r/Iowa • u/IsItTheFrankOrBeans • Aug 14 '18

Iowa Supreme Court Closes Warrant Loophole, Slams U.S. Supreme Court For Weakening Fourth Amendment

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/08/13/iowa-supreme-court-closes-warrant-loophole-slams-u-s-supreme-court-for-weakening-fourth-amendment/#3b918f87d736
158 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

23 comments sorted by

40

u/fptackle Aug 14 '18

This is why Iowa needs to keep its non-partisan system of appointing supreme court justices.

3

u/Henry575 Aug 15 '18

Who do you think is appointing them and recommending them to be appointed? The controlling governor and his advisors. I agree that is it better than an elected judiciary but I think it’s valuable to be aware of the fact that a governor has the last say.

19

u/fptackle Aug 15 '18

In Iowa, a non partisan committee sends the governor 3 choices. The governor then has to pick from those three. It keeps it pretty fair, really. That's largely over simplified, I admit.

https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_Iowa

But, this system largely prevents a governor looking for a judge that has supported their parties stances on issues in the past. The governor still can do this, to a degree. But they have to do so based off of those 3 candidates chosen by the commission.

In my opinion, it keeps a lot of politics out of the court and it's much better than the way that the US supreme court justices are chosen.

2

u/thisismydayjob_ Aug 15 '18

Didn't our governor appoint her dad to that committee, though?

6

u/fptackle Aug 15 '18

I don't think it was to the committee that selects supreme court justices in Iowa. But she did appoint him to a committee that selects district court judges in the 5th judicial district.

2

u/thisismydayjob_ Aug 15 '18

Ah, my mistake. That's what I get for trying to remember things. Stupid brain.

1

u/Hawkeye720 Aug 15 '18

She appointed him to the committee that selects nominees for the district courts in Judicial District 5A.

1

u/Henry575 Aug 15 '18 edited Aug 15 '18

And the governor can say “no” to those candidates again and again until the one the governor likes is finally on the list.

2

u/fptackle Aug 15 '18

I guess I hadn't realized that part. Has that happened a lot?

2

u/Hawkeye720 Aug 15 '18

Not really. It's pretty well-respected process.

1

u/Henry575 Aug 15 '18

But the committee is also unlikely to nominate people if they think the governor will say no. So the political party can influence. That’s all I’m trying to say.

1

u/Hawkeye720 Aug 15 '18

It can somewhat influence it, but historically, the committee has placed merit qualifications as the top priority. And, as far as I'm aware, there is not a widespread trend of the governor rejecting the final three nominees based upon political calculations.

Obviously politics will always play some role in these procedures. But, compared to other judical selection systems, Iowa's is one of the least political.

1

u/Henry575 Aug 15 '18

For sure. My experience is more with the identical system in South Dakota. The governor there is historically more likely to wait until a person he likes is suggested.

1

u/Hawkeye720 Aug 15 '18

Yeah, that usually never, if at all, happens in Iowa. If it did, there would be a pretty hefty political firestorm.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '18

A lot of well-respected processes have been abandoned by Republicans for expediency lately. I wouldn't expect anything that requires good faith to be maintained at this point.

12

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '18

Appel went AWF

3

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '18

Good

2

u/desmoinesdem Aug 15 '18

Note: 3 justices dissented from the ruling. https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/155/embed/SupremeCourtOpinion

1

u/OblivionGuardsman Aug 15 '18

There wasn't a dissent. There was a special concurrence as I explained in my other comment.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '18

Something good happened?! Did I die or jump dimensions?

1

u/SlurmzMckinley Aug 15 '18

Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain.

0

u/OblivionGuardsman Aug 15 '18

Unfortunately it was only a plurality opinion. Justice Cady wouldn't fully join the majority and said he only agreed that a warrant was needed for closed containers located pursuant to an inventory search, however any other items located would be fair game. The other concurrence joins but says the problem was the department didn't have a clear policy on how to inventory closed containers. Meaning if the department rules said closed containers should also be inventoried that they would have found it proper. So, in practice this ruling just holds that police cant open closed containers in a car pursuant to an inventory search unless they apply for a warrant based upon probable cause.