Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Orange City passed an ordinance requiring periodic inspections of rental properties. If entry for inspection is refused, the ordinance allows the city inspector to seek legal remedies, including obtaining an administrative search warrant. Certain owners and renters of rental units challenged the ordinance, claiming it violated article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution because it did not require the city to show traditional probable cause before seeking a warrant.The Iowa District Court for Sioux County ruled in favor of the challengers, declaring the ordinance's mandatory inspection requirement unconstitutional and enjoining the city from seeking administrative warrants under the ordinance. The court awarded nominal damages to the plaintiffs.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and disagreed with the lower court's ruling. The court noted that in a facial challenge, the challenger must prove that the ordinance is unconstitutional in all its applications. The court found that there are scenarios where the ordinance could operate constitutionally, such as when traditional probable cause is present, when non-warrant legal remedies are pursued, or when inspections are conducted by certified third-party inspectors, exempting the property from city inspections. Therefore, the facial challenge could not succeed.The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The main holding was that the ordinance's inspection regime could operate constitutionally in certain circumstances, thus the facial challenge to the ordinance failed. View "Singer v. City of Orange City" on Justia Law

Artell Young, a federal supervised releasee, was subject to a search condition allowing federal probation officers to search his person, vehicle, or home upon reasonable suspicion of contraband or release condition violations. After receiving information that Young was dealing drugs and possessing a firearm, federal probation officers searched his home, finding small amounts of crack cocaine, powdered cocaine, and marijuana. The federal authorities turned the case over to Iowa authorities, leading to Young's conviction on several drug offenses.In the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Young moved to suppress the evidence from the search, arguing it violated the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. The district court upheld the search, citing the "special needs" exception under both the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8. The court also noted that the search was conducted by federal officers under federal standards, thus not subject to Iowa constitutional standards. Young was convicted by a jury of three counts of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to six years in prison.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the search violated article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. The court held that the constitutionality of the search should be evaluated by the law of the sovereign that conducted the search—in this case, federal law. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the search was lawful under federal standards and that the evidence obtained was admissible in the state prosecution. The court rejected Young's claim of an illegal search and affirmed his convictions. View "State of Iowa v. Young" on Justia Law

A police officer initiated a traffic stop of Ashlee Mumford because the vehicle's license plate was obscured by dirt and grime. During the stop, a drug detection dog conducted a sniff around the vehicle, briefly touching the passenger door and momentarily breaking the plane of the passenger window. The dog alerted to the presence of controlled substances, leading to a search that uncovered methamphetamine in the glove compartment and marijuana and a methamphetamine pipe in Mumford's purse. Mumford was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine, marijuana, and drug paraphernalia. She was acquitted of methamphetamine possession but convicted of marijuana and drug paraphernalia possession.In the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Mumford moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the traffic stop, arguing it violated her constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court denied her motion, concluding the traffic stop was supported by probable cause and the use of the drug detection dog did not violate the Federal or State Constitution. Mumford was convicted of possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia following a bench trial.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the traffic stop was supported by probable cause due to the obscured license plate, and the use of the drug detection dog did not constitute an unlawful search. The court also found sufficient evidence to support Mumford's conviction for possession of marijuana, rejecting her argument that lab testing was required to prove the substance was marijuana. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying Mumford's motion to suppress evidence or her motion in arrest of judgment. View "State v. Mumford" on Justia Law

