Miscellaneous

Four new opinions, today. Here are my thoughts:

Iowa Supreme Court Disciplinary Board v. Jeffrey M. Ireland - Mr. Ireland’s Iowa law license was suspended for at least six months for his neglect of client matters and failure to return the clients’ papers and funds. This seems like a slap on the wrist to me, considering he’s also had a private reprimand, a public reprimand and another suspension, all since 2002. I imagine the fact that he now lives in Missouri and does not intend to practice law in the future make any suspension pretty irrelevant.

In re the Detention of Bryan M. Pierce - The State may appeal a District Court determination that a person is not a sexually violent predator. In addition, the elements that must be shown are that a person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense, that the person has some mental abnormality and that the abnormality makes it more likely than not that the person will commit additional sexually violent offenses, if not confined. Justice Streit again disappoints with no snappy witticisms.

State v. Allensworth- The automobile exception to the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution allows warrantless searches of vehicles after a car is impounded incident to an arrest. This even extends to situations where there is not probable cause to support the search at the time the stop is made. I don’t like the whole idea of the automobile exception. Especially, the fact that it still applies after the automobile has been impounded and is in police custody. Look, law enforcement can keep people from going into a building, even their own residence, for a reasonable period of time while they pursue a warrant application, if they have probably cause to believe there is evidence of illegality currently inside. How is this really any different? The car is in police custody. If they have probable cause, they can hold the vehicle until a warrant is issued. I don’t buy the inherently mobile argument.

Horak Prairie Farm, LP v. City of Cedar Rapids and Leonard Dolezal v. City of Cedar Rapids- Two property owners protested the special assessments against their land for improvements to the intersection of 76th Ave SW and 6th St SW. The Court upheld Judge Sosalla’s ruling that the City’s use of RISE funds solely to fund the public’s cost of the improvements was correct. The Court also upheld the finding that the four property owners abutting the intersection together receive 50% of the benefit of the traffic lights and that each plaintiff receives 25% of the benefit of the new turn lanes on their property. Finally, The Court reversed and remanded the ruling that the grading and drainage work needed to complete the intersection are 100% assessable to Plaintiffs. I have a hard time believing that these property owners are going to get that much benefit from these improvements, even if they, at some point develop their properties. I haven’t seen the evidence, though.