State of Iowa v. Jesus Angel Ramirez
2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 57
| Iowa | 2017Background
- CBP intercepted an international FedEx package from Mexico containing ~1 kg methamphetamine hidden in mirror frames addressed to "Jessy Robles" at 1013 Mulberry St., Waterloo, with a local 319 number.
- HSI (federal) agents took over, confirmed the drugs, repacked the parcel, implanted a transmitter, and identified Jesus Angel Ramirez (aliases) as the likely recipient.
- A federal magistrate issued an anticipatory search warrant conditioned on delivery/acceptance of the parcel at Apartment #2; HSI conducted a controlled delivery with local task-force assistance.
- Ramirez signed for the package, left the residence, was detained, and HSI executed the warrant; the unopened package and documents linking Ramirez to the address were seized and methamphetamine later confirmed.
- The U.S. Attorney declined federal prosecution; State of Iowa prosecuted Ramirez for possession with intent to deliver and drug tax-stamp violations.
- Ramirez moved to suppress arguing Iowa law does not authorize anticipatory warrants; district court denied suppression; jury convicted; Ramirez appealed raising four issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ramirez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for waiving one-year speedy-trial deadline | Waiver was procedurally valid and signed before one year from arraignment | Counsel should not have waived; violation of speedy-trial rule | Denied — less than one year had elapsed; counsel not ineffective |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence | Evidence (address, phone number, signing for package, furtive conduct, false denial) supports intent to deliver | Evidence insufficient to prove possession with intent to deliver | Affirmed — substantial evidence supported convictions |
| 3. Validity/admissibility of evidence obtained under federal anticipatory warrant | Federal anticipatory warrant satisfied Fourth Amendment; evidence admissible in state court when obtained lawfully in bona fide federal investigation | Iowa statutes (Iowa Code ch. 808) do not authorize anticipatory warrants; evidence should be suppressed under state law/constitution | Affirmed — federal warrant valid; Iowa need not suppress evidence lawfully obtained by federal agents in a federal investigation absent collusion or other misuse |
| 4. Denial of mistrial/new trial for late/missing disclosures (audio, photos) | Missing segments were non-prejudicial; defendant received critical materials | Late/missing materials prejudiced defense and warranted mistrial/new trial | Denied — district court did not abuse discretion; no demonstrated prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (2006) (anticipatory warrants constitutional under Fourth Amendment when affidavit shows probable cause that evidence will be present when warrant is executed and that triggering condition will occur)
- State v. Gillespie, 530 N.W.2d 446 (Iowa 1995) (Iowa search-warrant statutes do not authorize anticipatory warrants)
- State v. Davis, 679 N.W.2d 651 (Iowa 2004) (evidence from another jurisdiction’s lawful search admissible in Iowa when that jurisdiction’s law would not suppress it)
- Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) (rejection of the federal "silver-platter" doctrine; courts must not be accomplices in unlawful searches)
- State v. Mollica, 554 A.2d 1315 (N.J. 1989) (federal officers’ lawful collection under federal standards may be used in state prosecutions; state courts treat federal investigations as actions of another jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 925 N.E.2d 845 (Mass. 2010) (evidence from a federally-led investigation admissible in state court where federal agents complied with federal law and investigation was federally run)