{"id":20774,"date":"2016-02-16T08:55:53","date_gmt":"2016-02-16T13:55:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=20774"},"modified":"2016-02-16T08:55:53","modified_gmt":"2016-02-16T13:55:53","slug":"ia-state-sct-hasnt-departed-from-holding-exclusionary-rule-doesnt-apply-to-revo-proceedings-so-this-court-cant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=20774","title":{"rendered":"IA: State SCt hasn&#8217;t departed from holding exclusionary rule doesn&#8217;t apply to revo proceedings so this court can&#8217;t"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>While the state search and seizure provision is subject to broader interpretation in Iowa, the state supreme court hasn\u2019t deviated from the rule that the exclusionary rule does not apply in probation revocation proceedings, so this court is bound by that. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.iowacourts.gov\/About_the_Courts\/Court_of_Appeals\/Court_of_Appeals_Opinions\/Recent_Opinions\/20160210\/15-0101.pdf\">State v. Brooks<\/a>, 2016 Iowa App. LEXIS 93 (Feb. 10, 2016).<\/p>\n<p>Probable cause alone to arrest is not enough to search, but here there was more: furtive movements in the car and the smell of marijuana. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nebraska.gov\/apps-courts-epub\/public\/viewOpinion?docId=N00002879PUB\">State v. Perry<\/a>, 292 Neb. 708, 2016 Neb. LEXIS 17 (Feb. 12, 2016).*<\/p>\n<p>Defendant was not seized by an officer pulling up behind his parked car at 2 am with overhead lights on, knocking on window, and asking for ID. [Since ID is required for everything thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act, isn\u2019t surrender of a DL alone a seizure? You can\u2019t leave without it.] <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nebraska.gov\/apps-courts-epub\/public\/viewOpinion?docId=N00002882PUB\">State v. Gilliam<\/a>, 292 Neb. 770, 2016 Neb. LEXIS 18 (Feb. 12, 2016).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>While the state search and seizure provision is subject to broader interpretation in Iowa, the state supreme court hasn\u2019t deviated from the rule that the exclusionary rule does not apply in probation revocation proceedings, so this court is bound by &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=20774\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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":[14,58,69],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20774","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-exclusionary-rule","category-probationparole-search","category-seizure"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20774","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=20774"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20774\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20775,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20774\/revisions\/20775"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=20774"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=20774"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=20774"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}