Legal Opinion · Dissent

State of Iowa v. Isaac Andrew Baldon III

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided April 19, 2013No. 10–0214Published

1DissentMansfield, Justice

I respectfully dissent. I believe the Iowa Constitution, like the United States Constitution, permits the government to require a prisoner as a condition of parole to agree to searches during his or her term of parole. Such searches should especially be upheld when, as here, they are under the control and with the authorization of the parole officer, and when reasonable suspicion exists that the parolee has committed a crime or violated his terms of parole. While I acknowledge that much of my disagreement relates to this court’s 2010 decision in State v. Ochoa, 792 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2010), I…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  3. United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Griffin v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. United States v. KnightsSupreme Court of the United States · 2001

38 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