{"id":19966,"date":"2015-12-15T13:06:50","date_gmt":"2015-12-15T18:06:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=19966"},"modified":"2015-12-16T08:51:08","modified_gmt":"2015-12-16T13:51:08","slug":"ia-where-def-acquitted-denial-of-motion-to-suppress-not-precluded-in-subsequent-forfeiture-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=19966","title":{"rendered":"IA: Where def acquitted, denial of motion to suppress not preclusive in subsequent forfeiture action"},"content":{"rendered":"

Claimant\u2019s acquittal of drug charges after denial of his motion to suppress gives the motion to suppress no preclusive effect. The stop here was unreasonable because it was dragged out, and the forfeiture is reversed. In the Matter of Property Seized from Pardee<\/a>, 14-0029 (Dec. 11, 2015):
\n<\/p>\n

Before us, Pardee maintains that res judicata does not apply and that the stop violated the United States and Iowa Constitutions because: (1) pretextual traffic stops are unconstitutional, (2) the State\u2019s targeting of out-of-state vehicles in its criminal interdiction efforts is a violation of equal protection, (3) the trooper unconstitutionally prolonged and expanded the stop beyond what was necessary to address the traffic violations, and (4) the narcotics dog and its handler were not shown to be reliable. We agree that res judicata does not apply and further hold that the trooper prolonged the stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment beyond what was necessary to address the observed traffic violations. Accordingly, without reaching the remainder of Pardee\u2019s arguments, we reverse the denial of his motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

On issue preclusion:<\/p>\n

The first issue we must resolve is whether the district court\u2019s denial of Pardee\u2019s motion to suppress in the criminal case has preclusive effect in this case. We agree with the court of appeals\u2019 comprehensive discussion of this issue, which concludes there is no preclusive effect. For present purposes we need to focus on issue preclusion\u2014not claim preclusion. Whether evidence should be admitted or not is an issue, not a claim.<\/p>\n

Issue preclusion does not apply here because Pardee was acquitted in the criminal case. Hence, the trial court\u2019s determination of the motion to suppress against Pardee was not necessary to the final judgment. See George v. D.W. Zinser Co., 762 N.W.2d 865, 868 (Iowa 2009) (stating for issue preclusion to apply, \u201cthe determination made of the issue in the prior action must have been necessary and essential to the resulting judgment\u201d); Restatement (Second) of Judgments \u00a7 27 cmt. h, at 258 (Am. Law. Inst. 1982) (requiring that the prior determination be \u201cessential to\u201d the final judgment and noting that where the judgment is \u201cnot dependent\u201d upon the determination, the determination does not have issue preclusive effect); cf. Property v. State, No. 06\u201311\u201300113\u2013CV, 2012 WL 1940805, at *4 (Tex. Ct. App. May 22, 2012) (finding that the denial of a motion to suppress in a criminal case had collateral estoppel effect where \u201c[t]he trial court\u2019s determination that the fruits of Cruson\u2019s search were not subject to suppression was necessary to the prior criminal [conviction]\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Claimant\u2019s acquittal of drug charges after denial of his motion to suppress gives the motion to suppress no preclusive effect. The stop here was unreasonable because it was dragged out, and the forfeiture is reversed. In the Matter of Property … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[72,35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-forfeiture","category-reasonable-suspicion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19966","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=19966"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19966\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19972,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19966\/revisions\/19972"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=19966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=19966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=19966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}