State v. Henderson

Decision Date23 December 1981
Docket NumberNo. 65937,65937
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Craig Lee HENDERSON, Appellant.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Douglas F. Staskal, State Appellate Defender, Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., and John P. Messina, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Considered by LeGRAND, P. J., and UHLENHOPP, HARRIS, ALLBEE, and LARSON, JJ.

HARRIS, Justice.

Defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree in violation of sections 711.1 and 711.2, The Code 1979. He brought this appeal to challenge the trial court's refusal to suppress evidence. The State asks us to adopt a rule which would require a showing of standing in order to proceed with suppression hearings on claimed violations of Fourth Amendment rights. We decline the State's invitation but affirm defendant's conviction.

A gasoline station in Ankeny was robbed at about 1:00 a.m. June 13, 1980. After the robbers left the station on foot, headed south, the station attendant called police and then stepped outside. He saw a gold Chevrolet pickup truck leaving a parking lot south of the station without its lights on. It appeared to be traveling fairly fast. It was headed south.

The attendant called police again and alerted them to these facts. This information was relayed over the general police radio. Two Des Moines policemen overheard this broadcast which reported that the suspects were two white males in a gold pickup. The policemen proceeded to the intersection of Second Avenue and Aurora Street, thinking the suspects might pass this intersection to enter Des Moines. Presently a gold pickup truck carrying two white males arrived. The officers stopped it, ordered the two to get out, and asked for identification.

They then requested further descriptions from the dispatcher. They were told that one suspect was approximately six feet tall, that the other was substantially shorter, and that both were possibly wearing plaid shirts. Noting the suspects substantially matched the description the officer detained them for further identification. When a third officer arrived the two were arrested at which time the pickup truck was searched.

The search revealed a gun, money, and nylon hose which were the subject of a pretrial motion to suppress.

I. The State proposes that we adopt a rule which "would require that a defendant affirmatively establish, as a part of a motion to suppress, his or her right to challenge the search in question. A defendant who failed to assume the burden to affirmatively show standing would be presumed to lack it."

We are not inclined to disturb the established rule on standing to assert Fourth Amendment violations. One "who attempts to have ... (illegally seized) evidence excluded must first establish standing to object to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Lowe
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 15, 2012
    ...have been violated, then “[w]e are not inclined to require defendant to make an independent showing of standing.” State v. Henderson, 313 N.W.2d 564, 565 (Iowa 1981); see also Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 87–88, 119 S.Ct. 469, 472, 142 L.Ed.2d 373, 379 (1998) (noting that the “standing......
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • June 25, 1991
    ...of privacy in the hotel room. Although we have doubts about whether defendant has made the requisite showing, see State v. Henderson, 313 N.W.2d 564, 565 (Iowa 1981); State v. Baker, 441 N.W.2d 388, 390 (Iowa App.1989), we will assume that the trial court found that she had a reasonable exp......
  • State v. Eis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 16, 1984
    ...necessary showing "exists within, and is integrated into, the substantive showing of a Fourth Amendment violation." State v. Henderson, 313 N.W.2d 564, 565 (Iowa 1981). Two determinations must be made before a fourth amendment violation is found. One is that the defendant had "a legitimate ......
  • State v. Abrams
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • June 24, 2015
    ......A challenge to a search based on the Fourth Amendment “will stand or fall on a defendant's ability to show a substantive violation which in turn is based on a showing of a legitimate expectation of privacy in the particular area searched or the particular objects seized.” State v. Henderson, 313 N.W.2d 564, 565 (Iowa 1981). “The party challenging a search must establish that his or her own Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, not the rights of someone else.” State v. Ortiz, 618 N.W.2d 556, 559 (Iowa 2000). We engage in a two-step analysis to determine whether there has been ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT