State of Iowa v. Christopher George Storm
Supreme Court of Iowa
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
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Chambers v. MaroneySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.