IOWA CHAMPION

Spending bill passes with funding for new Fort Madison prison

The Iowa Senate approved funding for a new prison in Fort Madison today.

Some lawmakers were advocating the prison be built in a more central location.  Apparently, no other site was considered.  The new structure will be built about a half mile from the existing prison.  The story doesn't say whether the existing prison would remain open, but I can't imagine them closing it completely.

If you have never seen the prison in Fort Madison, it is a sight to behold.  It is an old structure with imposing stone walls.  It reminds me of Shawshank Redemption.  When I've visited there it gives me an almost crushing sense of confinement.  I'm always eager to see the light of day again when I'm finished with my business. I cannot imagine what it would do to a person's mind to have to serve a life sentence there.  Anyone that is pro-death penalty should take a tour; I think their position would change.

New law requires lawmakers to think before they act

I was on the road all day yesterday and today so I didn't have much chance to write about the new minority impact law signed by governor Culver. The official press release states that the law will require a "Minority Impact Statement” for any legislation related to a public offense, sentencing, or parole and probation procedures.

The law is being touted as the first of its kind both federally and among all the states. It would make sense that Iowa would be the first state to pass a law to address issues of race in criminal sentencing laws.  Iowa has been identified as the state with the greatest racial disparity in it's prison system.  There are 13.6 African Americans incarcerated in Iowa for every 1 Caucasian.  That is really shocking when you consider that according to US Census Data, African Americans make up only 2.5% of the population. There is always some play in the statistics, but there is no denying that for some reason the numbers are out of whack.

I don't think anyone is saying that Iowa's criminal laws are inherently racist. The new law seeks to be proactive by making our legislature stop and think about the consequences on minority populations for anything related to criminal laws and sentencing. The situation that immediately comes to mind is, of course, the sentencing disparity between "crack" and powder cocaine. Rather than have to go back and fix a terrible law, maybe we can make people stop and think about some of the long term implications...other than looking tough on crime come November.

Personally, I think a broader law was needed.  We should have had the "Iowa Reality Statement" law.  It would establish a joint commission of judges, prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, and corrections staff that would submit a "reality impact" statement to be included in every law relating to crimes and their punishment.  The "reality" statement would be a direct, honest, statement of what these criminal justice professionals feel the true impact of proposed legislation will have, not just on minorities, but on budgets, prison overcrowding, public safety, etc.  If that procedure were in place, I don't think we'd see a sex offender residency restriction or mandatory minimums on most drug crimes.

The "Iowa Reality Statement" law will never be passed, though. You can't legislate wisdom.

Governor Culver signs prisoners' rights bill....sort of

I was reviewing the new Iowa anti-smoking law to see whether there are any provisions for criminal penalties. There aren't any, but I noticed something that made me realize that it is actually a significant prisoners' rights bill.

While the bill applies to "public places", you can still smoke in "institutions administered by the Department of Corrections...[in] designated smoking areas".  This means it's ok to light up in places like prisons, half-way houses, even the probation offices, but not in office buildings, bars, restaurants, or courthouses.

The Iowa State Fair is also exempted from the ban, which is more than a little ironic since the reason some people end up in an "institution administered by the Department of Corrections" is one too many at the Bud tent. Don't even get me started on the exemption for casinos.

I want to congratulate the legislature and Governor Culver for keeping Iowa prisoners' rights issues as a top priority this year. Given the political climate signaled by the signing of this law, I think the time is right to make the push for...inmate porn!

Drug sentencing post-Abrahamson in Polk County

I had a sentencing hearing this morning on a drug case that was tried in Polk County back in February, before the State v. Abrahamson decision. This is a recent Iowa Supreme Court case that I posted about on this blog. The judge's ruling in my client's case is an example of the application of the merger doctrine examined and clarified in Abrahamson.

The charges in my client's case were Delivery of a Simulated Controlled Substance and Possession with Intent to Deliver a Simulated Controlled Substance.  The facts of the case involved one transaction at one location over about a 20 minute encounter. There was some record made a pretrial proceeding as to whether or not the two offenses would merge for sentencing purposes in the event the defendant was convicted.  I felt there was a good argument that they should merge but I also agreed that the case law on the issue did not support merger. The issue was addressed directly in the Abrahamson opinion, which came out after my client was found guilty but awaiting sentencing.

At the sentencing hearing today, the Assistant Polk County Attorney assigned to prosecute my client's case agreed that the two charges must be merged for sentencing purposes according to the Abrahamson decision. He had contacted the Iowa Attorney General's Office for some guidance on how the decision should be applied. Apparently, the AG's office said that if there is one contemporaneous event with the same facts and circumstances, the sentences WILL merge per the Abrahamson decision. 

This will not be the outcome in all drug cases, obviously. If the police can show different conduct in different locations, or at different times (e.g. a traffic stop generating a Possession with Intent to Deliver Methamphetamine charge and then a later search warrant that would generate a Manufacturing Methamphetamine charge) then you will have charges that will probably not merge at sentencing.  This is a reasonable interpretation and is more in line with common sense.

I don't think a lot of people caught this part of the opinion because the majority of the opinion deals with speedy trial/indictment issues. I wanted everyone to be aware that this has in fact changed the law as far as sentencing in drug trafficking cases.  If you defend drug cases in Iowa state court, you need to read this opinion.  It can have an impact in plea negotiations if the prosecutor is made aware that the case that he thought had a maximum sentence of 20 years is now down to 10, and it has to be followed at sentencing.

A stunning proposal by the legislature

The Iowa legislature is moving closer to classifying stun guns as dangerous weapons.  The additional language is as follows:

Dangerous weapons include, but are not limited to a...

weapon directing an electric current, impulse, wave, or beam that produces a high-voltage pulse designed to immobilize a person.  A dangerous weapon does not include a bow and arrow.

Now for me, there are two things that jump out.  The first is the language about a weapon directing a "beam" that produces a high voltage pulse.  I think the fear here is a weapon such as THIS or maybe THIS.

The second is that they specifically remove a bow and arrow from the definition of dangerous weapons. I know what you're thinking.  Isn't a dangerous weapon any instrument or device designed primarily for use in inflicting death or injury upon a human being or animal?  Let's ask this guy what he uses his bow and arrow for...

Honestly, I know what they are trying to do here, but I can see this one getting some bad results.  It could easily result in someone getting...overcharged.  OK, that one was too easy.  Also, I think of this is going to backfire when some cop uses a tazer on an outspoken student and he dies.  Police in Iowa better be all kinds of careful if they decide to use a "non-lethal dangerous weapon" on a suspect.