State v. Ingram

• Decision Date: 29 June 2018
• Docket Number: No. 16-0736,16-0736
• Citation: 914 N.W.2d 794
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Bion Blake INGRAM, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

914 N.W.2d 794

STATE of Iowa, Appellee,

v.Bion Blake INGRAM, Appellant.

No. 16-0736

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed June 29, 2018

Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Mary K. Conroy, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

APPEL, Justice.

In this case, a driver challenges the constitutionality of an inventory search of his vehicle, which was to be towed after police discovered it was not lawfully registered. After conducting a search, the police found a controlled substance. The district court denied the driver’s motion to suppress, and he was convicted of possession. The driver argues this search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Alternatively, even if the Federal Constitution does not prohibit warrantless inventory searches under these particular circumstances, the driver argues article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution provides greater protections.

We accept the invitation to restore the balance between citizens and law enforcement by adopting a tighter legal framework for warrantless inventory searches and seizures of automobiles under article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution than provided under the recent precedents of the United States Supreme Court. In doing so, we encourage stability and finality in law by decoupling Iowa law from the winding and often surprising decisions of the United States Supreme Court. In the words of another state supreme court, we do not allow the words of our Iowa Constitution to be "balloons to be blown up or deflated every time, and precisely in accord with the interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court, following some tortuous trail." Penick v. State , 440 So.2d 547, 552 (Miss. 1983). We take the opportunity to stake out higher constitutional ground today.

I. Facts and Procedural Background.

At about 6:39 a.m. on October 30, 2015, a police officer pulled over Bion Ingram, who was driving on Highway 14 in Newton, Iowa. The officer had noticed the vehicle’s license plate was not illuminated as required. After speaking with Ingram, the officer also noticed the vehicle’s registration sticker did not match its license plate—the vehicle’s actual registration had expired in 2013. Because of the registration violation, the officer decided to impound the vehicle and told Ingram it would be towed.

The officer did not arrest Ingram at that point but had him sit in the patrol vehicle while the officer wrote citations for the traffic violations. Ingram told the officer he was going to work, and the officer agreed to drive Ingram to a nearby gas station for Ingram’s friend to pick him up and take him to work. Ingram asked to be able to retrieve his work items from the vehicle, but the officer did not allow Ingram to do this until the officer finished writing the citations.

The officer told Ingram the contents of the vehicle would be inventoried before towing and asked Ingram if there was anything of value in the vehicle. Ingram said there was nothing of value in the vehicle. Another officer arrived and inventoried the contents of the vehicle. The officers did not obtain a warrant to search the vehicle.

During the inventory, the second officer discovered a black cloth bag on the floor next to the gas pedal. When the officer opened the bag, the officer discovered a glass pipe and what field tests revealed to be almost a gram of methamphetamine. Ingram was arrested.

Ingram was charged by trial information with possession of methamphetamine, second offense, and charged by citation with possession of drug paraphernalia. Ingram filed a motion to suppress the results of the search based on the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. Ingram argued the search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8. Ingram contended the inventory search should not have been conducted and the vehicle impoundment was a pretext to search the vehicle. The State resisted. The district court held a hearing on the motion to suppress and denied the motion on the ground that inventory searches are an exception to the warrant requirement.

Ingram was tried on the minutes on March 30, 2016. The judge found Ingram guilty of both charges on April 4. Ingram appealed and we retained the appeal.

On appeal, Ingram argues the district court erred by (1) denying his motion to suppress because the inventory search violated the United States and Iowa Constitutions and (2) finding there was sufficient evidence that he knowingly possessed a controlled substance. Ingram also argues he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to challenge the admissibility of the results of the field drug test. Because we hold that Ingram’s motion to suppress should have been granted, we do not reach the other issues.

II. Standard of Review.

We review the denial of a motion to suppress on constitutional grounds de novo. State v. Wilkes , 756 N.W.2d 838, 841 (Iowa 2008) ; State v. Heuser , 661 N.W.2d 157, 161 (Iowa 2003).

