest warrant for the defendant, even though he was not the registered owner, since he had been driving the vehicle when originally arrested for the offense giving rise to the warrant. When the vehicle pulled into a rest area, the trooper followed, activated his lights behind the car as it parked, and approached the vehicle. The driver identified himeslf as Stacy Levell, the subject of the warrant. The trooper also learned that Levell had a revoked license and was barred from driving. At trial, the defendant moved to suppress, arguing that there was no reasonable suspicion to seize the vehicle by making the original stop. He was convicted, and appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals. The state argued that there was no seizure, but the Court of Appeals held that the trooper's actions "demonstrated authoritative behavior necessary to establish seizure," noting that a reasonable person would not believe that they could disregard the trooper and go about their business. The trooper had also testified that he "initiated a traffic stop." The court also held that under these circumstances, there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. The trooper did not know the identity of the driver, and the evasive behavior by itself was insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion. Judge McDonald dissented. He noted that the defendant was in a public place and had parked of his own accord. When the officer stated that he was looking for the defendant, the defendant volunteered his identity. Under these facts, the dissent would have ruled that there was no seizure. No. 17-0012 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 11, 2017).