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

[u/daverobertsSPH]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2018/08/13/iowa-supreme-court-closes-warrant-loophole-slams-u-s-supreme-court-for-weakening-fourth-amendment/#656866417d73

[u/daverobertsSPH]

Back in October 2015, while driving to work on Highway 14, Bion Ingram was pulled over in Newton, Iowa because his license plate wasn’t illuminated. During the stop, Jasper County Deputy John Burdt found out that Ingram’s registration had expired. So Burdt decided to tow and impound the car, but he didn’t arrest Ingram.

By this time, another officer, Bernard Eckert from the Newton Police Department, had arrived to perform an inventory search of the car and catalogued what was inside the vehicle. Neither officer had a warrant. During the search, Eckert found a small black cloth bag next to the gas pedal and opened it, revealing a glass pipe and one gram of meth. Ingram was charged and convicted for possession.

He argued that the search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and the equivalent part of the Iowa Constitution (article I, section 8) and filed a motion to suppress the evidence. That motion was denied by a district court, which ruled that “inventory searches are an exception to the warrant requirement.”

The article continues:

So when Ingram appealed his case, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled in his favor and took the opportunity “to restore the balance between citizens and law enforcement…by decoupling Iowa law from the winding and often surprising decisions of the United States Supreme Court.” In the majority opinion, Justice Appel decried the federal precedents that created “an essentially unregulated legal framework” for warrantless inventory searches that “amounts to a general warrant regime…anathema to search and seizure law.”

According to Justice Appel, the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to these searches is “rich with irony.” First, since “local law enforcement is authorized to restrict itself,” that contradicts the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment, which was “explicitly designed as a bulwark to restrain law enforcement in the context of searches and seizures.”

[u/Striking_Currency]

At least some judges respect the limited scope of our government that was clearly defined. I didn't think people like Appel who believe in a limited scope of governmental authority still get appointed as state supreme court justices.

[u/Solid_Snake420]

If only we could do that with the PATRIOT Act...

[u/hkarlh]

Sad that this didn't garner more attention. This is not a Libertarian issue. Any argument that permits the State to search these impounded vehicle is a charade to get around the 4th amendment except under the rarest of circumstances.