state of iowa, ) plaintiff-appellant, ) in the supreme court of iowa _____ state of iowa, )...

Download STATE OF IOWA, ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA _____ STATE OF IOWA, ) Plaintiff-Appellant,…

Post on 12-Jun-2018

212 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 1

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

    _____________________________________________________________

    STATE OF IOWA, )

    Plaintiff-Appellant, )

    )

    v. ) S.CT. NO. 15-1830

    )

    MAURICE D. ANGEL, )

    Defendant-Appellee. )

    _____________________________________________________________

    APPEAL FROM THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT

    FOR SCOTT COUNTY

    HONORABLE MARLITA A. GREVE, JUDGE

    ____________________________________________________________

    APPELLEES BRIEF AND ARGUMENT

    _____________________________________________________________

    SHARON D. HALLSTOOS shallstoos@gmail.com HALLSTOOS LAW OFFICE 3110 SPRING VALLEY ROAD Dubuque, Iowa 52001 563-582-6200 (Home Office/Fax)

    ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE FINAL BRIEF

    EL

    EC

    TR

    ON

    ICA

    LL

    Y F

    ILE

    D

    JU

    N 0

    8, 2

    016

    C

    LE

    RK

    OF

    SUPR

    EM

    E C

    OU

    RT

  • 2

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    On the 8TH day of JUNE, 2016, the undersigned certifies that

    a true copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon Defendant-

    Appellee-Angel by placing one copy thereof in the United States

    mail, proper postage attached, addressed to Maurice D. Angel, 713

    11th Avenue, Rock Island, IL 61201.

    HALLSTOOS LAW OFFICE

    _____________/S/__________________

    Sharon D. Hallstoos

    Attorney at Law

    Hallstoos Law Office

    3110 Spring Valley Road

    Dubuque, IA 52001

    (563) 582-6300

    shallstoos@gmail.com

  • 3

    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

    Certificate of Service..2 Table of Authorities4 Statement of the Issues Presented for Review..6 Routing Statement.7 Statement of the Case8 Argument.15 Conclusion..29 Request for Non-oral Argument..30 Attorney's Cost Certificate.30 Certificate of Compliance..31

  • 4

    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

    CASES: PAGE

    Henry v. State, 626 S.E.2d 511 (Ga. 2006.7,26

    People v. Vera, 913 NE2d 86 (Ill. App. 2009).25

    State v. Barnett, 220 S.E.2d 730 (GA)..6,26

    State v. Beckett, 532 NW2d 751 (Iowa 1995)6,9,10,28

    State v. Colon, 644 A.2d 877 (Conn. 1994..25

    State v. Easter, 241 N.W.2d 885 (Iowa 1976).6,11,20,22

    State v. Harris, 436 N.W.2d 364 (Iowa 1989).6,21

    State v. Iowa District Court, 472 N.W.2d 621(1owa 1991).6,29

    State v. Liesche, 228 N.W. 2d 44 (Iowa 1975)6,11,16,17,21,22

    State v. Myers, 570 N.W.2d 70 (Iowa 1997).6,18

    State v. Paschal, 300 N.W.2d 115 (Iowa1981)..6,23,24

    State v. Seiler, 342 N.W.2d 264 (Iowa 1983)....6,11,20

    State v. Swaim, 412 N.W.2d 568 (Iowa 1987)..10,14

    Wenck v. State, 320 N.W.2d 567 (Iowa 1982)...9

  • 5

    Statutes:

    Iowa Code 808.3..7,8,10,11,13,15,16,17,19,23,24

    Iowa Code 808.4 (2015)..6,7,8,10,27,29

  • 6

    STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

    WHETHER THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT

    WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH IOWA CODE 808.3 AND 808.4

    Authorities

    State v. Barnett, 220 S.E.2d 730, 732 (GA 1975)

    State v. Beckett, 532 NW2d 751 (Iowa 1995)

    State v. Bishop, 387 N.W.2d 554, 557 (Iowa 1986)

    State v. Easter, 241 N.W.2d 885 (Iowa 1976)

    State v. Godbersen, 493 NW2d 852, 854-55 (Iowa 1992)

    State v. Harris, 436 N.W.2d 364 (Iowa 1989)

    State v. Iowa District Court, 472 N.W.2d 621(1owa 1991)

    State v. Liesche, 228 N.W. 2d 44 (Iowa 1975)

    State v. Myers, 570 N.W.2d 71, 73 (Iowa 1997)

    State v. Paschal, 300 N.W.2d 115 (Iowa 1981)

    State v. Seiler, 342 N.W.2d 264 (Iowa 1983)

    STATUTES

    Iowa Code 808.3..7,8,10,11,13,15,16,17,19,23,24

    Iowa Code 808.4 (2015)..7,8,10,27,29

    https://casetext.com/case/state-v-bishop-64#p557

  • 7

    ROUTING STATEMENT

    This case should be retained by the Iowa Supreme Court

    because one of the issues raised involves a substantial issue of first

    impression in Iowa and deals with whether the warrant was in

    substantial compliance with Iowa Code 808.3 and 808.4. Iowa

    R. App. P. 6.903(2)(d) and 6.1101(2)(c).

    The case involves the following 2 issues: (1) Whether pursuant

    to Iowa Code 808.3 whether the district court erred in sustaining the

    defendants motion to suppress in finding the search warrant invalid

    because the application for the search warrant was not signed by

    Deputy Furlong; And

    (2) Pursuant to Iowa Code Section 808.4 the district court erred

    in sustaining the Defendants Motion to Suppress the evidence seized

    through the issuance of a search warrant where the magistrate did

    not make a finding of probable cause prior to issuing the search

    warrant.

