State v. Willer

• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: TABOR, CHIEF JUDGE
• Docket Number: 24-1981
• Decision Date: 07 January 2026
• Citation: State v. Willer, 24-1981 (Iowa App. Jan 07, 2026)
• Parties: State of Iowa, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Lavern Willer, Defendant-Appellant.

1

State of Iowa, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Lavern Willer, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 24-1981

Court of Appeals of Iowa

January 7, 2026

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, The Honorable Patrick H. Tott, Judge.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson Assistant Appellate Defender, attorneys for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joseph D. Ferrentino, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.

OPINION

TABOR CHIEF JUDGE

John Willer appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana third offense, following his conditional plea of guilty. First, he challenges the constitutionality of a peace officer's order for him to exit the van in which he was a passenger.^[1] Second, he contends that his admission to possessing "a little weed" should have been suppressed.

On the search-and-seizure issue, Willer acknowledges that under the Fourth Amendment, officers may-without reasonable suspicion-order passengers out of the car during an investigative stop. See Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 410 (1997). And we decline his invitation to adopt a different standard under article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution.

As to the admissibility of his statement, we find no Fifth Amendment violation because Willer was not in custody as envisioned by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966), when the officer asked about the bulge in his shirt pocket. We also find that his statement was voluntary. Thus, we affirm his conviction.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

Officer Cade Gill stopped a van driven by Matthew West for a broken brake light. Because Officer Gill was participating in a field training program with the Sioux City police, he was accompanied in his patrol car by Jordan Burns, a supervising officer. As Officer Gill processed information from West, two more officers arrived on the scene. Those officers-Meghan Danielson, also doing field training, and her supervisor, Mackenzie Neely- approached the passenger side where Willer was seated. Before long, a fifth officer joined them. Officer Petersen was a K-9 handler.^[2]

Officer Danielson asked Willer to roll down the window. Once he did, she asked for his identification.

While Officer Danielson checked for warrants, Officer Neely questioned Willer at the window. Willer was talking on the phone when Officer Neely asked his name. He replied "John" which was also stitched on the Jiffy Lube jacket he was wearing. Officer Neely then said: "I'm going to have you hop out for me, okay?" She asked if he had "anything that was going to stab, stick, or poke [her]" and "if he had anything illegal." He said "no." Officer Neely repeated her request that he "hop out" and instructed him to "turn around and put his hands on the car." As he opened the door and got out, Officer Neely asked if he had any pocket knives. He patted his pants pocket and said "no" prompting her to tell him: "Quit reaching for stuff."

As instructed, Willer stepped out of the passenger seat and placed his hands on the van. He started to slide his phone inside his jacket, prompting the officer to repeat, "don't reach for anything." Willer responded, "I won't." Officer Neely then shined her flashlight on a bulge in his shirt pocket. After that, she directed him to put his hands behind his back. Officer Neely didn't handcuff Willer, but she and another officer held back his arms "for a little more control."

Referring to the bulge, Officer Neely asked, "What is it?" He answered: "a little weed." She reached in his pocket and pulled out a small cylinder containing raw marijuana saying, "I'm not worried about a little bit of weed." The officer then asked whether Willer had anything else on him.

He told her about a pipe in another pocket but denied carrying any weapons. Officer Neely said Willer was not under arrest but was "not free to go" and recited his Miranda rights.

Beyond the broken brake light, the officers knew other things about the van when they made the stop in the early morning hours of April 1, 2024. The registered owner was the driver's wife, Mandy West, who "had a felony warrant at the time." And the officers knew the van had been "involved in a drive-by shooting" in February 2024. Officer Neely also had stopped the van in March, leading to a possession-with-intent warrant for Mandy.

Officer Neely testified that they planned to run the drug dog around the outside of the van, and the occupants could not remain inside. When asked if that was "standard policy," she replied, "That's how I have always done it, yes."

