State of Iowa v. Darrin Frank Fehrer, 16-0843

Background

Defendant Darrin Fehrer (age 51) communicated online with a Minnesota minor who initially lied she was 18 but later admitted she was 16. Fehrer sent explicit photos and a masturbatory video after being told her true age.
Complaining witness’s mother reported the communications; police identified Fehrer from the images and obtained a search warrant for Fehrer’s home.
During execution of the warrant (for evidence relating to dissemination of obscene material), officers found a glass meth pipe and a bag with methamphetamine residue.
Fehrer was charged with possession of methamphetamine as an habitual offender and dissemination of obscene materials to a minor.
Fehrer moved to suppress the drug evidence (arguing the warrant was a general warrant and the drugs were beyond its scope), requested a jury instruction that knowledge the recipient was under 18 was an element, and later moved for acquittal arguing insufficient evidence that he was not the minor’s parent/guardian.
The district court denied suppression in part (plain-view seizure), rejected the requested instruction (no evidence supporting mistake-of-age affirmative defense), denied acquittal, and a jury convicted Fehrer; sentence affirmed on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury should be instructed that knowledge the recipient was under 18 is an element of dissemination under Iowa Code §728.2	State: statute and precedent support instruction given; mistake-of-age is an affirmative defense under §728.10, not an element	Fehrer: statutory “knowingly” modifies who is a minor, so the State must prove he knew she was under 18	Court: Affirmed — knowledge of minor is not an element; mistake-of-age is an affirmative defense and Fehrer produced no substantial evidence to justify instruction
Sufficiency: whether evidence supports that Fehrer was not the minor’s parent or guardian	State: circumstantial evidence (different states, never met, anonymity) permits inference no parental/guardian relationship	Fehrer: State did not elicit explicit proof he was not parent/guardian	Court: Affirmed — circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences suffice to let jury find no parental/guardian relationship
Suppression/plain view: whether drug evidence seized during a warrant for obscene material was outside scope and should be suppressed	State: officers lawfully in the home under warrant; pipe and bag were in plain view and incriminating character was immediately apparent	Fehrer: warrant was overly broad/general and officers were seeking drugs beyond warrant scope	Court: Affirmed denial of suppression — plain-view exception applied; officers were lawfully present and items were openly visible and plainly incriminating

Key Cases Cited

State v. Canal, 773 N.W.2d 528 (Iowa 2009) (instruction language on dissemination charge reproduced and relied upon)
Alcala v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2016) (standard for giving requested jury instructions)
State v. Guerrero Cordero, 861 N.W.2d 253 (Iowa 2015) (requirements for defendant’s theory-of-defense instruction and evidence threshold)
State v. Delay, 320 N.W.2d 831 (Iowa 1982) (distinction between elements and affirmative defenses and burdens)
State v. Kubit, 627 N.W.2d 914 (Iowa 2001) (officer’s subjective intent irrelevant to Fourth Amendment analysis)
State v. McGrane, 733 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 2007) (plain-view seizure requirements)