Legal Opinion · Dissent

State of Iowa v. Christopher George Storm

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided June 30, 2017No. 16–0362Published

1DissentHecht, Justice

Because I would abandon the automobile exception as a categorical exception to the warrant requirement under the Iowa Constitution and conclude on this record that the State failed to prove exigent circum*158stances justified a warrantless search of Christopher Storm’s car, I respectfully dissent.

I. The Parties’ Positions.

On appeal, Storm challenges the constitutionality of the automobile exception to article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. He contends the mobility of a vehicle is no longer a per se exigency justifying a categorical exception to the warrant requirement for automobiles…

2Cases cited63 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  3. Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  5. Chambers v. MaroneySupreme Court of the United States · 1970

58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API