A landowner in Hardin County, Iowa, refused to allow a surveyor for a pipeline developer to enter his private property. The developer, Summit Carbon Solutions, LLC, sought access under Iowa Code section 479B.15, which governs hazardous liquid pipelines. The district court ordered the landowner to allow the surveyor temporary access, rejecting the landowner’s claims that the statute was unconstitutional under the “takings” clauses of the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions and that carbon dioxide in a supercritical state is not a “hazardous liquid.”The Iowa District Court for Hardin County ruled that the statute was facially constitutional and that Summit was a “pipeline company” with access rights under section 479B.15. The court found that Summit had provided proper statutory notice to the landowner and that the landowner’s claim of having a tenant who did not receive notice was not credible. The court granted Summit’s request for injunctive relief to compel access for surveying.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that section 479B.15 is a lawful pre-existing limitation on the landowner’s title, consistent with longstanding background restrictions on property rights, and does not constitute a taking under the Federal or Iowa Constitutions. The court also held that supercritical carbon dioxide is a “hazardous liquid” within the meaning of section 479B.2, making Summit a pipeline company with access rights under the statute. The court found that Summit had complied with the statutory notice requirements and that no additional showing of irreparable harm was required for the injunction. The judgment and injunctive relief granted by the district court were affirmed. View "Summit Carbon Solutions, LLC v. Kasischke" on Justia Law

N.S. was involuntarily committed at age sixteen in 2006, which disqualified him from possessing firearms under federal law. In August 2022, he filed a petition under Iowa Code section 724.31 for the restoration of his firearm rights. The State and the county attorney opposed his petition. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and denied his petition, finding that N.S. failed to prove he would not likely act in a manner dangerous to public safety. The court also rejected N.S.'s state constitutional challenge, ruling that Amendment 1A did not apply retrospectively to his 2006 disqualification and that section 724.31 survives strict scrutiny.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and agreed with the district court's factual findings and determination that N.S. failed to meet his burden to satisfy the statutory criteria for restoration of his right to possess firearms. The court held that Amendment 1A applies prospectively to N.S.'s restoration proceeding in 2023. The court further held that section 724.31 survives strict scrutiny under Amendment 1A, as the State has a compelling interest in preventing gun violence and suicide, and the statute is narrowly tailored to serve that interest by keeping firearms from dangerous persons while allowing restoration of firearm rights upon a petitioner’s showing they are no longer a threat to public safety.The court declined to shift the burden of proof under section 724.31 from the petitioner to the State. Consequently, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment denying N.S.'s petition for the restoration of his firearm rights. View "In re N.S." on Justia Law

A sixteen-year-old defendant, concerned that a poor Spanish grade might hinder his plans to study abroad, conspired with a friend to murder his Spanish teacher. They meticulously planned and executed the murder, later bragging about it to classmates. The defendant initially lied to the police but eventually pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, agreeing to challenge only his sentence. At sentencing, the State recommended life imprisonment with parole eligibility after thirty years, while the defendant argued against any minimum term. The district court sentenced him to life with parole eligibility after thirty-five years.The Iowa District Court for Jefferson County rejected the defendant's argument that a minimum sentence required expert testimony. The court considered various factors, including the impact on the victim's family and community, the defendant's role in the crime, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court found that the severity and premeditation of the crime warranted a minimum term of thirty-five years before parole eligibility.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether sentencing juvenile offenders to a minimum term before parole eligibility violates the Iowa Constitution and whether expert testimony is required to impose such a sentence. The court upheld the district court's decision, ruling that the Iowa Constitution does not categorically ban minimum sentences for juveniles and that expert testimony is not mandatory. The court found that the district court properly considered the relevant factors and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing the defendant to life with the possibility of parole after thirty-five years. The sentence was affirmed. View "State of Iowa v. Miller" on Justia Law

