State of Iowa v. Christine Ann Kern
2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 61
| Iowa | 2013Background
- Kern, a Des Moines parolee, signed a parole agreement with a blanket consent-to-search clause (paragraph P).
- An anonymous DHS tip alleged marijuana cultivation at Kern’s residence, where she lived with Grant and her family.
- DHS and narcotics officers entered the home; Kern and Grant refused consent; DHS threatened removal of children to obtain entry.
- Parole officer Garvey later authorized officers Chance and Jenkins to conduct a search under paragraph P; Garvey arrived during the search.
- The search uncovered extensive marijuana cultivation and processing, firearms, and dried marijuana; Kern and Grant were arrested; Grant claimed sole responsibility.
- State charged Kern with conspiracy, manufacturing, possession with intent to deliver, and failure to possess a drug tax stamp; district court later convicted on all four counts but the issue of suppression was preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Kern’s convictions | Kern: insufficient evidence for all counts except conspiracy | State: evidence supports multiple counts | Conspiracy supported; other counts not supported; remaining convictions dismissed; retrial limited to conspiracy |
| Whether the search of Kern's home violated article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution | Kern: search unlawful under Iowa Constitution | State: consent, special needs, or other exceptions justify search | Search violated article I, section 8; suppression required |
| Effect of consent-to-search provision in the parole agreement | Kern: paragraph P did not give valid advance consent to warrantless searches | State: consent provision authorizes searches | Consent provision does not justify the search |
| Application of special-needs, community caretaking, or exigent-circumstances doctrines | Kern: these doctrines may justify warrantless search | State: these doctrines may apply to parole searches | Special-needs not recognized under Iowa Constitution; community caretaking and exigent-circumstances do not justify the specific search; no justification under totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Camara v. Mun. Ct., 387 U.S. 523 (1967) (framework for evaluating special-needs searches and reasonableness of warrants)
- Knights v. United States, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (reasonable suspicion can justify a warrantless search in probation context)
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987) (probation system as a special need; balancing allowed in some contexts)
- Ochoa v. State, 792 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2010) (parolee searches not automatically justified; limits on special-needs theory under Iowa Constitution)
- Baldón, 829 N.W.2d 785 (Iowa 2013) (consent-to-search clause does not establish voluntary consent for parole searches)
- Cullison, 173 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 1970) (parolee rights protected; warrant required absent exception)
- State v. Webb, 648 N.W.2d 72 (Iowa 2002) (constructive possession framework (implicit in discussion))
- State v. Dullard, 668 N.W.2d 585 (Iowa 2003) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
- State v. Corsi, 686 N.W.2d 215 (Iowa 2004) (circumstantial evidence supporting conspiracy)