*1 case, negligence part on Husker’s this where checks were for routed amounted to substantially payment. contributed to routine Hopf’s on the checks. See signatures Com- false The IV. trial court dismissed ment, Preclusion The U.C.C. Double negligence Husker’s common-law claims in Duties Care Reason- Section 3-406: against good A argument the defendants. Standards, 32 Drake able Commercial recovery made that can be common-law (1982). 179, 202-07 L.Rev. rights sup in commercial transactions were annulled, planted, therefore they The also act established banks modifications of the uniform commercial in and in accordance with ed faith Equitable code. Assurance As See procedures. Life reasonable Good business (4th Okey, soc. v. 812 F.2d honesty is in fact. Iowa Code 554.- faith § Cir.1983). issue, needWe not resolve the 1201(19). presented were and ac Checks however, on this de because novo review Indeed, customary way. in cepted part negligence we find on the of Husker no serious contention that Husker makes greatly negligence exceeds the combined good faith. the banks did not act in Recovery of the is part defendants. they The banks also established act- therefore barred under Iowa Code section in with business ed accordance reasonable (contributory negligence a to re 668.3 bar checks, presented, procedures. The when covery greater percent if claimant bears examined for an endorsement which were fault). compared payee the named on the was have What we said renders number The front of check. the contentions moot. Plaintiff’s claims way check practical there was no fur- were properly dismissed. ther, necessary to rely and it was therefore stamp. procedure The AFFIRMED. P.E.G. eminently in reasonable view obvious acquiesced in it that Husker for a
fact
period years. Similar circumstances “good faith in
qualified as accordance commercially reasonable standards” Bank, Cooper University
in Cal.3d Cal.Rptr. 507 P.2d Iowa, Appellee, STATE Cooper holding is Husker believes contrary opinion our Waukon Auto JAMISON, Anthony Appellant. Supply Savings & Farmers Merchants (Iowa 1989). Bank, 440 Wau- No. 91-32. payee aby corporate a suit kon involved Supreme Court of Iowa. (Waukon Auto) against checks bank them. Waukon Auto’s man- which cashed March 1992. funds ager embezzled from business As Corrected March 1992. endorsing present- checks and customers’ bank ing them for cash defendant had an
Waukon Auto account. We af- bank, against rejecting recovery
firmed contention it followed commer-
that bank’s
cially standards. Id. at reasonable 850. easily distinguishable from
Waukon present case. bank Waukon employer’s bank. plaintiff
was the
opportunity detecting the unauthorized manifestly greater
signature was Wau- than it was for the drawee banks in
kon *2 Schumann,
Roxy M. Davenport, for pellant. Campbell, Gen.,
Bonnie Atty. J. Thomas Fisher, Jr., Gen., Atty. G. Asst. William E. Davis, County Atty., Ottesen, and Realff County Atty., Asst. appellee. CARTER, Justice. prior grant
Pursuant to our
of discretion-
review,
ary
defendant,
Jamison,
Anthony
challenges
denying
an order
his motion to
suppress
pending
prosecution.
appeal
(1)
The issues on
are:
whether the warrant
police
on which
offi-
cers
in searching
relied
defendant’s auto-
mobile was
showing
proba-
issued on a
cause;
(2) whether,
ble
if
lacking,
cause was
the evidence is never-
theless admissible because the warrant was
obtained and executed in
faith. We
questions
negative
answer both
reverse the order of the district court.
prior
1, 1990,
Sometime
September
Davenport police officers received informa-
tion from a confidential informant that one
Terry Rodriguez
trafficking
in con-
trolled
A
substances.
determination was
made to
his residence under surveil-
lance. This surveillance commenced four
days before the issuance of the search war-
challenged
appeal.
rant
on this
Less than
forty-eight hours before the issuance of the
warrant,
challenged
informant suc-
cessfully purchased cocaine at the Rodri-
guez
part
buy.
as
of a controlled
residence
con- one hour following
the issuance of the
hours after
forty-eight
Within
search warrant.
buy, Davenport police detective
The driver entered
trolled
and left
po-
war- house
seven minutes later. A
application
an
for a search
prepared
follow,
dispatched
as-
lice detective
rant,
presented
a district
which was
stop, and search
judge.
that vehicle. With the
The warrant
sociate
*3
officer,
help
police
a Dav-
of a uniformed
he did
assertions
contained three sworn
accomplished
(1)
Rodriguez
The
was
a few
so.
enport police detective:
that
13, 1988,
Rodriguez
from the
that
blocks
house so
had been arrested on November
occupants
apprised.
the
would not be
charged
intent to
possession with
and
cocaine; (2)
Rodriguez was ob-
that
deliver
Defendant,
Mazda,
of the
the driver
red
20, 1988, associating
on
served
December
stopped
being
after
alerted
the officers’
(3)
dealers;
a
drug
and
with well-known
flashing lights
siren. As the officers
surrounding
of
facts
the con-
recitation
the
placed something
he
approached,
on the car
buy,
recently
had
taken
trolled
which
After defendant was ordered from
floor.
