State v. Shea, No. 56218

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtSubmitted to MOORE; RAWLINGS
Citation218 N.W.2d 610
PartiesThe STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Donald Francis SHEA, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 56218
Decision Date22 May 1974

Page 610

218 N.W.2d 610
The STATE of Iowa, Appellee,
v.
Donald Francis SHEA, Appellant.
No. 56218.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
May 22, 1974.

Page 611

John W. Pieters, Waterloo, for appellant.

Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Darby M. Coriden, Asst. Atty. Gen., and David Dutton, Co. Atty., for appellee.

Submitted to MOORE, C.J., and MASON, RAWLINGS, REYNOLDSON and HARRIS, JJ.

RAWLINGS, Justice.

Defendant Donald Francis Shea appeals from judgment entered on jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of controlled

Page 612

substances with intent to deliver. We affirm.

Defendant was arrested absent a warrant. The same day he was charged by information with the above stated offense.

Shea later moved to suppress the arrest related seizure of materials from an automobile then occupied by himself and Donald Hines. No traffic violation was involved.

Thereafter hearing commenced on the suppression motion. Three witnesses appeared on behalf of the State.

Waterloo Police Detective Harry Helgesen testified he saw Hines, a white man, sitting alone in an automobile about 9:15 p.m., June 29, 1972, in 'the North End' of Waterloo. This is described as a predominantly black neighborhood, known to police as an active drug traffic center.

A check of the vehicle revealed it belonged to defendant Shea who had before been arrested by Helgesen. At that time defendant possessed hasish, LSD and marijuana.

Helgesen also then saw Terry Sallis, a known associate of drug pushers and users, talking with Hines.

The officer had further been previously advised that Shea was selling drugs to Nicky Gonzales.

While observing the above events Helgesen was told by an informant 'the word was the white (Hines) was dealing in dope.'

A few hours later, or about 1:45 a.m., June 30th, Helgesen saw Hines and defendant enter the Music Box, a tavern and known center for soft narcotics dealings, located in a predominantly white business area. Hines and defendant were later seen emerging from the tavern accompanied by Gonzales. Thereupon Hines and Shea hurried to the latter's automobile, then drove away. Gonzales also left in his car.

By police intercom Helgesen instructed patrolling officers Dolan and Ames to stop the Shea vehicle. This was done and a short time later Helgesen arrived at the 'stop' site. A search of Hines and defendant revealed no drugs on their persons.

Helgesen then looked in the stopped vehicle and there readily observed what appeared to be marijuana roaches or butts.

The car was thereupon searched by Helgesen. He resultantly found and seized marijuana, LSD and some other pills. Hines and defendant were arrested.

Shea's motion to suppress the seized articles was overruled.

In course of trial officers Helgesen and Dolan testified substantially as above set forth.

The seized material was also then identified as Exhibits A to K inclusive.

Stephen Eck, chemist with the Iowa Criminalistics Laboratory, testified he analyzed the seized substances. In essence this is Eck's testimony, based on his findings:

Exhibit A: Two capsules in the form consistent with Sinequan marketed by Pfizer Laboratories. The witness did not know whether this was a controlled substance under Iowa law or a prescription drug.

Exhibit B: Two green and white capsules in a form consistent with the product Librium, but Eck did not know whether it was a prescription drug.

Exhibit C: A purple tablet containing LSD.

Exhibit D: Two yellow tablets containing LSD.

Exhibits E and F: Contained Thioridazine used in the product Mellaril, but the witness did not know what the compound was used for or basic nature of the substance.

Page 613

Exhibit G: Three charred marijuana cigarette butts.

Exhibit H: Marijuana contained in a metal cannister.

Exhibits I and J: Marijuana plant material and cigarette butts.

Exhibit K: A pipe containing marijuana residue.

The above exhibits were admitted in evidence over defendant's objection to the effect (1) no proper foundation had been established; (2) they were illegally seized in violation of defendant's 4th and 14th Amendment rights; and (3) there was no showing as to ownership.

The State then rested and defendant presented no evidence but moved to withdraw Exhibits A, B, E and F from the jury.

The prosecution promptly conceded trial court could only instruct the jury as to marijuana and LSD but suggested the other compounds should go to the jury with a cautionary instruction.

Defendant's motion to withdraw the aforesaid exhibits was first sustained, then overruled.