III. Iowa vs. United States Constitution.

This case involves a challenge to a warrantless inventory search and seizure of an automobile under the search and seizure provisions of the Iowa and United States Constitutions. At the outset, it is important to emphasize that this court is the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the search and seizure clause of article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution, while the United States Supreme Court has the final say in interpreting the search and seizure provision of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution requires that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable seizures and searches shall not be violated." Iowa Const. art. I, § 8.

Although the Iowa and United States Constitutions have similarly worded search and seizure provisions, that does not mean the two regimes and the cases under them may be conflated. We jealously reserve the right under our state constitutional provisions to reach results different from current United States Supreme Court precedent under parallel provisions. See, e.g. , Zaber v. City of Dubuque , 789 N.W.2d 634, 654 (Iowa 2010) ; Wilkes , 756 N.W.2d at 842 n.1 ; Kingsway Cathedral v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp. , 711 N.W.2d 6, 9 (Iowa 2006). As has been noted by other state courts before us, it would amount to malpractice for lawyers not to understand the potential for an independent state court interpretation under the state constitution that is more protective of individual rights. State v. Lowry , 295 Or. 337, 667 P.2d 996, 1013 (1983) (en banc) (Jones, J., concurring specially); Commonwealth v. Kilgore , 719 A.2d 754, 757 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998) ; State v. Jewett , 146 Vt. 221, 500 A.2d 233, 234 (1985) ; see also State v. Baldon , 829 N.W.2d 785, 816 (Iowa 2013) (Appel, J., concurring specially). The caselaw and law commentaries now groan with the volume and weight of ample materials for lawyers to construct independent state constitutional law varying from applicable federal precedent. See State v. Short , 851 N.W.2d 474, 489–91 (Iowa 2014) ; State v. Ochoa , 792 N.W.2d 260, 264–65 & nn.2–3 (Iowa 2010).

The growth of independent state constitutional law is important in the search and seizure context. Unlike the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in recent years, which generally have sought to minimize the scope of individual protection under the Fourth Amendment, our recent caselaw under the search and seizure provision of the Iowa Constitution has emphasized the robust character of its protections. See, e.g. , State v. Coleman , 890 N.W.2d 284, 299 (Iowa 2017) ; State v. Gaskins , 866 N.W.2d 1, 6–7 (Iowa 2015) ; Short , 851 N.W.2d at 482–85 ; Baldon , 829 N.W.2d at 833–34 ; Ochoa , 792 N.W.2d at 274. We have repeatedly declined to follow the approach of the United States Supreme Court in its interpretation of what one commentator has referred to as an ever-shrinking Fourth Amendment. See Gaskins , 866 N.W.2d at 12–13 ; Short , 851 N.W.2d at 506 ; Baldon , 829 N.W.2d at 803 (majority opinion); Ochoa , 792 N.W.2d at 291 ; see generally Silas J. Wasserstrom, The Incredible Shrinking Fourth Amendment , 21 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 257 (1984).

In this case, Ingram raises his challenge under the search and seizure provisions of both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. Ingram’s argument under the United States Constitution cites to federal cases that generally provide warrantless inventory searches of automobiles are permissible, if they are conducted pursuant to policies adopted by law enforcement which govern the decision to impound the vehicle and the nature and scope of any subsequent search. See Florida v. Wells , 495 U.S. 1, 4, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 1635, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) ; United States v. Kennedy , 427 F.3d 1136, 1144 (8th Cir. 2005).

The challenge raised by Ingram under the search and seizure provision of article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution has different dimensions. Ingram notes a number of state courts have rejected the two-pronged policy approach of the United States Supreme Court in favor of a more restrictive approach that sharply limits warrantless searches and seizures of automobiles. See, e.g. , State v. Daniel , 589 P.2d 408, 417–18 (Alaska 1979) ; State v. Lucas , 859 N.E.2d 1244, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) ; State v. Mangold , 82 N.J. 575, 414 A.2d 1312, 1318 (1980) ; State v. Hite , 266 Or.App. 710, ...