  • 8

    STATEMENT OF THE CASE

    Nature of the Case

    The State appeals the district courts ruling grant of the

    Defendants Motions to Suppress evidence seized pursuant to a

    search warrant executed on May 18, 2015.

    Course of Proceedings

    Defendant-Appellee, Maurice Angel, agrees with the States

    recitation of the course of proceedings.

    Facts: Defendant-Appellee, Angel, agrees that the States

    recitation of facts are sufficient in regards to the issues raised on

    appeal.

    STATES ARGUMENT

    THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT DID MEET

    THE REQUIREMENTS OF IOWA CODE SECTIONS 808.3 AND

    808.4 (2015).

    A. Error Preservation.

  • 9

    Angel agrees that the State preserved error by filing a

    resistance and brief in opposition to the Defendants motion

    to suppress and that the State offered a witness for the

    contested hearing, obtained a ruling on the contested issue

    and filed an application seeking discretionary review of the

    district courts ruling.

    B. Standard of Review.

    The court reviews legal challenges regarding the statutory

    sufficiency of the warrant is for correction of errors at law.

    State v. Day, 528 N.W.2d 100, 102 (Iowa 1995); State v.

    Beckett, 532 N.W.2d 751, 753 (Iowa 1995). The appellate

    courts may affirm the district courts ruling on any grounds,

    including grounds that are different from those relied on by

    the trial court. Wenck v. State, 320 N.W.2d 567, 569 (Iowa

    1982). The appellate court is limited in its review to a

    consideration of only that information, reduced to writing,

    which was actually presented to the magistrate at the time

    application for the warrant was made. State v. Seager, 341

    N.W.2d 420, 426 (Iowa 1983).

    https://casetext.com/case/state-v-seager#p426https://casetext.com/case/state-v-seager#p426

  • 10

    c. Discussion.

    In State v. Bishop, 387 N.W.2d 554, 557 (Iowa 1986), the

    appellate court recognized its duty to give deference to the

    magistrate's finding. Id. at 558. Due to the preference for

    warrants, doubts are resolved in favor of their validity. Id.

    The Court held that the reviewing court has the obligation

    to insist that the issuing magistrates function be

    performed in a neutral, detached manner and not merely

    serving as a rubber stamp for the police. State v. Beckett,

    532 N.W.2d 751, 753 (Iowa 1995) (quoting State v. Swaim,

    412 N.W.2d 568, 571 (Iowa 1987).

    In the instant case, the Court did not err when it granted

    the Defendants Motion to Suppress because the search

    warrant was not in substantial compliance with Iowa Code

    808.3 and 808.4. (2015) for the following reasons: (1)

    The application was unsigned and therefore was not

    supported by oath or affirmation and (2) The

    https://casetext.com/case/state-v-bishop-64#p557

  • 11

    magistrate/judge did not complete the endorsement

    indicating its probable cause findings prior to issuing the

    search warrant.

    The district court correctly held that Furlongs unsigned

    and unsworn Application for the Search Warrant could not

    be later supplemented by his oral testimony because it was

    limited in considering only the four corners of the warrant

    documents, citing State v. Seiler, 342 N.W.2d 264 (Iowa

    1983) and State v. Easter, 242 N.W.2d 885 (Iowa 1976).

    (Ruling, p. 3) (App. 138).

    In State v. Liesche, 228 N.W.2d 44, 48 (Iowa 1975), the

    Court declared that it would limit challenges to the search

    warrant to the four corners of the warrant documents

    presented to the magistrate at the time he/she issued the

    warrant. Id.

    In that case, the magistrate/judge did not comply with Iowa

    Code Section 741.4 (now 808.3). On the Endorsement of

  • 12

    Search Warrant page, the magistrate did not write the name

    and address of the person whose testimony the magistrate

    relied on in issuing the warrant. Additionally, the

    magistrate recounted at the Defendants suppression

    hearing that he relied on a peace officers verbal comment

    stating his beliefs that the Defendant possessed a gun on

    his person that was used in a rape days earlier. The

    magistrate could not remember if he placed the peace officer

    under oath. Further, the magistrate did not comply with

    the statutory requirement of completing an abstract of the

    peace officers oral testimony. The Court expressed concern

    about the magistrates failure to preserve a clear written

    record for the Defendant in the event he/she wanted to

    chal

Recommended

View more >