State of Iowa v. Stephen Scott Prusha, 874 N.W.2d 627

Late-night encounter: Deputy Shaver stopped after seeing Prusha walking on a rural road at 1:10 a.m.; Shaver activated amber lights but not emergency lights and approached to check welfare.
Identification and check: Prusha voluntarily handed his ID; dispatcher advised Prusha was “flagged” for interfering and drug use (no drug arrests); no warrants were found.
Consent request and search: Shaver asked if Prusha had weapons or drugs and asked for consent to search; Shaver did not inform Prusha he could refuse or that he was free to leave. Prusha allegedly consented.
Discovery and arrest: As Prusha reached into his pocket, Shaver grabbed his wrist fearing a weapon; Prusha produced a glass pipe with residue; Shaver then searched pockets and found methamphetamine. Prusha was arrested and charged.
Procedural history: District court denied Prusha’s suppression motion (applying Schneckloth totality test); Prusha pled guilty, appealed; court of appeals affirmed; Iowa Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.

Issue	Prusha's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Prusha preserved a claim under the Iowa Constitution (art. I, § 8)	Prusha argued on appeal that Iowa Constitution requires a consent advisory and governs the search	State argued Prusha did not raise the Iowa-constitutional claim below, so it’s unpreserved	Not preserved — Court reviewed only under the Fourth Amendment
Whether Deputy Shaver’s approach and questions amounted to a seizure	Prusha implied the encounter was coercive and tantamount to a seizure	State argued the encounter was consensual police-citizen contact (no lights, no show of force)	Not a seizure under Fourth Amendment (per Drayton)
Whether consent to search was voluntary under the Fourth Amendment	Prusha argued consent was involuntary because no advisory was given and dispatcher’s flagging coerced him	State argued totality of circumstances supports voluntariness (single officer, calm subject, public place)	Voluntary under Schneckloth totality test despite lack of advisory
Admissibility of evidence obtained from search	Prusha sought suppression under federal and state constitutions	State maintained the search was valid and evidence admissible	Evidence admissible; suppression denial affirmed

State v. Pals, 805 N.W.2d 767 (Iowa 2011) (discusses Iowa Constitution search protections and consent-advisory question)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (Fourth Amendment voluntariness of consent is judged under totality of circumstances; knowledge of right to refuse is a factor)
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002) (police may approach and question individuals in public without it necessarily being a seizure)
State v. Folkens, 281 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 1979) (recognizes Schneckloth’s rule that knowledge of right to refuse is not required)
State v. Lane, 726 N.W.2d 371 (Iowa 2007) (single-officer consent requests in presence of other officers can favor voluntariness)
State v. Vance, 790 N.W.2d 775 (Iowa 2010) (failure to raise Iowa-constitutional claim below limits appellate review to Fourth Amendment)