It’s been a couple…few?…weeks since I posted here. I probably shouldn’t be doing it now, but I need a break. So, new Iowa Supreme Court opinions today. Here goes:
Harper v. Pella Corporation- This is interesting. Harper sued Pella for injuries from fall at a home owned by Pella. The home is located in Kentucky. Pella moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Kentucky’s period of limitations is one year. District Court denied the motion. Pella again moves for summary judgment because there are no genuine issues of material fact concerning liability. This motion is granted. Harper appealed, Pella cross-appealed the denial of the first motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the liability ground and didn’t reach the limitations ground.
On further review, the Supreme Court says that it can’t decide. In a per curiam, the Court says that there are four who would affirm and four who would reverse. As a result, the District Court ruling is affirmed by operation of law.
We have not seen this sort of dissension very often. It would have been nice to have Justice Baker taking part so we could have gotten a good opinion and a good dissent. We could have seen into the minds of those crazy Justices and understood why they feel the way they do. Oh well, those are the breaks.
Johnson v. Iowa District Court for Scott County - Today we find out what it takes to get a final hearing in the civil commitment of a sexually violent predator. At his annual review, Johnson presented evidence from a doctor that he had a 10% likelihood of re-offending. As a result, he asked for a final hearing to determine if he should be released. The District Court denied the request because Johnson did not show that he was likely to succeed at such a hearing. Johnson filed a writ of certiorari claiming that the Court exceeded its jurisdiction when it weighed the likelihood of release to determine whether or not he should have a final hearing.
The Court sustained the writ. Justice Streit explains that requiring the committed person to show a likelihood of success in a final hearing before granting such a hearing is basically giving the person a free pass at the final hearing. He also explains the burdens during annual reviews and final hearings: “At an annual review, the committed person bear the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence there is competent evidence which would lead a reasonable person to believe a final hearing should be held.” p. 8 (citation and emphasis omitted). “At the final hearing, the state bears the burden of proof to show beyond a reasonable doubt the committed person’s mental abnormality has not changed.” Id. (citation and emphasis omitted).
The Court equates “competent evidence” with “admissible evidence”, so the bar is pretty low to get a final hearing. Interesting. I’m honestly a little glad that I don’t generally work with sexually violent predators, though they deserve representation as much as anyone. I don’t now if my stomach could take it, though.
State v. Wilkes – Wilkes was sitting in a running vehicle in the parking lot of a quarry on a cold night. An officer noticed and pulled his car behind Wilkes’ truck, leaving enough room for Wilkes to leave, if he wants. Officer approaches vehicle, smells alcohol and begins the process of arresting Wilkes for OWI.
Wilkes filed a motion to suppress saying that his 4th Amendment rights were violated because he was seized without probable cause. He claimed that the seizure occurred when the officer pulled up behind him with his headlights on (no overheads, by the way) and approached the vehicle. District Court granted the motion and State appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression and the State asked for further review.
The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, reversed the order of the District Court and remanded. There was no seizure until after the officer smelled alcohol around Wilkes. There was no show of authority or anything that would lead a person to believe that they are not free to leave the scene.
Now, I ask this: How many people are going to feel free to leave a place when there is a police car behind them an an officer approaching? I understand that the officer never turned on the overheads, and I understand that the reserve officer stood behind the truck and did not approach the front. But, really. The language about a reasonable person not feeling like he couldn’t leave is ridiculous. Why not just leave it at this: The officer was performing a community protection service when he checked to make sure everyone in the vehicle was OK. That was not a seizure for the purposes of the 4th Amendment, but it did give rise to probable cause to believe there was some criminal activity.
Let’s forget all of this stuff about people feeling free to leave. There’s my soapbox for the month. Have a good weekend.