.
Rodriguez
the
residence.
at
car,
specially
the
a
the
officers found
fold-
paper wrapper
maga-
from a
ed
cut
travel
the
judge approved
The district associate
the
car
zine on
seat of the
and a white
application and issued the
warrant
warrant
on the
floor-
powdery substance
vehicle’s
approximately
p.m.
September
at
7:30
later de-
board.
white substance was
immediately
1990. Almost
thereafter
paper wrapper
to be
termined
cocaine.
conducting
Rod-
officers
surveillance at the
magazine
a
matched
scissored travel
later
riguez
by telephone
notified
residence were
Rodriguez
at the
residence.
found
and radio communication that the warrant
issued.
had been
Defendant was
arrested
and later
charged
possession
of a
II
schedule
warrant,
issuing
In
the district asso-
evening,
substance. Later that
controlled
judge placed
following
ciate
handwrit-
the search warrant was executed
signature:
his
“Sur-
ten statement above
residence,
police
Rodriguez
found
buy
credi-
and controlled
insures
veillance
glass containing
pow-
a
a
and seized
white
bility
buy.”
of
The warrant authorized
positive for co-
dery substance that tested
to
police
search:
sifter,
caine,
packaging
materials.
Terry Rodriquez
The residence of
at 2624
Davenport,
Including
Fair St. in
Iowa.
suppress
Defendant
all evi-
moved
Rodriquez
and a
himself
1976 Chevrolet dence obtained from the seizure and search
any
coupe
plates
with Ill
KC 3973 also
any
ob-
of his automobile and
statements
by or
control
other vehicles owned
in the
him by police
from
after his automo-
tained
Rodriquez
the time of
of
at
execution
stopped.
predi-
motion
This
was
bile
Any
buildings
the search warrant.
out
grounds.
It
on fourth amendment
cated
storage
under the control of
areas
that
vehicle was
asserted
defendant’s
occupants of the residence and the
stopped and searched in the execution of a
any
sub-
person and vehicles
other
without
was issued
warrant
jects
signing
at the residence
The mo-
to search his automobile.
after
the search warrant.
suppress
asserted that
tion to
also
by de-
officers
statements made
added.)
(Emphasis
vehicle,
stopping
after
his
fendant
conducting
at
The officers
surveillance
placed
or
he was
under
either before
after
log
residence maintained
arrest,
illegal
seizure
were derivative
stopping
at
house after
search
his automobile.
Defendant’s automo-
warrant was issued.
bile,
RX7,
denied the motion
second
The district court
a red Mazda
was the
ruling,
of that
exactly
suppress.
support
It
to arrive.1
arrived
automobile
pur-
following
hearing
suppression
that this car was
is-
1. The first automobile to arrive
Oldsmobile,
officers,
by police
suance of the warrant was brown
but the driver success-
sued
Rodriguez property
drove
at 8:15
fully eluded them in traffic.
p.m.
p.m.
left
testified at
at 8:25
Detectives
LaFave,
the court of
W.
A
court stated its belief
Search and Seizure:
Amendment
456 N.W.2d
Treatise on the Fourth
appeals, in
§, 1.3(f),
(1987)
W.
a vehicle
App.1990),
had
[hereinafter
LaFave],
chal-
against
a fourth amendment
We re-
lenge under similar circumstances.
treatise,
In another volume of his
this
ruling
appeal.
on this
view that
categorically
commentator
condemns the
type
dragnet
that defendant
Issue.
I. The Probable Cause
challenges
present
case:
argues
showing was
Defendant
that no
Sometimes a warrant will be issued for
premises
the search of
and no
certain
and “all
made
the warrant
warrant,
automobiles thereon.” Such a
the warrant
facts existed at the time
*4
seem,
particularly
it would
is
vulnerable
provide probable cause under the
issued to
challenge
respect
to
to the vehicle
for the seizure
fourth amendment
description.
any
descrip-
As with
other
his
He further con-
search of
automobile.
location,
solely
tion based
on
there can be
appeals
tends that the court of
decision in
no assurance that the vehicle or vehicles
way
Ballew in no
authorizes the search
gathered
as to which information was
challenging
present
case.
that he is
during
investigation
an earlier
will be the
response
in
makes a con-
State
its
premises
vehicles found on the
at the
vincing argument
probable
cause to
time of the search. The risk of error is
sug-
search the
residence.
