State Of Iowa Vs. Jason Allen Wing
2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 127
Iowa2010Background
- Tip led police to Wing for anticipated marijuana transport; surveillance and traffic stop of Basden's vehicle followed.
- Wing identified ownership of marijuana after trunk search; Wing was handcuffed, Mirandized, and placed in back of patrol car.
- Detective Proehl later arrived; Wing consented to a house search; officers discussed future cooperation in other investigations.
- No formal cooperation agreement or waiver of speedy indictment was ever reached; Wing did not initiate contact with investigators.
- Indictment and trial information filed months later; Wing challenged as a speedy-indictment violation; district court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Wing arrested for speedy indictment purposes on July 7, 2007? | Wing | Wing | Yes; the majority held an arrest occurred, triggering rule 2.33(2)(a). |
| Should Iowa define 'arrest' for speedy-indictment similarly to federal law? | Wing | Wing | No; Iowa rejects importing federal rule as sole pattern and uses a case-by-case, position-focused approach. |
| Did post-arrest cooperation discussions affect whether an arrest occurred? | Wing | Wing | No; the cooperative discussions did not erase the initial arrest, and the foreseeability of cooperation did not negate arrest. |
| Did the district court err in denying Wing's motion to dismiss under Rule 2.33? | Wing | Wing | Yes; the conviction was reversed and case remanded for dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dennison, 571 N.W.2d 492 (Iowa 1997) (standard for correction of legal error in speedy-indictment ruling)
- State v. Lyrek, 385 N.W.2d 248 (Iowa 1986) (substantial-evidence standard for factual findings)
- State v. Cennon, 201 N.W.2d 715 (Iowa 1972) (speedy trial/indictment purposes linked to constitutional guarantees)
- State v. Johnson-Hugi, 484 N.W.2d 599 (Iowa 1992) (cooperation choice can negate arrest for speedy-indictment purposes)
- State v. Delockroy, 559 N.W.2d 43 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (cooperation after arrest may waive speedy-indictment protections)
- State v. Smith, 552 N.W.2d 163 (Iowa App. 1996) (cooperation at station after arrest can reflect no arrest if tied to cooperation)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (custody standard for Miranda/Seizure concept; not directly controlling here)
- United States v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (custody/seizure analysis not requiring subjective intent for arrest)
- United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1982) (speedy-trial rights attach when formal charges or arrest occur; context matters)
- State v. Lies, 566 N.W.2d 507 (Iowa 1997) (indictment includes information or trial information for speedy indiction)