The Iowa Supreme Court issued an opinion Friday that suppressed marijuana obtained through a search warrant because the issuing magistrate was not "neutral and detached". The analysis was done under both the Iowa Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. The results under both was the same, reversal of the lower court.
The case originated out of Worth county in North Central Iowa. The defendant (and the defendant in the companion case also decided Friday) was the target of an investigation into marijuana usage. Several complaints to police were made by the Grandparents of the defendant's child, implicating marijuana usage. The complaints prompted a "trash-rip" where the police took the defendant's garbage, locating marijuana seeds, stems, and rolling papers. There was also marijuana turned over to the police that the grandparents found in a baby blanket. All in all, the evidence supporting the warrant was overwhelming, much more than the probable cause needed. When the police presented the warrant to the part-time magistrate, he recognized the name of one of the targets as an opposing party in a paternity action he was handling. Despite that, the magistrate reasoned it was proper for him to sign the search warrant because it was based on such solid evidence. When the warrant was issued, substantial evidence was recovered, including marijuana, methamphetamine, and paraphernalia. The criminal defense attorney filed a motion to suppress, which was denied.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court's decision to allow the drugs into evidence in the trial. Citing a very similar case from Georgia and analyzing the Code of Judicial Ethical, the justices concluded that it was a violation of the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights for this magistrate to determine probable case. His client's cause would be advanced by a successful search warrant so there was a clear connection between his role as a private attorney in an ongoing matter and his role as a magistrate. The connection to the civil case objectively cast doubt on his ability to perform his function in a neutral and detached manner.
The State of Iowa tried desperately to salvage this warrant arguing harmless error. Thankfully the Iowa Supreme Court realized that violations of constitutional protections as long standing and important as the ones raised here are never harmless error. Knowing that some people will be put off by the eventual dismissal of the underlying criminal case on such a seemingly "minor" violation, the Court cited Boyd v. United States from 1886:
It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely: by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure...It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.
This goes down as one of those victories whose significance will not be appreciated as much as it deserves (other than by criminal defense attorneys). Our constitutional protections are always significant. They are protected by criminal defense attorneys fighting back against the intrusion of the government and by our appellate courts recognizing the need for strict enforcement. For all you "liberal judge" haters, I would remind you that if we tolerate subtle reductions of our rights, we risk waking up one day without them. Patriot Act anyone?
