State of Iowa v. Kari Lee Fogg, 936 N.W.2d 664

On October 10, 2017, Officer Michael Frazier observed Kari Fogg driving slowly through a residential area, enter a narrow one‑lane public alley, and stop mid‑alley with headlights on.
Officer Frazier drove into the alley from the opposite direction, parked about 20 feet in front of Fogg’s car without activating emergency lights, exited his cruiser, and approached the vehicle on foot.
Fogg opened her door when he neared; Frazier asked routine questions, smelled alcohol, observed watery/red eyes and slurred speech, administered field sobriety tests, and arrested her for OWI after she refused a PBT and later a chemical test.
Fogg moved to suppress evidence, arguing she was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 8 (Iowa Constitution); the district court denied suppression (also finding alternative reasonable suspicion), and a jury convicted Fogg.
The court of appeals affirmed; the Iowa Supreme Court (majority) affirmed the denial of suppression, holding no constitutional seizure occurred when the officer approached on foot. Justice Appel (with C.J. Wiggins) dissented, arguing the officer’s positioning and conduct amounted to a seizure and would have reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fogg was "seized" (Fourth Amendment / Iowa Const.)	Fogg: officer blocked alley and shined headlights; a reasonable person would not feel free to leave	State: encounter was consensual — no lights/sirens, officer parked ~20 ft away, no commands; Fogg could have backed out or used driveways	Majority: No seizure — officer’s conduct lacked objective coercion; affirmed denial of suppression
Whether any warrantless stop was supported by reasonable suspicion or community caretaking	Fogg: evidence should be suppressed absent valid seizure or reasonable suspicion	State (below): officer had reasonable suspicion of burglary and invoked community caretaking; State did not press these on appeal	Majority: did not rely on these alternatives (no seizure); district court had found reasonable suspicion; dissent would find no reasonable suspicion and would reverse
Ineffective assistance claim re prosecutor’s rebuttal argument	Fogg: trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor remarks during rebuttal	State: counsel was not ineffective; any remark was harmless	Court of appeals’ ruling left in place by the Supreme Court — counsel not ineffective
Applicable constitutional standard (federal v. Iowa)	Fogg did not argue a distinct Iowa‑only framework	State applied federal "free to leave" test	Court applied federal Bostick/Mendenhall framework but noted Iowa may apply it more stringently when warranted

State v. Wilkes, 756 N.W.2d 838 (Iowa 2008) (no seizure where officer parked behind and approached a parked truck; ordinary headlights not coercive)
State v. Harlan, 301 N.W.2d 717 (Iowa 1981) (no seizure where officer approached parked car, shone flashlight, and asked questions)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (reasonable‑person "free to leave" test for seizures)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (seizure inquiry asks whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2002) (no seizure where officers questioned bus passengers without coercive conduct)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (seizure occurs on physical force or submission)
Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1972) (recognizes seizure can occur even when suspect initially stationary)
State v. White, 887 N.W.2d 172 (Iowa 2016) (seizure where officer blocked driveway, displayed weapon, and insisted defendant speak)