{"id":2460,"date":"2008-12-24T11:02:56","date_gmt":"2008-09-16T06:12:16","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-09-16T06:12:16","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2460","title":{"rendered":"IA: Arrest five weeks after defendant&#8217;s driving offense was not pretextual to cause a productive search incident"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant&#8217;s arrest five weeks after he was seen driving while barred under state law and the search incident that it occasioned was not shown to be pretextual. It was constitutional. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.judicial.state.ia.us\/Supreme_Court\/Recent_Opinions\/20080912\/06-0256.pdf\">State v. Christopher<\/a>, 757 N.W.2d 247 (Iowa Sup. 2008):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Christopher argues officers should not be allowed to &#8220;save up an arrest&#8221; in order to &#8220;conduct an otherwise illegal search under the guise of search incident to arrest.&#8221; There is nothing in the record to suggest Butler arrested Christopher under pretext&#8211;i.e., there is no suggestion Butler had ulterior motives for making the arrest when he did. In any event, whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred does not turn on the officer&#8217;s actual state of mind or subjective motives. See <em>State v. Kubit<\/em>, 627 N.W.2d 914, 918-19 (Iowa 2001) (citing <em>Maryland v. Macon<\/em>, 472 U.S. 463, 470, 105 S. Ct. 2778, 2783, 86 L. Ed. 2d 370, 378 (1985)). Moreover, pretext is more appropriately addressed under due process. &#8220;[I]f the government delays filing charges to intentionally &#8216;gain [a] tactical advantage over the accused,&#8217; the defendant&#8217;s due process rights under the Fifth Amendment are implicated.&#8221; <em>State v. Edwards<\/em>, 571 N.W.2d 497, 501 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (quoting <em>State v. Trompeter<\/em>, 555 N.W.2d 468, 470 (Iowa 1996)).  Christopher does not contend the government acted intentionally to gain such tactical advantage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Tenant&#8217;s voluntarily bringing weapons outside the house for inspection by BATF was not a violation of an expectation of privacy. United States v. Noe, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69112 (E.D. Pa. September 12, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2460\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2460","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2460","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2460"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2460\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2460"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2460"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2460"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}