After Officer Petersen conducted the dog sniff, he finished searching Willer, finding two marijuana pipes. The police described the marijuana seized from Willer as "three small buds" weighing 3.26 grams. Because Willer had two other drug convictions, the State charged him with possession of a controlled substance, third offense, a class "D" felony under Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2024).

Willer moved to suppress the evidence from the stop, alleging it was "obtained in violation of [his] Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution." Willer alleged that the search of his person was "non-consensual and therefore unlawful." He also argued that his statements to Officer Neely should be suppressed.^[3] The district court denied his motion. The court found that Willer made the statement "voluntarily and not in response to a custodial interrogation," and "the actual search of [Willer] did not occur until after the marijuana was located." Thus, the district court ruled that the officers' actions did not violate Willer's constitutional rights.

After losing his suppression motion, Willer filed a conditional guilty plea. The court sentenced him to a term not to exceed five years, suspended that sentence, and placed Willer on probation for two years. He appeals. The State does not contest Willer's assertion of appellate jurisdiction. And we agree that his appeal is properly before us. See Iowa Code § 814.6(3) (granting jurisdiction over a conditional guilty plea when appellate adjudication of the reserved issue is in the interest of justice).

II. Scope and Standard of Review

We review constitutional challenges de novo. State v. McClain, 20 N.W.3d 488, 494 (Iowa 2025). We examine the whole record and independently evaluate the totality of the circumstances. Id.

III. Suppression Analysis

Willer splits his suppression argument into two sections. First, he contends the order to exit the van violated his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. As part of his search-and-seizure claim, Willer also urges that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous to justify a pat-down. Second, Willer argues that the district court should have suppressed his statement to Officer Neely under either the Fifth Amendment or as involuntary under the circumstances.

A. Did exit order and prospect of a pat-down violate Willer's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure?

On the search-and-seizure issue, Willer complains that he was "subjected to an exit order and pat-down search without either reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous." He adds, "The Iowa Constitution does not permit the former, and neither the state nor federal constitution permits the latter."

We start with the exit order. Under Pennsylvania v. Mimms, police conducting a valid traffic stop may order the driver to alight from the vehicle for officer safety. 434 U.S. 106, 111 (1977). In Wilson, the Supreme Court extended that rationale to passengers. 519 U.S. at 413-15. But on appeal Willer asks whether Iowa should follow Wilson's bright-line rule under article I section 8 of the Iowa Constitution.^[4] In his appellate brief, Willer urged the Iowa Supreme Court to retain his case to address this issue. But the supreme court transferred the case to us.

After that transfer, we must assess whether our court may entertain Willer's invitation to forge a different path under the Iowa Constitution. If our supreme court has weighed in, we are precedent-bound.^[5] State v. Beck, 854 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014). But when open questions are presented to us, as an intermediate appellate court, we have the power to decide them. See Walnut St. Assocs., Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc., 20 A.3d 468, 480 (Pa. 2011).

In our assessment, we find no state precedent to bind us. Our supreme court has not reached the issue that Willer raises. In State v. Price-Williams, the defendant argued that Iowa should deviate from Wilson and require, under the state constitution, "reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot or that a passenger is armed and dangerous before an officer can order a passenger out of a vehicle." 973 N.W.2d 556, 562 (Iowa 2022) (cleaned up). The supreme court found no need to depart from federal precedent because the officer's conduct there met the heightened standard that Price-Williams requested. Id.; see also State v. Hauge, 973 N.W.2d 453, 459-60 (Iowa 2022) (taking same approach). Because Price-Williams and Hauge left the question open, we may address it here. See State v. Spates, No. 19-0749, 2020 WL 6156739, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2020) ("And so this case calls on us to plow some fairly new ground.").

On the merits, Willer asks us to join a handful of states that have rejected Mimms or the Wilson extension of Mimms under their state constitutions. See State v. Kim, 711 P.2d 1291, 1294 (Haw. 1985); Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 711...