It
compounded
plural
when the
“all auto-
facts, however,
gests
either in the
no
war-
Moreover,
mobiles” is used.
such a de-
application
rant
or dehors the warrant
scription suggests
likely
that there is
to
plication that
that at the time
would show
probable
be a
deficiency
cause
as to the
the warrant issued there was some nexus
automobiles; the “all automobiles” lan-
the defendant or his vehicle and
between
guage might well have been added with-
activity being
carried on
the
tending
out
to show that
Rodriguez residence. To defeat the motion
premises
likely
vehicles on the
were
to-suppress, the
must
a
show nexus
places of concealment for the items to be
activity,
things
the
between criminal
to be
seized.
seized,
and the
to be searched. State
4.5(d),
(1987).
2 W. LaFave
at 225
§
1983).
Seager,
Although the State contends that
the
If a warrant calls for the
of
suppression of evidence issue raised in the
multiple places
persons, probable
or
cause present
favorably
case was decided
to the
person
must exist as to each location or
facts,
State in
reading
Ballew similar
sought
authority
to be searched under
support
of that case does not
this conten-
requirement
the
This
has
warrant.
been
tion.
appeals specifically
The court of
an-
in
by
described
one commentator
the fol
probable
argument
swered the
cause
in
lowing terms:
that case
reference to facts in the war-
application indicating
presence
rant
the
authorizes
the
seizure
[W]here
W,
targeted
defendant’s automobile on the
objects
probable
X
Y
but the
premises,
located,
drugs
prior
were
showing in
only
cause
the affidavit is
as
to the issuance of the warrant.
X,
objects
W and
or where the war-
objects
all
Z
rant authorizes seizure of
appeals
The court of
also observed in
variety
probable
showing
but the
cause
Ballew that surveillance in that case indi-
only
objects
such
covers some
...
cated that the defendant was one of the
problem
essentially
deficiency
is
in regular occupants
targeted premis-
showing
cause
vis-a-vis certain
es.
der
Leon Issue.
II. The
(1968).
Goldstein, The Search
Review,
State,
(Ala.
istrate,
Nelms v.
568 So.2d
Judicial
(staleness
App.1990)
tending
of events
N.Y.U.L.Rev.
probable cause rendered belief of
establish
situation, involving a
present
In the
unreasonable).
probable cause
warrant,
the deterrent as
dragnet search
exclusionary rule are
pects of the
well
considering
arguments present-
all
After
challenged
by exclusion of the
evi
served
ed,
conclude that
the district court
we
This is
a refusal to exclude
dence.
because
sup-
the motion to
should have sustained
certainly have the effect
the evidence will
press evidence derived from
seizure
encouraging
dragnet search war
similar
and search of defendant’s automobile
necessary,
in the future.
It is not
rants
evidence derivative therefrom. Such deriv-
however,
examples
go beyond
con
evidence includes statements made
ative
justify exclusion of
tained in Leon itself to
stopped,
after his vehicle was
defendant
the evidence.
placed
and after he was
under
both before
We reverse
order of the dis-
arrest.
the.
in Leon identified certain situ-
Court
and remand the case for further
trict court
ations in which exclusion is still warranted.
opin-
proceedings
inconsistent with this
not
such situation deals with warrants
One
ion.
facially
are so
as to be
overbroad
Leon, 468
at
invalid. See
U.S.
AND REMANDED.
