State v. Hungerford
| Decision Date | 29 September 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 63845,63845 |
| Citation | 311 N.W.2d 699 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David HUNGERFORD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Richard E. Mundy, Cedar Rapids, for defendant-appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen. and Thomas N. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee.
Submitted to OXBERGER, C. J., and DONIELSON, SNELL, CARTER and JOHNSON, JJ.
Defendant appeals from judgment and sentence imposed upon conviction of the offenses of possession of burglary tools, possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of sections 713.4, 204.401(1), and 724.26, The Code. All issues argued on appeal relate to the admissibility of certain evidence seized by police officers from a van in which defendant had been riding as a passenger. The trial court determined that defendant lacked standing to attack the legality of the search of the interior of the van which he did not claim to own when he also did not claim to own the items seized. In the alternative, the trial court found that the search was justified on the grounds of probable cause (gleaned from a plain view examination) and exigent circumstances. The trial court further found that the original stopping of the van was pursuant to a valid investigatory stop. 1 On appeal, defendant asserts that a) based upon what was visible to the officers from the place where they were legally entitled to be, probable cause was lacking for a search of the van, and b) defendant was placed under arrest prior to the search without probable cause and that the fruits of the search were the products of that illegal arrest.
Considering these arguments in inverse order, we first conclude that even if defendant's arrest was completed without probable cause, the fruits of the search were not the product of the invasion of defendant's own liberty. 2 Such fruits were instead the product of the subsequent search of the van. The only items seized which depended in any way on defendant's arrest were suppressed by the trial court. 3
As to the search of the van, the trial court properly found that it was not a violation of defendant's fourth amendment right based upon the concept of personal standing to assert fourth amendment claims established in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 131 99 S.Ct. 421, 423, 58 L.Ed.2d 387, 393 (1978). See also State v. Sanders, 282 N.W.2d 770 (Iowa App.1979). Therefore, defendant's claim based on the assertion that the search was without probable cause is of no consequence because even if such were found to be the case, it would not afford him any ground to suppress the evidence. Rakus, 439 U.S. at 131, 99 S.Ct. at 423, 58 L.Ed.2d at 393.
In making this determination, we recognize that one of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Halliburton
...in a motor vehicle cannot successfully challenge the search of a vehicle in which he had merely been a passenger. State v. Hungerford, 311 N.W.2d 699, 700 (Iowa Ct.App.1981). We apply these principles here. Halliburton was merely a recent passenger in his mother's vehicle. He was not the dr......
-
State v. Abrams
...S.Ct. 2547, 2554–55, 65 L.Ed.2d 619, 630 (1980). Although Osborn has not been specifically overruled, we stated in State v. Hungerford, 311 N.W.2d 699, 701 (Iowa Ct.App.1981), that the automatic standing rule was no longer applicable due to the Supreme Court's decision in Salvucci. We concl......
-
State v. Arellano
...Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 342 (Iowa 1995) ; see also State v. Nucaro, 614 N.W.2d 856, 859 (Iowa Ct.App.2000) ; State v. Hungerford, 311 N.W.2d 699, 700 (Iowa Ct.App.1981). Arellano makes no assertion in any court filing that he owned the car he was riding in as a passenger. All his filin......
-
State v. Cagley
...car, Cagley could not successfully challenge the vehicle search. See Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d at 342;see also State v. Hungerford, 311 N.W.2d 699, 700 (Iowa Ct.App.1981). Because the car was registered to his mother and driven by his brother, Cagley enjoyed no possessory or property interest......