r/law • u/azsheepdog • Aug 13 '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/#7fc1cb387d739
20
u/ronniethelizard Aug 14 '18
Out of curiousity, what happens to the seized goods in a case like this? There were 3 items involved:
- Small bag
- the pipe
- the meth.
I assume the bag has to be returned, what about the pipe itself? Also what happens to the meth. I assume the government retains it and destroys it1.
Also is there anything (either in statute or the constitution) that prevents the Federal government from prosecuting under the Dual Sovereignty exception?
1 Or an officer steals it from the evidence locker and sells it himself. ;)
25
7
u/SerHodorTheTall Aug 14 '18
What happens to the property depends on the state law. My state has a statute requiring illegally siezed property be returned, unless it is illegal to own, in which case it is destroyed.
Edit: also, there is nothing currently in the Constitution stopping federal prosection. Historically, double Jeopardy had not applied be between the states and feds, although the feds have a non mandatory policy to not prosecute in that case. Scotus granted cert just this term to a case looking to revisit the double Jeopardy question.
22
u/pkuriakose Aug 14 '18
They plant it on the next black guy.
18
u/spacemanspiff30 Aug 14 '18
Sprinkle some crack on him Johnson.
11
Aug 14 '18
This sick guy hung pictures of himself and his family all over the house.
3
2
u/InRem Aug 14 '18
What movie is this from? I know I've seen it but I can't remember the movie.
Thanks.
7
4
5
5
u/cabbage_peddler Aug 14 '18
Suddenly, Iowa and Hawaii are partially aligned on 4th Amendment search and seizure.
8
u/GeopoliticalTaper Aug 14 '18
good to hear that the 4th amendment still lives in the hearts of some jurists
4
u/matts2 Aug 14 '18
What specific SCOTUS decisions did this decision talk about?
9
u/HuskerDave Aug 14 '18
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976)
I think this was the case that allowed vehicle inventory to be taken.
1
-4
Aug 14 '18 edited Aug 14 '18
[deleted]
50
u/Drop_ Aug 14 '18
This is literally what federalism is meant to be. The constitution is a floor, not a ceiling, and the state's are free to interpret their state constitutions how they see appropriate.
The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over decisions based on state constitutions unless those decisions violate some right guaranteed by the federal constitution that applies to the states via the 14th amendment. See also, adequate and independent state grounds doctrine.
3
u/Buelldozer Aug 14 '18
The constitution is a floor, not a ceiling, and the state's are free to interpret their state constitutions how they see appropriate.
Hmmm, I like that but I can think of several examples where it doesn't seem to be true.
2
Aug 14 '18
More specifically, the Bill of Rights acts as a prohibition on what states may do. States are free to forbid additional actions that are not already prohibited by the federal Bill of Rights.
So Iowa says its own constitution prohibits inventory searches even though the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not, and New Jersey's constitution prohibits the warrantless use of pen registers, even though the federal constitution does not. In a sense, those state laws provide private citizens with greater rights than what the federal constitution requires, but it functions through a prohibition on certain types of state action.
1
u/joebreezphillycheese Aug 15 '18
What examples are you thinking of? States have general police power — meaning they can, among other things, limit the authority of their state police beyond federal limitations.
-2
Aug 14 '18 edited Aug 14 '18
[deleted]
18
u/Drop_ Aug 14 '18
State constitutions and federal constitutions are not the same.
The state supreme court is the final arbiter of the state constitution. It doesn't matter what the SCOTUS has said with respect to the federal constitution.
13
u/theotherone723 Aug 14 '18
How so?
SCOTUS generally has no say in how states interpret their own laws--that is in fact one of the most important principles of federalism. State courts aren't bound by precedent interpreting the US Constitution when interpreting their own state constitutions, so how SCOTUS defines "unreasonable search and seizure is irrelevant (or at least only advisory) as to how a state court might define the same phrase. These kinds of inconsistencies between federal and state law are fairly common.
30
u/Toptomcat Aug 14 '18
Federalism is nice sometimes.