Thereupon defendant additionally urged submission to the jury of the challenged exhibits would violate the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution, the Constitution and Statutes of Iowa, and could only lead to prejudicial speculation.

This supplemented motion was also overruled.

In support of a reversal defendant contends the warrantless search and seizure was illegal, and trial court erred in permitting the challenged exhibits to be taken to the jury room.

I. In considering Shea's search and seizure assignment a prefatory review of relevant principles is appropriate.

At the threshold we deal here with the 4th Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the states in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). See State v. Jackson, 210 N.W.2d 537, 539 (Iowa 1973).

It is also axiomatic, any search and seizure must be conducted pursuant to a lawfully issued search warrant, unless attendant circumstances bring it within certain exceptions which excuse compliance with such constitutional restriction. See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 51, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 1981, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970).

As this court said in State v. Jackson, Supra:

'There are three exceptions to this rule generally recognized by the courts. No warrant is necessary when the search and seizure, within prescribed limits, are incident to a lawful arrest; the warrant requirement may be waived by an informed and voluntary consent; and, third, existence of exigent circumstances may relieve an officer from the obligation to obtain a warrant if it is impracticable to do so.'

It is also understood, a peace officer may search an automobile...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • State v. Storm, No. 16-0362
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 30, 2017
    ...cases applying the federal automobile exception did so within the then-existing exigent-circumstances framework. E.g. , State v. Shea , 218 N.W.2d 610, 613 (Iowa 1974) ("[A] peace officer may search an automobile without a warrant when exigent circumstances and probable cause exist."). We a......
  • State v. Birkestrand, No. 57108
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 18, 1976
    ...228 N.W.2d 44, 48 (Iowa 1975). And, in order to suffice, claimed probable cause must rise above mere suspicion. See State v. Shea, 218 N.W.2d 610, 614 (Iowa It still remains, however, the burden is upon one challenging evidential use of the products of a nonconsent search to prove they were......
  • Latham v. Sullivan, No. 2-63201
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • May 30, 1980
    ...61 L.Ed.2d 235, 242 (1979) (quoting United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51, 72 S.Ct. 93, 95, 96 L.Ed. 59, 64 (1951); State v. Shea, 218 N.W.2d 610, 613 (Iowa 1974), and must satisfy that burden by a preponderance of the evidence. Bettuo, 260 N.W.2d at The State concedes that if the initi......
  • State v. Davis, No. 57395
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 16, 1975
    ...their applicability. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454--455, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2032, 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 576 (1971); State v. Shea, 218 N.W.2d 610, 613 (Iowa 1974); State v. Osborn, 200 N.W.2d 798, 802 (Iowa 1972); State v. King, 191 N.W.2d 650, 654 (Iowa 1971), cert. denied 406 U.S. 90......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • State v. Storm, No. 16-0362
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 30, 2017
    ...cases applying the federal automobile exception did so within the then-existing exigent-circumstances framework. E.g. , State v. Shea , 218 N.W.2d 610, 613 (Iowa 1974) ("[A] peace officer may search an automobile without a warrant when exigent circumstances and probable cause exist."). We a......
  • State v. Birkestrand, No. 57108
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 18, 1976
    ...228 N.W.2d 44, 48 (Iowa 1975). And, in order to suffice, claimed probable cause must rise above mere suspicion. See State v. Shea, 218 N.W.2d 610, 614 (Iowa It still remains, however, the burden is upon one challenging evidential use of the products of a nonconsent search to prove they were......
  • Latham v. Sullivan, No. 2-63201
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • May 30, 1980
    ...61 L.Ed.2d 235, 242 (1979) (quoting United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51, 72 S.Ct. 93, 95, 96 L.Ed. 59, 64 (1951); State v. Shea, 218 N.W.2d 610, 613 (Iowa 1974), and must satisfy that burden by a preponderance of the evidence. Bettuo, 260 N.W.2d at The State concedes that if the initi......
  • State v. Davis, No. 57395
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 16, 1975
    ...their applicability. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454--455, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2032, 29 L.Ed.2d 564, 576 (1971); State v. Shea, 218 N.W.2d 610, 613 (Iowa 1974); State v. Osborn, 200 N.W.2d 798, 802 (Iowa 1972); State v. King, 191 N.W.2d 650, 654 (Iowa 1971), cert. denied 406 U.S. 90......
  • 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