Three Libertarian Party candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives were disqualified from the 2024 general election ballot by the State Objection Panel for failing to comply with Iowa's statutory nomination requirements. The candidates, Nicholas Gluba, Charles Aldrich, and Marco Battaglia, were nominated at a party convention after no Libertarian candidates filed for the primary election. However, the party did not follow the required process for selecting delegates to the convention, which included holding precinct caucuses and county conventions on separate days and notifying county auditors of the delegates.The Iowa District Court for Polk County upheld the Panel's decision, finding that the Libertarian Party did not comply with Iowa Code section 43.94, which mandates that county convention delegates' terms begin the day after their election at precinct caucuses. The court ruled that strict compliance with this law was necessary, and the party's failure to follow the process invalidated the nominations. The court also rejected arguments that the objectors lacked standing and that the Panel's decision violated the candidates' First Amendment rights.The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling. The court held that the statutory requirements for nominating candidates by convention must be strictly followed and that the Libertarian Party's failure to comply with these requirements justified the disqualification of the candidates. The court also found that the objectors had standing to challenge the nominations and that the Panel's decision did not violate the candidates' First Amendment rights. The court emphasized that the election laws are designed to ensure a fair and orderly process for candidate nominations. View "Gluba v. State Objection Panel" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to an Iowa law that prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. The plaintiffs, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc., Emma Goldman Clinic, and Sarah Traxler, filed a lawsuit against the defendants, Kim Reynolds and the Iowa Board of Medicine, arguing that the law is unconstitutional. The district court granted a temporary injunction, blocking the enforcement of the law.The district court's decision was based on the application of the "undue burden" test, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their constitutional substantive due process challenge. The defendants appealed, arguing that the district court applied the wrong constitutional test and that the court should instead review the abortion restriction under the less demanding "rational basis" test.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court's decision. The court held that abortion is not a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution and that abortion restrictions alleged to violate the due process clause are subject to the rational basis test. Applying this test, the court concluded that the fetal heartbeat statute is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting unborn life. The court remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to dissolve the temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the fetal heartbeat statute. View "Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds ex rel. State of Iowa" on Justia Law

Nathan Olsen, convicted of a sex offense in Wisconsin in 2009, moved to Iowa where he was required to register as a sex offender. After serving a prison sentence for an unrelated crime, Olsen moved to Illinois where he was not required to register. He wished to return to Iowa, but doing so would require him to register again. Olsen filed an application in the district court to modify his status as a sex offender and the registration requirements that would apply to him in Iowa before he moved back. The district court dismissed his application, and the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal.The district court and the court of appeals both concluded that Olsen's claim was not ripe for adjudication because his application sought to modify a "hypothetical" registration requirement predicated on his potential future return to Iowa. Olsen argued that the statute permitting only those who currently live, work, or attend school in Iowa the opportunity to modify their sex offender registration requirements unlawfully discriminates against nonresidents in violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Iowa and United States Constitutions.The Supreme Court of Iowa found that the residency restriction imposed by the statute prohibits nonresidents from seeking the same fundamental privilege to access Iowa’s courts that a resident receives. However, the court was unable to evaluate the State’s justification for treating residents and nonresidents differently due to lack of evidence. Therefore, the court remanded the case for the parties to present evidence and for the district court to rule on Olsen’s constitutional challenge in light of that evidence. The court also rejected the State's argument that Olsen was not eligible for modification because five years hadn’t passed from the date of commencement of his requirement to register. View "Olsen v. State of Iowa" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who appealed the denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop, a dog sniff of her vehicle, and a search of her purse. The defendant was driving slower than the speed limit, causing traffic issues, and crossed the centerline multiple times. The officer, suspecting drug-related activity due to the defendant's history of drug offenses, initiated a traffic stop and requested a K-9 unit. The dog sniffed the exterior of the vehicle, occasionally touching it with its paws, and alerted to the presence of drugs. A subsequent search of the vehicle and the defendant's purse revealed methamphetamine and related paraphernalia.The defendant argued that the traffic stop was unjustified, the dog sniff constituted an unconstitutional search because the dog touched the exterior of her vehicle, and the search of her purse was unlawful. The district court denied the motions to suppress, and the defendant was found guilty on three counts.The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the traffic stop was justified due to the defendant's driving behavior. It also ruled that the dog sniff did not violate the Fourth Amendment or the Iowa Constitution, as the dog was in a place where police had a right to be and the sniff only revealed the presence or absence of contraband. The court did not rule on the legality of the purse search, as the defendant failed to properly raise and preserve the issue for appeal. View "State of Iowa v. Bauler" on Justia Law