REVERSED
415 use in the warrant authorizing for the search of a resi reliable evidence prived of dence “any outbuildings and all truth-finding process at trial. thereon”); State, Albert 155 sure, holding is circum- To be the Leon Ga.App. 99, 100-101, 220, 270 221- S.E.2d scribed; concluded the court also (1980) 22 (upheld authorizing a warrant not exist reliance does good-faith police to “all search automobiles” located (1) magis- “the following situations: curtilage within of a service station judge misled informa- or ... was trate sufficiently where the connect vehicle the affiant knew in an affidavit that tion State, premises); ed to the Green 161 known was false false or would have 132, 131, 110, Tex.Crim. 275 111 S.W.2d disregard except for his reckless (1955) (upheld authorizing warrant search truth”; (2) magistrate wholly issuing “the lot). “all on a automobiles” used car role....”; (3) “a judicial his abandoned State, 199, 202 Peavy But see So.2d ‘an affidavit lack- warrant based on so [is] (warrant authorizing (Ala.Crim.App.1976) in indicia of cause as to render ing “any adjacent motor search of vehicle entirely in its existence un- official belief particularly home” did motor not [a] ”; (4) “a warrant so reasonable’ [is] searched); place describe the to be i.e., failing particu- facially deficient — 572, Barnett, (Tex.Crim. 788 S.W.2d place things or the larize the to be searched (concluded App.1990) that an “all vehicles” executing seized—that officers be description in a search warrant did not presume it to be reasonably cannot valid.” particularity meet fourth amendment 923, 3421, 82 L.Ed.2d at Id. at S.Ct. at requirement). (citations omitted). Ordinarily description “if sufficient relies majority II. The first description is such the officer with good-faith escape Leon from the fourth can, a search ef- warrant reasonable exception. majority concludes that the fort, identify in- ascertain authorizing portion warrant States, tended.” v. United 267 U.S. Steele persons of all and all vehicles at the 757, 45 S.Ct. 69 L.Ed. facially so defi- residence was Alva, States v. United executing that the officers could not cient only on F.2d at the Fifth Circuit relied presume the to be valid. It is evaluating this a ve- standard whether impossible agree that the me to officers *7 began hicle that after a arrived search validity not could believe the authorizing scope within of a warrant the warrant. “any the all search of and motor vehicles” located at a residence. Several decisions have vehicle pursuant to warrants searches executed the majority III. also claims that The containing type description. an “all vehicle” ex- escape good-faith third from the Leon 250, Alva, F.2d 885 252 United States v. ception inapplicable is because the warrant Cir.1989) (5th (upheld warrant authoriz probable lacking was so in indicia all ing “any the search vehicles existence as render official belief its parked premises”); People v. found the disagree. perceived I The unreasonable. Juarez, (Colo.1989) 770 P.2d the search flaw that the warrant allowed authorizing the (upheld a warrant search of by people of all driven who vehicles property”); ... “all vehicles stopped at the house without (Fla.Dist. Booream, 560 1304 So.2d court magistrate cause. The district (upheld Ct.App.1990) authorizing a warrant Included in the affidavit found otherwise. search police “any Rodriguez a residence the associated fact outbuildings thereon”); dealers, and vehicles drug all that an infor- with known State, surveillance, mant, pur- v. So.2d police Richardson 324 while under 1989) (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. (upheld By in- drugs from the residence. chased authorizing buy the cluding search of “all controlled in the warrant vehicles” on the police they es- premises); Haugee, contended application, 402 So.2d trafficking (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) drug (upheld tablished that, having They They believed done obtained a search warrant which al-
residence. so, searching any they justified were lowed the to search that house. The people stopped by driven who warrant also authorized the search of briefly at the residence. This is because people Rodriguez’s who were at house and drug typically carry dealers belonging customers of people. the cars to those Antho- they drugs away from ny Rodriguez’s Jamison arrived at house purchased them. after this warrant was obtained. He parked curtilage within the of the Rodri- thought the warrant was The officers guez stayed period home. He for a short authorized under State time, which drug was consistent with a App.1990), left, transaction. As Jamison his car was “any vehicles involved a warrant to search followed. Pursuant to the search warrant property under the control police, obtained Jamison’s car was I occupants” specified per- of a home. am officer, stopped. An approaching while majority’s conclusion that suaded car, trying saw Jamison to conceal some- point is not on and does not autho- Ballew thing under his seat. Jamison was ordered dragnet permitted here. rize opened out of his car. When he the car strongly disagree hand I On the other with door, spilled cocaine was on the floorboard the view that the officers were unreason- of his car. thinking able in otherwise. factors distinguishing readily ap- are more Ballew deprived The State is now of this evi- parent appellate to us on detached review dence dragnet because we now hold the they than were to the harried officials at warrant was invalid. The situation seems the time. entirely appropriate to me to be for affirm- ance I under Leon. would affirm. validity authorizing of a warrant search of “all vehicles” is an issue of first McGIVERIN, C.J.,
impression us. The officers and the and LARSON and magistrate obviously guid- SCHULTZ, JJ., did join not have this dissent. majority’s holding appeal ance of the in this
disapproving here. the one issued Because
they advantage, disagree I lacked that majority’s conclusion that the warrant lacking was so in indicia of
probable cause as to render official belief entirely
in its existence unreasonable. having The officers’ actions strike me as KLEIDOSTY, Appellant, Toni C. majority’s been in faith. Indeed the apt narrow and restrictive of Leon is view *8 discourage officers in the future from EMPLOYMENT APPEAL applying for at all. search warrants It is BOARD, Appellee. that, arguable stop made a had the officers No. 91-344. purely investigatory of defendant on a ba- sis, the search Supreme of this defendant could be Court Iowa. as a Terry because the officers March 1992. “specific sup- had cause to articulable port a reasonable belief that criminal activi-
ty may have occurred.” Lamp, (Iowa 1982)
322 N.W.2d (quoting Aschenbrenner, 289 N.W.2d (Iowa 1980)). Davenport department purchased
watched while an informant
drugs Terry Rodriguez’s from house.